PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE · Regarding referral from Gibsons for a subdivision Page 2 of ....

$: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE · Regarding referral from Gibsons for a subdivision Page 2 of . 2. N:\Administration\0410 Town of Gibsons\0410-20 Referrals\2012-Aug-17 SD#2011-05$
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, September 20, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

INTRODUCTIONS 2. Introduction of new staff members

DELEGATIONS 3. Kirk Carwithen and Mark Rodgers re: Bylaw 310.144 (AJB Investments)

(ANNEX A)

4. Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society, regarding the proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek (ANNEX B)

BYLAWS 5. Bylaw 310.144 (AJB Investments)

Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX A pp 1 - 6

COMMUNICATIONS

6. Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society, Fact Sheet on Howe Sound and McNab Creek

ANNEX B pp 7 - 13

7. Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding glass sponge reefs, dated July 18, 2012

ANNEX C pp 14 - 16

8. Ian Anderson, President, Kinder Morgan Canada regarding Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project - Update, dated July 11, 2012

ANNEX D pp 17 - 20

9. Sunshine Coast Tourism 2012 Mid Year Update dated July 23, 2012 ANNEX E pp 21 - 28

10. Bruce A. Clark, Artificial Reef Society regarding proposed sinking of former HMCS Annapolis, dated July 17, 2012

ANNEX F pp 29 - 30

11. Jeannine R. Ritchot, Health Canada regarding Marihuana Medical Access Program dated July 16, 2012

ANNEX G pp 31 - 32

12. Sue Harvey, Administrator, Town of Port McNeill regarding Burnco’s Aggregate Shipping Operation, dated July 18, 2012

ANNEX H pp 33 - 34

jeans

Typewritten Text

To View Agenda Items 1-22 (Annex A to R - See Part 1)

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

jeans

Typewritten Text

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3 REPORTS

13. Liquid Waste Management in more densely settled rural areas

ANNEX I pp 35 - 38

14. Approved Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Units (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX J pp 39 - 69

15. Invasive Plants Update (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX K pp 70 - 84

16. Agricultural Land Commission Changes (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX L pp 85 - 101

17. Re-Consideration of Risk Assessment and Liability Policy (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX M pp 102 - 104

18. Highway Frontage Waiver – Subdivision 2012-01002 (Singleton) Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX N pp 105 - 106

19. Highway Frontage Waiver – MOTI #2011-05530 (Macaulay) Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX O pp 107 - 108

20. Licence of Occupation Application File 2410732 by Pender Harbour Landing Ltd. for a Group Moorage Facility fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX P pp 109 - 127

21. Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Electoral Areas A & B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Q pp 128 - 138

22. District of Sechelt referral regarding OCP amendment to the bonus Density Policies for Affordable Housing (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX R pp 139 - 160

23. Referral from Town of Gibsons, 842 Chaster Road in Gospel Rock area (SD#2011-05) (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX S pp 161 - 164

24. Islands Trust referral Gambier Associated Islands Bylaw (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX T pp 165 - 172

25. Bylaw Enforcement in Halfmoon Bay Electoral Area B (Bylaw Enforcement)

ANNEX U pp 173 - 193

26. Building Department Revenues to end of August, 2012 (Building Inspection)

ANNEX V pp 194 - 200

27. Planning and Development Monthly Report for July & August, 2012 (Regional/Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX W pp 201 - 208

28. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of July 25, 2012 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX X pp 209 - 212

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3

29. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of July 25, 2012 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Y pp 213 - 215

30. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of July 24, 2012 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Z pp 216 - 218

31. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of August 27, 2012 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX AA pp 219 - 220

32. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of July 25, 2012 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX BB pp 221 - 223

33. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of August 21, 2012 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX CC pp 224 - 226

BYLAWS

34. Consideration of 3rd Reading OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. 325.19, 310.134 (Jorgens) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX DD pp 227 - 233

REPORTS

35. Climate Action Policy Research

ANNEX EE pp 234 - 237

36. Referral from Sunshine Coast Regional Hospital District - Consultation Discussion Guide for “A Public Health Plan for BC”

ANNEX FF pp 238 - 252

BYLAWS

37. Roberts Creek OCP Bylaw 641 Amended 2nd Reading Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX GG pp 253 - 408

IN CAMERA

The public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with the Community Charter, Section 90 (1) (k) “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;” are to be discussed.

ADJOURNMENT

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: Referral from Town of Gibsons for Plan 6755, Block 7, DL 842 Chaster Road in Gospel Rock area (SD#2011-05)

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled “Referral from Town of Gibsons for Plan 6755, Block 7, DL 842 Chaster Road in Gospel Rock area (SD# 2011-05)” be received; AND THAT the following comments be sent to the Town of Gibsons’ Subdivision Approval Officer:

1. Infrastructure Services confirms that there are no impacts on the SCRD water system;

2. Any new roads should consider making allowances for future transit services to serve the Gospel Rock area should it continue to be developed;

3. Consideration needs to be given to improvements to the intersection at Pratt and Chaster Roads as further development could occur in the Gospel Rock area that relies on Chaster Road as the access;

4. Any proposed improvements to the Chaster/Pratt intersection should be referred to the Regional District and local residents in Elphinstone for comment prior to construction;

5. Construction of the emergency access road, either to Rosamund Rd or Fairview Rd, must consider potential impacts to Seaward Creek; and

6. Any technical plans and geotechnical reports should be referred to the Regional Distract and local residents in Elphinstone for comment prior to construction of the proposed emergency access road.

AND THAT these recommendations be referred to the Regional District Board meeting of September 20, 2012 for consideration.

BACKGROUND The SCRD received a referral for a 15 lot subdivision for a property within the Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan area. The proposal is a revision to a 21 lot subdivision plan which was submitted in June 2011. The current Town of Gibsons OCP designates the property within the Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Area and zoning bylaw designation for Block 7 allows for minimum parcel size of 8000 square metres.

The Town of Gibsons Approving Officer requested comments by September 4, 2012, however staff requested an extension to allow for the Board to consider the report and provide a resolution.

DISCUSSION The subdivision plan is attached (Attachment A). It shows a strata subdivision whereby the average parcel size meets the 8000 sq metre minimum set out in the Town of Gibsons zoning bylaw. The proposed subdivision includes a 9525 sq metre park, which can serve residents in

161

ANNEX S

161

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Sept 20, 2012 Regarding referral from Gibsons for a subdivision Page 2 of 2

N:\Administration\0410 Town of Gibsons\0410-20 Referrals\2012-Aug-17 SD#2011-05 subdivision Block 7 within Gospel Rock\2012-Sep-20 PDC report ToG referral subdivison of Block 7 DL 842 Chaster Road.docx

the Elphinstone area. A drainage/storm water dispersal field is shown in the northeast section of the park. The property as a whole includes land to Gower Point Road and the hooked portion from Gower Point Road to the ocean.

The site will be served by water from the Town of Gibsons, thus will not draw on the SCRD water system.

Access will be provided from Chaster Road, which will be partially extended to form the north boundary of the proposed subdivision. An internal road will be built south from the Chaster extension to access the individual lots. Emergency access will be provided by 4 metre wide gravel road on an 8 metre right of way either to Rosamund Rd or Fairview Rd. The emergency access route would cross a separate property within the Town of Gibsons and likely cross the top of Seaward Creek. Rosamund and Fairview extend from Pratt Road to or close to Mahon Road, which is the boundary between the Town and the SCRD in this area.

The Gospel Rock Neighborhood Plan draft 4.2 designates the property for a mix of apartment, cluster and single family residential and a park in the same general location as the proposed park (Attachment B). The potential number of dwellings allowed by the draft plan’s proposed policies allow for:

Single family – minimum lot size 4000 sq m (half the current zoning designation)

Cluster housing – 16 units per acre maximum density

Apartment – 36 units per acre maximum density

Thus if the plan is adopted the development potential of the property is likely to significantly increase.

Comments

Staff propose that the following comments be sent to the Town’s Approving Officer.

1. Infrastructure Services confirms that there are no impacts on the SCRD water system;

2. Any new roads should consider making allowances for future transit services to serve the Gospel Rock area should it continue to be developed;

3. Consideration needs to be given to improvements to the intersection at Pratt and Chaster Roads as further development could occur in the Gospel Rock area that relies on Chaster Road as the access;

4. Any proposed improvements to the Chaster/Pratt intersection should be referred to the Regional District for comment prior to construction; and

5. Construction of the emergency access road, either to Rosamund Rd or Fairview Rd, must consider potential impacts to Seaward Creek; and

6. Any technical plans and geotechnical reports should be referred to the Regional Distract and local residents in Elphinstone for comment prior to construction of the proposed emergency access road.

As the Approving Officer originally requested comments by September 4th, staff request that the Planning and Development Committee recommendations be forwarded to the September 20, 2012 Board for resolution so they can be sent to the Town on September 21.

162162

/_••

ATTACHMENT A

163163

Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan14

Figure 3.2 GOSPeL ROCk NeIGhBOURhOOD DeSIGN CONCePt

Gospel Rock Land Use

Town Boundary

Gospel Rock Planning Area

Land UseApartment

Cluster

Commercial

Green Belt / Natural Open Space

Park and Recreation

Single Family Residential

Townhouse

o

ATTACHMENT B

164164

Davidr

Polygonal Line

Davidr

Text Box

General Location of proposed subdivisoin

Davidr

Line

N:\Administration\0440 Islands Trust\0440-20 Referrals\2012-Jul-30 Gambier Associated Islands Zoning Bylaw\2012-Sep-20 PDC report re IT referral Gambier Assoc Islands.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012)

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: REFERRAL FROM ISLANDS TRUST REGARDING THE GAMBIER ASSOCIATED ISLANDS DRAFT LAND USE BYLAW

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled “Referral from Islands Trust regarding the Gambier Associated Islands draft Land Use Bylaw” be received for information;

BACKGROUND SCRD staff received a request from the Islands Trust to provide preliminary comments on an early draft of the Gambier Associated Islands Land Use Bylaw. The bylaw will cover those islands within the Gambier Island Local Trust area, with the exception of Gambier and Keats Islands. Comments were requested by August 30, 2012 and a formal referral will be sent to the Regional District at a later date. A copy of the draft was placed in the Directors’ Room (in the reading file) and can be found on the Islands Trust website at: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/gm/pdf/gmassocscrddraftlubjul2012.pdf DISCUSSION The proposed bylaw covers the smaller islands in the Gambier Islands Local Trust area that are within the West Howe Sound to Halfmoon Bay (up to Wood Bay) as shown in Attachment A. If adopted the new land use bylaw will replace the Sunshine Coast Regional District Land Use Regulation Bylaw No. 96, 1974, that was inherited by the Gambier and Associated Islands when the Islands Trust was established. A formal referral will be made after the bylaw receives first reading, most likely in October 2012. SCRD Directors and staff met with representatives from the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee and Islands Trust staff on September 10, 2012 and the bylaw was briefly discussed. Given the timeline for completing preliminary review SCRD staff conducted a quick scan of the draft bylaw with a focus on potential conflicts with SCRD interests and provide the following comments to Islands Trust staff:

the proposed zoning for Regional District parks is “Natural Area Park (P)”; the proposed zoning for the Regional District dock on North Thormanby Island is “Public

Wharf (M5)” which allows for public wharf; the proposed boundary for zoning of the ocean surface, various “M” zones, does not

appear to overlap with the “Water One (W1)” and “Water Two (W2)” zones set out in the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987.

The initial review notes that the draft bylaw supports existing uses as they pertain to SCRD interests. Additional comments may be provided at the time of a formal referral and SCRD staff will consult with the Area B to F APCs.

165

ANNEX T

165

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�!� ��

" #

$%

&

'

(

)

*"+

""

"#"$

��,-

��-��./

��

�� 0� ��

��0��

,��

��1� ��

��1� ��

�� 2��

��-/��

��3��00��

"#$%&'(

��

!" " !" #" $" %��&��'��!(�)""*"""

�

+�� ,�'

��

� ��-�'��.�'��' ��/�&&�� '�

)*"+"""#"$

��0�/��+��1��

��' �� '� ��'�� '�

ATTACHMENT A

166166

Draft Gambier Associated Islands Land Use Bylaw Page 56

DRAFT FOR COMMENT – July 2012

Schedule B ‘Zoning Map A

167167



Schedule B Zoning Map B

168168



Schedule B - Zoning Map C

169169



Schedule B - Zoning Map D

170170



Schedule B - Zoning Map E

171171



Schedule B - Zoning Map F

172172

N:\Legislative & Regulatory Affairs\4000 Bylaw Enforcement - General\4000-02 BEN Ticketing System\BEN tickets in Halfmoon Bay August .docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: August 24th, 2012. TO: Planning and Development Committee- September 20th, 2012. FROM: Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager RE: Bylaw Enforcement in Halfmoon Bay

RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the Chief Building Inspector’s report regarding the Bylaw Enforcement issues related to properties identified in Electoral Area B, be received; AND THAT the Planning and Development Committee forward the proposed enforcement procedure regarding the use of BEN ticketing to gain compliance in Electoral Area B to the Board for approval and adoption; AND THAT the fee schedule of fines currently adopted and forming part of the MTI ticketing system be replicated under the BEN system fee schedule of fines, also be forwarded to the Board for approval and adoption; AND FINALLY THAT the current Bylaw Enforcement Notice System, (BEN), Bylaw and Schedule of fines be amended to include fine amounts for offences in Electoral Area B related to:

a. Noise created in conflict with the noise Bylaw, b. Zoning where conflicts with the Zoning Bylaw are present, c. Dog control where dogs are deemed a threat to the public or a dog running repeatedly at

large, d. Building Code related safety, health and fire safety concerns that persist uncorrected. e. Buildings occupied without a valid occupancy certificate.

BACKGROUND: Resolution: 02/12 17 26/07/2012

THAT staff prepare a detailed policy clearly defining the proposed BEN Bylaw and policies and procedures with respect to fines to be referred to the September Planning and Development Committee meeting.

Attachments:

1. The Board Adopted Bylaw Enforcement Policy

2. The Board Adopted Screening Officer Policy

3. The Current MTI Bylaw Fee schedule of fines adopted under the MTI system

4. The additional fees proposed to be added to the current MTI fee schedule

173

ANNEX U

173

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 2 Bylaw staff have been working to resolve a number of Bylaw contraventions in Area B and where these contraventions have occurred, most have been brought into negotiated compliance. Some of these files later fall into non compliance once again through a repeat complaint process and staff must start from square one in accordance with SCRD Bylaw Enforcement Policy endorsed by the Board. Other non compliances, some of which are safety oriented, go unresolved as owners are reluctant to deal with them. Two common occurrences give our Bylaw Enforcement Division some concern:

1. Repeat offenders consume a significant amount of staff time to deal with and are a continual source of concern from neighbors in the area. These offences are typically noise and zoning offences surrounding short term stay locations, where neighbors complain about the same location on distinctly separate occasions.

2. Where non compliance with building or site safety issues remain

unresolved and where these offences can be registered on title through a Notice on Title process, the violations may still exist. Owners are reluctant to resolve the infractions and continue to utilize the buildings despite safety issues existing. The liability is deferred to the owner where Notices on Title have been filed, however a possible threat to the general public may still perpetuate.

Of the following options to deal with these issues, staff are recommending Option C:

A) Continue enforcement in the manner we are presently responding to complaints as they occur, even where repeat offences take place.

B) Amend the BEN Bylaw and schedule of fines to include the ability of the Bylaw

Enforcement Officer to issue a BEN ticket for offences related to noise, building bylaw, dog control and zoning in Electoral Area B only, adopting the MTI schedule of fines that currently exist.

C) Further amend the BEN Bylaw to adopt option B, plus include the ability of the Bylaw Officer and Building Inspector to issue elevated ticket fines, as an option set out in Enclosure 4, for critical building related safety issues that exist on sites where owners refuse to comply with building safety, fire safety or health, despite there being a Notice on Title registered against the property. In addition, to designate the Dog Control Officer and Bylaw Officer to issue elevated fines as prescribed under the revised fine schedule attached for certain egregious

174174

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 3

offences related to excessive or repetitive Noise Bylaw offences, Zoning Bylaw infractions related to tree cutting, Building Bylaw infractions related to safety and Dog Control where dogs are continually running at large or are deemed to be aggressive in nature while at large.

Tickets for building safety related offences, noise problems, zoning issues and dog control would only be issued in Electoral Area B, in accordance with the Board adopted policy on Bylaw Enforcement included for reference in this report. The issuance of tickets for offences has historically been seen to be most effective in gaining bylaw compliance where all other options fail. (Where it is not in the best interest to issue multiple tickets for a continuing offence, such as a hardship or other extenuating circumstances, the Screening Officer may choose not to issue further tickets and may also revoke the ticket issued as per Enclosure 2). As a result, staff recommends Option C seeing this option as the most effective way to deal with repeat offences and build safety related offences. To back up ticket issuance and increase the likelihood of payment, the following option is available, (often used by Chilliwack), as an added enforcement feature towards collection of ticket fees imposed. Following this procedure in situations where it may be seen that the fine will be ignored is a very effective way to gain compliance as it requires the recipient of a ticket to explain why payment has not been made in Provincial Court. The Court may then issue a timeline for payment, and if not paid after the time determined by the Courts, the recipient of the fine is then seen to be in contempt of Court and judicial processes will then ensue at the Provincial Court Level.

(Excerpt from the Bylaw Enforcement Act legislation)

Amounts owing enforced as Provincial Court judgment

26 (1) An amount due and payable to a local government under this Act may be recovered

by filing a certificate in the prescribed form in the Provincial Court.

(2) A certificate under subsection (1) that is in respect of an amount that has been

owed to the local government for more than 2 years before the date of the certificate

may not be filed under this section.

(3) A certificate under this section must be signed by the corporate officer or a delegate

of the corporate officer, and must include all the following information:

(a) the details of the bylaw notice, including the date and place of the

contravention;

175175


(b) the total amount owing in respect of the bylaw notice and,

separately, the amount of the penalty, any surcharges that apply and any

amount payable under section 23 (2);

(c) the name of the person who is required to pay the penalty;

(d) the date that the penalty became due and payable;

(e) whether the amount outstanding is payable because of

(i) a determination under section 21 (2) or (4) [adjudicator

decision], or

(ii) a default referred to in section 9 (1) or (2) [if a person does

not take an action under section 8], 13 (2) [requiring dispute

adjudication], 18 (4) [adjudication procedures] or 25 (2) [if

original bylaw notice not received].

(4) Subject to the regulations, a certificate filed under subsection (1) is of the same

effect, and proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were a judgment of the Provincial

Court for the recovery of a debt in the amount stated against the person named.

(5) A certificate under subsection (1)

a) is admissible in any proceedings to recover the certified debt

without proof of the signature or official position of the person

appearing to have signed the certificate, and

(b) is proof of the certified facts.

Procedure for Issuance of BEN ticket fines in Electoral Area B The following procedure will outline when and how BEN tickets will be issued in Electoral Area B along with some examples of offences and how a ticket may be issued: Referring to the current Board Policy of Bylaw Enforcement, Section 2.6.3, (iv) (Non-Voluntary Enforcement Process), where the required three letters have been sent and no response written or otherwise has been received, the fourth letter outlining the infraction accompanied by a BEN ticket will be sent to the registered owner and by the Bylaw Officer or by individuals designated under the BEN Bylaw. Typically, as set out in the examples below, there have been at least three attempts to contact the owner towards gaining compliance but no success has been found.

176176

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 5 There may be certain circumstances, such as ongoing noise infractions, repeat offences or animal control issues where no letters leading up to the fourth letter will be sent due to the urgency of the matter. In these cases, the only letter the offender will receive is that which will be accompanied by a BEN ticket and the ticket is due and payable immediately. Pursuant to the BEN System the alleged offender has the following recourse after a ticket has been issued to them;

a) There is the opportunity in every case to dispute the ticket issuance within 15

days and enter into a compliance agreement with the Screening Officer with

respect to the offence resulting in compliance with the regulation.

b) The Screening Officer under the Screening Officer Policy has the right to revoke a

ticket where no reasonable expectation of payment exists due to hardship or

situations otherwise stated in this policy.

c) There is always an opportunity to dispute the ticket amount or number of tickets

with the Adjudicator should no compliance agreement be struck and an

Adjudication process has been selected by the alleged offender.

d) There is always an opportunity to dispute the ticket amount at the Provincial

Court level should a ‘Certificate of Payment’ be registered with the Court.

e) There is always an appeal process that can be escalated to Supreme Court if

absolutely necessary.

If no dispute, appeal, compliance agreement entered into, or revocation of ticket by the Screening Officer takes place, the ticket is due and payable within 30 days of issuance. It is possible that a second ticket may be issued for the same offence after the 30 day time has lapsed, at which point both ticket amounts are due and payable.

Four examples are given below to demonstrate how tickets may be issued: Example #1: Noise complaint. (No progressive enforcement regimen) In this example, a number of complaints regarding excessive noise after hours, (9:00 PM), characterized as loud music, shouting, partying and carrying on from a location known as a bed and breakfast venue. Once confirmed and validated as a ticketable offence, a warning to the offender may be issued verbally or in writing. In the event of a repeat or egregious offence, a BEN ticket in the amount prescribed by the Schedule of Fine Amounts adopted for this bylaw may be issued to the offender at the time of the offence or the next business day. A similar ticket may also be issued to the registered owner of the property if they are not resident at that location.

Should the offences continue after a ticket has been issued, and the SCRD is in receipt of further complaints, multiple tickets for the same offence, (occurring at

177177

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 6 distinctly different times), may be issued to the offender and registered owner of the property.

Example #2: Dog running at large. (Passive and Aggressive) In this example, a dog known to the neighborhood is repeatedly running at large despite efforts of the Dog Control Officer issuing letters to the registered owner of the dog with no compliance gained. (The Dog Control Officer is unable to catch the dog as the dog is running at large in the evenings and weekends). After the third letter to the registered owner has been issued with no cooperation, a fourth letter may be issued accompanied by a ticket in the amount prescribed by the Schedule of Fines.

Should the dog be deemed as acting aggressively by the Dog Control Officer or his/her designate, and seen as running at large on several occasions, (threatening persons or children on the block for example), a ticket would be issued immediately and a follow up letter to the registered owner outlining the offence with a warning that any further complaints may result in additional ticketing. (Impounding the dog may be a preferred option if the offence occurs during regular working hours.) Example #3: Building without permits, safety issues exist, occupancy without final inspections. In this example, a property owner has not obtained Building Permits for construction of several buildings on his property that are being used as dwelling units for rent, contrary not only to the Building Bylaw, but in conflict with Zoning as well. Although several letters have been sent to the registered owner, the owner has chosen to ignore the bylaws. A Notice on Title has been registered against the property identifying the non compliance with the regulations, (this protects the Regional District against liability stemming from non compliance), however the buildings are being occupied without any inspections for fire, life safety or health. Numerous health, fire and life safety issues exist. BEN tickets, could be issued as a real incentive towards legalizing or removing the offending structures. Example #4: Conflict with Zoning Bylaw. In this example, an owner of a property has decided to use his location as a venue for activities not permitted under the Zoning Bylaw and has also gone about cutting trees in a riparian area to expand his activities. The complaint stems largely from the cutting of the trees, but also alludes to a use or activity that is not permitted for this property. Upon verification of the complaint, a BEN ticket may be issued immediately accompanied by a letter explaining the tree cutting offence.

Further, attempts by letters of escalating enforcement, (all being ignored by the registered owner), regarding the non permitted use of a property may result in a BEN ticket(s) being issued accompanied by a fourth letter.

Continual ticketing may result if the non conforming use continues and no desire of the owner to resolve the issues is present. (Continual tickets may cease when registration of a certificate of payment in the Provincial Court takes place.) A

178178

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 7 compliance agreement may be entered into should the client require additional time for SCRD processes to take effect such as a rezoning, a variance, a building permit, etc.

In conclusion, staff is seeking an effective means with which to deal with serious and /or repetitive offences occurring with regularity within the SCRD. There is considerable public opinion that currently exists regarding lack of enforcement of our bylaws. An effective ticketing system is seen by many Local Governments as a means with which to fairly deal with owners that continue to flout the Bylaws of Local Governments Staff will report to the Committee on ticket issuance statistics at monthly Committee meetings, (Bylaw statistics), and closely monitor ticket issuance and related issues. As well, if the BEN pilot is adopted for Electoral Area B, a public information plan will be implemented which will include;

Website announcement under “what’s new”

Website announcement under the Bylaw enforcement banner

Coast Reporter under the Local Government Bulletin section, (more than

once)

A possible separate Coast Reporter news article release

Respectfully Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager.

179179

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 8 Attachment 1:

Sunshine Coast Regional District

BOARD POLICY MANUAL

Section: Legislative and Regulatory Services 9 Subsection: Bylaw Enforcement 3800 Title: Bylaw Enforcement Complaints 4

1. POLICY The SCRD Board supports efforts to achieve voluntary compliance to bylaws. Where this is not possible, a progressive approach to enforcement will be utilized where the noncompliant actions are addressed where possible through avenues other than court action or direct enforcement. 1.1 Reason The purpose of this Policy is to outline a fair process for dealing with Bylaw complaints. The objectives of the Board Bylaw Enforcement Policy are to provide certainty and consistency in the enforcement of Regional District bylaws. The Board has no duty on the part of the Regional District to take enforcement action with respect to a contravention of a bylaw that may be occurring within its jurisdiction. 1.2 Written Complaint Enforcement action with regard to Bylaws, (excluding issues dealing with the issuance of a Permit), shall only be entertained under circumstances where:

a) a written complaint has been received by a clearly identified individual or where there has been a resolution of the Regional District Board; or,

b) The Regional District may pursue any information with regard to a situation where a required Permit has not been obtained or a life safety issue exists.

