District of Summerland REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 District of Summerland REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA September 14, :00 p.m. Council Chambers Municipal Hall, Henry Ave. Summerland, BC Page Adoption of Minutes 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Recommendation: THAT the minutes of the Regular Meeting dated August 24, 2009 be adopted. 1.2 Adoption of Minutes Recommendation: THAT the minutes of the Special Meeting on August 31, 2009 be adopted. 2. Resolution to Amend the Agenda 3. Public Hearing 4. Delegations 4.1 Presentation of 5 Year Service Pins to members of Summerland's Emergency Social Services Team - Jim Lancaster, Del Reimer, and Ruth Manning 4.2 United Way Delegation - Tracy St. Claire 5. Mayor's Report 6. CAO's Report Page 1 of 45

2 Page 7. Unfinished Business 8. Correspondence Development Services Department Reports 9.1 Development Variance Permit Lakeshore Dr. (Lakeside Strategies Inc.) to vary the front yard setback for a proposed dwelling Mayor Perrino to ask for comments from the public. Recommendation: THAT Council approve a Development Variance Permit to vary section (a) of Zoning Bylaw to reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 meters to 4.5 meters for a proposed dwelling at Lakeshore Drive (Lot 1, DL 674, Plan KAP68226). 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Bentley Rd. (Armar Developments Ltd.) to amend the text of the Official Community Plan and to add the properties into the Urban Growth Area Recommendation: THAT staff be authorized to create an amendment to OCP Bylaw to amend Section as outlined in Schedule A attached to the report of the Manager of Development Services dated September 9, 2009; AND THAT Schedule B of the OCP, being the Urban Growth Boundary & Future Growth Areas map be amended to include Sanborn St., Bentley Rd. and property on Garnet Valley Road (Lot 3, DL 1178 ODYD Plan 9237; Lot 1 DL 472, ODYD Plan 148 Except Plans and KAP 51691; and That Part DL1178 outlined in Red on Plan B1755 ODYD except Parts outlined in red on Plans B5590, B3577 and B7646); AND FURTHER THAT the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing Staff and Other Reports 10.1 Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Cedar Avenue Recommendation: THAT Council support the purchase and sale & repurchase option agreement to sell 9503 Cedar Avenue (Lot 1 Plan DL 2195) to Summervision Holdings Ltd. for $123,250; AND THAT the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized to execute Page 2 of 45

3 Page 10. Staff and Other Reports the necessary documents to complete the land sale New Business 11.1 Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System THAT Council of the District of Summerland agree to be a partner in establishing and implementing a Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System with neighbouring Local Governments including the City of Kelowna, the City of Penticton, the District of Lake Country, the District of Peachland, the District of West Kelowna, and the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen; AND THAT Council forward a copy of their resolution indicating their intent to establish a Bylaw Dispute Resolution System to the Court Services Branch, Ministry of Attorney General Bylaws 12.1 Bylaw Text amendment of the Zoning Bylaw to permit Additional Uses on the Property at Victoria Rd. (Stans Food Market Ltd.) Recommendation: THAT Bylaw be read a first time. (Public Hearing scheduled for October 13, 2009) Report from the Director of Finance re Bylaw Amendment of Sewer Specified Area to add 6709 Switchback Rd. Recommendation: THAT Council give three readings to Bylaw Amendment of Sewer Specified Area Bylaw (6709 Switchback Rd.) Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning re Quinpool Rd. (Kirvi Construction Development Company Ltd.) to allow construction of row housing Recommendation: THAT Bylaw be read a first time. (Public Hearing scheduled for October 13, 2009) Page 3 of 45

4 Page Bylaws 12.4 Report from the Director of Finance - Bylaw to add Prairie Valley Road to the Sewer Specified Area Recommendation: THAT Council give three readings to Bylaw , Amendment of Sewer Specified Area Bylaw (11719 Prairie Valley Road). 13. Councillor's Report 14. Adjourn 15. Public Question Period Page 4 of 45

5 1 Regular Council August 24, 2009 The Regular Meeting of the Municipal Council of the District of Summerland was held in the Council Chamber, Henry Ave., Summerland, B.C. on Monday, August 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Council members in attendance were: Mayor Janice Perrino, Councillors L. Christopherson, G. Clark, S. Elia, B. Hallquist, J. Kyluik and K. Roberge. Council members absent: None. Staff members in attendance were: Chief Administrative Officer D. DeGagne, Director of Finance K. Ostraat, Manager of Development Services I. McIntosh and Deputy Corporate Officer M. Fugeta. (* denotes partial attendance) 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Janice Perrino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Christopherson, Seconded by Councillor Kyluik, THAT the minutes of the Regular Meeting dated August 10, 2009 be adopted. Carried. 3. SGT. KAUFFELD SUMMERLAND RCMP QUARTERLY REPORT Sgt. Mona Kauffeld provided a summary of the Summerland RCMP second quarterly report of 2009, comprised of Crime Statistical Data for Summerland Detachment including administrative and operational information and progress with Community Policing Programs. Members discussed the following with Sgt. Kauffeld: examples of fraudulent cases drug related charges transport of prisoners from Summerland to Penticton; time utilized and cost contingency of members communication between Summerland and Penticton Detachment Summerland RCMP facility 4. MAYOR S REPORT Summerland Fire Department hosted car wash last weekend to raise funds for new CT scanner at the Penticton Regional Hospital Agur Lake Camp Open House Okanagan Feast of Fields event of the year Good luck to Ironman participants Summerland water metering program 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 5 of 45

6 2 Regular Council August 24, CAO S REPORT Summerland Community Entrance signs are now in place Demolition of Kelly Care is nearing completion Attended the Okanagan Feast of Fields event at Valentine Farms celebration of local farmers, wineries and chefs a very successful event Methodist Church at 9105 Peach Orchard Road leased to the Little Chicks Childcare Center for daycare and pre-school use 6. DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT PHILLIPS AVE. (HEINZ G. WERNER) TO VARY THE SIDE EXTERIOR SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED UNENCLOSED CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOUSE The Manager of Development Services provided information on the application. Mayor Perrino asked the public if there was anyone wishing to speak to the application. There were no comments from the public. One member noted there was one letter received from the public in support of the application. Moved by Councillor Roberge, Seconded by Councillor Clark, THAT a Development Variance Permit to vary Section (c) of Zoning Bylaw to reduce the side exterior setback from 4.5m to 1.0m at Phillips Ave (Lot 4, DL 455, ODYD, Plan 20014) be granted for the construction of an unenclosed carport as shown on Schedule A attached to the report from the Manager of Development Services dated August 11, Carried. 7. ZONING BYLAW TEXT AMENDMENT SITE SPECIFIC ZONING TO ADD NEIGHBOURHOOD GARDEN CENTER, LAWN CARE SERVICE, BICYCLE SALES AND REPAIR SHOP AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C1 ZONE FOR PROPERTY AT VICTORIA ROAD (STAN S FOOD MARKET) The Manager of Development Services reviewed his report. One member was concerned with large machinery and lawn care equipment being stored on the property. Moved by Councillor Kyluik, Seconded by Councillor Christopherson, THAT staff be authorized to prepare a site specific zoning bylaw amendment to add neighbourhood garden centre, lawn care service and bicycle sales and repair shop as a permitted use in the C1-Neighbourhood Commercial Zone only on Victoria Rd (Lot 7, DL 474, ODYD, Plan 2679). Carried. 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 6 of 45

7 3 Regular Council August 24, REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT QUINPOOL RD (KIRVI CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.) TO PERMIT MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT The Manager of Development Services stated that the above noted application had been discussed at length at the Committee of the Whole meeting this morning. The members requested of the Manager to provide another option to allow the proposed development to proceed without creating an island of High Density Residential designation on the Official Community Plan (OCP) map. He further advised that this request was in light of the proposed updating of the current zoning bylaw as envisioned by the OCP. Members agreed this was a positive approach to future growth in Summerland. Moved by Councillor Hallquist, Seconded by Councillor Elia, THAT staff be authorized to prepare a zoning bylaw amendment to rezone Lot 1, DL 3640, ODYD, Plan located at Quinpool Rd from RSD1- Residential Single Detached to RMD-Residential Medium Density; AND THAT notwithstanding Section (c) of the Zoning bylaw, the maximum density permitted on Lot 1, DL 3640, ODYD, Plan 31640, located at Quinpool Rd only, be limited to 40 units per hectare; AND FURTHER THAT Council continue on the strategy described in the Official Community Plan to update the zoning bylaw as soon as possible. Carried. 9. APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE PORTION OF HARRIS RD. (KENNETH AND LOUISE MITCHELL) The Manager of Development Services provided a report on the applicant request to exclude a portion of Harris Rd from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). This application to subdivide land within the ALR was received in 2003 and forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for consideration without a Council recommendation. The application was denied by the ALC in There were additional applications which were subsequently forwarded to the ALC without Council recommendations and were denied due to lack of new information. He further stated that the application was presented to the Advisory Planning Commission in August, 2009 and the commission did not recommend approval. The Manager of Development Services felt that the application for this exclusion from the ALR is the precursor to OCP amendment, rezoning and subdivision applications. He further advised that this application contravenes the policies and goals of the Official Community Plan and recommended that the application be denied. Mayor Perrino invited the applicant s agent, George Giannotti to speak on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Giannotti provided the following information in relation to the property: Unable to retain water on the property Contours of land unsuitable for farming Pan handle driveway is 144 metres long Non-productive land within the ALR 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 7 of 45