180180

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 9 1.3 Confidentiality In administering Bylaw Enforcement, all complainants shall be advised that the substantive details of their complaints will be made known to the alleged violators, but the complainants’ identities will be received, and held, by the Regional District in confidence unless required to be revealed through any ensuing legal process. If the complainant, whose identity is required to be made known before enforcement action may proceed, or continue, refuses to have their identity revealed, any action required by, or resulting from, their complaint will be abandoned. 1.4 Where a Ticket may be Immediately Issued Where bylaw infractions result from illegal irrigation, immediate life safety or health concerns, dog control issues, or such similar violations and after efforts to achieve voluntary compliance have failed, a ticket or series of tickets may be introduced in addition to seeking compliance on a voluntary basis. 1.5 Staff Safety The safety of staff and/or agents of the Regional District is of primary importance. If a Compliance Officer and/or agent are verbally or physically threatened while administering the bylaws of the Regional District, no further investigative action shall be carried out and an in camera report to the Board will be made with options for further action. 1.6 Board Involvement The individual members of the Board must not be involved with the sanctioning of an investigation, (other than acting solely as a citizen of the RD reporting a complaint), in making a decision on who shall be investigated, or in the assessment of a complaint. 2. PROCEDURES Procedures for Bylaw Enforcement are outlined below: 2.1 Inquiries

2.1.1 Media inquiries regarding the status of a bylaw enforcement matter shall be directed to the Manager of Legislative Services.

2.1.2 All Board inquiries relating to bylaw enforcement shall be directed to the Chief

Administrative Officer. 2.2 Priority to deal with enforcement complaints shall be in the following order: 2.2.1 Any danger to health, safety or property. 2.2.2 Any inconvenience to the public or other property owners. 2.2.3 Matters related to zoning regulations.

181181

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 10 2.2.4. Routine enforcement issues.

2.3 Investigation Process 2.3.1 A preliminary review of the complaint will be undertaken to ensure that the complaint is well founded.

2.3.2 Part of the review may include gathering of evidence in support of the bylaw investigation. Statements from witnesses should be obtained where possible and follow the prescribed statement taking format.

2.3.3 If no violation exists, the complainant will be so advised and a record of the

inquiry filed.

2.4 Follow up on Complaints 2.4.1 The following types of complaints may be actionable:

(i) a written or e-mailed complaint by a resident within reasonable geographic proximity to the location of the alleged offence;

(ii) a written or e-mailed complaint by a legally established business owner

who may suffer financially from any unauthorized or non conforming use of property in direct competition with that business, within reasonable geographic proximity of their legally established business;

(iii) a referral written or e-mailed from another Government Agency, Fire

Department, or RCMP;

(iv) a written or e-mail referral from an SCRD staff person; or;

(v) a resolution from the Regional District Board of Directors. 2.4.2 The following types of complaints will not be actionable:

(i) building conditions complaints considered general maintenance and not

subject to a building permit;

(ii) complaints which are considered to lack geographic proximity by the Officer, unless they are referred for consideration to the Board.

2.5 Reporting to the Board

2.5.1 On each enforcement matter that may require Court enforcement or direct action on the part of the Board, a report will be provided to the Board that includes the history and recommended action. Also included in the report shall be the legal status of the enforcement matter as required.

182182


2.5.2 The Chief Building Inspector and Manager of Bylaw Enforcement shall report to the Board quarterly regarding the enforcement of Regional District Bylaws.

2.6 Progressive Enforcement

2.6.1 A series of standardized letters following a progressive enforcement approach coupled with an enforcement flow chart will form part of the Procedures for Bylaw Enforcement and Compliance.

2.6.2 Voluntary Compliance Process The following are the voluntary compliance process guidelines:

(i) The alleged offender will be contacted personally or by letter and the

alleged violation will be outlined;

(ii) If a violation exists, the property owner and/or occupant’s cooperation will be sought. The bylaw compliance officer may meet with a violator to review the nature of the violation and to advise options on how to achieve compliance with the bylaws.

(iii) The violator(s) may be asked to cease activity immediately, or be given a

deadline to comply. The violator will also be advised that failure to comply could result in further legal action.

(iv) The bylaw compliance officer may meet with a violator to review the

nature of the violation and to advise on options to achieve compliance with the bylaws; or,

(v) A compliance agreement may be negotiated

2.6.3 Non-Voluntary Enforcement Process The following are the non-voluntary enforcement process guidelines:

Where the violation is found to be valid, a Progressive Enforcement Approach will be utilized:

(i) A first letter will be sent detailing the alleged offence and what is required

to comply with SCRD bylaws.

(ii) A second letter will be sent outlining the alleged offence, and requesting compliance stating possible consequences of inaction. The bylaw compliance officer may meet with a violator to review the nature of the violation and to recommend options on how to achieve compliance with the bylaws.

(iii) A third letter will be sent outlining the alleged offence, requesting compliance and stating an MTI or BEN ticket will be issued if the required corrective action is not taken.

183183


(iv) A fourth letter will be sent detailing the offence and the imposed MTI or BEN ticket.

(v) The MTI will be personally served to an offender and a BEN ticket may be

mailed.

(vi) A formal documented Compliance Agreement will be used in lieu of a fine payment where possible.

(vii) The offender will be given an opportunity to enter into an Adjudicated

payment dispute process in accordance with the Bylaw Enforcement Adjudication System where applicable.

(viii) The offender will have the opportunity to dispute any fine amount at the

Provincial Court level.

2.6.4 Where complaint issues related to safety, fire and health have not been satisfactorily addressed by the registered owner or occupant, a Notice on Title may be placed on the property to alert future owners to the condition of the property.

2.6.5 Injunctive Proceedings Process The following are the injunctive proceedings process guidelines:

(i) The Chief Administrative Officer will request legal counsel to commence bylaw enforcement proceedings. (ii) At the end of the proceedings, the complainant and the Board, if required, will be advised of the outcome, and the file closed.

2.6.6 Direct Enforcement Process (Matters of public life safety, fire or health)

The following steps outline the direct enforcement process guidelines:

(i) When all other options to achieve compliance have been exhausted, then a letter will be sent to the owner/occupant clearly outlining the required tasks. The letter must advise that failure to comply with the bylaws within the outlined time frame will result in staff requesting that the Board pass a resolution to effect compliance on the subject property and any expenses that year will be added to the property taxes as taxes in arrears if they are not paid by December 31st.

(ii) Should the owner/occupant fail to comply with the applicable bylaw(s)

within the given time frame as outlined in the first letter, one or more of the following actions may occur:

(a) A letter will be sent to the owner/occupant advising them that they

have failed to comply with the bylaws of the Regional District and a staff report will be forwarded to the Board asking for a resolution

184184


to effect compliance on the subject property. The letter must be sent to every owner on title, and/or to all occupants; or

(b) A letter will be sent to the owner/occupant advising them that they

have failed to comply with the bylaws of the Regional District and a staff report will be forwarded to the Board asking for a resolution to effect compliance on the subject property and to authorize the placement of a Notice on Title. The letter must be sent to every owner on title, and / or to all occupants.

(c) If the subject property requires that substantial work be completed

before compliance can be achieved, then staff will obtain estimates for the costs of the work and advise the owner of the estimated costs (prior to commencement of the work) should the Regional District effect direct compliance.

(d) Once a staff report has been received by the Board, then the

following may occur: d(1) If a resolution is passed, a letter will be sent to the

owner(s) of the property stating that a resolution has been passed to enforce and effect related works. Should the property not be brought into compliance within 30 days, or bona fide steps are not occurring to achieve compliance, then any costs incurred as a result of the work to achieve compliance will be invoiced and sent to the property owner(s). If the invoice is not paid within 30 days the invoiced amount will be added to the taxes payable as taxes in arrears, or;

d(2) If the Board resolves not to proceed with direct

enforcement, letters will be sent to the owner(s), occupant(s) and complainant(s) indicating the Board’s decision.

185185


Sunshine Coast Regional District

BOARD POLICY MANUAL

Section: Legislative and Regulatory Services 9 Subsection: Bylaw Enforcement 4000 Title: Screening Officer Bylaw Notice 4

3. POLICY The Sunshine Coast Regional District authorizes the Screening Officer to cancel a Bylaw Notice where he or she is satisfied that one or more of the following reasons exist and a compliance agreement is not appropriate or available:

(a) Identity cannot be proven, for example:

i. The Bylaw Notice was issued to the wrong person; or ii. The boat involved in the contravention had been stolen.

(b) An exception as specified in the Bylaw or a related enactment is proven.

(c) There is poor likelihood of success for the Regional District at adjudication, for

example:

i. The evidence is inadequate to show a contravention; ii. The Officer relied on incorrect information in issuing the Notice; iii. The Notice was not completed properly;

186186


iv. The Bylaw provision is unenforceable or poorly worded.

(d) The contravention was necessary for the preservation of health and / or safety, for example:

i. The contravention was the result of a medical emergency.

(e) The Notice is one of a number of Notices arising out of the same incident, in which case the Screening Officer may cancel all but the most appropriate Notice(s).

(f) It is not in the public interest to proceed to adjudication for one of the following reasons:

i. The person who received the Notice was permitted or entitled to take the action, but the issuing officer was not aware of this entitlement or permit;

ii. The person receiving the Notice was undergoing a personal tragedy or crisis at the time of the contravention such that it is not in the public interest to proceed;

iii. The Bylaw has changed since the Notice was issued, and now authorizes the contravention.

(g) The person exercised due diligence in their efforts to comply with the Bylaw, for example:

i. As a result of mechanical problems the person could not comply with the Bylaw; or

ii. The sign indicating the Bylaw requirement was not visible.

4. SCOPE This policy applies to the review of Bylaw Notices by a designated Screening Officer. 5. REASON FOR POLICY The purpose of the Policy is to identify grounds for cancellation of a Bylaw Notice. 6. AUTHORITY TO ACT Delegated to staff.

187187


SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT MTI FINE SCHEDULES This is not a comprehensive list of all the schedules but includes the relevant ones for

Electoral Area B as proposed by Staff

SCHEDULE 3

Attached to and Forming Part of Bylaw No 558, 2006.

Offence and Fine Schedule

“SCRD Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987”

OFFENCE

SECTION

FINE

Keeping Poultry or Rabbits

502 (2) (a)(b)

100.00

Unauthorized Home Occupation

502 (3)_

100.00

Keeping Livestock

502 (4)(a)(b)

100.00

Unauthorized Occupancy During Construction

502(9)(a) – 502 (9)(e)

100.00

Visible Home Occupation

502 (10) (a)

100.00

Home Occupation Not Enclosed

502 (10) (b)

100.00

Home Occupation Exceeding Allowed Area

502 (10) (d)

100.00

188188


Home Occupation - Unauthorized Employees

502 (10) (e)

100.00

Unauthorized Bed & Breakfast

502(11)(a) – 502

(11)(f)

100.00 Unauthorized Sign

502 (13)

100.00

Signs Exceeding Allowed Number

502 (14) (a)

100.00

Sign Exceeding Allowed Area

502 (14) (c)

100.00

Over Height Sign

502 (14) (d)

100.00

Sign Exceeding Allowed Area

502 (15) (a)

100.00

Sign Exceeding Allowed Height

502 (15) (b)

100.00

Landscaping Not Provided

502 (16) (2)

100.00

Over Height Structure

503 (1)

100.00

Over Height Fence

503 (4)

100.00

Structure Within Setback

505 (1)

100.00

Unauthorized Siting of Building

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

100.00

Storage of Junk

508 (a)

100.00

Motor Vehicle Wrecking

508 (a)

100.00

Storage of Un-Licenced Vehicle

508 (b)

100.00

SCHEDULE 5



“SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597, 2008”

OFFENCE

SECTION

FINE

Noise Which Disturbs

3a

100.00

Construction Noise Which Disturbs (outside of permitted construction hours)

4a

100.00

189189


Machine Noise Which Disturbs

4b

100.00

SCHEDULE 6



“SCRD Building Bylaw No. 535, 2004”

OFFENCE

SECTION

FINE

No Building Permit

2.1

150.00

Fail to Obey Stop Work Order

19.4

100.00

No Occupancy Authorization

2.2

100.00

Remove Stop Work Notice

2.4

100.00

Work at Variance with Plans

2.5

100.00

Obstruct District Employee

2.6

150.00

SCHEDULE 7


“SCRD Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 376, 1994”

OFFENCE

SECTION

FINE

190190


No Dog Licence II.2 50.00 Fail To Affix Licence Tag

II.8

50.00

Dog At Large

III.11

50.00

Fail To Contain Bitch In Heat

III.12

50.00

Vicious Dog Not Muzzled

III.13 (i)

150.00

Vicious Dog Not Confined

III.13 (ii)

150.00

Failure to Control a Noisy Dog

IV.26(a)

100.00

Harbor More Than 3 Dogs

IV.26(b)

75.00

Attachment 4:

Proposed Additional Fine Schedule for Offences As Schedule A to Bylaw 638

In addition to the Bylaw Contraventions currently listed in Schedule A attached to BEN Bylaw 638, the following additional offences and escalated penalties are proposed for specific violations: (To be listed in the proper format prescribed as a “Schedule to the Bylaw”). Bylaw Description (will include

Section #) Penalty 1st Penalty 2nd Penalty 3rd + **

Noise Bylaw Noise that disturbs $200 $300 $400 Zoning Bylaw Zoning contraventions,(any) $100 $200 $300 Building Bylaw Building Bylaw violations,

(any) $100 $250 $350

Building Bylaw Occupancy without SCRD approval

$300 $400 $500

Dog Control Bylaw

Dog control offences, (any) $50 $100 $200

Dog Control Bylaw

Dog attacks involving humans, (bites)

$200 $300 $400

** Maximum fine amount is $500 per day for each continuing offence under the BEN ticketing system. It is also proposed that a “notice of payment claim” be registered with the Provincial Court where fine collection attempts do not produce settlement of the fine within short order. They can only be registered with the courts for offence amounts that go unpaid for less than two years. Any fine more than two years old cannot be collected. This will enable the violator to dispute the amount of the fine at the Provincial Court level if they feel a need to appeal a ticket amount.

191191

B y l a w E n f o r c e m e n t P o l i c y a n d B E N T i c k e t i n g S y s t e m P a g e | 20 This is consistent with the Chilliwack model of BEN fine ticketing and payment collection, and would serve to compel non-resident recipients of tickets who are owners of the subject property to deal with the issues at hand or risk contempt of court proceedings.

192192

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 5th, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee, September 20, 2012 FROM: Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager RE: Building Department Revenues to end of August, 2012

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Planning and Development Committee receive the report from the Chief Building Inspector regarding Building Permit revenues to end of August, 2012, for information. DISCUSSION: Permit revenues have been steady this year with increases over last year for the months of July and August. The attached Excel spreadsheet Building Permit Billings YTD without taxation added. The value of construction overall and hence permit revenues generated thus far in Electoral Area A seem to dominate the building department permit revenue sources. There are some large projects poised to move forward this year including the Hospital phase three permit and the South Pender water treatment plant, however when the permit will actually applied for remains unclear. Other projects are for now at least waiting in the wings. Just a reminder that there is a new BC Building Code being released for December of this year and training on the new release is scheduled for November for the building department staff over a two day period in Vancouver. This will involve staff commuting to Vancouver for this training on two successive days. These costs have been budgeted for in the 2012 Building Budget. Changes to the seismic design requirements of all residential structures, including single family homes, is expected to impact on local builders the most. This, along with higher energy saving measures being implemented in this code edition will add to the cost of construction and will ultimately be passed on to the new home owner. Communication to the Coast Builders Association and other builders will take place when the information is available to local governments to inform them of areas of concern that they should be aware of. Respectfully; Peter Longhi

194

ANNEX V

193

1200

00B

uild

ing

Per

mit

Rev

enue

2007

-201

2Ja

nuar

y-A

ugus

t20

12

IU

,1 0

1000

00

8000

0

6000

0

4000

0

2000

0 0

12

34

56

7

Month

89

1011

12

195194

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BP5700 Page: 1Date: Sep 04, 2012 Time:ll:09 am

Permit Type: All Status Code: ISSUEDDistrict: All Year: 2012Area: All Areas Period: 1 To 8

BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORTFor the Period: January to August 2012

Three Year Construction Type ComparisonWork Code Description 2012 2011 2010ADDITION AND ALTERATION 69 69 78WOOD STOVE/CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY DWELLING 0 1 1COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 8 9 13DEMOLITION 14 8 10AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 0 3 0INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 0 0 0MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS 0 0 0NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0SWIMMING POOL 2 2 4plumbing fixtures only for SFD 4 3 1PERMIT RENEWAL 0 0 0SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 70 75 79SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 2 2 0Special Inspection 2 3 4TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 1TENANT IMPROVEMENT 1 0 0UPGRADE 0 0 1RETAINING WALL 8 9 9WOOD STOVE? CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY BUILDING 42 56 61CHANGE OF USE 5 2 1

Total Permits: 227 242 263

39 8Total Project Values: $ 30,320,469.00 $ 29,488,490.00 $ 44,201,870.00CumulatIve Values: $ 30,320,469.00 $ 29,488,490.00 $ 44,201,870.00

District BreakdownDistrict Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project ValuesArea A 69 107,959.25 10,527,869.00AREA B 47 59,629.50 5,677,000.00Area D 36 44,692.00 4,319,100.00Area E 32 48,003.50 4,205,500.00

Grand Totals:

Rate BreakdownRate Name Total Number of Permits Using Rates Rate Total BillingsAPPLICATION FEE 182 37,477.25APPLICATION PAYMENT 180 -37,557.25BUILDING MISC 1 459.00BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE EXPENSE 180 360.00SPECIAL& REINSPECTION 1 100.00CIVIC ADDRESS 39 6,825.00CHANGE OF USE 1 100.00SUBSOIL DRAINAGE 82 4,670.00MICROFILMING 195 8,628.00PENALTY 17 4,147.50COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT 11 13,095.75PLUMBING FIXTURES

18,901.3096196195

BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORTFor the Month of: July 2012

Three Year Construction Type ComparisonWork Code DescriptIon 2012ADDITION AND ALTERATIONWOOD STOVE / CHIMNEYAUXILIARY DWELLINGCOMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTIONDEMOLITIONAGRICULTURAL BUILDINGINDUSTRIAL BUIWINGMULTIFAMILY DWELLINGSNEW CONSTRUCTIONSWIMMING POOLplumbing fixtures only for SFDPERMIT RENEWALSINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING

8 5 80 0 00 0 10 2 53 3 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 02 0 00 0 0

10 9 91 0

Special Inspection 0 1 1TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 0TENANT IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0UPGRADE 0 0 0RETAINING WALL 1 0 0

Total Permits: 25 21 24Total Billings: c7V 53 5Y7 25,396.so 5479Total Project Values: $ 4,040,480.00 $ 2,387,000.00 $ 6,740,000.00Cumulative Values: $ 25,312,469.00 $ 24,778,650.00 $ 38,298,190.00

District BreakdownDistrict Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project ValuesAreaA 10 17,117.00 1,584,480.00AREA B 5 10,424.50 923,000.00Area D 3 6,485.50 640,000.00

Grand Totals::gz::::z::::: ::::: : : ::: : : ::: :: : ::::::::E:

Rate BreakdownRate Name

APPLICATION FEEAPPLICATION PAYMENTBUILDING MISCBUILDING PERMIT OFFICE EXPENSECIVIC ADDRESSSUBSOIL DRAINAGEMICROFILMINGPENALTYPLUMBING FIXTURESRESIDENTIAL PERMITTITLE SEARCHWATER CONNECTION- RWWOOD BURNING APPLIANCE! CHIMNEYREFUND APPLICATION FEE

Total Number of Permits Using Rates

2523

256

10

262

15

2521

817

Rate Total Billings

4,840.00-4,840.00

459.0050.00

1,050.00600.00

1,100.00388.50

3,149.3037,008.00

189.001,200.001,200.00

-80.00

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

Permit T,pe: AllDistrict: AllArea: All Areas

BP5700 Page: 1Date: Sep 04, 2012 Time: 11:10 amStatus Code:Year:Period:

ISSUED20127 To 7

2012

2011 2010

Grand Total: 5ZD,5j7 $197196

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BP5700 Page:1Date: Sep 04, 2012 Time:11:11 am

Permit Type: All Status Code: ISSUEDDistrict: All Year: 2012Area: All Areas Period: 8 To 8

BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT AV(qFor the Month of: August 2012 2zL2.

Three Year Construction Type ComparisonWork Code Description 2012 2011 2010

ADDITIONANDALTERATION 9 13 11WOODSTOVE/CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY DWELLING 0 0 0COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 1 2 2DEMOLITION 2 1 2AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 0 1 0INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 0 0 0MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS 0 0 0NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0SWIMMING POOL 1 1 1plumbing fixtures only for SFD 0 0 0PERMIT RENEWAL 0 0 0SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 13 9 10SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 0 0 0Special Inspection 0 0 1TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 0TENANT IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0UPGRADE 0 0 0RETAINING WALL 1 2 1WOOD STOVE! CHIMNEY 0 0 0AUXILIARY BUILDING 6 14 10CHANGEOFUSE 0 0 0

Total Permits: 33 43 38

-

Total Project Values: $ 5,008,000.00 $ 4,709,840.00 $ 5,903,680.00

Cumulative Values: $ 30,320,469.00 $ 29,488,490.00 $ 44,201,870.00

District Breakdown

District Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project Values

Area A 8 18,704.00 2,111,500.00AREA B 7 3,281.50 260,000.00Area D 5 9,950.00 880,500.00Area E 8 11,376.50 907,000.00AREA F 5 9,282.00 849,000.00

Grand Totals:: :‘::: : : ::::: ::: : : : : :: : : :‘

2:: : : : : : : : : : :50:

Rate Breakdown

Rate Name Total Number of Permits Using Rates Rate Total Billings

APPLICATION FEE 26 6,840.00APPLICATION PAYMENT 26 -6,840.00BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE EXPENSE 27 54.00CIVICADDRESS 7 1,225.00SUBSOIL DRAINAGE 9 540.00MICROFILMING 27 1,376.00PENALTY 1 89.00COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT 2 4,346.50PLUMBING FIXTURES 15 3,422.00RESIDENTIAL PERMIT 29 39,525.50TITLE SEARCH 24 216.00198197

SUN

SHIN

EC

OA

ST

RE

GIO

NA

LD

IST

RIC

T

GL

Dep

artm

ent

Rep

ort

Yea

r:

2012

Per

iod

:7

GL

5330

Pag

e:

Dat

e:S

eoO

4.2

012

Tim

e:11

:08a

m

Bu

dg

et:

Act

ual A

mou

ntG

roup

by:

Def

ault

BU

ILD

ING

INS

PE

CT

ION

Rev

enues

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

esW

1114

1cfl

o

D1-

1-52

0-01

5P

rope

rty

Tax

Req

uisi

tion

-74,

952

-12,

492

—-8

7,44

50

87,4

450

01-1

-520

-113

Bui

ldin

gP

erm

itF

ees

-226

,553

956

-274

,509

027

4,50

90

01-1

-520

-115

Oth

erP

erm

itF

ees

-7,5

26-3

06-7

,832

07,

832

001

-1-5

20-1

16R

enew

alF

ees

-2,0

50-7

00-2

,750

02,

750

0J1

-1-5

20-1

18Ti

tleS

earc

hes

-1,7

62-3

23-2

,085

02,

085

0)1

-1-5

20-1

28O

ther

Rev

enue

-676

-52

-728

072

80

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

-313

,519

-61,

829

-375

,348

037

5,34

80

Rev

enues

-313

,519

-61,

829

-375

,348

037

5,34

80

Expen

dit

ure

s

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

es

)1-2

-520

-200

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Ser

vice

s62

,165

10,3

6172

,526

0-7

2,52

60

)1-2

-520

-220

Sal

arie

s&

Wag

es18

9,20

929

,266

218,

475

0-2

18,4

750

11-2

-520

-225

Ben

efit

s57

,896

9,06

966

,964

0-6

6,96

40

11-2

-520

-227

Wcb

-B

uild

ing

Insp

ecti

onS

ervi

ces

4,38

770

35,

089

0-5

,089

011

-2-5

20-2

35T

rain

ing

&D

evel

opm

ent

1,74

60

1,74

60

-1,7

460

1-2-

520-

266

Del

iver

ies/

tran

spor

tati

on0

3737

037

01-

2-52

0-28

1M

ater

ials

&S

uppl

ies

234

2926

30

-263

01-

2-52

0-29

3O

ffic

eE

xpen

ses

2,45

61,

321

3,77

80

-3,7

780

‘1-2

-520

-314

Tel

epho

ne&

Ala

rmL

ines

750

124

874

0-8

740

1-2-

520-

320

Tra

vel

837

150

987

0-9

870

‘1-2

-520

-335

Adv

erti

sing

709

070

90

-709

01-

2-52

0-33

8D

ues

&S

ubsc

ript

ions

3,54

80

3,54

80

-3,5

480

1-2-

520-

381

Leg

alF

ees

881

7295

30

-953

01-

2-52

0-45

8F

uel/

lubr

ican

tsV

ehic

le4,

411

482

4,89

30

-4,8

930

1-2-

520-

461

Insu

ranc

e/li

cenc

e-

Veh

icle

3,58

30

3,58

30

-3,5

830

1-2-

520-

464

Rep

airs

&M

tce

-V

ehic

le2,

688

1,80

94,

497

0-4

,497

01-

2-52

0-55

0D

efic

itPr

ior

Yea

r25

,603

025

,603

0-2

5,60

30

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

361,

103

53,4

2341

4,52

50

-414

,525

0

Expen

dit

ure

s36

1,10

353

,423

414,

525

0-4

14,5

250

47,5

83-8

,406

39,1

770

-39,

177

0

Acc

ount

No.

Des

crip

tion

Ope

nB

alC

urre

ntY

ear

toD

ate

Bud

get

Var

ianc

e%

Use

d

1

3?jL

1

BU

ILD

ING

INSP

EC

TIO

NT

otal

199198

SUN

SHIN

EC

OA

ST

RE

GIO

NA

LD

IST

RIC

T

GL

Dep

artm

ent

Rep

ort

Yea

r:

2012

Per

iod

:8

Bu

dg

et:

Act

ual

Am

ount

Gro

upby

Def

ault

Acc

ou

nt

No.