8 4 Regular Council August 24, 2009 After a lengthy discussion, Mayor and Council agreed that this application should go back to the Agricultural Land Commission, with Council s support. Moved by Councillor Hallquist, Seconded by Councillor Christopherson, THAT the application to exclude a portion of Harris Rd (portion of Lot A DL s 675 & 3397, ODYD, Plan except Plan KAP83009) as shown on Schedule A attached to the Manager of Development Services report of August 12, 2009 from the Agricultural Land Reserve be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission with Council s support. Carried. 10. OCP AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY IN THE URBAN GROWTH AREA (HUNTER S HILL HOLDINGS LTD. AND ARMAR DEVELOPMENT LTD.) GARNET VALLEY RD SANBORN ST. AND BENTLEY RD. The Manager of Development Services outlined the applicant s request to include property into the Urban Growth Area. He stated that although the land under application has already been slated for growth in the Future Growth Area, at this point in time the property does not satisfy the criteria set out in the Official Community Plan. The Manager of Development Services provided five options for members to consider regarding this application and recommended a monitoring system to review the indicators in Section of the Official Community Plan that impact on community growth and whether expansion to the Urban Growth Area should be considered at this time. Members discussed at length all of the options and agreed that the current Official Community Plan does not meet the needs of potential developers who may want to invest in Summerland. One member mentioned the significant drop in single family starts in 2008 and agreed that Summerland needs more community growth and felt that the current OCP is restricting this growth. The Manager of Development Services reminded members of the legal implications of amending the Official Community Plan (OCP) and that Provincial legislation prohibits adopting bylaws contrary to the OCP. Moved by Councillor Hallquist, Seconded by Councillor Christopherson, THAT staff be directed to undertake the inclusion of the property located at Sanborn St, Bentley Rd and Garnet Valley Road into the Urban Growth Area, subject to obtaining legal advice on the process. Carried. 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 8 of 45

9 5 Regular Council August 24, AWARDING OF CONTRACT SENSITIVE HABITAT INVENTORY MAPPING OF PRAIRIE CREEK Moved by Councillor Kyluik, Seconded by Councillor Clark, THAT the contract to provide Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping of Prairie Creek be awarded to Ecoscape Environmental Consultants Ltd. in the amount of $8, excluding GST. Carried. 12. BYLAW FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW AMENDMENT TO SET FEE FOR EARTHWORK CONTROL BYLAW PERMIT APPLICATION ($200.00) Moved by Councillor Christopherson, Seconded by Councillor Clark, THAT Bylaw be read a first, second and third time. Carried. 13. BYLAW MUNICIPAL TICKET INFORMATION UTILIZATION BYLAW FINES EARTHWORK CONTROL BYLAW Moved by Councillor Roberge, Seconded by Councillor Kyluik, THAT Bylaw be read a first, second and third time. Carried. 14. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA SEASON, VANILLA POD RESTAURANT, 9917A MAIN ST Moved by Councillor Hallquist, Seconded by Councillor Clark, THAT Council grant an extension of the Permit for the Outdoor Seating Area at the Vanilla Pod Restaurant, 9917A Main Street until December 1, Carried. 15. BYLAW SEWER SPECIFIED AREA AMENDMENT TO ADD CEDAR AVE Moved by Councillor Elia, Seconded by Councillor Kyluik, THAT Bylaw be adopted. Carried. 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 9 of 45

10 6 Regular Council August 24, BYLAW OCP AND REZONING, 5815 HIGHWAY 97 (TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO APPROXIMATELY 21 LOTS) Moved by Councillor Christopherson, Seconded by Councillor Elia, THAT Bylaw be adopted. 17. COUNCILLORS REPORTS Carried. Councillor Elia thank you to all the volunteers and participants who took part in the Feast of Fields held at Valentine Farms on Sunday, August 23, Councillor Kyluik reminded everyone to tune in to Shaw Cable/Speed TV on August 30 to view a promotion in Summerland Councillor Christopherson thanks to Kim Standfield and John Gordon excellent job done in organizing Feast of Fields Councillor Roberge Agur Lake Camp day open house, although did not intend stated it is an exciting project and will benefit specials needs children and adults Water Meter Project Installation stated his meter was the first installed and it took less than 15 minutes Councillor Clark Agur Lake Camp first class presentation to the Regional District 18. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Certified Correct: Mayor Deputy Corporate Officer /mf 1.1 Adoption of Minutes Page 10 of 45

11 1 Special Meeting of Council August 31, 2009 A Special Meeting of Council of the District of Summerland was held in Council Chamber, Henry Avenue, Summerland, B.C. on Monday, August 31, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. Council members in attendance were: Mayor Janice Perrino, Councillors L. Christopherson, G. Clark, S. Elia, J. Kyluik and K. Roberge. Council member absent: Councillor B. Hallquist. Staff members in attendance were: Chief Administrative Officer D. DeGagne, Corporate Officer G. Matthews, Director of Finance K. Ostraat, Director of Parks and Recreation D. MacDonald*, Director of Engineering and Public Works D. Darling*, Director of Economic Development S. Boswell, and Manager of Development Services I. McIntosh. (* denotes partial attendance) 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Perrino called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The Corporate Officer advised that the Director of Economic Development had asked that his report regarding the potential land purchase by Summervision Holdings Ltd. be added to the agenda. By concensus Council agreed to this addition to the agenda. 2. LAND SALE TO SUMMERVISION HOLDINGS LTD., 9503 CEDAR AVE. The Director of Economic Development reviewed his report, highlighting the changes to the original proposal including a reduced price due to the smaller parcel as a result of required road dedication, and a staff recommendation that the construction of the new animal shelter be tendered out versus having Summervision construct the shelter. The Director of Finance noted there is a need to re-advertise the sale if the conditions of the original proposal have changed and he questioned whether the new proposal generates enough return for the District. He suggested a new animal pound will likely cost more and therefore there is little return to the District when the reduced sale price is taken into consideration. Some members of Council suggested that no compensation is paid for road dedication which is required as part of a development proposal and therefore there should be no reduction in the sale price of this municipal land. Staff suggested there is value to the District having a new industrial building which is taxed, and achieving a new animal shelter. It was suggested that while not all staff support the proposal, a majority of staff do. Moved by Councillor Clark, Seconded by Councillor Elia, THAT the proposed land sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd. of 9503 Cedar Ave. be referred back to staff for a report back to Council at the September 14, 2009 Council Meeting. Carried. 1.2 Adoption of Minutes Page 11 of 45

12 2 Special Meeting of Council August 31, COUNCIL DELEGATION VISIT TO SISTER CITY OF TOYOKORO, JAPAN (2010) Mayor Perrino advised that Summerland has not sent a Council delegation to Toyokoro for three years and that a number of members have expressed interest in going in The Director of Finance advised that Council typically funds two representatives and that the cost per person is in the neighbourhood of $4,000. Several members advised that due to the economy they would withdraw their request to attend. Council agreed to considering funding for the Mayor and potentially one other delegate as part of the 2010 budget. 4. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Moved by Councillor Christopherson, Seconded by Councillor Kyluik, THAT this meeting now be closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90(1)(c) and (I) of the Community Charter for Council to discuss matters relating to labour relations and municipal objectives. 5. TERMINATION Carried. Council adjourned to a closed session at 8:48 a.m. and the Special Meeting of Council subsequently terminated at 10:27 a.m. Certified Correct: Mayor Corporate Officer /gdm 1.2 Adoption of Minutes Page 12 of 45

13 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND REPORT Date: August 25, 2009 To: Mayor & Council From: Ian McIntosh, Manager of Development Services Subject: Development Variance Permit Lot 1, DL 674, ODYD, Plan KAP Lakeshore Drive Property Owner: Lakeside Strategies Inc. (Bill Friesen) Recommendation: It is recommended THAT a variance to section (a) of Zoning Bylaw to reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 meters to 4.5 meters for Lot 1, DL 674, ODYD, Plan KAP68226, located at Lakeshore Drive, be granted; C.A.O s Comments: Support as recommended. DHD C.A.O. s Initials Purpose: To present a comprehensive review of the applicant s request for a development variance permit. 9.1 Development Variance Permit Lakeshore Dr. (Lakeside... Page 13 of 45

14 Background: Current Use: Parcel Size: Zoning: OCP: M.o.T. Approval: Residential 849m² (0.21ac) RSD1 Residential Single Detached LDR - Low Density Residential not required The subject property is located on the East side of Lakeshore Drive directly adjacent to Okanagan Lake approximately one kilometre north of Peach Orchard Park. A map showing the subject property is attached as Schedule A. The property has an older home existing on the property. The owner wishes to remove this structure and construct a new house. The property lies almost entirely within the Riparian Area (RAR). A Riparian Assessment report was completed in April This report identified a 15m setback requirement. A riparian setback of between 7.5m and 9.0m can be achieved depending on the required front setback from Lakeshore Dr. Hence the application to have the front setback reduced. Circulation Comments: This application was circulated to the District's Engineering & Public Works Department as well as the Fire Department. A review by these departments did not identify any concerns provided adequate parking is available on the site. Discussion: The current property owner wishes to reconstruct a single detached home on this property. The design process cannot be completed until the setback limitations have been confirmed as the site is very narrow and is located almost entirely within the Riparian Area. A Riparian Area Assessment was been completed by David Cassidy of Valley Environmental in April His assessment of the property identifies that the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) to be 15 meters from the high water mark of Okanagan Lake. This would cover approximately 72% of the property severely restricting any development. Mr. Cassidy has identified that a reduction in the SPEA to 9 meters would not cause any harmful, alteration disruption or destruction (HADD), and a filing has been made to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who have acknowledged the request. Their response is attached to this report as Schedule C. While a this reduction does assist, it would still only allow for a 5 meter (16 foot) building foot print on some portions of the property Allowing a reduction of the front yard setback from 6 meters to 4.5 meters will allow the property owner a more reasonable construction footprint while still maintaining enough room to accommodate the required off street parking stalls. 9.1 Development Variance Permit Lakeshore Dr. (Lakeside... Page 14 of 45

15 Conclusion: The proposed variance appears to have little impact on this neighborhood. It appears a better compromise to reduce the front setback rather than potentially compromise lake habitat as well as building design and construction. Unless there are significant neighborhood concerns, the variance request has merit and is supported. Respectfully Submitted Ian McIntosh Manager of Development Services 9.1 Development Variance Permit Lakeshore Dr. (Lakeside... Page 15 of 45

16 Schedule A LAKESHORE DR N SUBJECT PROPERTY Development Variance Permit Lakeshore Dr. (Lakeside... Page 16 of 45

17 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND Briefing Note Date: September 9, 2009 To: Mayor and Council From: Ian McIntosh, Manager of Development Services Subject: Addition of the properties noted below to the Urban Growth Area LOT 3, DL1178, ODYD, PLAN 9237 LOT 1, DL472, ODYD, PLAN 148 EXCEPT PLANS AND KAP51691 THAT PART DL1178 OUTLINED RED ON PLAN B1755, ODYD, EXCEPT PARTS OUTLINED RED ON PLANS B5590, B3577 AND B7646 Garnet Valley Rd Sanborn St Bentley Rd Property Owner: Armar Developments Ltd Recommendation: It is recommended: THAT staff be authorized to create an amendment to OCP bylaw to amend Section as noted on Schedule A, AND THAT Schedule B of the OCP, being the Urban Growth Boundary & Future Growth Areas map, be amended to include the above noted properties in the Urban Growth Area, AND FURTHER that the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing. C.A.O.'s Comments: C.A.O.'s Initials Purpose: To present Council with options, supported by legal advice, to add the above noted properties to the Urban Growth Area. 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Page 17 of 45