Des

crip

tio

nO

pen

Bal

Curr

ent

Yea

rto

Dat

eB

ud

get

Var

ianc

e%

Use

d

BU

ILD

ING

INSP

EC

11O

NR

even

ues

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

es

01-1

-520

-015

Pro

pert

yTax

Req

uisi

tion

-87,

445

0-8

7,44

50

87,4

450

01-1

-520

-113

Bui

ldin

gP

erm

itF

ees

-274

,509

-47,

213

-321

,722

032

1,72

20

01-1

-520

-115

Oth

erP

erm

itF

ees

-7,8

32-1

,362

-9,1

940

9,19

40

01-1

-520

-116

Ren

ewal

Fee

s-2

,750

0-2

,750

02,

750

001

-1-5

20-1

18T

itle

Sea

rches

-2,0

85-2

36-2

,321

02,

321

001

-1-5

20-1

28O

ther

Rev

enue

-728

-71

-799

079

90

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

-375

,348

-48,

882

-424

,230

042

4,23

00

Rev

enues

-375

,348

-48,

882

-424

,230

042

4,23

00

Expen

dit

ure

s

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

es

)1-2

-520

-200

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Ser

vice

s72

,526

072

,526

0-7

2,52

60

)1-2

-520

-220

Sal

arie

s&

Wag

es21

8,47

531

,420

249,

896

0-2

49,8

960

)1-2

-520

-225

Ben

efit

s66

,964

8,19

675

,161

0-7

5,16

10

)1-2

-520

-227

Wcb

-B

uild

ing

Insp

ecti

onS

ervi

ces

5,08

966

05,

749

0-5

,749

0)1

-2-5

20-2

35T

rain

ing

&D

evel

opm

ent

1,74

60

1,74

60

-1,7

460

)1-2

-520

-266

Del

iver

ies/

tran

spor

tati

on37

037

0-3

70

11-2

-520

-281

Mat

eria

ls&

Sup

plie

s26

30

263

0-2

630

11-2

-520

-293

Off

ice

Exp

ense

s3,

778

03,

778

0-3

,778

011

-2-5

20-3

14T

elep

hone

&A

larm

Lin

es87

40

874

0-8

740

1-2-

520-

320

Tra

vel

987

098

70

-987

01-

2-52

0-33

5A

dver

tisi

ng70

90

709

0-7

090

‘1-2

-520

-338

Due

s&

Sub

scri

ptio

ns3,

548

03,

548

0-3

,548

01-

2-52

0-38

1L

egal

Fee

s95

30

953

0-9

530

1-2-

520-

458

Fue

l/lu

bric

ants

Veh

icle

4,89

30

4,89

30

-4,8

930

1-2-

520-

461

Insu

ranc

e/li

cenc

e-

Veh

icle

3,58

30

3,58

30

-3,5

830

1-2-

520-

464

Rep

airs

&M

tce

-V

ehic

le4,

497

04,

497

0-4

,497

01-

2-52

0-55

0D

efic

itPr

ior

Yea

r25

,603

025

,603

0-2

5,60

30

520

Bui

ldin

gIn

spec

tion

Ser

vic

414,

525

40,2

7745

4,80

20

-454

,802

0

Expen

dit

ure

s41

4,52

540

,277

454,

802

0-4

54,8

020

39,1

77-8

,606

30,5

720

-30,

572

0

GL

5330

Pag

e:

11:0

8am

BU

ILD

ING

INS

PE

CT

ION

Tot

al

200199

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY/AUGUST 2012

1. Development Control

A. Please refer to the attached tables titled SCRD Subdivision and Development Activity and

SCRD Bylaw Amendment and Permit Activity for a summary of development activities. B. Crown Land/Foreshore, Water Licence Application Referrals, Pesticide Use Application

Referrals, UREP referrals. Two new Crown Referrals were received: Electoral Areas A Application for group moorage File 2410732 by Pender Harbour Landing fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour. Notice of Work Application File 1610579 by John La Rue for Mineral Exploration near North Lake

C. Governmental Referrals (District of Sechelt / Town of Gibsons / Islands Trust) Three new referrals were received. Town of Gibsons - Plan 6755, Block 7, DL 842 Chaster Road in Gospel Rock area (SD#2011-05) for a 21 lot subdivision. District of Sechelt - regarding an OCP amendment to the Bonus Density policies for affordable housing (3370-20 2012-03) Islands Trust - regarding the Gambier Associated Islands draft Land Use Bylaw

D. Agricultural Land Commission Applications

No new applications were received.

E. Subdivision Activity

Two new applications were received: Area D: Scott Holbech and Sarah Green a two lot subdivision located at Gladwin Trail Road and Robinson Road. Area F: Binnie Engineering for David and Marjorie Butler a two lot subdivision located at Courtenay Road. One referral from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure was received but the owner has yet to apply to the SCRD:

201

ANNEX W

200

Planning and Development Division Monthly Report – July/August 2012 Page 2 of 6

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Sept 2012\2012-JUL & AUG - 21 Planning Monthly Summary for Jul & Aug 2012.docx

Area A: An application by Graze Pazur for a two lot subdivision located at Menacher Road.

F. Development Variance Permits

No new DVP applications were received:

On-Going Applications Electoral Area A 337.138 (Benner) located at 5402 Donley Drive, to vary an exterior side lot line setback. The application was considered by the APC in June. Referrals sent to the MoTI and the Sechelt Indian Band in August. Electoral Area B 310.163 (Horst) located at 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway, Halfmoon Bay to legalize an already constructed deck and auxiliary building. Permit not issued per July 26th Board motion.

G. Board of Variance Applications

One new application was received in July BOV #139 for Joseph Crawford and Beverly Malcolm, located at 4437 Francis Peninsula Road in Madeira Park. The applicants proposed to remove a mobile home and replace it with a new dwelling. The location of the new home is proposed to be within 6 metres of a watercourse. The applicants have requested that the Board of Variance grant approval to reduce the setback from 15 metres to 6 metres. The existing mobile home is currently located to within 6 metres of the watercourse.

H. Building Permits Staff reviewed 46 building permit applications in July and August to confirm Zoning Bylaw and Official Community Plan compliance.

I. Development Permits

Electoral Area E DP E-96 (Pinto) located at Ocean Beach Esplanade to construct a new power shed within the “Beach front and ravine/creek-eroded slopes DPA”. Waiting for a geotechnical report to review. Electoral Area F DP F-78 (Bracket) located at Twin Creeks Road to construct a septic field within the “Riparian Assessment Area DPA”. Waiting for environmental assessment to review.

202201



DP F-77 (Maddocks) located at 1574 Smith Road to construct a single family dwelling and an attached garage within “Slope stability DPA”. The DP was issued September 10, 2012.

On-going Applications Electoral Area D DP D-107 Kirby located at 1998 Ocean Beach Esplanade (eastern most property of Roberts Creek). Work continues on the development permit and revised geotechnical and shoreline reports were received in August. DP D-111 with a variance to legalize an already constructed retaining wall within a stream riparian area and setback. This application was reviewed at the June PDC. Waiting for additional information on creek history. Electoral Area E DP E-95 with a variance (Schnepf) located at 1810 Ocean Beach Esplanade with a variance to replace and add to an existing non-conforming deck within a front yard setback. Waiting for geotechnical assessment requested by MoTI, from the applicant.

J. Bylaws On-Going Applications Electoral Areas B to F Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.139, SCRD bylaw to propose amending the definition of floor area with respect to enclosed garages. Referrals sent to agencies. Public information meeting held Thursday July 5 at SCRD Board Room, notice in June 22nd Coast Reporter and June 29 SCRD Bulletin Board, report considered at July PDC and bylaw received amended second reading and public hearing scheduled for September 20, 2012 in the SCRD Boardroom. Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.143, SCRD bylaw to propose amending Bylaw 310 to establish all of Electoral Areas B to F as areas where the Board may consider issuing a temporary use permit. Amendments to Bylaw 522 proposed and considered at April PDC. Referrals sent to agencies. Public information meeting held on Thursday July 5 at SCRD Board Room, notice in June 22nd Coast Reporter and June 29 SCRD Bulletin Board. Electoral Area A 337.102 Copper Island. A public hearing was scheduled at the July PDC for September 13th. Advertising and notification to nearby property owners occurred in August.

203202



Electoral Area B OCP and Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. 325.20 and 310.137 (Brown) for 5322 Backhouse Road to permit a two-lot subdivision. Staff responded to MoTI regarding subdivision application. Report considered at April PDC regarding referrals and access. Public hearing held on June 13. Report considered at July PDC. Bylaws received 3rd reading and applicant is working on registering the required covenants OCP and Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. 325.21 and 310.142 (Gidora) for 8066 & 8070 Redrooffs Road regarding sale of poultry and eggs. Staff will refund fees as the DVP application is received. OCP and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Nos. 325.9 and 310.134 (Jorgens) on Curran Road in Halfmoon Bay. The bylaws were considered at the PDC in June and a public hearing was scheduled at the July PDC for September 5th. Advertising and notification to nearby property owners occurred in August. Electoral Area D OCP Amendment Bylaw 375.11 and Zoning Bylaw 310.135 (Morrissey and others) to allow 12 lots to subdivide. Applicants working with staff to register the covenants. Zoning Bylaw Amendment 310.144 AJB Properties was received in June and the staff report was prepared in July. The staff report is on the September PDC. Electoral Area E OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw nos. 600.3 and 310.140 (Celebration House). Rezoning to permit Public Assembly. Report regarding results of referrals and public meeting removed from July PDC to allow for applicants to consider and provide comments. Referrals received from the Town of Gibsons and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

K. Tree Cutting Permits No new applications were received.

L. Strata Conversion Applications

No new applications were received. On-Going Applications: Electoral Area D SC D-3 (Sankey & Moul) located at 2417 Grant Rd, Roberts Creek.

204203



2. Long Range Planning and Major Projects (A) Agricultural Area Plan Stage I – Background Report:

AEL Agroecological Consulting presented at the June 26, 2012 AAC meeting. A focus group session held in July and Public Open House meeting to kick-start the project took place on August 19.

(B) Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan – The Halfmoon Bay OCP Advisor Group did not have formal meetings in July or August; however a few members of the Advisory Group attended the Halfmoon Bay Community Fair and established an OCP review booth. Planning staff put together a preliminary first draft of the OCP that the group will commence reviewing in September with a goal of achieving first reading by this up-coming winter.

(C) Roberts Creek OCP – Staff are reviewing the comments provided at and following the

public information meeting and are arranging meetings with agencies June/July. Report considered at July PDC. Bylaw received amended 2nd reading and public hearing scheduled for October 2, 2012. Report will be provided for September PDC to consider any further amendments prior to holding the public hearing.

(D) Zoning Bylaw No. 310 review – Report regarding a newly drafted agricultural zone to replace the existing ‘RU3’ zone, and potential new agricultural land use regulations within other zones was presented to the Planning & Development Committee in July. A work shop for all Directors was arranged for September 13.

(E) Narrows Inlet Hydro Project – Staff reviewed the application against the application information requirements set by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and provided staff comments in July/Aug. Proponent submitted revised application for consideration by EAO; it is anticipated that the application will be approved in September and the public consultation period (45 days) will commence. The proponents have been invited to PDC and NRAC meetings. A staff report will be provided to the September PDC.

3. Other

(A) Roberts Creek Pathway and Streetscape Improvements – Staff continue to liaise with the

contractor to address minor deficiencies. (B) The contract for the geotechnical updates for Halfmoon Bay, Elphinstone and West Howe

Sound was issued in July to Kerr Wood Leidal Engineering (KWL). A project initiation meeting with SCRD planning staff and KWL staff recently occurred. Planning staff identified issues of concern within the three OCP areas.

(C) Regional Housing Committee – request for proposal for not-for-profit society to manage the coordinator issued with closing date of Monday June 11, 2012. Response reviewed and a meeting held with elected officials and staff who represent the signatories to confirm selection and establish next steps. Sunshine Coast Community Services Society (SCCSS) approved by the three local governments to oversee the coordinator. Meeting held with SCCSS to discuss next steps. Staff are drafting the contract.

205204



(D) Invasive Plant Community Information Meeting – staff facilitated a public meeting at

Chaster House on Aug 1st with the Coastal Invasive Plant Council.

(E) Heritage Protocol Committee – staff produced agenda for meeting on September 17,2012 (originally scheduled for July 16)

(F) Community to Community Forum – staff confirming with shíshálh and Squamish Nations to determine if C2C can take place regarding establishing new consultative body.

(G) Staffing:

Parissa Shafizadeh joined the Planning Division on July 24 as Planning Technician 2. Lesley-Ann Staats left the Planning Division to go on maternity leave on August 20

______________________________ Steven Olmstead, General Manager of Planning and Development Division

206205

Bylaw Amendment and Permit Activity

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Sept 2012\2012-JUL & AUG -21 Planning Activity Summary Jun 2012

BYLAW AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

Zoning Amendments 1 1310 5 12 6 7 2 3 1 1337 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 1

OCP AmendmentsWest Howe Sound 0 0 0 1 0 0Elphinstone 0 2 0 1 0 0Roberts Creek 0 2 0 1 1 1Halfmoon Bay 0 2 0 2 1 1Egmont/Pender Hrbr 2 5 0 0 0 0Hillside 0 0 0 0 0 0Twin Creeks 0 0 1 0 0 0

Totals 10 29 8 14 6 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITS AND BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

Bylaw 310 7 3 13 14 10 3 1 1Bylaw 337 8 5 7 7 9 1 1

Totals 15 8 20 21 19 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RECEIVED

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 3 4 7 6 2 8 1 2 3Elphinstone 6 4 6 5 4 2 1 1 2Roberts Creek 3 8 12 5 10 10 1 3 1 5Halfmoon Bay 4 7 3 8 10 6 1 1Egmont/Pender Hrbr 3 4 5 2 5 5 1 1

Totals 16 23 33 26 31 29 3 4 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 44 38 29 45 37 35 0 1 1 5 2 9Elphinstone 75 58 44 45 49 44 2 5 4 3 4 18Roberts Creek 57 68 59 54 71 56 3 2 1 5 5 16Halfmoon Bay 83 86 61 62 70 64 5 6 4 5 2 22Egmont-Pender Hrbr 111 153 93 117 105 70 4 8 5 7 16 40

370 403 286 323 332 269 14 22 15 25 NA 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012YTD Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD

West Howe Sound 1 1 1ElphinstoneRoberts Creek 1 1 1Halfmoon Bay 4 4 4Egmont-Pender Hrbr 4 3 1 1 1 1 7

0 0 0 0 0 10 0 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13

Year

BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW

Year

Official Community Plan

Electoral Area

Totals

Crown Land Permit Applications

Year

Year

Bylaw Amended

Official Community Plan

Totals

Zoning Bylaw

207206

SCRD Subdivision and Development Activity

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Sept 2012\2012-JUL & AUG -21 Planning Activity Summary Jun 2012

Electoral 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral 2008 2009 2010 2011Area TOTAL Jul&Aug YTD Area TOTAL Jul&Aug YTD

A 12 8 4 8 2 3 A 55 20 8 16 2 6B 2 3 4 1 3 B 7 7 13 2 4D 5 3 8 5 1 3 D 15 14 24 12 2 6E 4 2 3 8 1 E 10 6 8 15F 6 5 3 0 2 3 F 42 34 5 0 4 6

Totals 29 21 22 22 13 Totals 129 81 58 45 22

Subdivision Application Fees Collected Subdivisions Receiving Final SCRD ApprovalYear Amount Collected Electoral 2010 2011 20122008 Area Jul&Aug YTD2009 A 5 32010 B 2 12011 D 2 3 42012 E 0 4 1 2 YTD F 1 3 1

Totals 10 14 1 7


A $16,875 AB B D $32,500 DE $29,000 E 0.985 0.0852 0.0852F $49,600 $77,500 F

Totals $49,600 $139,000 $16,875 $0 $0 $0 Totals 0 0.985 0 0 0.0852 0.0852


A $2,000 A $66,500B $6,000 $6,000 BD $4,900 $12,250 $2,450 $12,250 $2,450 DE $24,900 $7,350 $7,350 $14,800 E $2,450F $4,900 $2,450 $34,300 $2,450 $29,400 F $2,450

Totals $9,800 $39,600 $42,750 $30,050 $7,350 $46,650 Totals $66,500 $0 $2,450 $2,450 $0 $2,450* Does not include District of Sechelt. * Does not include District of Sechelt.

Development Cost Charges Collected From Building Permits Strata Conversion Applications Reviewed& Subdivision - District of Sechelt Electoral 2010 2011

Year Subdivision Building Permits Totals Area Jul&Aug YTD2007 A 12008 B 1 12009 D 1 12010 E

September F 12011 Totals 4 1 0 1

Electoral 2009 2010 2011Area Jul&Aug YTD Subdivision Exclusion Non-Farm

A 1BD 2 2E 1 1F

Totals 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0

Year

Year

Fees Received For Money In Lieu Of Park DedicationYear

$31,489.00$15,455.00$22,165.00$19,947.00$1,730.00$8,115.00

2012

Lands Received as Park Dedication (Hectares)Year

2012

Development Cost Charges Collected From Subdivision*

$0

$341,320

2012

$241,200

$5,600$97,350

Proposed # of Parcels Through Subdivision Application Reviewed*

2012 2012

Subdivision Applications Received By Area*Year

$101,100

Development Cost Charges Collected From Building Permits*

$34,650

2012ALR Applications Reviewed

$21,450$118,800

$37,400 $107,251$21,450

2012

Year

2012

$0 $0 $0$0 $0

$69,851

208207

NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES Rockwood Lodge, Sechelt, BC

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Present: Bill Henderson (Chair), Brett McGillivray, Dianne Sanford, Marina Stjepovic, Nicol Warn, Paul van Poppelen, Dan Bouman, Sophie Hsia, and Monika Schittek (recording secretary)

Regrets: Mike Latimer, Jan Williams, and Dane Charboneau CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Recommendation No. 1 – Adoption of the Agenda That the Agenda be amended with the addition of Old Growth Forest Protected (Landscape Unit Plans), Eelgrass Update, Cashmere Goat Update, and Mountain Goat Winter Range Plan to new business, and; That the Agenda be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

MINUTES Recommendation No. 2 – Adoption of the Minutes That the Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of March 28, 2012 be adopted.

CARRIED

The review of minutes was discussed. It was offered that the draft minutes will be sent to all committee members for review and comment. Any additions, corrections, or ommission should be completed by Thursday evening, to be amalgamated and put forward to the SCRD Planning department for Friday. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None.

209

ANNEX X

208

Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 2 of 4 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes July 25, 2012

NEW BUSINESS Roosevelt Elk Management Plan – Discussion Paper Darryl Reynolds, Wildlife Biologist for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations, is central to the elk relocation program. A discussion paper on the Roosevelt Elk Management Plan was offered to the Committee for comment. It was noted that:

• The program has had spectacularly successful results. • Herds of up to 60 animals have been moved, via cooperation from the logging

companies, by barge. • Reintroduction of elk populations results in a significant contribution on a landscape

scale to ecological function and biodiversity. • Elk are a food source for cougars and grizzly bear. • Deer populations are radically depressed from vast concentration of tree harvesting. • Deer and elk, in same habitat, does not appear to be a problem. • Are there tracking monitors on the relocated elk? • Conservation management should have a good view on the impact of the Roosevelt

Elk. • This is a crown land management plan not a private land management plan. The

health of the elk is designate to a much larger area than that of settled areas. • Original conservation efforts were made on Vancouver Island. Management was to

restore the original ecosystem. Aside from a breeding program, heads of rivers will be the major focus areas.

• Herbicides cannot be used in areas we wish to reintroduce a flourishing population. • The effect on all watercourses should be considered where reintroduction occurs.

The report is well received and the committee wishes to express their appreciation for the hard work done and the comprehensive report submitted. The Roosevelt Elk efforts to the Sunshine Coast District is positiive. Reintroduction of a species to a vacant range, does create an attraction, or a change in dynamics, of a predator populations. Some considerations are needed to address the impact to human populations in rural areas. Recommendation No. 3 – Interaction warnings, Roosevelt Elk Management Plan As top level predators interfacing with human habitat is of prime importance; That Preparation, Education and interaction warnings for the public are suggested specifically in areas where predators follow the elk into populated areas where no buffer zones exists.

CARRIED

210209


Recommendation No. 4 – Suggested amendment to the Roosevelt Elk Management Plan That on Page 12 of the Roosevelt Elk Management Plan, last paragraph, last sentence be removed.

CARRIED Recommendation No. 5 – Management objectives to the Roosevelt Elk Management Plan The Committee suggests that the reintroduction of Roosevelt Elk and the goal of biodiversity and ecosystem restoration to be of higher importance in the plan than forestry and hunting values.

CARRIED Summary of Howe Sound Community Forum (Burnco) of May 25, 2012 Recommendation No. 6 – Memo from Teresa Fortin regarding Community Forum (Burnco) That the memo from Teresa Fortin, SCRD Planner regarding the Summary of the May 25, 2012 Howe Sound Commuinty Forum was received for information.

CARRIED Recommendation No. 7- Burnco meet with Squamish Nation That Burnco meet with the Squamish Nation to discuss this project.

CARRIED It was noted that a request has been made for a site visit. The committee will be contacted if this can be arranged. The Town of Gibsons may be going on a visit September 10th and the committee may be able to join them. Daniel Bouman will see if it can be arranged. Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Committee member are interested in assisting the Senior Planner with review of this project. Members have requested that the information be posted to the website for access to the documents for review. Old Growth Forest Protected In review of designated Landscape Unit Plans, the Old Growth Order has been incorporated. Five more plans, in addition to the four previously established, have been

211210


completed. There are 15 other landscape units in the forest district that do not yet have Landscape Unit Plans. Members are supportive of this initiative. Eelgrass Update Three sites were planted with eelgrass this spring. The sites have been checked recently and are progressing well. McClain Bay, Tillicum and Halfmoon Bay are the newest areas for research. Funding is sparce and as such, a substantial amount of volunteer work has gone into this project. Remapping is necessary. The Town of Gibsons is looking at its Bylaw to facilitate proper anchorage in the bay to protect the planted eelgrass. It is not known if Sechelt has a similar Bylaw. Cashmere Goat Update If traveling from Gibsons to Granthams to the ferry, you will see goats working to remove blackberries, knotweed, hogweed, and ivy. There are 6 animals currently working for the Squamish nation to clear the land of these species. Mountain Goat Winter Range Plan A Mountain Goat Winter Range Plan has been under development in the Sunshine coast Forest District for over 13 years. In May 2012, the BC Government announced protection of approximately 47,000 hectares of Mountain Goat winter range. These are lands that provide food and shelter for all land mammals and contribute to general protection of the biodiversity. Activity restrictions are also a consideration in the protection status. A map of the designated lands can be viewed at: www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/uwr/approved_uwr.html Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting Community information meeting on Coastal Invasive Plants will be held August 1, 2012 at Chaster House at 1 pm. Committee members are encouraged to go. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee is Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm at Rockwood Lodge, Sechelt, BC. ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee adjourned at 9:07 pm Members were thanked for their attendance.

212211

Area ‘A’ Minutes July 25, 2012

PAGE 1 OF 3

AREA 'A' MINUTES

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT REFERRALS ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING S.C.R.D. OFFICE, 12828 LAGOON ROAD, MADEIRA PARK

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012 AT 7:00PM Present: G. Craig (Chair), J. Dickin, J. Hall, C. McEachern, L. Faulk, A. Skelly, J. McOuat,

F. Mauro (Area A Director) and C. Patterson (Secretary) Regrets: R. Metcalfe, J. McDonald, G. Park, M. Ross, and G. McBain. CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 P.M. MINUTES 1. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 2. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 3. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 4. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 5. Agricultural Advisory Commission Minutes of June 26, 2012 6. Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 21, 2012 Motion: Moved by J. Hall and seconded by J. Dickin

To adopt the Minutes of June 27, 2012 for Area 'A' and to accept the balance of the minutes with thanks. PASSED

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 7. BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk + Opportunity Assessment Area A APC accepts this report and information contained therein.

8. Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones Discussion on various issues that can arise from nightly/short term rentals ensued, including the following points:

The Bylaw Enforcement Notice ticketing system. The penalty fines involved are a significant deterrent.

Traffic and noise levels have been a severe problem in some cases. Questions regarding how well the bylaws could be enforced arose, including

whether it would compel neighbours to become complainers and made to attend

213

ANNEX Y

212


PAGE 2 OF 3

court cases. The quality of life at their residence is impacted before a resolution can be accomplished.

Reducing the likelihood of issues before they become a problem is preferred. For example, informing property owners of the bylaws and penalties for infractions in a public mail-out flyer, newspaper posting or licensing system, etc.

The proposed options put forward by the Planning Department were discussed in detail.

Comment: There have been problems with this issue in Area A. This APC would like to express an appreciation for the clear and concise nature of the report by the SCRD.

Motion: Moved by C. McEachern and seconded by L. Faulk Motion by this APC that Option 4 on page 48 is preferred, utilizing the Bylaw Enforcement Notice ticketing system. We feel it would significantly help with these issues if the SCRD could draft a communication for property owners, and we would like to provide commentary on the draft prior to distribution or publication. PASSED

9. Subdivision Application MOTI #2012-02538 (Gordon for Dhanani) Discussion of the proposed subdivision with the following major points:

The number of dwellings expected to be built in the subdivision would be four, none of which are currently on site.

Oyster Bay Road divides the property into two portions and this subdivision proposes to divide each in half again.

It is noted that there are no registered archaeological sites on this property (change to Note C on page 55).

Motion: Moved by J. Hall and seconded by C McEachern Motion to approve this subdivision application as presented. PASSED

10. License of Occupation Application File 2410732 by Pender Harbour Landing Ltd. for a

Group Moorage Facility fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour

The prior reading was a pre-application referral, this is the actual application referral. Discussion as follows:

Group moorage is a superior system to individual docks for each lot. Use of pressure treated wood is prohibited for lakes but it is understood that usage

is permitted in oceans. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could advise on this point.

Motion: Moved by L. Faulk and seconded by C McEachern Motion that this APC supports the application as presented and the Planning

214213


PAGE 3 OF 3

Department staff recommendations, except for point number 9 on page 57, “Use of pressure treated wood should be prohibited.”, which it is felt is a matter that should be deferred to the advice of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. PASSED

11. Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting Time and location of the information meeting was mentioned. A question arose regarding

the signage on the sides of the highway and the purpose of the signs was discussed. It was suggested that those board members who could attend the meeting do so.

DIRECTORS REPORT:

The SCRD Strategic Plan is in discussion at the District and can be found on their website.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan – the main body of the report has been accepted and there will be an additional meeting on this soon.

An Area A only bikeway and walkway function has been created and will be utilizing gas tax funding.

Water metering will be implemented in the near future and is mandatory as a condition of the grants received.

NEXT MEETING: 7:00 p.m. September 26, 2012 at Pender Harbour Secondary School ADJOURNMENT: motion to adjourn at 8:28 P.M. by L. Faulk

215214

Halfmoon Bay APC Coopers Green, Halfmoon Bay, BC

MINUTES OF TUESDAY, July 24, 2012

Chair Catherine Gage Ex Officio member Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters

1. Call to Order

Catherine Gage, chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

2. Agenda Motion: That the agenda be accepted with the addition of "Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting" as emailed to APC members on June 24, 2012.

Carried Unanimously

3. Minutes

Minutes from the following meetings were received for information:

3.1 Area A- Egmont / Pender Harbour APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 3.2 Area B- Halfmoon Bay APC Minutes of June 26, 2012. 3.3 Area D- Roberts Creek APC Minutes- NONE. 3.4 Area E- Elphinstone APC Minutes of June 27, 2012. 3.5 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 27 2012. 3.6 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of June 26, 2012. 3.7 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes -NONE.

Note: The meeting minutes of the other Area APCs are available on the SCRD website under http://www.scrd.ca/APC

Motion: That the above Halfmoon Bay APC minutes be accepted as printed and that all other minutes be received for information only.

Carried Unanimously

PRESENT Alda Grames Eleanor Lenz Joan Harvey Ray Moscrip Elise Rudland Ron Kernohan

REGRETS Leonard Pakulak Brian Lucas Walter Powell Richard Grant Jay Corman

SCRD STAFF

GUESTS

216

ANNEX Z

215

http://www.scrd.ca/APC

4. Business Arising from Minutes and Unfinished Business None.

5. New Business

5.1 BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk and Opportunity Assessment

Group Comments: -It is good information for this committee and for the OCP. It is critical that we as a community address the adaptation we will have to make over the next 20 to 30 years.

5.2 Nightly/ Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones

APC Comments: -There is overall support for Option 4 and agreement that problem resolution be complaint driven. -Some members agree with Sechelt’s idea about licencing as a good way to expedite solving problems that arise. Motion: That the APC support option 4. Carried Unanimously 5.3 Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting

-Chaster House Aug 1 2012 1-3 pm for presentation and 3-4 pm for parks site tour. APC Comments: -If BC parks are injecting herbicides, what are we going to do? -Would like more information on the methods and ramifications of using pesticides. -Would like to see education of the community. Motion: That the APC recommend that the SCRD supports the Invasive Plant Committee’s suggestion on how to deal with invasive plant species. Carried by Majority

6. Directors Report: Director Garry Nohr gave his report on the following topics:

-The Economic Committee, a group with around twenty members, is currently establishing its terms of reference. -The Affordable Housing Society group has been picked and Community Services will look after it. -The Minister of Recreation is to be taken on a tour of two of our recreation centres (the rink in Sechelt and the Gibsons Aquatic Centre). -Funding for the work at Dakota Ridge is coming from IPP’s and the Ministry of Recreation.

217216

-A recent helicopter tour of local IPP’s and proposed IPP’ took directors up to Bear Creek dam (their IPP is a model for other IPP’s), Tyson Creek, and Ramona Lake. There are up to 5 or 6 projected IPP’s. - The process for the HMB OCP has been well done with the recent involvement in the Halfmoon Bay Community Fair.

-Working is underway with the SIB on the dock at Pender Harbour. -The company bottling water on the Jervis Inlet has water licences on 42 streams…there is concern regarding initial lack of consultation with the SIB. -Garry is sending out a newsletter this week. -There are now lots of sockeye coming back to Sakinaw Lake.

7. APC Committee Discussions/Requests:

None.

8. Next Meeting There will be no August meeting.

9. Adjournment

8: 17 PM ________________________ ____________________ Catherine Gage Date HMB APC Chair

218217

218

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT AREA D ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Monday, August 27, 2012, 7:00 PM Roberts Creek Library, 1044 Roberts Creek Road

1 of 2

Present: Heather Conn, Kye Goodwin, Marion Jolicoer, Barry Morrow, Brock O'Byrne, Bill Page (Chair), Gerald Rainville, and Eric Tiessen Also Present: Donna Shugar (Director) and Diedra Goodwin (Recording Secretary) Regrets: Sue Gordon, Tzaddi Gordon, Dana Gregory, Dave Ryan (Alternate Director) Delegation: D. Youngman 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM 2. MINUTES 2.1 The Minutes of May, 2012, of Roberts Creek (Area D) APC were accepted as circulated. (KG/HC) M/S/Carried 2.2 The following were received for information: 2.2.1 Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 2.2.2 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 2.2.3 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 2.2.4 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 2.2.5 Agricultural Advisory Commission Minutes of June 26, 2012 2.2.6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 21, 2012 3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3.1 Director Shugar clarified issues raised by the Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2012. 3.2 Director Shugar reviewed events at the Planning and Development Committee related to our May 2012 motion on Variance Application D-111 for a retaining wall. 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Rezoning to allow for Subdivision with the ALR by Mr. Youngman for Lot 1, Block E, DL 905, Plan 17707, located at 706 Leek Road, Roberts Creek, BC MOTION: The APC would like to defer its vote on the rezoning application until we have seen the unabridged record of the comments and detailed information of the decision and reasons for it from the September 25 meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee regarding this application. (GR/HC) M/S/Carried unanimously 4.2 Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones MOTION: The APC is not in favour of attempting to legalize short-term rentals where the owners are not present on the property. The APC would like to see better enforcement of the existing noise by-law, to include specific measured noise levels that can be used as evidence. We ask the SCRD staff to investigate more effective enforcement, including best practices in other jurisdictions, and look at ways to fund weekend and evening by-law enforcement. (ET/KG) M/S/Carried unanimously Discussion of the following items was deferred to the September meeting. 4.3 BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk + Opportunity Assessment 4.4 Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting -- for information only

219

ANNEX AA

219

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT AREA D ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Monday, August 27, 2012, 7:00 PM Roberts Creek Library, 1044 Roberts Creek Road

2 of 2

5. The Director’s Report was received. 6 The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM at the RC Library Reading Room. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM

220220

Minutes of the Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Wednesday, July 25, 2012 meeting at Frank West Hall, Elphinstone, BC

Present: Lynda Chamberlin, Co-Chair Regrets: Alan Colleypriest. Co-Chair Ron Kaiser Patrick Fitzsimons Graham Chapman Carl Snazell Jim Gurney Absent: Rob Bone Elizabeth Norland Director: Lorne Lewis Alt. Director: Laurella Hay Secretary: Diane Corbett Call to Order 7:01 PM Agenda The amended agenda was received. Minutes 1. Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2012

MOTION (EN/JG): “THAT the June 27, 2012 minutes be adopted.” Carried Unanimously

2. The following minutes were received for information:

• Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 • Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 • West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 • Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of June 26, 2012 • Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 21, 2012

New Business 3. BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk and Opportunity Assessment

Points from discussion: • Would have liked to see more emphasis on smaller farms, local food, organic

suppliers… There was a section on physical resources that pertains to land use regulations and infrastructure; I think we do pay attention to that in our OCP, but it is something on which we have to be more diligent. Would like to see it be more viable for small farms.

• Maybe we could support local farms by listing them, their location and products for sale. This could help promote the sale of their products. Regarding weed control, I suggest the Regional District let everyone know what is defined as invasive weeds, and what to do with them.

The BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk and Opportunity Assessment was received for information.

4. Summary of May 25, 2012 Howe Sound Community Forum (BURNCO)

Director Lewis commented on the BURNCO application and the recent Howe Sound

221

ANNEX BB

221

Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 25, 2012 Page 2 of 3

Community Forum and responded to inquiries from members.

Comments from members included: • I live (a short distance from) Fiedler Bros gravel operation; it can be heard but is not

obnoxious. It (BURNCO proposal) is doable. • One thing I’d like to see is at least 20-meter buffers to save the creek bed. It is an

excellent fish-bearing stream with Steelhead, Cut Throat, Sea Run Cuts. • Discussion of protection of eelgrass

5. Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones

Co-Chair Lynda Chamberlin announced that Patrick Fitzsimons and Alan Colleypriest had requested that their views be stated, and that both members were of the same opinion regarding short-term rentals: to maintain the status quo, enforcing existing zoning on a complaint-driven basis. Points raised in discussion: • I am against Temporary Use Permits. If you want a business that isn’t already

allowable in the bylaws of the area, maybe you should go elsewhere. There is no one controlling what happens. It ends up that the property isn’t protected by the OCP… in effect, the OCP is like a contract with a land buyer. It seems like residential property is up for grabs.

• We do permit guest cottages. It is not too much of a stretch to have a paying guest. We endorse bed and breakfasts. Short-term rentals should be in conjunction with a permanent resident who is the principal operator and is responsible for it rather than someone long gone…. We provide for home occupation uses in most zones, but in conjunction with permanent residents. Why would it be any different from short-term rentals?

• Policing something like this creates a huge array of problems. All I can see are headaches for someone trying to police it. All you will do is end up in court trying to defend an action… don’t see how you could create bylaws to make this use a nonconforming use on a residential property.

• People with hotels, who pay tax, (etc.) are competing with these people. The family renting a hotel is getting the short end of the stick.

• Now you have offshore investors coming in buying homes, who never live here, and they want to rent them out. Who will look after them? Concerns: rowdiness, noise, impact on neighbourhood.

• Would not support BEN system for option 4; it swings the pendulum way too much in favor of government instead of giving people a fair hearing.

• Could Planning come up with other options? • Clarify the definition of short-term rentals. Should be in conjunction with a permanent

resident who is the operator. It is the people off the coast who don’t give a damn about what happens here and are just trying to make a buck.

MOTION (JG/GC): “THAT the APC supports option 4 (maintain the status quo) and requests that staff consider improving the wording of the bylaw to include an expressed requirement that the operator of a short-term rental be a full time resident of the property and/or be present at the time the property is being rented.”

Carried (EN opposed)

222222

Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 25, 2012 Page 3 of 3

6. Invasive Plants Community Information Meeting, Chaster House, August 1

The meeting announcement was received for information.

7. Director's Report The Director’s report included discussion on the following topics:

• Invasive plants • Agriculture scoping exercise underway • Regional economic development planning • Knotweed cutting bee and barbecue and volunteer appreciation at Chaster House

August 8, 5:00 pm Next Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2012 Adjournment 8:02 PM

223223

Minutes of the West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park, Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Page 1 of 3

PRESENT: Mike Comerford (Co-Chair) REGRETS: Jeremy Valeriote Fred Gazeley (Co-Chair) Chris Barlow Bruce Wallis Laura Houle Judith Kenly Leonie Croy DIRECTOR: Lee Turnbull Charlie Collura Lynda Coote, Recording Secretary

1. Call to Order

Mike Comerford, Co-Chair called the meeting to order at 7.30 pm.

2. Agenda MOVED by Fred Gazeley, SECONDED by Bruce Wallis THAT “The Area F Advisory Planning Commission Agenda be approved as circulated.”

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3. Minutes The following minutes were received for information: 3.1. West Howe Sound, Area F APC, June 26, 2012 3.2. Egmont/Pender Harbour, Area A APC, June 27, 2012 3.3. Halfmoon Bay, Area B APC, June 26, 2012 3.4. Elphinstone, Area E APC, June 27, 2012 3.5. Agricultural Advisory Commission, June 26, 2012 3.6. Planning and Development, June 21, 2012 MOVED by Judith Kenly, SECONDED by Bruce Wallis THAT “The minutes be received for information purposes.”

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

4. Business Arising There were brief discussions on the following items: 4.1. Temporary Use Permits (TUP)

Judith Kenly reported on the public information meeting she attended on July 5, 2010 regarding the TUP. She noted there was no formal recorder for the meeting, discussions centered on the activities of Celebration House in Area E and that she had followed up with a personal letter to all the Directors regarding the meeting and TUP. Director Turnbull acknowledged she had not seen her letter.

5. New Business

5.1. BC Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk & Opportunity Assessment This provincial report was received for information purposes.

5.2. Nightly/Short Term Rentals in Residential and Rural Zones The APC received the Planning Report, dated July 12, 2012 regarding nightly/short term rentals in residential and rural zones.

224

ANNEX CC

224


Page 2 of 3

APC comments included: Refers to home owners who are not present on their property during the

rental period Overkill for the SCRD SCRD has better things to do than police short term rentals Business and tourism benefits Noise problem should be dealt with current bylaws No more regulations. MOVED by Judith Kenly, SECONDED by Fred Gazeley THAT “The Area F Advisory Planning Commission support maintaining the status quo by enforcing existing zoning and/or noise bylaws on a complaint driven basis for issues regarding nightly/short term rentals in residential and rural zones.”

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5.3. Subdivision Application MOTI #2012-01002 APC members reviewed the subdivision application for the property located at 1154 and1158 Boyle Road, West Howe Sound. APC comments included: Approximately 5 acres Consistent with zoning Neighbours will be notified during subdivision process SCRD has a list of conditions that need to be met Nothing extraordinary about the application Cutting the current property into half Panhandle access from Boyle Road Only issue might be Frontage Waiver MOTI approves sub-division applications. The Area F Advisory Planning Commission had no objections to the proposed MOTI #2012-01002 subdivision application, providing it met all of the SCRD conditions: Bylaw 310 Compliance with regard to density, useable area, setbacks,

auxiliary building floor area and frontage waiver Official Community Plan Compliance regarding Aquifer Protection and

Storm Water Management Development Permit and Development Permit Building Department regarding engineering of retaining walls and earth

retention measures Infrastructure Department regarding water service connections, water

meters and payment of Development Cost Charges of $2,450.

6. Director’s Report Director Turnbull reported on: Newsletter and website www.leeturnbull.ca Budget Sechelt Aquatic Centre Recreational Facilities Langdale Float

225225

http://www.leeturnbull.ca/


Page 3 of 3

New Brighton Dock Langdale Water Solid Waste Management Plan. APC members had further questions on Sechelt Aquatic Centre $579,776 contract price, BURNCO and Water Licenses in Jervis Inlet.

7. Next Meeting The next scheduled Area F APC meeting will be September 25, 2012 at 7.30 pm, Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park.

8. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8.45 pm.

…………………………………………….. …………………………………………. Mike Comerford, Co-Chair Date APCAug2112 22/08/12

226226

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.134\PDC Report 2012-Sep-20.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012

FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner

RE: OCP/Zoning Bylaw Amendments Nos. 310.134 and 325.19 (Jorgens, Area B)

RECOMMENDATION THAT Bylaws 325.19 and 310.134 be forwarded to the Board for Third Reading and Adoption. BACKGROUND In 2010, the Regional District received an application for an Official Community Plan amendment and Zoning Bylaw amendment affecting a portion of a property on Curran Road in Halfmoon Bay, as described below. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: District Lot 1951A, PID: 004-425-880 LOCATION: Curran Road EXISTING ZONING: RU1 – G PROPOSED ZONING: RU1– D rezone portion of G subdivision district to D EXISTING OCP DESIGNATION: Residential D/Rural Residential B/Rural PROPOSED OCP DESIGNATION: Extend Residential D & reduce Rural Residential B PARCEL AREA: ~37.3 ha AREA SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT: ~3.9 ha The details on the sewage treatment upgrade were addressed and a servicing agreement prepared with the SCRD and the bylaws were considered at a public hearing on September 5, 2012. BYLAWS The subject property is located on both sides of the Sunshine Coast Highway and primarily accessed from Curran Road. A portion of the property below the highway is subject to the rezoning and OCP amendment, which would enable an application for subdivision into 12 parcels. Approximately 3.9 hectares of the property, most of the land below the highway is proposed to be rezoned for the purpose of future subdivision. Bylaw 325.19 The rezoning includes a slight OCP amendment to adjust the Residential D and Rural Residential B boundary to match the boundary on the property adjacent to the west.

227

ANNEX DD

227

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Regarding Bylaw Amendment Application 310.134/325.19 Page 2 of 3


The Residential D (3,500 square metre recommendation) is proposed to be extended northward by 27metres, which reduces the Rural Residential B area. The triangular area abutting the highway will remain Rural Residential B and within the corresponding G subdivision district to provide a sufficient buffer to the highway corridor. The remainder of the district lot above the highway will remain in the Rural designation and will not be a part of the bylaw amendment or future subdivision. All of these designations will be revisited during the on-going Halfmoon Bay OCP review. Bylaw 310.134 The property currently has a ‘G’ subdivision district zoning (minimum 1.75 ha parcel area) with the exception of the southern end of the property adjacent to Curran Road, which is within the ‘C’ district (minimum 2000 m² parcel area). The applicants propose to rezone that portion of the property within the Residential D designation from subdivision district ‘G’ to ‘D’, in accordance with the recommendation within the OCP. The maximum permitted density in the ‘D’ subdivision district is one parcel per 3500 m² with a minimum parcel size of 2800 m². The map below shows the majority of the property containing the G subdivision district, with the exception of the portion of land abutting Curran Road. If the rezoning is adopted the applicants may proceed with a subdivision of parcels with a 3,500 square metre average, with the exception of the smaller parcel on Curran Road within the C subdivision district and the triangular portion adjacent to the highway within the G subdivision district. HALFMOON BAY APC At their meeting on September 28, 2010, the Halfmoon Bay Advisory Planning Commission supported this application subject to concerns about the capacity of the existing community sewer system. The applicant and the adjacent property have recently finalized an agreement with the SCRD Infrastructure Services Division to connect this subdivision to the existing community sewer system, which will be undergoing an expansion and upgrade. The upgrade to the community sewer system is based on the capacity of one dwelling per parcel. If the subsequent subdivision creates parcels large enough to be zoned for additional dwellings in the RU1 zone it is recommended that covenants be registered on title that would prevent the construction of additional dwellings due to lack of capacity within the community sewage treatment system. EXTERNAL REFERRALS The application received first reading by the SCRD Board in 2010 and referrals were sent to agencies, including the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI), Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the shíshálh Nation. The MOTI reviewed the subdivision layout that the applicants would use if the zoning is permitted and recommended some changes. Their requirements for road dedication, which were greater than the applicant initially proposed, particularly the 15 metre wide dedication along the west side of the property. This in turn reduced the amount of land available for parcels

228228

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Regarding Bylaw Amendment Application 310.134/325.19 Page 3 of 3


in the original proposal and several of the parcels would not meet the averaging requirements under the requested ‘D’ subdivision district. Therefore, this application was revised to include an OCP amendment to the land use designation mapping so that the same number of proposed lots may be maintained. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the existing Residential D designation be expanded into the Residential B designation by 27 metres. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure issued the approval of the zoning bylaw amendment pursuant to the Transportation Act on August 30th. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority did not object to the zoning and OCP amendments and indicated it would have further involvement at the time of subdivision. The Shíshálh Nation requested that the applicants conduct a preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) on the property to determine if there were findings of archaeological significance on the property. The PFR was conducted and no further archaeological review is recommended. Public Hearing A public hearing, pursuant to Section 890 and 892 of the Local Government Act, was held on September 5th 2012. Twelve people attended and one email was received in advance of the public hearing. The email refers to concern of the quality of Currant Road and the intersection onto Highway 101 and that the road standard should be increased prior to consideration of increasing population in the area. The email is attached to this report for information. The first speaker spoke in favour of the rezoning application indicating the large lot size, good layout and choice of different types of properties would be good for the community. The second speaker questioned whether or not there was sufficient sewage capacity to handle the new parcels and reminded that the sewage capacity was a concern of the Halfmoon Bay APC when it first reviewed this application. Planning staff indicated that the sewage treatment levels will be increased and the effluent quality will also be increased and that a servicing agreement has been reached with the SCRD. SUMMARY The OCP amendment and rezoning proposed for the subject property was initially reviewed by the Board in 2010; at that time the bylaws were given first reading and sent out for referrals. The bylaws were put on hold while the sewage treatment upgrade was discussed with the property developers and the SCRD Infrastructure Services Division. The treatment capacity and upgrade has been agreed to and the property owners have entered into a servicing agreement with the SCRD. A public hearing was held on September 5, 2012. There were twelve people in attendance with two people choosing to speak and one email submission read aloud for the record. At this time it is recommended that Bylaw 325.19 and 310.134 proceed to Third Reading and Adoption.

__________________ Andrew Allen, Planner

229229

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 325.19, 2010 A bylaw to amend the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment

Bylaw No. 325.19, 2010". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule ‘A3’ of Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989 is amended by

re-designating a portion of District Lot 1951A from ‘Rural Residential B’ to ‘Residential D’, as denoted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 READ A SECOND TIME this 28th DAY OF JUNE 2012 PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL 28th DAY OF JUNE 2012 GOVERNMENT ACT, CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FINANCIAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE WASTEMANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012

__________________________ Corporate Officer __________________________ Chair

230230

Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 325.19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 ______________________________________________________________________________

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.134\Bylaw 325.19 September 2012 3rd Reading.doc

231231

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.134, 2010 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment

Bylaw No. 310.134, 2010". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule B of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended by

rezoning a portion of District Lot 1951A from the ‘G’ subdivision district to the ‘D’ subdivision district, as denoted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 27th DAY OF MAY 2010 READ A SECOND TIME this 28th DAY OF JUNE 2012 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012

__________________________ Corporate Officer __________________________ Chair

232232

Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.134, 2010 Page 2 of 2 ______________________________________________________________________________

233233

N:\Planning & Development\6530 Regional Planning - General\6530-30 Regional Plans Research & Background\Climate Action Development Permit Areas Research\2012 Sep 6 JS Climate Action Policy Research Report.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: Johan Stroman, Community Energy Manager RE: CLIMATE ACTION POLICY RESEARCH

RECOMMENDATION THAT the Community Energy Manager’s report entitled “Climate Action Policy Research” be received for information; THAT a report be brought to the Planning and Development Committee with options detailing effective Climate Action policies that can be readily implemented in DPAs, Building permit or Rezoning application permit processes. BACKGROUND Long-term and lasting emissions reductions will be driven by a combination of policies in the community (e.g. Energy Rebate Program) as well as implemented initiatives that support reductions in particular areas (e.g. Green Builders training course, Bike to Work week, ClimateSmart for businesses etc.). The Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) identified policy tools as a key support for long-term emissions reductions in Land-Use Development. Based on current available funding and supporting research, it is apparent that both Provincial Ministries and Provincial utilities recognize the efficacy of regionally applicable policy to encourage energy conservation and emissions reductions. Many local governments are in the process of assessing and implementing policies to encourage and motivate the building and development community to embrace existing knowledge and technologies that can make sizable reductions in long-term emissions in economically viable and in a number of cases economically beneficial ways.

Figure 1. Land-use change represents the largest portion of many local community emission profiles. This sample from a BC community illustrates the importance of effective policy work. Policy that supports more energy efficient and low-emissions solutions in building and transportation is a key component to addressing climate change and energy resilience challenges.

234

ANNEX EE

234

- 2 -

In completing requirements for BC Hydro’s support of the Community Energy Manager (CEM) position, preliminary work on policy related to land-use was initiated. The intent of this work was to determine the value and potential of policy that could support the SCRD and local municipalities introducing progressive and readily usable policy tools to support long term emissions reductions and energy conservation. BC’s Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD) DPAs for Climate Action report in November 2011 highlights the opportunities for local governments to designate development permit areas (DPAs) in their OCPs to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and energy conservation under Sections 919.1 and 920 of the Local Government Act. Each of these proposed DPA requirements apply to elements on the exterior of buildings. Several BC local governments (e.g. City of Fort St. John, District of Saanich, Lake Country – Okanagan, Whistler and City of Victoria among others) have taken leading steps to adopt and implement DPAs that support climate action goals with requirements from this list. Some have also implemented related policy for their local building permit or rezoning permit processes. By initiating this work, the SCRD is able to generate policy options for upcoming OCP work as well as a basis to support building permit and neighbourhood development permit reviews. The work will be shared with local municipalities however it can be used to support their work on emissions reductions and energy conservation. DISCUSSION To assess possible application of the DPAs for Climate Action to the Sunshine Coast, the proposed requirements were reviewed with a rural context filter. Thirty exterior building element requirements of five types were sourced from CSCD’s DPAs for Climate Action report:

• Form and Exterior Design of Buildings (Form) • Landscaping (Land) • Machinery, Equipment and Systems External to Buildings (Syst) • Siting Buildings (Site) • Specific Features in the Development (Feat)

These were ranked by emissions reduction potential (i.e. policies with the greatest impact); ease of implementation (i.e. requirements that can easily be met), and ease of local government verification (i.e. minimizing staff time and cost to verify requirement has been met).

These requirements were further assessed in terms of their suitability for application at different levels – Building Permit; Neighbourhood Development Permits; and Regional policies. A summary of the ten highest ranked requirements for potential application at one or more of these levels included items from 3 of the above five types1

:

Sample set of potential requirements for further research Form and Exterior Design of Buildings

Solar Orientation Use window overhangs and/or fixed operable shading devices to control solar gain

Solar Orientation Orient buildings towards south, long axis running east-west

Solar Orientation/ External Design of Buildings Locate windows on the south-facing façade for winter solar gain and natural light; Use deep window overhangs and/or shades on south facades to block high-angle summer sun/ allow low-angle winter sun

1 A full list of potential requirements for Climate Action is provided in Appendix A.

235235

- 3 -

Machinery, Equipment and Systems Alternative Transportation – Install on-site electric vehicle (EV) charging stations

Alternative Transportation – Use on-site renewable energy generation such as solar panels or wind for EV charging stations Alternative Transportation – Install short and long-term bicycle parking in commercial and multi-unit residential developments On-Site Energy Generation Require a set percentage of energy in new developments from on-site renewable (e.g. Merton 10% rule) On-Site Energy Generation Develop on-site renewable energy generation system where viable (geothermal, wind, heat pumps, biomass, bio-gas, waste-water effluent, solar) On-Site Energy Generation Use wind turbines or solar energy systems to run water pumps for net-metering and/or landscape irrigation

Siting Buildings Site Layout Concentrate growth in small areas to reduce impact on existing natural areas and reduce servicing costs (consider reducing Development Cost Charges) Additional requirements may be of interest to consider in the near future or for specific developments. However, this list provides a starting point for those potential requirements that can be more readily implemented and verified to support long-term policy results on climate in the region. A more detailed assessment of Financial, Implementation and Intergovernmental implications can be determined to further refine this list for consideration for development permit areas and complementary tools such as potential building permit amendment proposals; rezoning bylaw amendments and neighbourhood development permit applications. This assessment would include scoping mechanisms to implement, potential financial support/ funding models and assess potential stakeholders that would be consulted as part of recommendation to amend OCPs or applicable permits. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff will provide an updated report by assessing more closely the identified list of potential requirements and to propose possible means to implement the proposed policy tools for further direction before next steps are determined. Support of this policy work has included Planning and Infrastructure staff time. Another review of options will not require significant additional staff time. If the policy opportunities are considered worth pursuing, additional staff time may be required to bring them closer to implementation. The updated report provide sufficient background information to determine the budget needs for next steps to complete several policy tools for potential implementation. INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLICATIONS As part of the requirements from BC Hydro to support the CEM position some of these policy directions were seen as opportunities to support more collaborative leadership work with the local municipalities. Preliminary conversations with local municipal staff indicated support for this background research to support limited staff capacity to dedicate to background research.