18 Background: At the August 24, 2009 Council meeting, the application to add the above noted properties to the Urban Growth Area was presented. Council passed a resolution in support of the application subject to a legal opinion to ensure the resolution complied with Section 884 of the Local Government Act. This section requires that all bylaws enacted after the adoption of an Official Community Plan (OCP) be consistent with the relevant plan. A legal opinion in this regard has been received from Young Anderson Barristers and Solicitors. Discussion: The legal opinion references two sections of the Local Government Act. The first is Section 884 which requires all bylaws enacted following the adoption of an OCP to be consistent with the relevant plan. The second is Section 895 which requires a local government to consider every application for an amendment to a plan There is a common law principle that one municipal council may not fetter the legislative discretion of future councils, except as permitted in provincial legislation. Section 884 does permit one council to fetter a future council s decision making process by allowing the enactment of an OCP that requires all subsequent bylaws to be consistent with that plan. The legal opinion notes that this lawful fettering does not apply to amendments to the OCP itself (see section 895), but only to other bylaw amendments. Young Anderson has advised that the sections of the OCP that direct how a future council is to make amendments is ultra vires or exceeds its legislative authority. Legal Council has further advised that a bylaw to reject the addition of a property to the Urban Growth Area based on the wording in the current OCP would be subject to challenge. The current wording in the OCP with respect to this issue is attached as Schedule B. Legal advice has confirmed that Councils can amend the Urban Growth Area as they see fit however the sections of the OCP that try to limit this authority must be amended or removed from the document to ensure both its clarity and validity. Alternatives: Option 1 (Recommended) Amend Section 4.2 of the Official Community Plan as noted on Schedule A. This option suggests that the section of the document dealing with the management of growth in the community and the concept of an urban growth boundary is still relevant however has inadvertently resulted wording that renders much of this section ultra vires. 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Page 18 of 45

19 The recommended amendments remove the offending wording without attempting to change the intent of Section 4.2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. Option 2 Remove Section 4.2 in its entirety. This option suggests the growth management strategy in the OCP does not reflect the wishes of the community and should be either left out of the document or redrafted to accurately reflect community wishes. This option would remove the concept of urban and future growth areas along with the related map. It is noted that the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), as currently amended, does require member municipalities to set growth management boundaries. It is anticipated that the RGS will be adopted in the near future. If Section 4.2 of the OCP was removed, it should be redrafted in due course to reflect the concept of limiting urban sprawl and satisfying the anticipated requirements of the Regional Growth Strategy. Conclusion: The planning goals and policies in the OCP that attempt to limit urban sprawl are worthy initiatives. It is recommended that section 4.2 of the OCP be retained and amended as noted to ensure its legality. Respectfully Submitted Ian McIntosh Manager of Development Services 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Page 19 of 45

20 Schedule A Replace subsections.1 and.2 of Section with the following.1 Retain the Urban Growth Area i. Consider amendments to the boundary of the Urban Growth Area when required to meet the Community Vision and Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. Such amendments shall consider the following criteria: o the amendment(s) are otherwise consistent with the OCP; o there will be no significant environmental impacts; o the availability of servicing connections to be provided at the developers expense; and o the amendment lands will subject to the neighbourhood planning process as identified in Section 6.1 Any amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary shall be subject to the statutory public hearing process as an OCP amendment..2 Recognize Potential Future Growth Areas i. Identify that Future Growth Areas are those lands that may be appropriate for future urban development when expansion of the Urban Growth Area is required. ii. Recognize that consideration of any Future Growth Areas shall be subject to the neighbourhood planning process. iii. Identification of Future Growth Areas shall consider constraints resulting from ALR designations, hazardous lands, natural areas and environmental impacts. 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Page 20 of 45

21 Schedule B Current subsections.1 and.2 of Section or the OCP.1 Retain the Urban Growth Area i. Consider the expansion of the Urban Growth Area every 5 years only in conjunction with a comprehensive review of the Official Community Plan or in response to recommendations resulting from the annual monitoring and reporting program that addresses the Community Vision and Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. Any amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary shall be subject to the statutory public hearing process as an OCP amendment. ii. Consider minor amendments to the boundary of the Urban Growth Area that do not qualify under the criteria noted in Section i) only where such amendments meet all of the following criteria: o the amendment(s) are otherwise consistent with the OCP; o there will be no net gain of total land within the Urban Growth Area; o there will be no significant environmental impacts; o the availability of servicing connections to be provided at the developers expense; and o the amendment lands will be subject to the neighbourhood planning process as identified in Section Recognize Potential Future Growth Areas i. Identify that Future Growth Areas are those lands that may be appropriate for future growth, once the lands within the Urban Growth Area have been exhausted and/or the annual monitoring and reporting program recommends a need for additional growth areas. ii. Recognize that consideration of any Future Growth Areas shall be subject to the provisions identified in expanding the Urban Growth Area and neighbourhood planning process. iii. The Future Growth Areas have been identified through the recognition of constraints resulting from ALR designations, hazardous lands and natural areas. 9.2 OCP Amendment - Garnet Valley Rd., Sanborn St. and Page 21 of 45