236236

- 4 -

Appendix A. A full list of potential requirements for Climate Action (sourced from BC’s Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD) DPAs for Climate Action report, November 2011)

No. Requirement Type

1 Planting for Passive Solar Gain and Cooling – deciduous on S and W facing (cool in summer while maximizing winter solar gain) Land

2 Locate Coniferous Trees to block winter winds without Solar Gain Land 3 Low Shrub, Tree, Hedge near buildings, Taller Trees farther away Land

4 Creating Alternative Transportation Routes Encourage pedestrian and cycling pathways to connect neighborhoods, commercial centres and amenities, including existing green sp. & nat. areas Land

5 Creating Alternative Transportation Encourage trail networks, cycling pathways within new or existing green corridors to encourage alternative modes of transportation Land

6 Tree Retention in Rural Areas Land

7 Site Selection Identify south-facing development sites that have minimal obstruction blocking access to sunlight and provide opportunities for planting trees and shrubs to control solar gain Site

8 Site Layout Concentrate growth in small areas to reduce impact on existing natural areas and reduce servicing costs (consider reducing Development Cost Charges) Site

9 Site Layout Design subdivisions that cluster building, retain existing vegetation and natural areas Site 10 Site Layout Encourage use of small lots where single family developments are being considered Site

11 Solar Orientation Orient buildings towards south, long axis running east-west Site

12 Solar Orientation Consider subdivision layouts that optimize solar gain for each building Site

13 Solar Orientation/ External Design of Buildings Locate windows on the south-facing façade for winter solar gain and natural light; Use deep window overhangs and/or shades on south facades to block high-angle summer sun/ allow low-angle winter sun

Site, Form

14 Solar Orientation/ External Design of Buildings Minimize windows on north façade to limit heat loss Site, Form

15 Solar Orientation Use window overhangs and/or fixed operable shading devices to control solar gain Site 16 Solar Orientation Choose roof shape and orientation to max passive solar gain & solar collection Site

17 Wind Exposure Orient primary building facades towards prevailing breezes to maximize passive ventilation and cooling (RE?) Site

18 Built Form Design and orient south-facing roofs and walls to maximize passive solar gain and create solar energy collection opp. Form

19 Built Form Use building shapes that minimize adverse wind effects and optimize conditions for passive ventilation and cooling Form

20 Permeable and/or Reflective Surfaces Use permeable or porous materials and/or light-coloured reflective paving materials for sidewalks, driveways, roads and parking lots Feat

21 Permeable and/or Reflective Surfaces Limit impervious paving and/or dark-coloured absorptive materials for sidewalks, driveways, roads and parking lots Feat

22 Shared Amenities Increase amount of shared multi-purpose amenity space and using shared spaces to encourage activities that contribute to GHG reductions Feat

23 Alternative Transportation – Install on-site EV charging stations Syst

24 Alternative Transportation – Use on-site renewable energy generation such as solar panels or wind for EV charging stations Syst

25 Alternative Transportation – Install short and long-term bicycle parking in commercial and multi-unit residential developments Syst

26 On-Site Energy Generation Develop on-site renewable energy generation system where viable (geothermal, wind, heat pumps, biomass, bio-gas, waste-water effluent, solar) Syst

27 On-Site Energy Generation Use micro-hydro turbines in place of pressure-reducing valves to capture energy from water flowing in pipes where over 30 PSI Syst

28 On-Site Energy Generation Use wind turbines or solar energy systems to run water pumps for net-metering and/or landscape irrigation Syst

29 On-Site Energy Generation Require a set percentage of energy in new developments from on-site renewable (e.g. Merton 10% rule) Syst

30 District Energy Systems Develop a DE system to distribute thermal energy to consumers, possibly supplied with one or more renewable energy source(s) (See REAP Atlas Oct 2012). Syst

237237


A PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN FOR

BC

CONSULTATION DISCUSSION GUIDE Aug 08 Version

FF

238238

selinaw

Typewritten Text

ANNEX FF


2

BC’s Public Health Plan - Consultation CommunicationsPPh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW & INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3

Key Messages ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of Consultation .......................................................................................................................................... 3

The Discussion Guide ................................................................................................................................................ 3

How to Obtain More Information ........................................................................................................................... 3

PART 1 – PRIMARY FOCUS ............................................................................................. 4

PART 2 – VISION STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 5

PART 3 – MISSION STATEMENT ...................................................................................... 6

PART 4 -‐ STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 7

PART 5 -‐ PUBLIC HEALTH VISIONARY GOAL STATEMENTS & GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................. 8

PART 6 -‐ DECISION MAKING LOGIC MODEL ..................................................................... 11

PART 7 -‐ KEY STAKEHOLDERS & CONSULTATION PLAN ..................................................... 14

PART 8 -‐ OVERALL / GENERAL QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 15

FF

239239


3


OVERVIEW & INTRODUCTION KEY MESSAGES

1. We are seeking to develop a Public Health Plan for BC that aims to improve the health and wellness of British Columbians by: • Creating a long-‐term vision for the public health system which incorporates all major

public health strategies; • Formalizing a collaborative process to identify future public health priorities; • Reinforcing core public health functions as a foundation for public health services; • Supporting a population health approach and the public health role in health equity; and • Supporting Primary Care, Clinical Prevention and Self Care.

2. This plan is intended to be a guiding document for the public health system. 3. Reducing health inequities by addressing their underlying determinants is a priority and is

being addressed more broadly within and beyond the health system through cross-‐government action. • A key function of public health is to engage with other policy sectors and promoting

‘health equity in all policies’ approaches and increasing the resource base for health promotion.

• Surveillance and the generation and analysis of population health data (particularly around health inequities) also supports a broader social determinants approach to improving the health of the population.

4. The Plan will be the result of comprehensive and broad consultation designed to identify the top public health priorities in BC. It is not intended to be used alone but in conjunction with other resources developed to support the systems and functions of public health and improve health outcomes in BC.

PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION Communication and stakeholder involvement enable productive interaction among diverse groups. This process is intended to:

• Seek feedback on various topics from a wide range of stakeholders • Deepen understanding, focus on shared values and create buy-‐in for the plan • Identify and mitigate potential risks to ensure the maximum impact and success

The consultation process is intended to be as broad and inclusive as possible. It will run from May to October 2012. The feedback received will be compiled and considered as part of a broader process that will inform the development and implementation of the Plan.

THE DISCUSSION GUIDE This document is intended to help guide consultation discussions. It provides a brief introduction to the principles and high level concepts that form the foundation of the Plan and offers initial questions for consideration and discussion.

HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION For further information or to provide additional feedback please contact: Tom Gregory, Executive Director, Population & Public Health -‐ [email protected] 250-‐952-‐1467

240240


4


PART 1 – PRIMARY FOCUS The Public Health (PH) Plan will be looking primarily at how the public health system can improve health and well-‐being. The body of the Plan will set the context of broader population health approach and acknowledge the contextual factors (determinants) that affect health. We are working to address those in a number of ways (e.g., Cross Government Work). We will also identify things other partners can do to support priorities identified within the Public health plan. Scope Statement • The PH Plan is intended to be a guiding

document for the public health system

• It will address fundamental components within the realm of public health to provide information, context and guidance for public health decision-‐making

• While recognizing there are a broad range of factors and conditions that affect health, the primary focus at this time will be on what public health can do

• While some of these conditions are influenced directly through public health,

some need to be addressed in other processes involving stakeholders from other sectors

Question?

What do you think about this as a primary focus?

Question?

Is there anything we could do to enhance or better articulate the primary focus?

Question?

Do you know of any resources that might be useful to inform our section on the population health approach?

Other Questions/Notes:

241241


5


PART 2 – VISION STATEMENT

DRAFT VISION STATEMENTS

Thriving communities in which all people achieve health and well-‐being where they live, work, learn & play

Other options: 1. Healthy People, Healthy Communities 2. The best health and well-‐being for all British Columbians

VISION Some considerations used to craft the Vision Statement: • Does the vision statement adequately

describe the desired future

• Does the vision statement fit within the scope

• Will the vision statement inspire action

• What do we like/not like about other Vision statements

Other Examples: Saskatchewan Health Promotion Strategy: “Healthier Places to Live, Work and Play” Public Health Agency of Canada: “Healthy Canadians and communities in a healthier world”

Vision Statement Definition: Vivid idealized description of desired outcome that inspires, energizes and helps create a mental picture of your target.

The “what we hope to achieve” component.

Question?

Which statement do you like most, and why?

Question?

Is there any way the statements can be enhanced or improved?

Question?

Is there any way we can rephrase them to be more inclusive, inspiring or descriptive of our long term target?


242242


6


PART 3 – MISSION STATEMENT

DRAFT MISSION STATEMENTS:

We promote, improve and protect health and well-‐being of British Columbians through leadership, partnership, innovation action in the following areas:

• Gathering, analysing and presenting data on the health status of the population to inform decision making and action

• Providing access to public health services that are culturally sensitive and contribute positively to social, physical, mental, spiritual, economic, and emotional well-‐being

• Working with partners within and across the health sector to encourage health-‐enhancing policy (or to influence the complex interactions that determine health)

• Contributing to continuous performance improvement for the overall strength and sustainability of the public health system

Other Options

1. To lead ongoing health improvement through collaboration, proactive education and strong public health intervention

2. To improve health by providing public health leadership, partnership, proactive education, advocacy and intervention

Mission Statement Definition: Statement of the purpose of a company or organization. The mission statement should guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a path, and guide decision-‐making. It provides "the framework or context within which the company's strategies are formulated.

Communicates the essence of your organization to your stakeholders and to the public.

Focuses on the present (versus the vision, which focuses on the ideal future). Can be considered the “how we do it” component.

Other Examples: Nova Scotia Health Promotion and Protection: “Leading the collaborative effort to promote and protect health, prevent illness and injury, and reduce disparities in health status”

Public Health Agency of Canada: “To promote and protect the health of Canadians through leadership, partnership, innovation and action in public health” Question? Which statement do you like most and why??

Question? Is there any way the statements can be enhanced or improved?

Question?

Do they fit within our scope and appropriately describe what the public health system is presently doing to achieve our Vision?

243243


7


PART 4 -‐ STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The Public Health Strategic Framework is modeled after the Ministry of Health approved Core Public Health Functions Framework (and Key Result Area 2 in the Ministry’s Innovation and Change Agenda):

• 4 Pillars (Health Improvement; Prevention of Disease, Injury and Illness; Environmental Health; Health Emergency Management)

• Provincial Level elements (stewardship function)

This was intended to reinforce Core Public Health Functions as the overall strategic direction for public health service delivery in the province

• Provides a strong foundation for all of our public health efforts and includes fundamental elements that are necessary to consider when identifying new priorities for the future

Question?

What do you think about using Core Functions as the strategic framework?

Question?

Is there enough / too much detail??

S TR ATEG IC FR AMEWOR K

CORE

PROGR

AMS

HEALTHPROMOTION

HEALTHPROTECTION

PREVENTATIVEINTERVENTIONS

HEALTHASSESSMENT& DISEASESURVEILLANCE

PUBLICHEALTH STRATEGIES

HEALTHIMPROVEMENT

PREVENTIONOFDISEASE, INJURY & ILLNESS

ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH

HEALTHEMERGENCYMANAGEMENT

POPU

LATIONS& IN

EQUITIESLE

NSE

S

Healthy Living, Wellness & Chronic Disease PreventionHealthy Living (healthy eating, physical activity, tobacco cessation, etc); Healthy Communities; Food Security; Mental Health Promotion & Prevention of Mental Disorders; Chronic Disease PreventionMaternal Child HealthReproductive Health & Prevention of Disabilities; Healthy Development (Infant /child, Child /youth); Dental Health

Communicable Disease and Prevention of HarmCommunicable Diseases; Harms Associated with Substances

Injury PreventionUnintentional Injuries; Violence, Abuse & Neglect

Healthy Built & Natural EnvironmentsAir Quality; Water Quality; Food Safety; Healthy Community Environments; Healthy Care Facilities

Health Emergency Management(Preparation, Response, Recovery, Mitigation)

PROVINCIAL LEVEL FUNCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTUREPublic Health Human Resources; Information Systems; Information & Knowledge Transfer, Funding Levels; Policy, Legislation & Regulation; Accountability

244244


8


PART 5 -‐ PUBLIC HEALTH VISIONARY GOAL STATEMENTS & GUIDING PRINCIPLES The goal areas were identified by reviewing existing provincial strategies within the context of our Vision, Mission, the Strategic Framework, the impact on the burden of disease, and what exists in other jurisdictions (e.g., Alberta Health, US National Prevention Strategy, Saskatchewan Health Promotion Strategy, etc).

• Some key themes arose, and we filled in some gaps • Goal statements were drafted for each of the major themes – they are action-‐oriented statements that

are lofty but enabling • Even though for planning purposes we have expressed these as separate visionary goals, the very

nature of public health requires integration between programs -‐ across the life course, between populations, and within multiple settings

Goal Statements Definition: Define the organization’s desired outcomes that are required to achieve the long-‐term vision. Usually tied to a set of strategic initiatives that create material changes – this represents a roadmap for charting direction for the next number of years

• All statements are in draft form

HEALTHYLIFESTYLESPeople have access

to and make healthy choices

across all life stagesMATERNALCHILD& FAMILYHEALTH

Families have the capacity to achieve

and maintain health at all stages of development

MENTALHEALTH& SUBSTANCEUSE

PREVENTIONOptimal mental health & reduced problematic

substance use

HEALTHYCOMMUNITIES& COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENTS

Environments that optimize and support

good health

HEALTH EMERGENCYMANAGEMENT

Communities resilient to health emergencies

INJURYPREVENTIONA safer province that protects against serious

injuries

COMMUNICABLEDISEASE PREVENTIONPeople living longer, higher quality lives free of preventable

disease

Thriving communities in which all people achieve the best

health and well-‐being where they live, work,

learn and play

245245


9


HEALTHYLIFESTYLES

MATERNAL

CHILD& FAMILY

HEALTH

MENTAL

HEALTH& SUBSTANCEUSE

PREVENTION

COMMUNICABLE

DISEASEPREVENTION

INJURYPREVENTION

HEALTHYCOMMUNITIES

& COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENTS

HEALTHEMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

MAPPING THE VISIONARY GOALS FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM

HEALTH

EMERGENCYMANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH

(Healthy Built & Natural Environments)

PREVENTIONOF DISEASE, INJURY& ILLNESS(Communicable Disease & Prevention of Harms; Injury Prevention)

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

(Healthy Living, Wellness, Chronic Disease Prevention; Maternal Child Health)

BC’S CORE PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS(CIHR Element -‐Clearly Defined Essential Functions of Public Health)

HEALTHY FAMILIES BC

TOBACCO CONTROLSTRATEGY

TRIPARTITE FIRSTNATIONS HEALTHPLAN

PROVINCIAL PERINATALDEPRESSIONFRAMEWORK

WOMEN’S HEALTHPLAN

FASD STRATEGY

HEALTHYMINDS, HEALTHY PEOPLE

HEALTHY PATHWAYSFORWARD

IMMUNIZE BC

SENIOR’S ACTIONPLAN

SENIOR’S HEALTHYLIVING FRAMEWORK

TUBERCULOSIS STRATEGY

PUBLICHEALTHLEGISLATION& REGULATIONS

(PUBLIC HEALTHACT, MEAT INSPECTION

REGULATIONS, DRINKINGWATER PROTECTIONACT,

ETC)

PANDEMICPLAN

PROVINCIAL HEALTHOFFICER REPORTS

PROVINCIAL LEVEL FUNCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Other CIHR Elements)Public Health Human Resources; Information Systems; Information & Knowledge Transfer, Funding Levels; Policy, Legislation

& Regulation; Accountability

SURVEILLANCE -‐ EDUCATION -‐ COLLABORATION

HEALTH PROMOTION HEALTH PROTECTIONPREVENTATIVEINITIATIVES

HEALTH ASSESSMENT

& DISEASESURVEILLANCE

KEY PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGIES

HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICIES & INTERVENTIONS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOUR

THRIVING COMMUNITIES INWHICH ALL PEOPLE ACHIEVE HEALTH ANDWELL-‐BEINGWHERE THEYLIVE, WORK, LEARN& PLAY

246246


10


Question?

Are there any areas we’ve missed in terms of public health goals?

Draft Principles/Values around the inner circle – further highlight the importance of equity, life course, evidence, partnerships, etc.

Guiding Principles Definition The concepts that guide an organization throughout its life in all circumstances, irrespective of changes in its goals, strategies, type of work, or the top management. *Note – paragraphs describing each guiding principle/value will be included in the Public Health Plan to add further meaning and clarify exactly what each is intended to cover.

Question?

Are there any key pieces missing from the guiding principles?

As part of the Public Health Plan, we are seeking to improve integration and arrive at a more coordinated set of provincial prevention strategies built on past and current efforts

The mapping model demonstrates how our Visionary Goals are mapped from the Strategic Framework back to existing Public Health Strategies. At the top is the vision for the public health system, and everything within is supported by the Provincial Level Functions & Infrastructure. In addition, the bottom section represents public health’s role in supporting a population health approach – a priority function of the public health system in order to achieve the Vision.

Question?

Can you see how everything fits together within the mapping model??

Question?

Does the map do an appropriate job of demonstrating how the Visionary Goals map back to other strategies within the public health system?

Question?

Are there any elements we’ve missed?


247247


11


PART 6 -‐ DECISION MAKING LOGIC MODEL The intent is to develop a rational and regular process for identifying key prevention priorities:

• Responding to the call for rational and regular process for identifying key prevention priorities – we started by looking back at the processes we went through for Healthy Families BC

• Working group discussions identified components that needed to be more explicitly stated/acknowledged to improve the process

• The resulting decision-‐making logic model works step-‐by-‐step to identify potential initiatives and make decisions for key prevention priorities

The process begins initially with obtaining stakeholder support, considering any direction received, aligning our strategic framework & visionary goals, and analyzing the current situation (what are we doing, where do we want to go, where is the need the greatest, what gaps exist, etc)

Phase 1 represents the initial consideration to influence the key drivers of health and health care costs (initial questions to ask) • What are the biggest contributors to the burden of disease? • What are the key contextual factors of health (determinants) and can we influence them? • Are there any underdeveloped Core services or programs or those that could be expanded/enhanced?

Generates an initial list of potential initiatives for first round of decision making

Obtain and Maintain Stakeholder AgreementIdentify desired direction -‐-‐ Work with health authorities & other stakeholders to obtain support & approval

Find Root Causes

Strategic Framework, Public Health Visionary Goals, Key Targets & Specific Direction

Analyze Current Situation

Initial list of initiatives is generated for collaborative discussion & evaluation

DECISION MAKING LOGICMODEL

Consider the Drivers of Health Care Costs

COREPUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES THAT REQUIRE ATTENTION OR COULDBE EXPANDED

Health Improvement

Prevention of Disease, Injury &

Illness

THEBURDEN OF DISEASE CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCESOF HEALTH

57%

12%

11%

20%

Chronic Disease

Injuries

Mental DisordersOther

Environmental Health

Health Emergency Management

Provincial Level Functions & Infrastructure

51%

10%

20%

20%Lifestyle

Health System

Physical Environment

Biology & Genetic Endowment

248248


12


Phase 2 represent a set of screens to apply to help identify initiatives that may be better candidates based on a range of factors (evidence base, reach, cost/benefit, what other agencies are doing, etc) -‐ this helps us short-‐list the potential initiatives

• The short list would also go through a screen to identify whether the selected interventions are serving to help fill in gaps in service delivery (i.e., what is left to do)

• Implementation paper development – initial process to identify the supporting evidence, stating the potential actions required for implementation, resource requirements, etc

• Functions like a business case for each initiative • Initiatives can be given weighted score based on strengths and weaknesses in each area

At this point, a set of recommendations are prepared and sent for approval/decisions

Phase 3 represents the more in-‐depth work -‐planning after key initiatives have been selected • This includes consideration of evaluation and assessment components that can influence decision making

and identify issues for course correction

Evaluation & decision making as the process narrows– Assess, monitor & course correct to help inform process This process will come full circle. For the initiatives identified at the end of this decision-‐making process, we will be able to identify things other ministries/organizations can do to provide additional support. This will help to feedback to the determinants of health and help to ensure a/ whole system approach is considered.

Select Interventions

Work with partners to make recommendations and support decision-‐making.

Ensure Supported Initiatives

Are based on

evidence

Optimize reach & include multiple outcomes

Consider populations, equity & settings

Engage other sectors &/or the public

Consider the cost/ benefit

Work upstream

Are measurable

Consider current and future trends in health system

Identify Gaps in Tools of Influence and with Necessary Infrastructure Supports

Legislation Regulation & Policy

Financial (pricing, taxes, etc)

Marketing & Education

Accountability Mechanisms Program Delivery

Describe actual performance

Implement Interventions

Develop Implementation Strategies and Work Plans

Work with partners to identify actions required for implementation

Identify & secure funding

Use the best available evidence, standards and guidelines to design

interventions

Develop strategies for action and performance measures

Consider Settings/Populations

249249


13


Questions for Discussion Question?

What would help enhance this model or the process in general?

Question?

What are your thoughts about going through this process to identify key priorities?

Question?

Is there anything missing from the process (keeping in mind we’ll be able to articulate/go in to more detail in the actual Paper)


250250


14


PART 7 -‐ KEY STAKEHOLDERS & CONSULTATION PLAN

Consultation will take place from May through October as the body of the Plan is developed, with a target goal for completion late Fall 2012.

An internal PPH working group has been developed to help develop the strategy and support consultation activities

The objectives of consultation are to: • Inform key stakeholders of the PH Plan and

seek their engagement and support; • Ensure that key stakeholders with a

responsibility for the system of public health have an opportunity to shape the plan

• Engage a broad array of stakeholders in creating linkages, collaboration and partnerships

The Provincial Public Health Committee will act as an Advisory Council. 3 Key Categories are being used to organize stakeholder groups.

• Planning & Development – extensive consultation to determine overall support for the plan with respect to strategic directions, priorities, strategies, infrastructure, inconsistencies, gaps.

• Opportunity to Contribute – Consultation and information

• Primarily Information– informed that the process is occurring, and given the near final document

Direction/Decision making and Approvers – primarily within the Ministry

Process will include a combination of techniques, depending on the group needs

• Facilitated group sessions, electronic consultation/engagement, teleconference, etc.

Phase 1 (High-‐level overview and consultation questions)

• The At-‐A-‐Glance will be used to communicate overall big picture and lead high-‐level discussions.

Phase 2 (draft development)

• Drafts of the PH Plan will be developed and iterated to stakeholder groups, with an opportunity to comment on the content

Question?

Do you have any ideas on how we can make the consultation process most successful?

Question?

As people who know the “system” well, what are the risks and obstacles to getting support and buy in for this process and what advice can you provide to help us to mitigate these?

Question?

How can we ensure that the public health plan meets the objectives and interests of all parties?

Question?

What do you think is the most effective way to gain feedback on the draft of the written plan?


251251


15


PART 8 -‐ OVERALL / GENERAL QUESTIONS

Question?

Does the At A Glance document provide a useful framework and improve your understanding of our approach and the major concepts?

Question?

What suggestions do you have for improvement?

Other Comments/Notes:

252252

N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\6480-20 Official Community Plan\641 draft bylaw and reports\2012-Sep-20 PDC report Bylaw 641 RC OCP.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 13, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: Bylaw 641 – Roberts Creek Official Community Plan

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the SCRD Board give Bylaw 641 second reading to incorporate the amendments set out in the draft attached to the report titled “Bylaw 641 – Roberts Creek Official Community Plan”;

BACKGROUND Since the July Planning and Development Committee responses from

District of Sechelt staff

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Vancouver Coastal Health

SCRD Infrastructure with respect to sustainability

RC OCP Review Advisory Committee

In addition Planning staff have identified additional changes. A copy of all comments are provided in a table (Attachment A) that also contains staff responses and proposed actions. The draft OCP was updated to incorporate these and to correct typos and formatting errors. The amended draft is attached and the changes are shown in underlined text.

DISCUSSION The main changes proposed are as follows:

1. page 11 explanation of why the Plan Area was identified

2. page 15 Add reference to OCPC with a suggested mission statement and relocate other references to Appendix B

3. various in Ch 5 Update and improve the Chapter with regard to greenhouse gas and emission reduction.

4. pages 25 and 28 clarify that the intention os to develop a liquid waste management strategy and not the technical LWM Plan

5. various Incorporate various suggested changes from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, mainly in Ch 15 Transportation System

6. page 56 include site specific land use designation change from current OCP

7. page 61 include references relating to Renewable Energy Atlas and related comments

8. page 106 update information relating to potential dwellings based in part on 2011 Census data

ANNEX GG

253

Staff Report to September 20, 2012 Planning and Development Committee Regarding RC OCP Bylaw 641 Page 2 of 2

N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\6480-20 Official Community Plan\641 draft bylaw and reports\2012-Sep-20 PDC report Bylaw 641 RC OCP.docx

9. page 111 Add policy relating to land use designation change recently adopted and incorporated in the current OCP relating to sites with poor road access

10. page 130 to 134 Add a list of definitions

Bylaw 641 should receive second reading to incorporate these amendments

Additional research is required to consider some proposed amendments relating the geotechnical and flood hazard Development permit areas as a result of recently received report from the SCRD’s engineering consultancy, Kerr Wood Leidel; this will be provided as an amended agenda item for the PDC.

Additional review is required to consider proposed changes to Appendix A (Community Energy and Emissions Planning) and suggested changes will be provided as the amended agenda item at the PDC.

Some of the maps need to be updated to take into account the suggested changes noted above and some errors. These will be provided as the amendment agenda item at the PDC

Staff are continuing to seek comments form the Agricultural Land Commission and the Squamish Nation and if received in time then they will be included in the amended agenda.

______________________________

David Rafael, Senior Planner

254

Comments Provided since July 19, 2012 Source Comment Analysis/Response Action

Page 1 of 10

SCRD Infrastructure Goal 13

Include pathways & trails within new or existing green corridors; Park and Ride and EV charging stations Amend policy to include reference to green corridors (such as parks) Policy 15.19 refers to Park and Ride Policy 15.29 refers to EV charging stations

Amend policy 15.15 No change No change

SCRD Infrastructure Goal 17

Reducing barriers to support effective neighbourhood/ lot sized appropriate Renewable Energy projects Policy 12.4 offers support for small scale household level green power Policy 12.5 support SCRD investigating potential for community led projects

No change

SCRD Infrastructure Intro to Ch 5

Physical sounds like biological and other aspects are missing. Is this a common term in planning for OCPs? I might extend this to biological and/or ecological to encompass the aspects which the protection listed at the paragraphs end are referencing ‘pollution/ wildlife

Physical refers to the non-built environment. No change


The SCRD, in partnership with all local governments on the Coast developed Our Coast, our Climate, the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. Through policy work, programs and collaborations a number of initiatives have been launched to support and is implementing policies to reduced green house gas (GHG) emissions. The OCP, as the land use plan for the majority of the populated areas of Roberts Creek, is important in establishing policies and directions to help meet the goals set out in Our Coast, our Climate.

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity

Amend Introduction to Chapter 5 as proposed.


Replace C02 with C02e - CO2e refers to CO2 equivalent – important to clarify as CO2e captures all GHG emissions, whereas CO2 could be interpreted as missing methane, ozone, CFCs etc

This change is a technical matter to ensure correct terminology is used

Amend Introduction to Chapter 5 as proposed


“12.59 tonnes per capita”( p.41 of CEEP indicates 12.8 tonnes per capita for SCRD (8.6 excluding HSPP). Amend Introduction to Chapter 5 as proposed


The following line chart indicates the Business as Usual increase in GHG emissions by 2031 (15%) and compares it to the 7% SCRD reduction target and the 33% ‘Deep Green’ reduction target. The numbers on the left vertical y (axis) indicate thousands of tonnes of CO2e in the hundreds of thousands that are emitted within the SCRD from all sectors. The three lines demonstrate the various possibilities of GHG emissions in our community through 2031




Add after the chart: A review of CEEP emissions is being conducted in 2012 using updated CEEI data from 2010. This review document will assist in clarifying how the region’s emissions have changed from 2007, and will also address new opportunities that support emissions reductions



SCRD Infrastructure Intro to Ch 5, after Roberts Creek Role

Amend the paragraph: The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan will play a role in contributing toward the SCRD’s goal of a 7% reduction from 2007 GHG output level. The CEEP identifies electoral areas as having the highest regional per capita emissions contribution (9.1 tonnes per capita). Building upon the region wide information provided in the CEEP, further analysis has been conducted by the SCRD provides estimation on the GHG emissions within the Roberts Creek OCP area. These can be found in more detail in Appendix A.




Amend the paragraph: The GHG emission sectors that apply to the Roberts Creek Plan area are: Residential, Commercial, Solid Waste, Transportation and Agriculture/Land Conversion. As is to be expected in a rural environment where the private automobile is the primary method of movement, transportation has the highest sector output (about 40% or 2/5ths) in all electoral areas, followed closely by Landuse patterns (p.43, CEEP Figure 15). For the Roberts Creek OCP area are the large emission sectors and thus focussing actions and initiatives towards these transportation and the land use pattern will support the biggest emissions reductions can be made in targeting action towards these sectors.




Amend the paragraph: GHG reductions can be achieved by following the future Policies and Action under each of the eight goals (set out below under Policy 5.1) from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. There is an opportunity to achieve progress in each of these goal areas. While Roberts Creek will continues to be a rural area, as our population rises, how we address land settlement and transportation patterns will affect both neighbourhood livability & community feeling as well as near future energy and emission levels. Promoting more walkable, livable and efficient settlement patterns while maintaining the neighbourly qualities of Roberts Creek can be achieved by:

Focussing residential development near Roberts Creek Village with larger parcels away from the centre, and

Reducing and avoiding settlement into ALR, rural and resource forest landscapes.




Amend the paragraph: Policy and initiatives can support both of these approaches. Other rural BC communities have used these approaches to increase relative residential development locally and reduce sprawl. However, opportunities and policies exist for relatively higher density residential development close to the Roberts Creek Village with larger parcels away from the centre. Further settlement into the ALR and rural and resource forest landscapes should also be avoided while promoting more walkable, livable and efficient settlement patterns, and maintaininthe neighbourly qualities.

ATTACHMENT A

255


Page 2 of 10


Amend the paragraph: Increasing the efficiency of new housing and retrofitting existing housing will also enable a reduction of the total GHG emissions attributed to residential buildings. Higher density housing can decrease energy use. Efficiency in design and construction of dwellings, and the encouragement of constructing multi-family dwellings which can also reduce residential and transportation sector GHG emissions. Initiatives like Park and Ride locations, Rideshare and Car Cooperatives have been recommended and are under consideration on the coast.



SCRD Infrastructure Policy 5.1 c

Amend the Policy: Enhance the Green Building Sector: Create a healthy, local green building sector that supports energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. The opportunity for reduction in GHG in the building form is also an important consideration. New dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard – building above the current building code (EnerGuide 80 and over) increases the value and livability while reducing long-term energy costs. Residential buildings should be retrofit to increase efficiency, comfort and home value. A simple home energy audit helps identify best cost-value options. Simple steps like increased ceiling and crawl space insulation, air leakage reduction, window upgrades and more efficient heating systems (e.g. such as replacing inefficient wood heaters with energy efficient wood stoves) offer substantial savings and increased comfort. As much of the coast housing stock is old, retrofits are a significant source of energy and emissions saving. In 2011, the SCRD introduced the Energy Rebate Program to rebate energy efficient new homes (above EnerGuide 80 levels) and retrofitting existing homes with up to $150 discounts on building permits, and new dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard in an effort to reduce the GHG output resulting from the residential building sector.

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. However reference to a specific program (Energy Rebate) should not be added as the OCP is likely to outlive the program and reference to it could become dated; instead make the following generic comment instead: ``Rebate programs may be available to assist with improving energy efficiency and advice should be sought from the Regional District.``

Amend Policy 5.1c as updated.

SCRD Infrastructure Policy 5.1 d

Amend the Policy: Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities: Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Explore and support opportunities for small scale energy production from creeks and solar power. A recently completed Renewable Energy Atlas highlights opportunities for renewable energy on the coast and provides links to current and local suppliers/ installers. Comment - Can anything be added here to allow for reducing barriers to support effective neighbourhood/ lot sized appropriate Renewable Energy projects?

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. Add date to the Atlas and remove ``recently ``as the OCP will be in place for several years

Amend Policy 5.1d as updated.

SCRD Infrastructure Policy 5.1 e

Amend the Policy: Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource: Optimize solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling while working towards zero waste. The SCRD is developing a solid waste management plan for the region with these goals in mind.

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. Alter to reflect that the OCP will be in place for several years: ``The SCRD solid waste management planning for the region has these goals in mind.``

Amend Policy 5.1e as updated

SCRD Infrastructure Policy 5.1 f

Amend the Policy: Strengthen the Local Economy: Build a local, energy efficient economy that employs and supplies goods and services to Sunshine Coast residents. Energy efficiency and sustainability workshops and certificate training were hosted in 2011 and 2012 to support local businesses and builders

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity.

Amend Policy 5.1f

SCRD Infrastructure Policy 5.2

Amend the Policy: The SCRD should produce a Sustainability Checklist to assist in reviewing development proposals and to assist developers in achieving ‘greener’ developments. Accessible one page flyers have been generated highlighting ‘easy wins’ for builders and homeowners around building siting, efficient design and water conservation.


Amend Policy 5.2

SCRD Infrastructure Ch 6 intro

Amend the last paragraph (add as second last sentence): A number of BC communities have identified opportunities to support increased Passive Solar Energy uptake in siting and several building requirements at nominal or no cost. In order to support the potential for increased density, the SCRD should develop a liquid waste management plan for the area.

Not in correct location, add to end of introduction for Ch 5

Amend Introduction to Ch 5

SCRD Infrastructure Ch 6 end section

Village Amenity/Density Bonus Area – development proposals that increased density where a range of several community benefits and energy efficient criteria are secured may be supported, this would be subject to community consultation and a rezoning application

This is already allowed for in the policy, thus no change is required

No change

SCRD Infrastructure Policy 9.4.6

Amend the Policy: The Regional District should encourage healthy and environmentally sound agricultural practices (e.g. promote the BC Environmental Farm Program and BC Farm Energy Assessments www.ardcorp.ca/index.php?page_id=14).


Amend Policy 9.4.6


Amend the paragraph: There is growing support for green energy solutions, however there is also concern regarding the scale and number of projects that may be ‘industrializing’ the back country. Government policy and agency regulation processes change over time. Currently, utilities in BC are supporting a distributed generation model – by encouraging homeowners, businesses and local developments to generate power onsite and then share this energy back either onto the grid and/or local buildings. BC Hydro currently offers a simplified and fast-tracked approach to support residential and commercial customers to generate heat and/or energy using a “BC clean” source and net-metering back to the grid (for capacity ratings

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. Add ``2012```after ``currently`` to place the comment in context as BC Hydro`s policies are likely to alter over the OCP`s life.

Amend Introduction to Ch 12 as updated

256


Page 3 of 10

below 50 kilowatts (50kW)). Examples of alternative energy technologies included under BC Clean include small/micro hydro, wind, solar, photovoltaic, geothermal, tidal, wave and biomass energy, cogeneration of heat and power, energy from landfill gas and municipal solid waste, and fuel cells (http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/net_metering.html)


Amend the paragraph: It is likely that the regulatory ‘hoops’ for micro electric plans will be reduced for individual property owners and for smaller plants of less than 15 MW. Small microhydro projects under 5 kW capacity have been undertaken in the Roberts Creek OCP area – generating under 5 kW (sufficient to cover off a single household). Currently there are no independent power projects developed in the Roberts Creek OCP area that require provincial or SCRD approvals and meet the requirements of BC Hydro’s Calls for Power (over 15 MW generating capacity) or Standing Offer Program (from 0.05 50 kW to 15 MW generating capacity). These are generally run-of-river but can include wind or other types of technology.


Amend Introduction to Ch 12


Add new and amend the paragraph: The recently completed Renewable Energy Atlas, provides a high level assessment of the potential for Renewable Energy on the coast and also highlights available resources and local installers which residents, businesses and institutions can use as a source to determine next steps for installing systems locally. Energy conservation efforts are an important component in meeting future energy needs. New development should be built to minimize energy use. Existing development should be upgraded to reduce energy use. BC Hydro, as part of their energy planning relies on conservation as the main means to close the potential gap between generation capacity and demand. As higher energy homes become the norm, the additional effect of increased computer and wireless technologies in homes represents a growing sector of home energy efficiency.

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. Add date to Atlas.

Amend Introduction to Ch 12 as updated

SCRD Infrastructure Objective 12d

Add specific mention of current height limits on wind? Height limits for wind power facilities should be set out in the zoning bylaw as standards should be for all Electoral Areas.

No change

SCRD Infrastructure Objective 12e

Can a couple of specific examples be included? Do you mean District Energy systems (e.g. an ocean or geothermal based heat pump system could support a small higher density living development – providing an example of this. Another example would be a community driven solar pV project for a shared facility/ building.


Amend objective 12e


Amend the policy: The SCRD will investigate the potential for community led green power projects in the OCP area. The Renewable Energy Atlas provides one source of information and opportunity for the region.

The proposed changes add useful information and clarity. Add date to Atlas.

Amend policy12.5 as updated


Amend the policy: Support for non-GHG emitting vehicles, such as Electric Vehicles (EVs) and limited speed electric scooters and Net Zero Emissions Vehicles (note: this term is contentious and not used) should be investigated, including community engagement, and if appropriate implemented. Support for installation of EV charging stations and electric scooters/ bicycles would enhance uptake and use of these technologies. Support This could also include traffic speed reductions, dedicated lanes or roads, additional controlled intersections across the Highway.


Amend policy15.27 now 15.26


Could add additional criteria:

Less than 25 m from bus stops

Near Major Intersections (e.g. Hwy 101 and Roberts Creek Road – perhaps suggest one more relatively high density location in RC?)

Close to Elementary School (e.g. Roberts Creek elementary)

Suitable to accommodate multi-modal parking

Visible, safe, public space

Within nodes

Policy reference should be 15.19. Addition of criteria would aid in applying the policy. Nodes is ambiguous. Add to policy as a ``such as`` list

Amend policy 15.19


Included language in this section or the Schedule/Map that reduces barriers to low cost landscaping that meeting all these categories also supports water conservation and/or energy conservation – maybe in 16.3 (iii)

Policy 16.1 reflects provincial legislation as the list of types of issues a DP can consider. Exemption allowed for planting native species, cost of the landscaping is not an issue for the policy as this will be determined by the property owner. Regarding water conservation policy 13.15 advises use of drought tolerant plants. Planting for energy efficiency could be included in a new DP for GHG reduction thato be considered for all OCPs at a later date (see

No change

257


Page 4 of 10

comment below)


A list of Climate Action DPA requirements has been reviewed and is under consideration by staff.

A new DPA for GHG reduction should be considered at a later date for all OCPs (see comment below)

No change

SCRD Infrastructure Appendix A CEEP – additional review provided this will be analysed as part of amended agenda item

SCRD Infrastructure New DPA

As part of the GHG reduction work there is potential to add a simple DP requirement for all new redevelopment to incorporate energy efficient design into the project. The DP would establish a list of options to be implemented (for example oriented to maximize solar heating, double glazing, higher than require EnerGuide rating and so on. A DP would not be required if a number of options are incorporated. The intention is to make this a relatively simple to be exempted and the objective is to get developers to consider GHG reduction as part of the design and not as an relatively expensive retrofit. See attached list for possible options.

Consider this as part of overall changes to all OCPs or in zoning bylaw, this will allow for targeted consultation on a potentially significant new DP and set of guidelines

No change

SCRD Infrastructure DPA5 (multi-family)

Guideline k) Can we add Night Skies compliance here. Also language to indicate ‘LED & Solar/LED fixtures are encouraged’. Perhaps this element is better served as part of the DPA component appearing earlier in the document?

Could add reference to Outdoor Lighting Guidelines produced by SCRD which provides advice regarding types of lighting fixtures

Amend guideline k

SCRD Infrastructure DPA6 (Village Core)

Application of Guidelines, A): a. The Regional District may consider relaxation of the following guidelines where the applicant demonstrates to the RD’s satisfaction that

green building materials and/or energy efficiency beyond that required by Building Regulations will be applied. Satisfaction of 3 or more of these conditions will ‘ensure’ relaxation of guidelines:

(i) Include Climate Action DPA language here.( Potential location for specific Climate Action DPA language)

A new DPA for GHG reduction should be considered at a later date for all OCPs (see comment above)

No change

SCRD Infrastructure DPA6 (Village Core)

Application of Guidelines, B to J Climate Action DPA language fits well into sections B through J

A new DPA for GHG reduction should be considered at a later date for all OCPs (see comment above)

No change

SCRD Infrastructure Development Approval

Information Area

Add a new evaluation criteria: Energy efficiency/ emissions reductions

This will clarify that this issue could be considered as part of OCP and rezoning applications

Amend DAIA

SCRD Infrastructure Ch 17 policies

Climate Action DPA Language has a number of good fits on Form and Character A new DPA for GHG reduction should be considered at a later date for all OCPs (see comment above)

No change


Specific DPA language opportunity A new DPA for GHG reduction should be considered at a later date for all OCPs (see comment above)

No change

SCRD Planning Amend reference to Liquid Waste Management Plan to a LWM strategy, an LWMP is a specific type of study that can be time and resource intensive and not what is required. Clarify that a strategy should consider aspects such as soil type related to septic capacity, potential location for treatment plant(s) and link to development potential

This will clarify intent and provide flexibility Amend policy 6.4.2 and other references to LWMP

SCRD Planning Site Specific Amendments in current OCP 1710 Sunshine Coast Highway (DL 904, Block 9, Plan 4213, PID 011-749-351) The Agr D designation was amended to allow for “activities that are in keeping with its rural surroundings including uses that are considered of community benefit such as education services, recreation facilities, cultural exhibits and performance halls.” The new OCP needs to be amended to allow for this.

Add site specific reference as a new policy in Agriculture Ch

Amend OCP by adding new policy 9.6

SCRD Planning Site Specific Amendments under consideration After public hearing and 3

rd Reading, several properties in the Pixton/Byng/Firburn Roads area proposed for the following amendment:

“RESOURCE RURAL designated lands that are located north of but not immediately adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway may be considered for COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses and the minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes shall be 1.75 hectares provided that

1. significant road access issues can be resolved by the parcels owners to the satisfaction of the Regional District and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;

2. parcels are to have no more than one dwelling;

The covenants are all signed and registered and the bylaws will be considered for adoption on September 13. Add policy to Residential Chapter. Update reference to land use designation, Rural Resource in current OCP changed to Resource in this draft

Amend OCP by adding new policy as updated

258


Page 5 of 10

3. the re-designation is the subject of a Plan and, if required a rezoning amendment application; and

4. at least 20 percent of the parcel’s area will be set aside as forested land such that:

a) this is in addition to and exclusive of any land that is identified as a streamside protection and enhancement area as set out under Development Permit Area 15: Riparian Assessment Areas;

b) areas set aside as forested land provide connectivity and environmental benefit; and

c) the set aside areas are agreed to by the Regional District and secured through covenant.

Where road access issues were resolved as a result of re-designating the parcels then any subsequent applications to re-designate parcels adjacent to that access will be requested to provide a community benefit, to the satisfaction of the SCRD, equal to what would have been their portion of access improvement costs.”

The properties will be designated Country Residential

SCRD Planning 16.3(iv)

Add definition of qualified person from Bylaw 350 which states: "Qualified person" means a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering or hydrology, geoscientist, registered professional forester, or an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist.

This should be redefined as “registered professional forester, or an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist”

The definition looks to a wider range of considerations than the health of the tree. This needs to be added to OCP with respect to identification and removal of dead/hazardous trees. The redefined term should be used

Amend policy 16.3 (iv) to add ” registered professional forester, or an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist” after “qualified person”

SCRD Planning Introduction

Add acknowledgment of the work done by the review committee and list names This will be drafted and added as a late item. Amend the OCP

SCRD Planning Definitions

Need to re-introduce an updated set of definitions from the current OCP where a term is used in one place it would be better to add the definition there rather for clarity

A list of definitions can be added as Appendix C of the OCP, some definitions will be incorporated within the text for ease of use.

Amend the OCP

SCRD Planning Incorporation of KerrWoodLidel geotechnical study requires additional consideration and will be part of amended agenda item for PDC This will be provided aas an amended agenda item at the Planning Committee

To follow

VCH Healthy Communities

Vision Statement

The vision statement reflects a strong commitment to the environment and sustainability. Health is mentioned; however, perhaps there would be an opportunity to recognize the strong linkage and common objectives between sustainability and health objectives (e.g. sustainable and active transportation; sustainable and healthy land use patterns; clean and healthy air and water, etc.)

A statement could be added to pg 18 (Roberts Creek role) and Appendix A

Amend Pg 18 and Appendix A to reflect the link between healthy communities and sustainability


Goals

The list of OCP goals embody many population health objectives and goals as well - could point these out as a rationale for supporting the OCP goals from a health perspective. e.g. Population health's interest in the health of all and reducing health inequities; social connections; active transportation; diversity of housing choicest to meet needs; access to healthy food, etc.

The range of goals covers many aspects and it is difficult to highlight health without providing wider commentary, thus a substantial addition of text.

No change


Pg 16

From a health perspective, support for an inclusive planning process. Land use and planning is about the people, and a diversity of voices ensures that the interests of many - and those who are less frequently heard from (vulnerable groups etc.) will be represented.

Support noted and appreciated No change


Section 5 Page 18

Health objectives are well matched with greenhouse gas reduction objectives, and there is an opportunity for health messages and objectives to be integrated. Health can help to reach a broader audience (health is a top value, while sustainability messaging reaches a segment that is committed). (Link to recent VCH fact sheet https://heartandstroke.sharefile.com/d/sdfd6e887b774952b )

See comment above See comment above


Section 6 on Page 25

Support for the Village Core enhancement objectives. Health objectives that are supported - active transportation in order to meet physical activity needs, social interaction, access to healthy food


VCH Healthy Communities 6.1 page 26

Would specialized food establishments in core area improve healthy food choices? (not sure about the meaning of specialized in this context) The range of shops would allow for healthy food choices, however this cannot be a requirement

No change


6.1.3 (page 47)

support for access to public transport as a criterion for new commercial development - enhances access to services, and active transportation Support noted and appreciated No change


Criteria for residential density: Section H (reducing car dependency) could be enhanced with a mention of safe infrastructure for non vehicle transportation

Adding “safe infrastructure” to the policy would enhance it and clarifies the intention.

Amend 6.4.4 as proposed

259

https://heartandstroke.sharefile.com/d/sdfd6e887b774952b


Page 6 of 10

6.4.4


6.5.1 (Page 29)

support for this policy -- safety, physical activity Support noted and appreciated No change


Page 30

support for special needs and seniors housing near the core. Meets health objectives of housing choices for different stages of the lifecycle, allowing residents to remain in the community to preserve social connections, etc.



Section 8, page 34

Active and passive recreation needs can both be met in the community, and/or within one park/area. The intention is to allow for a mix of active and passive recreation and one means for this is to ensure there are opportunities. Could amended the last paragraph of the introduction to note there is a role for active and passive recreation as a means of improving community health

Amend Introduction to Ch 8 as suggested

VCH Healthy Communities 8.8 Page 42

Support for recreation and parks opportunities in close proximity to where people live - the close proximity of park space is a key factor in residents' level of activity. Also could include specific health benefits - physical and mental health. This is alluded to in 8a but could be strengthened? Would it be appropriate to suggest inclusion of the ability to grow food in parks and open spaces in this context as well? Support for accessible parks and recreation areas.

Growing foods in parks is not precluded, however this matter is best considered within the contest of the Regional District’s Parks Master Plan which is currently under review

No change, pass comments to Parks and Recreation section

VCH Healthy Communities 8.12 Page 45

support and possibly specific comments about reducing injuries (car-pedestrian- bike) with infrastructure improvements Policy 8.12 encourages non-car based travel in a safe environment, this should result in reduced accidents, could provide a comment in the introduction to Chapter 8 linking these

Amend the Introduction as suggested.


Section 9 Page 48

Support for local food production and local food availability (purchasing) policies. Support noted and appreciated No change


9.4

support for policies encouraging community gardens, community kitchens etc., ensuring food growing opportunities are broadly available to many types of residents



9.4.4

Support for food security policies. (Should Coastal Health be replaced with Vancouver Coastal Health - minor wording revision?) Support noted and appreciated. Will include/alter reference from Coastal Health to VCH

Amend reference as proposed.

VCH Healthy Communities 15c (page 71)

strong health support - encouraging active transportation and injury prevention Support noted and appreciated No change


page 113

Development permit areas could be reviewed in detail (or else general observations / objectives for health) for opportunities to include guidelines that encourage physical activity, accessibility, etc. We could talk more about this one if you would like, and I could provide some examples of previous input and resources if you need.

DPA designations have specific purposes an(protect environment, protect from hazards and so on), thus there is no scope to relate them to physical activity and so on.

No change

District of Sechelt Village Core

Demonstrates commercial and retail uses that cater to the Roberts Creek residents and other Sunshine Coast clientele. From Sechelt’s perspective the Village Core expansion should recognize existing infrastructure of downtown Sechelt or Wilson Creek and not set up a competing opportunity. If the fundamental purpose of the Plan is to preserve a rural environment it should guard against long term commercial development that competes with serviced (incorporated) areas.

Check current OCP for floor area limits or where these only added to 310

District of Sechelt Home Business Transition Zone

Allows a wider village area for home office and home occupation uses. (bed and breakfast, art galleries, retail space) Depending on long

term economic development objectives this can either serve as an incubation area or compete with industrial parks or commercial

centers.

This is the intention and support noted and appreciated

No change

District of Sechelt Liquid Waste

Management Plan

Staff supports the objective of a liquid waste management plan particularly for the Village Core. As for the rest of the plan area the need for advanced treatment systems seems to reflect the ongoing urbanization of the plan area from what was originally rural (i.e. ongoing subdivision of large acreages to smaller lots)

Support noted and appreciated. The intention is not to urbanize the wider are, rather to allow for a study to consider impacts of current development potential and whether there are issues relating to current septic field pattern and scope for modest increase in development

No change

260


Page 7 of 10

potential or a need to address local issues relating to waste water.

District of Sechelt Industrial

Development around Sechelt Regional

Landfill Site

Staff is concerned with designating lands around the Landfill site for uses other than accessory uses the landfill (i.e. recycling, methane capture etc.) The District of Sechelt is encouraging economic development characterized by industrial development on the airport lands, Field Road, Sechelt Inlet Road. The landfill area is unserviced, difficult to access and does not appear favourably located to industrial development.

RC has not industrial area and there is potential for modest industrial activity near the landfill. Site specific rezoning would test the viability with respect to access and local impact.