22 District of Summerland REPORT Date: September 14, 2009 To: From: CEO Don DeGagne Director of Economic Development Subject: RE: District Land Sale Cedar Avenue To SUMMERVISION HOLDINGS LTD Recommendation: That Council support the purchase and sale & repurchase option agreement of 9503 Cedar Avenue to Summervision Holdings Ltd and authorize staff to finalize the land sale. CAO s comments: Support the recommendation. DHD Report: This report provides additional information regarding the purchase and sale and option to purchase agreement that was presented to Council on August 31 st, On August 31 st staff presented two (2) changes to the agreement. First, staff recommended an adjusted land value from $145,000 to $123,250 to reflect the decrease in the size of the property. A road dedication reduced the size of property from to of an acre. This reduction would normally have taken place prior to marketing the land but, because we were approached to sell the land and the desire of the purchaser to move quickly the reduction was over looked. The reduction in land value was calculated on a per square foot price that corresponded to the original agreement of $145,000 for of an acre. Additionally, the building size had to be reduced because of the reduction in the size of the property. Although there is no formula to calculate how a smaller piece of land may retain a greater value staff believe that maintaining the original pro rata land value based on square footage is a fair method to determine a revised land value. The second recommendation was to have a public tender process for the construction of the animal shelter. This recommendation was based on the fact that there were management fees included in the cost for Summervison to build the animal shelter and there was no agreement to have the animal shelter built at a fixed cost. Based on an industry average for cost plus construction there would be a 10% management fee in addition to the cost of materials. The attached budget shows an estimated cost of $64,000 for materials. Other costs include electrical, water and sewer connection, legal, Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 22 of 45

23 surveying and landscaping. The total estimated cost for the new animal shelter is $82,000. Staff are recommending a public tender process to allow other companies the opportunity to build the shelter. The benefits from the sale of this small industrial property includes better utilization of industrial lands, the construction of the industrial building that will provide employment and opportunities for business start-ups, property taxes and a new animal shelter (see attached sketch of the industrial building and a budget and drawings for the new animal shelter). Background: A report was presented to Council on April 6, 2009 regarding the District land sale to Summervison Holding Ltd. Council passed a resolution which directed staff to move forward and complete all the necessary work for a Purchase and Sale Agreement. The following tasks have been completed. 1. Advertising for the disposition of District lands. There were no public comments. 2. A variance permit 3. Property survey 4. Road dedication 5. Environmental contamination assessment (carried out by the purchaser) 6. A mutual agreement to terminate a lease with the tenant of the storage area. 7. A purchase and sale agreement with a re-purchase option. The Purchase and Sale Agreement & Re-Purchase Option The completion date for the land sale is on or before September 30, 2009 The Purchase Price is $123,250 The re-purchase option stipulates that Summervison must: attain a building permit 120 days after September 30, 2009 must complete all excavations, footings and slab for the main floor of the development 120 days after a building permit is issued attain an occupancy permit 2 years after the date of the building permit being issued. If Summervison fails to compile with the conditions set out in the agreement the District will have the option to repurchase the property at the purchase price less any improvements. The District Property Address: 9503 Cedar Avenue Legal Description: Lot 1 Plan DL 2195 Zoning: M2 Industrial Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 23 of 45

24 Figure 1. District Property & Summervision s Property Summervision s Property District Property 9503 Cedar Avenue Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 24 of 45

25 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 25 of 45

26 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 26 of 45

27 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 27 of 45

28 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 28 of 45

29 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 29 of 45

30 10.2 Proposed Land Sale to Summervision Holdings Ltd Ceda... Page 30 of 45

31 DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND REPORT Date: September 2, 2009 To: From: Subject: Council Corporate Officer Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System Recommendation: THAT Council of the District of Summerland agree to be a partner in establishing and implementing a Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System with neighbouring Local Governments including the City of Kelowna, the City of Penticton, the District of Lake Country, the District of Peachland, the District of West Kelowna, and the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen; AND THAT Council forward a copy of their resolution indicating their intent to establish a Bylaw Dispute Resolution System to the Court Services Branch, Ministry of Attorney General. CAO s Comments: Support as recommended CAO s Initials: DHD BACKGROUND The Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System In October 2003, the Province of BC enacted legislation providing an alternative approach for processing and resolving minor bylaw infractions, the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. Bylaw infractions are a common occurrence in any local government that enacts regulatory bylaws. Prior to the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, there were three strategies used by Local Governments to deal with a problem: 1. Seek voluntary compliance 2. Issue a traffic offence notice for parking infractions seeking voluntary payment of a prescribed fine; or, 3. Initiate formal court proceedings by issuing a Municipal Ticket Information (MTI) or swearing information and issuing a summons. In Summerland s case, many of our bylaw infractions could not be processed via an MTI ticket as we did not have access to the court system for offences other than MTI traffic and dog control tickets. All other offences required that we hire a lawyer and proceed to Provincial Court. Initiating formal court proceedings can be costly, and some local governments choose to avoid these enforcement costs by abandoning enforcement if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw D... Page 31 of 45