No change

District of Sechelt Transportation

The Integrated Transportation Study (August 2011) identified Flume Road / Highway 101 intersection as a priority for upgrade. The Transportation study talks of an Eastern Bypass (Field Road in Sechelt eastward through the Roberts Creek area.) This appears to be reflected in the OCP policy 15.3 (i.e. alternative access in the vicinity of Jack Road should be considered.) As you are aware, the Binnie studies in 1996 specifically identified alternative corridors which the Integrated Transportation Study failed to recognize. Staff supports reference to Binnie’s bypass as a long term objective worth pursuing. For it’s part Sechelt is actively pursuing the Field Road – Chapman Creek to Wharf Road option as the western leg of the bypass. We respectfully recommend that the eastern leg be identified in the Robert’s Creek Plan. (The Suncoaster Trail and other trails are illustrated. Why not the highway bypass?)

The ITS specifically did not include the Binnie Bypass and there is a strong community position that any attempt to introduce a bypass needs to be considered within the context of robust community engagement. The ITS was approved by the District without the route being identified.

No change

District of Sechelt General Comment

The rest of the document is well drafted and Sechelt staff has no further concerns. Please advise of the protocol particularly when Sechelt Council should forward “official” comments.

The official comments need to be forwarded as soon as possible.

No change

C Glover Re: 17.10, page 108 of 129: it seems there is a distinction between auxiliary dwellings and secondary dwellings , unlike in para one (above) where they seem to be synonymous. I thought that auxiliary buildings were not meant for housing but the term "auxiliary" seems to be inter-changeable with "secondary" in para one on page 104. I don't see those terms in the Definitions section of the current plan.

Need to add a clarification as to what secondary suites and auxiliary dwelling s are

Amend the OCP to include definitions for secondary suite and auxiliary dwelling

C Glover The population figures in the introduction to Residential chapter need to be checked. Amend the text and clarify what they mean and what the data sources are

Amend the Introduction to the Residential Chapter

OCP Review Advisory Committee

7.1: Add art gallery to end of sentence This acknowledges the support for arts and cultural activity.

Amend policy 7.1 as suggested


Village Core: 6.1 f (p.26) includes “Auxiliary art galleries” Remove Auxiliary

This improves clarity of the policy`s intent Amend 6.1 f as suggested


6. p. 17 – Change in wording re referrals to OCPC It was felt there should be guidance in the appendix re the OCPC, but embedding it in the Plan was a logistical problem. 4.1.1 – Suggestion to leave in Mission under section 4; move from appendix.

While there are concerns about embedding a policy for an independent referral group such as the OCPC, there is scope to provide an OCP context to support the creation of such an advisory body

Amend OCP by adding reference to the OCPC’s mission

SCRD PLanning Policy 4.3 should be moved to appendix B as it provides guidance for the OCPC This policy is out of place as the guidance as moved to Appendix B

Delete policy 4.3 and move the Appendix B, renumber following policies as needed


Put info on why Plan was a certain size before. Pg 11 H: say Plan has been expanded to include all the privately held land in Area D.

This will add clarity Amend pg 11 section H as suggested


Map 6: Crown Resource: some of that is park. fix to indicate Provincial Park or remove speckles. Firburn Rd is no longer resource land use; is residential, isn’t PMFL. Also some of the white speckled bits: big rectangle above Orange Rd.: why white not yellow? Near top of Lockyer Road: there is some private land in there (RU2 lands)

Correct the map Amend Map 6


p.25 last paragraph, 2nd

sentence: delete “Modest” (art galleries…)

Use of modest is unclear and not required. Remove reference to auxiliary in the same section

Amend introduction to Ch 6 as suggsted


Define auxiliary dwellings and secondary suites 17.10, p. 108 Need to add a clarification as to what secondary suites and auxiliary dwelling s are

Amend the OCP to include definitions for secondary suite and auxiliary dwelling

Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure

Page 23 5.15 Utilities placed within Ministry right of ways fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. All utilities installations must follow the protocol agreements as well as the Ministry Utility Policy manual. The Ministry has a single pole line policy, as a way to address multiple utility lines in highway right of way.

The use of the word “shall’ is not accurate, better to use “should’ as the road is not within SCRD jurisdiction. The intention is to encourage undergrounding, the policy can also be amended to note one pole policy of MoTI


261


Page 8 of 10


Infrastructure

Page 36 8d To work with the Province to ensure public rights of way are provided for public use and for access to and from waterfront through the subdivision process.

The objective goes beyond use of road rights of way as routes/easements could be negotiated as a result of rezoning. Any use of road would require agreement of MoTI; no need to add this

No change


Infrastructure

Page 38 8.2 (1) The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure holds the jurisdiction on Provincial rights of way. Language in the OCP should avoid statements dictating what should happen on Provincial right of ways. proposed wording for last sentence of 8.2 (1): The SCRD will work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to review options for the existing road right of way through the park.

The policy can be amended to reflect that the future use of the road needs to be considered in partnership with the Ministry, however there is a strong community position that the right of way should become part of the park.

Amend Policy 8.2 (1) to note role of MoTI


Infrastructure

Page 41 8.5 Provincial right of ways are controlled by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and as such the Ministry plans, reviews, and approves any activities carried out or proposed on the right of way. The accommodation and safety of all potential users of the highway and right of way are always a paramount consideration.

The policy shoucna be amended to reflect the role of the MoTI and change “are to be” to “should be”

Amend Policy 8.5 as proposed


Infrastructure

Page 43 8.9c The road right of way should not be considered available to be used for parking. Parking must be provided for onsite or on other privately held property.

Parking at side of roads, on the shoulder, is a regular feature in all streets for informal parking. The design and layout of any parking area would need to be discussed with MoTI if the SCRD wanted to introduce a more formal arrangement. The policy should be amended to reflect this.

Amend 8.9c to refer to MoTI when considering parking arrangements.


Infrastructure

15) Transportation System Third Sentence (last) in paragraph two – this should be removed or revised (Changes to the road network are not subject to community consultation). proposed wording: However, it is important that the Sunshine Coast Regional District and the Province work collaboratively in planning road networks and land use changes

The OCP reflects the community desire to be consulted by the Ministry. Any referral to the SCRD is likely to be forwarded to the community for input prior to collaborating with the Ministry. The proposed change masks the desire for input from the local community. Could add that MoTI and SCRED should work collaboratively

Amend the Introduction as proposed


Infrastructure

Page 69 15a The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is the authority when dealing with roads (present and future). proposed wording: To work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in planning an adequate road system, that meets provincial standards, and complements existing rural wooded character of Roberts Creek, where possible.

The objective can be amended to reflect the role of MoTI

Amend objective 15a as proposed


Infrastructure

Page 69 15b This objective should be removed. Changes to the road network are not necessarily subject to community consultation. Consultation is completed on an as and when needed basis on larger projects.

The objective is aimed at the SCRD ensuring a public process, while it I hopped that this will involve the MoTI, the SCRD can hold a public process as a means of informing its discussions with the Ministry. Policy 15.4 reflects the desire to wiork with First nations and the MoTI

No change


Infrastructure

Page 70 15g The Ministry proposes the removal of this objective.

This is an expression of the community’s position and aimed at the SCRD’s role/approach in working with the MoTI. Also this objective considers other infrastructure such as transit, park and ride, parking bike paths and so on where the SCRD may have a greater role in decision making. Related policies note role of MoTI/Province as partners

No change


Infrastructure

Page 70 15h This Ministry supports the creation of the ITS and will consider its findings when undertaking future highway planning projects.

The objective is aimed at those aspects of the ITS where the SCRD has a decision making role in addition to aspects that could be implemented through partnerships with the MoTI. Related policies note role of MoTI/Province as partners

No change

262


Page 9 of 10


Infrastructure

Page 70 15.1 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses the following functional classification system for roads and highways falling under Provincial jurisdiction, designations for Ministry roads found in the OCP should relate to the Provincial standard: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/planning/Provincial%20Highways/BC_Numbered_Hwy_Functional_Classes.pdf Schedule road network maps could not be located to see what is being proposed.

Review the MoTI classification and consider if terminology should be amended

Additional consideration will be proved at PDC


Infrastructure

Page 70 15.4 This objective should be removed. Changes to the road network are not necessarily subject to community consultation. Consultation is completed on an as and when needed basis on larger projects.

This is an expression of the community’s position and aimed at the SCRD’s role/approach in working with the MoTI.

No change


Infrastructure

Page 71 15.5 proposed wording: To work collaboratively with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and property owners adjacent to or substantially affected by significant highway development

This is an expression of the community’s position and aimed at the SCRD’s role/approach in working with the MoTI. The policy should note role of MoTI Scale of proposal may not be indicative of level of community interest, such that what is not substantial for the MotI may be substantial for local residents.



Infrastructure

Page 71 15.6 proposed wording: The SCRD shall work with the Province to retain adequate vegetation/tree line buffers, where possible within the road right of way

The policy allows for this and provides a wider context so that creation of a buffer should not remove potential for other uses of right of way. The policy is a long sentence and should be divided for clarity.



Infrastructure

Page 71 15.7 proposed wording: The development of roads should continue to take place on an on incremental basis as warranted, through the dedication of necessary rights of way as land is being subdivided.

The MoTI suggests that “along the designated routes” be removed. The map does not show designated routes so this change is supported. The SCRD can comment on the desirability of road dedication as part of its subdivision review process.

Amend Policy 15.7 as suggested


Infrastructure

Page 71 15.8

proposed wording: The SCRD should develop a screening bylaw for properties adjacent to road rights of way, pursuant to the Local Government Act, for properties in Roberts Creek. Screening of properties would have to take into account sight lines and safety of the travelling public to ensure no obstacles are placed with a roads clear zone. Any landscaping etc. within the right of way would require Ministry approval.

The suggested change reflects the division of authority and acknowledges the role of the Ministry, and considerations of safety. As such it is supported.



Infrastructure

Page 71 15.9 proposed wording: The SCRD will strongly encourage the Province to make safety improvements to Highway 101 subject to Provincial funding priorities. The Integrated Transportation Study should be reviewed when making decisions on priorities for improvement.

On review the policy is disjointed and needs to be clarified by splitting into two sentences as suggested. However reference to specific sections of road should be retained.



Infrastructure

Page 71 15.12 Unsure what this policy statement is getting at – clarification required.

Reword the policy to reflect the desire that the network should accommodate transit where desirable and possible.

Amend policy 15.12


Infrastructure

Page 72 15.15 proposed wording: In consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure consideration should be given to establishing pedestrian and bike routes along undeveloped road rights of way. Such facilities should be clearly marked and developed in a manner enabling their integration with future road development within the right of way.

The suggested wording provides greater clarity, add a sentence regarding green corridors/parks as contributing to pedestrian and bike routes



Infrastructure

Page 72 15.16 proposed wording: The SCRD will encourage the Province to protect or replace existing trails when an undeveloped road right of way is being developed.

The policy can be improved for clarity as the use of “for” is incorrect it needs to be changed to “…to facilitate subdivision or other development activity…” The policy reflects other impacts such as constructing a ‘driveway’ on the right of way to access an individual property.

Amend policy as suggested


Infrastructure

Page 72 15.17 Shoulder widths are determined by the of the class and speed limit of the road. This criteria is a provincial standard. The maintenance of roads and road right of ways is performed by the Ministry Maintenance Contractor, as outlined in the maintenance contract. proposed wording: The SCRD will encourage the Province to provide sufficient shoulder width for bikes and pedestrians in their design of road

The policy reflects a community desire to provide wider than standard shoulders and encourage regular clearing as a means of improving bike and pedestrian use. Narrow

No change

263


Page 10 of 10

facilities shoulders are not perceived as safe and will not serve these purposes.


Infrastructure

Page 72 15.20 Timberland Road is a dedicated public right of way that is used for accessing properties. Specific suggestions regarding the use of Timberland Road should not be included in the OCP.

Delete the policy as any intersection issues are considered under policy 15.30

Delete policy 15.20 and renumber other policies as needed.


Infrastructure

Page 70 15.22 Road classifications should follow the provincial standard. Specific improvements, design features and suggestions, outside of the SCRD’s jurisdiction, should not be included in the OCP.

The Scenic Heritage designation is carried over from current OCP and reflects the local community’s desire for this route to be sensitively designed

No change


Infrastructure

Page 70 15.23 proposed wording: The SCRD will encourage the Province to maintain the local character on Lower Road and Beach Avenue when completing any road improvements.

The suggested wording adds clarity and the policy can be amended by replacing “…and any improvements need to take maintaining a local character into account.” with the suggested wording.

Amend policy15.23, now 15.22, as suggested


Infrastructure

Page 70 15.24 This policy should be removed. Road layout and development are not necessarily subject to community consultation. Consultation is completed on an as and when needed basis on larger projects.

The policy is directed to the SCRD to gather community input when working with the MoTI on road improvements. It can be amended to clarify this rewording to: When considering issues relating to road layout or development the Regional District shall engage with the Roberts Creek community at large and relevant community groups

Amend policy 15.24 , now 15.23, as suggested


Infrastructure

Page 73 15.26 Specific improvements, design features and suggestions, outside of the SCRD’s jurisdiction, should not be included in the OCP.

The Regional District can investigate and propose improvements for the Ministry to consider and implement. The policy can be amended to clarify that MoTI are the implementation agency

Amend policy 15.26, now 15.25, as suggested


Infrastructure

Page 73 15.27 The reference to additional controlled intersections across the highway conflicts with Policy 15.21. Furthermore, Specific improvements, design features and suggestions, outside of the SCRD’s jurisdiction, should not be included in the OCP. Sentence two should be removed from this policy.

The policies do not conflict as 15.27 refers to adding controls (such as traffic light or painted crossings), this would not require a new access just improvements to existing

No change


Infrastructure

Page 93 B)b.iv (DPA 6 Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area) Landscaping near road right of way would have to take into account sight lines and safety of the travelling public to ensure no obstacles are placed with a roads clear zone.

Add reference to safety for road, pedestrians and bikes

Amend DPA guideline as suggested


Infrastructure

Map 3 – Road Network The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses the following functional classification system for roads and highways falling under Provincial jurisdiction, designations for Ministry roads found in the OCP should relate to the Provincial standard: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/planning/Provincial%20Highways/BC_Numbered_Hwy_Functional_Classes.pdf SCRD should ensure that the policies and objectives outlined in the OCP, which regard to the road network and the road network classifications, are consistent and not in contradiction with the Provinces.

Review the Ministry’s designations and adjust OCP terminology as needed.

Additional review will be provided at PDC

264

N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\6480-20 Official Community Plan\641 draft bylaw and reports\Bylaw 641 2nd Reading Sep 20 12.docx

Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641 A bylaw to adopt an Official Community Plan for

the Roberts Creek Plan Area within Electoral Area D. WHEREAS Section 876 of the Local Government Act provides that the Sunshine Coast Regional District may, by bylaw, adopt an official community plan; AND WHEREAS The Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District deems it necessary to adopt an official community plan in order to ensure orderly development of the Roberts Creek community; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting, enacts as follows: 1. TITLE

This bylaw may be cited as the "Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641, 2011". 2. APPLICATION

This bylaw is applicable to all land within the boundaries of the Roberts Creek Plan Area as shown on Maps 1-6 within Appendix “A” attached to and forming part of this bylaw.

3. ORGANIZATION

The Roberts Creek Sound Official Community Plan, contained within Appendix “A” attached to and forming part of this bylaw, is comprised of:

1. Introduction 2. Vision Statement 3. Goals 4. Civic Community Engagement 5. The Physical Environment, Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Green Infrastructure 6. Village Core 7. Commercial, Tourist Commercial and Industrial 8. Parks, Trails and Recreation 9. Agriculture 10. Liquid Waste Management 11. Solid Waste Management 12. Telecommunications and Green Power 13. Water Service Area and Watersheds 14. Stormwater Management and Drainage Plans 15. Transportation Systems

16. Development Permit and Approval Information Areas 17. Residential and Country Residential 18. Resource Rural and Resource 19. Institutional

Appendix A: CEEP

Appendix B: RC OCPC

Map Schedules: 1 to 7

Map 1 General Land Use Map 1A General Land Use Village Core Map 2 Parks and Trails Map 3 Road Network Map 4 Services Map 5 Development Permit Areas Map 6 Primary Resources Map 7 Traditional Territories

265

N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\6480-20 Official Community Plan\641 draft bylaw and reports\Bylaw 641 2nd Reading Sep 20 12.docx

4. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this bylaw is held to be invalid by

a court of competent jurisdiction, that section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase, as the case may be, shall be severed and the validity of the remaining portions of the bylaw shall not be affected.

5. REPEAL “Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 375, 1990” is hereby repealed. 6. ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 27th DAY of October, 2011 READ A SECOND TIME this 26 DAY of July 2012 CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND THE 10-YEAR WATER PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT This DAY & MONTH YEAR PUBLIC HEARING held this DAY & MONTH YEAR READ A THIRD TIME this DAY & MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY & MONTH YEAR

_____________________ Chair

_____________________ Corporate Officer

266

Page 1 of 134

Roberts Creek

Official Community Plan Review

September 20, 2012

Second Reading

267

Page 2 of 134

Table of Contents 1) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 5

A) What is an Official Community Plan ............................................................................. 5

B) First Nations................................................................................................................. 6

C) Arrival of Europeans .................................................................................................... 8

D) The Roberts Family and Other Pioneers ...................................................................... 9

E) Harry Roberts .............................................................................................................. 9

F) Further Development ......................................................................................................10

G) Background History of the OCP ..................................................................................11

H) Plan Area ....................................................................................................................11

I) Review and Amendment of the OCP ..............................................................................12

2) VISION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................13

3) GOALS OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN ...............................................................14

4) CIVIC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................15

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................15

Policies: .................................................................................................................................15

5) THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................17

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................19

Policies ..................................................................................................................................20

6) VILLAGE CORE.................................................................................................................25

Objectives .............................................................................................................................26

Policies ..................................................................................................................................26

7) COMMERCIAL, TOURIST COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL ............................................32

Objectives .............................................................................................................................32

Policies ..................................................................................................................................33

8) PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION ................................................................................35

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................36

Policies: .................................................................................................................................38

9) AGRICULTURE .................................................................................................................47

Objectives .............................................................................................................................47

10) LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................57

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................57

Policies ..................................................................................................................................57

11) SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................59

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................59

Policies: .................................................................................................................................59

268

Second Reading, July 26 2012, Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan

Page 3 of 134

12) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND GREEN POWER .........................................................61

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................62

Policies: .................................................................................................................................62

13) WATER SERVICE AREA and WATERSHEDS ..............................................................64

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................65

Policies: .................................................................................................................................65

14) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE PLANS ...........................................68

Objectives .............................................................................................................................68

Policies ..................................................................................................................................69

15) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................71

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................71

Policies: .................................................................................................................................72

16) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS and DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA .................................................................................................................................................77

Objectives: ............................................................................................................................77

Policies: .................................................................................................................................77

Development Permit Area 1: Stream Riparian Assessment Areas ................................. 8180

Development Permit Area 2: Beach Front And Ravine Slopes ....................................... 8483

Development Permit Area 3: Creek Flooding And Associated Debris Flow And Erosion 8786

Development Permit Area 4: Roberts Creek Shoreline.................................................. 9291

Development Permit Area 5: Multi-Family/Cluster Housing Development, ..................... 9493

Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area .................. 9796

Development Permit Area 7: Agricultural Buffering .................................................... 103102

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA ................................................... 105104

17) RESIDENTIAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL and RURAL ........................................ 106105

Objectives: .................................................................................................................... 107106

Policies: ......................................................................................................................... 108107

18) RESOURCE and COMMUNITY WATERSHED ..................................................... 112111

Objectives: .................................................................................................................... 114113

Policies: ......................................................................................................................... 115114

19) INSTITUTIONAL .................................................................................................... 118117

Objectives: .................................................................................................................... 118117

Policies: ......................................................................................................................... 118117

APPENDIX A: Community Energy and Emissions Plan Goals and Implementing OCP Policies ......................................................................................................................................... 119118

Goal 1: Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices .................................................... 120119

Goal 2: Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles .......................................... 121120

Goal 3: Enhance the Green Building Sector .................................................................. 122121

269


Page 4 of 134

Goal 4: Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities ............................................... 123122

Goal 5: Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource ................................................ 124123

Goal 6: Strengthen the Local Economy ......................................................................... 125124

Goal 7: Manage Brownfield Sites ................................................................................... 126125

Goal 8: Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community .......................................... 127126

APPENDIX B: ROBERTS CREEK OFFICAL COMMUNITY PLAN COMMISSION (OCPC) ......................................................................................................................................... 129128

APPENDIX C: Definitions .................................................................................................. 130129

270


Page 5 of 134

1) INTRODUCTION

A) What is an Official Community Plan

An Official Community Plan (OCP) provides the longer term vision for the community. Under the Local Government Act (LGA), an OCP is a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the area covered by the OCP.

An Official Community Plan is the most significant expression of the vision for how a community should be developed. However there will be occasions where new opportunities come forward that were not envisioned by the OCP either in the proposed location or the type of or scale of development. Rather than deny the community the opportunity to consider these, the OCP can undergo amendments to incorporate new ideas. The process to change an OCP is the same as adopting it: Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD or Regional District) Board adopting a bylaw amendment after consultation, public information meeting(s) and public hearing(s). For example the previous Roberts Creek OCP was amended to incorporate enhanced protection of streams and the shoreline in addition to site specific development proposals such as the Roberts Creek Co-Housing development.

The OCP is a bylaw of the SCRD and as such requires the SCRD to take its policies into account when carrying out its services. For example, policy documents relating to land use produced by the SCRD need to take account of the OCP and not move in a direction opposite to the policies set out in the OCP.

The main method by which the SCRD puts the policies and objectives into action is through the SCRD Zoning Bylaw. The Zoning Bylaw sets out what each property is allowed to be used for (such as residential, commercial or park), lot size for new subdivisions, and some controls (such as building location, height and site cover). Any changes to the Zoning Bylaw must conform to the policies in the OCP.

Other OCP policies may await site specific development proposals as a means to implement the policy. The OCP may direct the SCRD to take certain actions, such as develop agreements with outside agencies or develop separate more detailed policy documents for specific topics. The SCRD will attempt to implement such policy directions over the life of the OCP, although the Regional District is not obliged to implement all or any of the policies contained in an OCP.

The OCP will provide the Regional District direction for land use bylaw amendments and the provision of community services such as parks. Decisions concerning future bylaw amendments pertaining to changes in density or land-uses, for example, will be related to the objectives and policies of the Plan. Bylaws enacted and works undertaken by the Regional District shall be consistent with the Plan; however, the Plan does not commit or authorize the Regional District to proceed with any project that is specified in the OCP.

The goals, objectives and policies are based on the understanding that settlement within the Roberts Creek Plan Area is influenced by physical and environmental constraints. The Plan provides guidelines for various land-uses in the Roberts Creek community over the next 25 years. The goals, objectives and policies reflect the historical settlement pattern of the area and the aspirations and concerns of area residents identified during the different phases of

271


Page 6 of 134

public input for this Plan. Provision is made for a variety of housing opportunities in the established rural and residential areas.

When preparing and adopting an OCP, a local government must include the following statements and map designations:

the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least five years;

the approximate location, amount and type of present and proposed commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational and public utility land uses;

approximate location and area of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for extraction;

restrictions on land that is subject to hazardous conditions or is environmentally sensitive;

the approximate location and phasing of any major road, sewer and water systems;

the approximate location and type of present and proposed public facilities, including schools, parks and waste treatment and disposal sites;

matters that may, in respect of any plan, be required or authorized by the Provincial Minister responsible for land use planning;

housing policies respecting affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing; and

targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the plan, and policies and actions of the local government proposed with respect to achieving those targets.

A local government may choose to provide certain types of policy statements in an OCP, including:

policies relating to social needs, social well-being and social development;

policies respecting the maintenance and enhancement of farming on land in a farming area or in an area designated for agricultural use in the community plan;

policies relating to the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; and,

in cases where a matter is not within the jurisdiction of the local government, the plan may only state the broad objectives unless the minister has required or authorized the local government to state a specific policy.

B) First Nations

The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan acknowledges and respects the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation and shíshálh Nation in whose territory Roberts Creek sits. The boundary between the two Nations is Roberts Creek with the Skwxwú7mesh territory to the east of the river and the shíshálh Nation territory to the west (see Map 7).

The Roberts Creek area was originally occupied by the shíshálh , from which the town of Sechelt took its name. The shíshálh people referred to Roberts Creek as xwésám. The mild climate and

272


Page 7 of 134

abundance of fresh water and natural food (fish, shellfish, salmonberries, huckleberries, blackberries, Oregon grape, fiddlehead ferns, stinging nettle, fireweed, rice root, tiger lily, etc.) made this area a favourite site, the first food-gathering location up-coast from the shíshálh Nation’s southern boundary with the Skwxwú7mesh Nation at Roberts Creek.1

The Skwxwú7mesh Nation has focused most of their attention on portions of their territory that are outside of the Sunshine Coast Regional District jurisdiction. However, the Skwxwú7mesh Nation is looking to develop some of their lands in West Howe Sound and they are working with the SCRD to establish closer working relationships. In 2010, the SCRD and Skwxwú7mesh Nation held a Community-to-Community Forum to initiate this and work is ongoing to develop protocols regarding heritage and development consultation. It is anticipated that closer relationships will continue to be developed over time. The SCRD engages with the Skwxwú7mesh Nation regarding any proposals to amend the Official Community Plan and related zoning bylaw within their territory.

The SCRD has close working relationships with the shíshálh Nation. The shíshálh Nation are represented on the SCRD Board by a member of Sechelt Indian Government District Council. Elected officials and staff from the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest and both are parties to several memoranda of understanding and agreements. SCRD engages with the shíshálh Nation regarding any proposals to amend the Official Community Plan and related zoning bylaw within their territory.

The shíshálh Nation adopted the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation (SLUP), lil xemit tems swiya nelh mes stutula, which provides details of the rich history of the shíshálh people. The shíshálh Nation’s SLUP represents their summary of the values found across their territory, and describes how they would like to see intertidal and land resources protected, managed, and utilized now and into the future. The shíshálh Nation has developed the SLUP in order to provide a more comprehensive and integrated view of their territory, so that they can be proactive in determining what happens in the future. As such, the shíshálh Nation expects that other governments, including the SCRD, will work with them to align land decisions with their SLUP.