32 Page 2 Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System The goal of the new adjudication model is to create simple, fair and cost effective systems for dealing with minor bylaw infractions. To meet this goal, implementation of the adjudication model should: Eliminate the need for personal service Establish a dedicated forum for resolving local bylaw enforcement disputes Use a dispute resolution-based approach to obtain independently adjudicated decisions Avoid the unnecessary attendance of witnesses Avoid the need to hire legal counsel; and, Promote the timely resolution of bylaw enforcement disputes This quasi-judicial system involves a clear step-by-step process which involves notice periods, screening through a designated screening officer and, if it goes that far, an adjudication hearing involving an appointed adjudicator. The screening officer is appointed by the local municipality and has the authority to cancel a bylaw notice if he or she believes that the alleged infraction did not occur, or if the required information is missing from the notice. At an adjudication hearing, an adjudicator will hear from both the disputant and the local government and will decide whether he or she is satisfied that the contravention occurred as alleged. The appointment, training and management of the adjudicator roster occur at arm s length from the local government. Adjudicators are appointed by the Deputy Attorney General. The decision of the adjudicator is final and the Act does not allow for appeals. However, if the failed disputant or the local government feel the adjudicator exceeded his or her authority, or made an error in law, the person or local government may seek relief in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. The benefits of this system include: The ability to enforce a majority of our bylaws with the issuance of bylaw tickets. Disputes will be resolved locally with a minimum of process, benefiting both the community and the person disputing the ticket. Those challenging tickets will not have to wait hours for their court hearing. Those challenging tickets do not have to leave work or home in order to have a hearing. The Bylaw Dispute Adjudication system is now in place in a number of jurisdictions in BC including Richmond, North Vancouver, and Chilliwack and it is working well. Some other local government jurisdictions are also in the process of considering the system. A flow chart of the proposed new system is attached to this report. History of Action on Organizing a Bylaw Dispute Resolution System Some informal discussions took place among Okanagan Valley CAO s respecting setting up a Bylaw Dispute Resolution system in Subsequent to this, three inter-municipal discussions were held on October 23, 2008, March 27, 2009 and May 13, 2009 in Peachland, where details of the Bylaw Dispute Adjudication system were discussed. The meetings involved administrative and/or bylaw enforcement staff from the cities of Kelowna and Penticton, the District s of West Kelowna, Lake Country, Summerland and Peachland and the Regional District s of Okanagan Similkameen and Central Okanagan. Presentations were heard regarding the Upper Fraser Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication system (City of Chilliwack staff) and from B. Williamson of Young Anderson & Associates. All jurisdictions who attended these discussions, except for the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO), agreed to having a proposal forwarded to each of their respective Councils for consideration to initiate the new system. RDCO indicated they may agree to participate in the future, but that staff are focusing on other priorities at this time Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw D... Page 32 of 45

33 Page 3 Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System Next Steps This resolution as proposed needs to be approved by the Court Services Branch, Department of Attorney General. If all/some jurisdictions agree to initiate the system, administrative steps will need to be put into place to activate the new system. Although work needs to be done, the general best practices model has now been clearly established in this Province in a few jurisdictions and there will be no need to re-invent the wheel. The Local Government toolkit: Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System provides information needed to assist with the information which is required. Administrative steps will include: Prepare Screening Officer policy Prepare Registry Operations policy Prepare Communications policy Train enforcement officers, screening officers, registry and finance staff Prepare implementation and operational budgets Determine key system features including matters to be enforced by Bylaw Notice, use of screening officers, fine and fee amounts, etc. Consult with Court Services Branch re: process for scheduling adjudicators Assess enforcement and collections software, make modifications as required Prepare Bylaw Notice forms Prepare notification letters (refer to sample mail-delivery letter and re-issue letter) Prepare Screening Officer forms Because Kelowna is the largest center involved, it is anticipated Kelowna will be authority providing leadership for the Central Registry and for the Financial Administration. DOCUMENTS REQUIRING APPROVAL AS A NEXT STEP 1. A Joint Agreement to establish the Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System 2. A Bylaw (local) Respecting the Enforcement of Bylaw Notices FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Discussions with Chilliwack indicate that the administrative costs to run the Bylaw Dispute Resolution system operate at about $45,000 per year. The program has proven to be essentially revenue neutral in that the payment of fines has essentially equalled the annual cost to operate the system. Because the Okanagan Valley is somewhat larger than the Upper Fraser, annual operating costs are broken down on a basis of a $50,000 proposed annual budget as follows: JURISDICTION POPULATION % OF AREA POPULATION BUDGET PORTION City of Kelowna 118, $25, City of Penticton 32, $7, District of West Kelowna 27, $5, District of Lake Country 11, $2, District of Summerland 11, $2, District of Peachland 5, $1, Regional District of Okanagan/Similkameen 24, $5, TOTAL 230, $50,000 (Population source: 2008 BC Statistics) 11.1 Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw D... Page 33 of 45

34 Page 4 Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System DISCUSSION: The Bylaw Dispute Adjudication system replaces the Provincial Court as the venue for resolving disputes pertaining to be minor municipal bylaw offences. The outcome of this new system will enable simpler, cost effective administrative systems for enforcing minor bylaw infractions, ranging from parking tickets to dog licensing and minor zoning infractions. It is anticipated that implementation of the system will benefit all participating municipalities by providing overall financial benefit through the economies of scale in working as a group. Prior to implementing the new system, staff would use the municipal newsletter, website and news media to inform the public about the new system. We would also create some brochures to help those who receive tickets under the new system to understand the process as well as their right to an adjudication. OPTIONS: 1. Council can choose to support the recommendation 2. Council can choose to refer the matter back to staff or to Committee for more information. 3. Council can choose not to support the recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Gillian Matthews Gillian Matthews Attached: Flowchart for Bylaw Notice Enforcement and Adjudication Process 11.1 Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw D... Page 34 of 45

35 11.1 Report from the Corporate Officer re Okanagan Valley Bylaw D... Page 35 of 45 Bylaw Notice Issued 14 days from receipt to pay discounted penalty or dispute allegation 2.1. Flowchart: Bylaw Notice Enforcement and Adjudication Process Bylaw Notice No Response Bylaw Notice Disputed Bylaw Notice Paid File Closed Notify of Debt and Surcharge for Late Payment If recipient indicates original Bylaw Notice was never received, reissue notice Screening Officer must investigate/speak to both parties Dispute and discounted penalty no longer available Screening Officer offers Compliance Agreement (penalty reduction, terms, and duration) Screening Officer cancels Bylaw Notice (within policy set by Council) Screening Officer confirms Bylaw Notice Recipient no longer disputes Screening Officer confirms Bylaw Notice Recipient still disputes Discounted penalty no longer available Set hearing time Notify of hearing details and confirm amount of fees and penalties Adjudication Hearing Surcharge applied on top of penalty 21 days after response deadline Compliance Agreement terms not met/fulfilled Compliance Agreement terms met/fulfilled Surcharge applied on top of penalty after 21 days Bylaw Notice Paid File Closed Adjudicator cancels Bylaw Notice Adjudicator confirms Bylaw Notice Adjudicator adjourns to a later date (may be started again by another adjudicator) May refer File to Collections 28 days after receipt of Notification of Debt Compliance Agreement revocation disputed Penalty owed Additional surcharge after 21 days May refer File to Collections Screening Officer cancels Bylaw Notice No Response Notify of Debt May refer File to Collections Bylaw Notice Paid File Closed No Response Notify of Debt May refer File to Collections LOCAL GOVERNMENT TOOLKIT: 9 BYLAW DISPUTE ADJUDICATION SYSTEM

36 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND BYLAW NUMBER A BYLAW TO AMEND ZONING BYLAW NUMBER TO ADD ADDITIONAL USES TO THE C1 ZONE WITH RESPECT TO VICTORIA RD. ONLY The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Summerland, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. THAT Subsection of the C1 - Neighbourhood Commercial Zone of Schedule A of District of Summerland Zoning Bylaw Number be amended as follows: a) By adding the following Principal Uses: i) neighbourhood garden centre, lawn care service and bicycle sales and repair shop only on Lot 7, DL 474, ODYD, Plan 2679, located at Victoria Rd. 2. This bylaw may be cited as "Bylaw No , Amendment of Zoning Bylaw Number (C1 - Neighbourhood Commercial Zone, Victoria Rd.). Read a first time this Considered at a Public Hearing this Read a second and third time and adopted by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Summerland this Mayor Corporate Officer 12.1 Bylaw Text amendment of the Zoning Bylaw to permi... Page 36 of 45

37 TO: Mayor and Council MEMORANDUM DISTRICT OF SUMMERLAND FINANCE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 159 Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0 Phone FAX FROM: Ken Ostraat, Treasurer DATE: August 26, 2009 SUBJECT: Addition of 6709 Switchback Road to the Sewer Specified Area Recommendation: That Council give first three readings to Bylaw Number Amendment of Sewer Specified Area Bylaw (6709 Switchback Road). CAO s Comments: Support as recommended. CAO s Initials: DHD Background: The District has received an application to include a parcel of land into the sanitary sewer specified area. The property is located at 6709 Switchback Road and is the site of a future 15 lot subdivision. The property is currently zoned RSD1 - Residential. The subdivision requires connection to our sanitary sewer system in order to be approved. An aerial view map of the area is attached with the subject area outlined in red. Discussion: The property owner has been advised of the costs to connect to our sanitary sewer system and will be required to pay a sewer buy-in charge of $4,845 per lot for a total of $72,675 plus the cost of extending the collection line from their property to the nearest manhole. Without connecting to the sanitary sewer system, this subdivision cannot be approved. Staff have considered the application and recommend that Council give the first three readings to Bylaw Number Amendment of Sewer Specified Area Bylaw (6709 Switchback Road). The bylaw will be held at three readings pending payment of the required buy-in charge. Options: 1. Council could give first three readings to Bylaw Number Amendment of Sewer Specified Area Bylaw (6709 Switchback Road) and include the applicant s 12.2 Report from the Director of Finance re Bylaw Amen... Page 37 of 45