Much of western Roberts Creek is within the Stewardship Area where the SLUP states that:

“The management intent for this zone is to maintain opportunities for shíshálh cultural use, while allowing for appropriate economic development activities that respect the integrity of the shíshálh Nation territory as whole.”

A portion of land surrounding ts’úkw’um stulu (Chapman Creek) is identified as the ts’úkw’um stulu kw’enit sim alap (Lower Chapman Creek Cultural Emphasis Area - CEA). This area extends from around the northern boundary of the Roberts Creek OCP area along Chapman Creek into the Davis Bay area of the District of Sechelt and to the mouth of Chapman Creek. The area:

“has been primarily established to ensure the integrity of salmon spawning and rearing habitat in ts’úkw’um stulu (Lower Chapman Creek) and to contribute to the overall ecological integrity of the Chapman Creek watershed.”

1 Source: Heather Till for BigPacific.com and the Sunshine Coast Museum and Archives, complied by from several sources noted in acknowledgements

273


Page 8 of 134

The SLUP notes this is an area of extremely high cultural and spiritual values with high wildlife/biodiversity values. The key management issues are to protect its ecological integrity, repair the loss and degradation of s-chélchálihten (salmon) spawning and rearing habitat and protect shíshálh cultural resources and sites. Management direction includes restricting further land development and establishing a wide riparian reserve zone and management area sufficient to protect high value s-chélchálihten (salmon) spawning and rearing habitat.

A portion of Chapman Creek at the north end of the OCP area is identified in the SLUP as part of the ts’úkw’um stulu lil xemit tems swiya (Tetrahedron – Chapman Creek Conservation Area (CA)) where:

“The area was identified in the shíshálh land use planning process as a candidate for conservation, to protect the cultural and ecological values and water supply and quality in the vicinity of the main shíshálh community at ch’átlich (Sechelt).”

The SLUP notes this is an area of extremely high cultural and spiritual values with high wildlife/biodiversity values, community drinking water supply, high value backcountry recreation area, provincial protection area, old growth forest, and s-chélchálihten (salmon) habitat. The key management issues are logging impact and related road access, recreation and tourist management, and protection of shíshálh cultural harvest resources and sites. Management direction is set out in detail in the SLUP and some aspects include: maintain and where necessary restore the area to largely natural or wilderness condition for the benefit, education, and enjoyment of present and future generations; provide for the continuation of shíshálh cultural, subsistence, and renewable resource harvesting activities; and, preserve and maintain social, ceremonial, and cultural uses by the shíshálh Nation. The SLUP identifies permissible uses in the CA as shíshálh cultural use and low impact tourism and recreation. Prohibited uses are: intensive tourism and recreation; industrial resource development; permanent land dispositions; new road access; and shellfish aquaculture.

Additional information about the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation can be found on www.secheltnation.ca or by contacting their offices, details on the website. The SCRD strongly encourages any developer to contact the shíshálh Nation or the Skwxwú7mesh Nation early in their development process.

C) Arrival of Europeans2

European exploration of the area began in the late 1700s by the Spanish (Captain Galiano and Captain Valdes) and the British (Captain Vancouver). The earliest non-Native observation of the Roberts Creek area was recorded by Captain Vancouver, who wrote in his journal of June, 1792:

At four o'clock on Saturday morning the 16th, we resumed our course to the northwestward, along the starboard of continental shore of the gulf of Georgia, which from point Gower takes a direction about WNW and affords a more pleasing appearance than the shores of Howe's sound. This part of the coast is of a moderate height for some distance inland, and it frequently jets out into low sandy projecting

2 Source: Heather Till for BigPacific.com and the Sunshine Coast Museum and Archives, complied by from several sources noted in acknowledgements

274

http://www.secheltnation.ca/


Page 9 of 134

points. The country in general produces forest trees in abundance, of some variety and magnitude; the pine is the most common, and the woods are little encumbered with bushes or trees of inferior growth.

D) The Roberts Family and Other Pioneers

Roberts Creek's present name came from the first European settler to this area, Thomas William "Will" Roberts. In 1889, he pre-empted a quarter section of flat land just east of the creek. To earn his crown grant to the claim, he built two cedar shake cabins, a chicken house and stables and cleared three acres for cultivation and fruit trees. Will's mother and father, Thomas & Charlotte Roberts, arrived from England the following year and Will's brother, John Francis "Frank" Roberts, joined the family two years later. Frank built a large log house a quarter mile east of the creek for his parents.

There were other pioneers in the Roberts Creek area in the late 1880s. William Campbell staked a long narrow waterfront property to the west of Roberts Creek, mostly for the timber. The northern half of his property is now the Sunshine Coast Golf & Country Club. James Grant claimed the piece to the west of Campbell, and James Ross staked next to him on a property bordering Flume Creek (today Marlene Road forms the eastern boundary of his land).

Among the most successful early farmers in the Creek were Albert and Gertrude Reeves. Albert cleared 12 acres of land for truck garden crops and raised pigs, chickens and geese for market. He sold his produce to the Indian residential school, resorts and summer homes in Sechelt. Gertrude Reeves had one of the first cars on the Coast, an electric affair she had shipped from England via Cape Horn. With fully-charged batteries, it could travel about 20 miles.

Another colourful early Creeker was Hubert Evans, who left his comfortable position in the Vancouver media business to settle his family on an acre of waterfront at the mouth of Stephens Creek. He wrote stories for children's magazines, quitting each year once sales reached $2500 to cruise the coast with his family in a 28-foot boat.

In 1897, Thomas & Charlotte Roberts retired to Vancouver and Frank moved into the log house he had built for them. Frank's married son, Francis Thomas "Tom" Roberts, and his family occupied the cabin built by Will. In 1903, Frank and another son Harry established a shingle bolt camp along the creek. Frank later sold the camp and the surrounding 40 acres east of the creek and took on the job of Roberts Creek's first postmaster. On mail days, he rowed an Indian dugout canoe into the bay to pick up mail from the Union Steamship Company's Comox.

E) Harry Roberts

Harry Roberts was one of the most influential of the early Creek settlers. Formerly a painter, author and philosopher in England, he brought his visionary spirit to the Sunshine Coast. A multi-talented entrepreneur, he catered to summer travellers and local farmers by building a store near the mouth of the creek (near the current site of the Roberts Creek General Store,). He also built a sawmill which provided lumber for most of the new houses in the area and for the government wharf, and timbers for the 13 bridges necessary to construct Lower Road. He was well-known for his unique house and boat designs - much of the lumber he produced was used in their construction. He also built and furnished small cottages to rent to vacationers and eventually subdivided as the demand for land grew.

275


Page 10 of 134

In 1923, Harry leased out his mill and store and moved with his family to Merry Island, then to a retirement home on Nelson Island in 1929. The house he built here, called Sunray, was a charming cottage with south-facing walls of glass. It still stands in its idyllic cove at Cape Cockburn. It was Harry who originated the term Sunshine Coast. He painted a huge sign, visible from the ocean, on the side of the steamer company's freight shed near his store proclaiming this area as the Sunshine Belt, later modified to the Sunshine Coast.

F) Further Development

The community of Roberts Creek was highly dependent on water transport for supplies, but developing a ship landing was made difficult by the harsh winter storms. Two floats constructed by the government were washed away, and for many years passengers and freight were rowed out to larger vessels in small boats or towed on barges. In 1914 a government wharf was finally completed.

Frank and Dulcie Downes took over the Roberts Creek Store from Harry Roberts. They moved it closer to the wharf, enlarged and renovated it and added electricity, refrigeration and the community's first hand-operated, gravity-flow gasoline pump. Roberts Creek village at this time also boasted a second general store (opposite the present-day library), a small summer resort, a beauty parlour, a shoe repair shop, a barber shop, a bakery, a service station and a cafe. There were also three summer camps nearby: The Kewpie Camp for girls, just east of the creek, the 200-acre Camp Byng for Scouts on Lower Road (still in operation), and Camp Olave, a Girl Guide camp at the foot of Rat Portage Hill (also still in operation).

For some years, the closest school for the children living in Roberts Creek was in Gibsons. However, in 1919, two schools were built, one near the present junction of Lockyer Road and Highway 101 and one near Orange Road and Highway 101. Under-aged children were enrolled to fill the quota of six students needed in each school to qualify for government funding.

These two small schools were also used by the community for social events, but as the population increased they became inadequate. In 1934, the community cooperated in building the Roberts Creek Community Hall on land donated by John Roberts. All the materials and labour were also donated. The Hall is still in constant use and recently received a facelift and structural reinforcement, again mostly by volunteer labour and donations.

In the early 1940s a third general store, the Seaview Market, was built in Roberts Creek beside the present library. After the steamships ceased to run in the early 1950s, the wharf store was no longer profitable and closed a few years later. The former site of Thomas and Charlotte's orchard and later Harry's mill is now the small regional park at the foot of Roberts Creek Road, full of history and a community spirit still strong today.

During the 1960s many war resisters from the U.S. settled in Roberts Creek. It is also well known for several Utopian communes formed during this time period.

Due to the propensity of the locals to wear knee-high rubber boots for gardening (it's the rainforest after all) Roberts Creek is known as the Gumboot Nation.

276


Page 11 of 134

G) Background History of the OCP

Roberts Creek has been fortunate in that it was the first community on the Sunshine Coast to develop an Official Settlement Plan (OSP) back in 1980. It should be noted that while this OSP did not have the technical background required for an Official Community Plan (OCP), it served the community well with only one change in the thirteen years before the first OCP was developed (a change to accommodate an expansion to the existing golf course). The values expressed in the OSP of retaining a treed, rural residential community, were clearly the values that continued to be expressed in the first OCP, adopted in 1994.

14 years later, the SCRD Board began a review of the OCP and this commenced with an update of technical background information in 2008. A Review Committee of volunteers was struck in June 2008. On October 19, 2008 a visioning meeting was held in the Roberts Creek Hall with the purpose of assessing what the community felt about the goals and vision of the OCP. A café format was used with working groups seated around tables. 56 Roberts Creek residents answered 3 questions: “What do you love or find special or precious about Roberts Creek? What are the elements of a vibrant, healthy, liveable community? Imagine Roberts Creek 15-20 years from now and describe it.” The answers bore a remarkable resemblance to the values in the existing OCP and the Official Settlement Plan before it. They form the basis of the goals and vision statement of this document.

Referral of this Plan to the public, Provincial ministries, First Nations, other agencies and a public hearing are additional stages in the planning process enabling comment from various agencies and the community at large.

This plan has been prepared pursuant to Provincial legislation which establishes the basis for and stipulates the content of official community plans. In accordance with the legislation the OCP sets out planning objectives and policies designed to accommodate future residential growth and requirements for parks and recreational opportunities while providing for development of forestry, agriculture, and commercial land-uses.

H) Plan Area

Contained within Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek), the Roberts Creek Plan Area is located west of Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) and east of the District of Sechelt and covers approximately 8,000 square hectares of land. Its southern boundary is located within the Strait of Georgia paralleling the foreshore approximately 300 metres from the high water mark while its northern boundary is within the Sechelt Provincial Forest. The Plan Area was designed to include the substantial privately held land from the Sechelt Landfill to the eastern boundary of Roberts Creek, thus including a portion of Crown land that could include an expanded Mt Elphinstone Park.

The Plan Area is characterized by residential and rural settlements on parcel sizes predominantly larger than 2,000 square metres. The community has an historic commercial focus in lower Roberts Creek at the junction of Beach Avenue, Lower Road and Roberts Creek Road and a major recreational focus adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway in the form of a Regional and Community park, a golf course, and community hall. Several Provincial park sites are located in the Plan Area. The Plan Area includes resource lands with the potential for forestry and agriculture. Many small scale home-based businesses complement the commercial

277


Page 12 of 134

fabric of Roberts Creek. The Town of Gibsons and the District of Sechelt provide the larger scale regional commercial activities and facilities.

The population of Roberts Creek in 1994 was estimated to be 2700. In 2011 the population was 3244. This is an increase of 544 residents or 20%.

I) Review and Amendment of the OCP

The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan should be regularly reviewed. If it becomes outdated and needs to be refreshed, the Technical Background Report (including population and development forecasts) should be updated and the Plan should be examined in light of new local and regional growth demands and trends. For example, any changes in the economic strategy or wastewater management approach for the area may have significant implications for land-use policies. The review may require Plan amendments to guide development and land-uses. An individual or group wishing to request an amendment to the OCP may do so in accordance with the SCRD’s procedure bylaw. Additional information regarding the process can be found on the SCRD website - www.scrd.ca – or by contacting the SCRD’s Planning and Development Department.

278


Page 13 of 134

2) VISION STATEMENT

Roberts Creek is a neighbourhood and a community characterized by a strong sense of belonging, of identity and of many shared values. “Creekers” have come together on many occasions to celebrate and to mourn; to air concerns and solve problems; to build and to create. It is this sense of community, a collective identity which also supports and celebrates individual expression that sets Roberts Creek apart and gives it its distinct flavour.

We are committed to self-determination and community based decision-making. We are committed to using a development approach which values the preservation of a rural atmosphere and our strong connection to the natural environment in Roberts Creek. Green spaces, trees, country roads, centralization of commercial activity and adding density in already developed areas are all means to this end. We are committed to a clean and healthy environment and have made provision for ecologically sound transportation systems (including walking, cycling and equestrian paths), parklands, and development constraints in hazardous landscapes.

Working in conjunction with the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations, we are committed to the preservation of resources within the OCP area. Of particular interest to the community is protection of the 1500 hectares of land located in the Roberts Creek hillside area. The ecological and recreation values of this area need to be protected.

In drafting this OCP the people of Roberts Creek give expression to values that we believe point to solutions to global problems and have articulated our commitment to the lifestyle we have chosen and wish to preserve. We are taking an active role in shaping the future of our community. On the one hand, we recognize the pressures of growth and development. On the other, we have taken clear measures to guide and control that development so that the very qualities which make Roberts Creek an attractive place to live will not be lost. We are committed to a future realised through sustainable development which is to ensure that we meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

279


Page 14 of 134

3) GOALS OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN

1. To actively support a welcoming and friendly atmosphere and reinforce a strong sense of community and neighbourhood.

2. To encourage an active citizenry within a community that enhances self-determination and self-reliance.

3. To foster an inclusive and compassionate community which welcomes, respects and meets the needs of a diverse range of individuals.

4. To ensure that land is put to an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally responsible use and ensure ongoing biodiversity through the protection, restoration and enhancement of plant and animal habitats.

5. To maintain the existing rural atmosphere of the overall community.

6. To maintain downtown Roberts Creek as the community core, on a human scale, as a social focus, and as a service centre for the community.

7. To avoid land use that results in suburban sprawl.

8. To protect and preserve riparian areas and watersheds including the water and banks of all creeks, lakes and marine foreshore.

9. To actively minimize pollution in the community for example, visual, air, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, soil, sound and light pollution.

10. To allow for the provision of appropriate community services and gathering places that meet a wide range of needs.

11. To preserve and enhance agricultural land and support sustainable local food production, distribution and sales.

12. To actively foster a walkable, bike-able community culture where people have easy access to their community on foot and by bike, and where pedestrians and cyclists are given priority.

13. To develop a transportation network that encourages various modes of transportation, including cycling, walking and public transit, in order to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to facilitate movement within and between communities.

14. To provide a range of housing alternatives and opportunities which meet the needs of a diverse population while respecting the rural character of the community.

15. To encourage a wide range of cultural and artistic opportunities.

16. To protect the heritage of Roberts Creek and preserve and enhance historic and archaeological sites.

17. To ensure there is sufficient and universally accessible parkland and recreational opportunities including public access to the natural environment and to the waterfront, wildlife corridors, and the protection of Roberts Creek because of its historical, social and environmental value to the community.

280


Page 15 of 134

4) CIVIC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The Official Community Plan is the key document that sets out the community’s vision for the future development, protection and enhancement of the area. As such it is important that there is an on-going discussion between the community, First Nations, the SCRD and developers. This will help to keep the OCP relevant and to ensure it guides development. The SCRD works with community groups both appointed by the SCRD, such as the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission that acts as an initial referral agency on development proposals, and groups that are independent of the SCRD such as the Official Community Plan Committee. In addition, the SCRD engages with local residents regarding development proposals that require changes to zoning or the OCP through public information meetings and public hearings.

Objectives:

4a To ensure the right of self determination.

4b To ensure an open and transparent engagement process for development and planning matters so the needs of the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations and Roberts Creek community are met.

4c To ensure that the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) and the Official Community Planning Committee (OCPC) represent the community and have a broad base of support.

4d To ensure community input and involvement in development and planning processes.

4e To ensure that the Official Community Planning Committee has representation at Regional Planning processes

4f To recognize and promote the existence of the various community groups as important voices of the community.

Policies:

4.1 An elected Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (OCPC) consisting of Roberts Creek residents and property owners should continue to provide on-going monitoring of proposed amendments, advice to the SCRD and implementation of the Plan. While the OCPC should establish its own terms of reference and procedures the Regional District suggests that the OCPC’s mission should be to preserve the values expressed in the OCP. Suggested terms of reference and procedures are provided in Appendix B.

4.2 That the SCRD continue to support an advisory planning commission (APC) for Roberts Creek, meetings should be advertised in advance and minutes should be posted on the SCRD website.

4.3 Meetings of the Official Community Plan Committee should be advertised by the Official Community Plan Committee in advance to permit community attendance and involvement. Minutes of the meetings shall be posted.

4.44.3 Public hearings for development applications that are of direct and specific applicability to the Roberts Creek community should be conducted within the community.

281


Page 16 of 134

4.54.4 All individuals seeking office, where an alternate is needed, shall be strongly encouraged to name their alternate at the time of declaration.

4.64.5 The Regional Director or alternate attend APC, OCPC, and Roberts Creek Community Association monthly meetings.

4.74.6 The SCRD will refer proposals for amendments to the OCP and other land use amendments such as rezoning, temporary use permits and to Agricultural Land Reserve to the OCPC in addition to other agencies identified by the SCRD Board.

282


Page 17 of 134

5) THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Protection of the physical environment is crucial to ensuring the values that are important to current residents of Roberts Creek will continue to be available for future generations who want to live in and visit Roberts Creek. Protection from pollution, reducing impacts of human activity on wildlife, protection of historical and cultural sites will all contribute to this.

On a broader scale, there are issues that must be addressed in order to reduce the expected impacts of climate change or global warming.

The SCRD, in partnership with all local governments on the Coast developed Our Coast, our

Climate, the Community Energy and Emissions Plan., Through policy work, programs and collaborations a number of initiatives have been launched to support and is implementing policies to reduced green house gases (GHG) emmissions. The OCP, as the land use plan for the majority of the populated areas of Roberts Creek, is important in establishing policies and directions to help meet the goals set out in Our Coast, our Climate.

The Regional District, in accordance with Bill 27, enacted by the Province in 2008 seeks to reduce the emissions of Green House Gases (GHG) within all Official Community Plan boundaries located in the rural Electoral Areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD). The SCRD supports in principle the aspirational goals of the Provincial Government to reach a 33% reduction of 2007 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050. In support of these goals, the SCRD’s approach has been to develop locally applicable targets using a bottom up approach based on local growth projections and scientific actions that are within the SCRD’s sphere of influence. Thus, rather than be aspirational, the first goal, based on the technical approach of the SCRD is to achieve a 7% reduction from 2007 levels by 2031. In 2007 the estimated population on the Sunshine Coast was 28, 231 and with total emissions being 355,428 tonnes of CO2e per year, this equates to 12.5912.8 tonnes per capita. CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent which id a term used to represent all GHG emissions including methane, ozone and so on. If population continues to increase as projected in order to achieve the overall 7% decrease in CO2e emission the tonnes per capita must drop from 12.59 to 7.82 which in fact is a 38% decrease per person. Therefore a 7% decrease is in fact quite significant, when factoring in anticipated population growth.

The local community-based (bottom up) approach to meet this global issue and Provincial mandate involves a focus on the spheres of influence of the Regional District, on areas such as transportation, building, solid waste as well as zoning regulation policies and settlement patterns. As part of the bottom up approach to gauge the emissions by sector, the SCRD utilized the supplemented Provincial Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) and conducted a more detailed Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP).

The outcome of the CEEP, entitled Our Coast, our Climate, is that the Regional District, the Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt committed in May 2010 to undertake immediate and future actions to achieve a 7% reduction from the 2007 GHG output level.

The 7% target is considered to be a ‘light green’ target. An additional analysis was conducted to consider a ‘dark green’ analysis. The dark green analysis, which is more in line with the Provincial goals, sets a target of a 33% reduction below 2007 levels by 2031 which equates to a

283


Page 18 of 134

48% level below business as usual, compared with the expected increase of 15% over time. The dark green target requires an aggressive behaviour change in our community and remains an aspirational target at this time.

The 7% reduction goals from 2007 levels are over and above mandated or anticipated improvements in technologies as of 2007 (e.g. Transport Canada mandated average fuel economy), and represents approximately a 22% reduction from the 2007 Business as Usual level. While the 7% (22% lower than the Business as Usual) reduction goal falls short of the aspirational Provincial targets of a 33% reduction, it is based on a specific Sunshine Coast analysis and requires significant actions to achieve.

The following line chart indicates the Business as Usual increase in GHG emissions by 2031 (15%) and compares it to the 7% SCRD reduction target and the 33% ‘Deep Green’ reduction target. The numbers on the left vertical y (axis) indicate thousand tonnes of CO2 CO2e in the hundreds of thousands that are emitted within the SCRD from all sectors. The three lines demonstrate the various possibilities of GHG emissions in our community through 2031:

A review of CEEP emissions is being conducted in 2012 using updated CEEI data from 2010. This review document will assist in clarifying how the region’s emissions have changed from 2007, and will also address new opportunities that support emissions reductions

Roberts Creek Role

The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan will play a role in contributing toward the SCRD’s goal of a 7% reduction from 2007 GHG output level. The CEEP identifies electoral areas as having the highest regional per capita emissions contribution (9.1 tonnes per capita). Building upon the region wide information provided in the CEEP, further analysis has been conducted by the SCRD to provide estimation on the GHG emissions within the Roberts Creek OCP area. These can be found in more detail in Appendix AA.

The GHG emission sectors that apply to the Roberts Creek Plan Area are: Residential, Commercial, Solid Waste, Transportation and Agriculture/Land Conversion. As is to be expected in a rural environment where the private automobile is the primary method of movement, transportation has the highest sector output (about 40% or 2/5ths) in all electoral areas, followed closely by Landuse patterns. For the Roberts Creek OCP area focussing actions

Business As Usual 15% increase

SCRD target 7% reduction

Deep Green Target 33% reduction

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2016 2021 2031

284


Page 19 of 134

and initiatives towards transportation and the land use pattern are the large emission sectors and thus will support the biggest emissions reductions can be made in targeting action towards these sectors.

GHG reductions can be achieved by following the future Policies and Action under each of the eight goals (set out below under Policy 5.1) from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. There is an opportunity to achieve progress in each of these goal areas. While Roberts Creek will continues to be a rural area., as our population rises, how we address land settlement and transportation patterns will affect both neighbourhood livability & community feeling as well as near future energy and emission levels. Promoting more walkable, livable and efficient settlement patterns while maintaining the neighbourly qualities of Roberts Creek can be achieved by:

Focussing residential development near Roberts Creek Village with larger parcels away from the centre, and

Reducing and avoiding settlement into ALR, rural and resource forest landscapes.

However, opportunities and policies exist for relatively higher density residential development close to the Roberts Creek Village with larger parcels away from the centre. Further settlement into the ALR and rural and resource forest landscapes should also be avoided while promoting more walkable, liveable and efficient settlement patterns, and maintaining the neighbourly qualities.

Significant future opportunity for reduction lies within the transportation sector and increased energy efficiency in the residential sector. Increased transit and efficient land use planning go hand in hand in this regard, reducing the number of vehicle trips, particularly single occupancy vehicle trips will lead to a significant reduction in the GHG output. Location of new and efficient housing stock in the transit service area will enable significant GHG reductions.

Increasing the efficiency of new housing and retrofitting existing housing will also enable a reduction of the total GHG emissions attributed to residential buildings. Higher density housing can decrease energy use. Efficiency in design and construction of dwellings, and the encouragement of constructing multi-family dwellings which can also reduce residential and transportation sector GHG emissions. Initiatives like Park and Ride locations, Rideshare and Car Cooperatives have been recommended and are under consideration on the coast. A number of BC communities have identified opportunities to support increased Passive Solar Energy uptake in siting and several building requirements at nominal or no cost.

Objectives:

5a The Roberts Creek OCP shall establish policies that will help the SCRD meet the targets in Our Coast, our Climate in line with the eight goals it sets out.

5b To improve and maintain the quiet tranquility of the Roberts Creek area.

5c To protect airshed areas and the quality of air.

5d To protect watershed areas and the quality of water.

5e To preserve the natural site characteristics when development occurs.

285


Page 20 of 134

5f To focus settlement and facilities on terrain most suitable for development so that environmental problems are least likely to occur.

5g To improve and maintain the existing environmental quality of the community by the effective management of development.

5h To encourage the protection and enhancement of buildings and sites of historical and archaeological significance and to protect shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations archaeological and heritage resources.

5i To satisfy the requirements of the provincial Fish Protection Act, in particular the Riparian Areas Regulation, with respect to protecting fish habitat.

5j To consider creative development that respects the OCP Vision, Goals and Objectives.

5k To reduce conflicts and deterioration of habitat at the wildlife–human interface.

Policies

5.1 The SCRD will consider development proposals against the following goals set out in Our Coast, Our Climate and the OCP will set out polices that support SCRD’s goal of a 7% reduction from 2007 GHG output level by 2031:

a) Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices: Energy efficient land use practices in the Plan Area should include focusing on in-fill development within the existing residential neighbourhoods, focusing development in walkable areas close to transportation options, such as in the Roberts Creek Village and introducing the possibility of some limited neighbourhood commercial uses, such as home occupations. Energy efficient land-use choices also include avoiding extending suburban residential development into areas beyond the water supply boundary and into the Agricultural Land Reserve. Increased land use efficiency can reduce all emission sectors.

b) Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles: Create reliable transportation opportunities to move residents efficiently between communities, including frequent transit, bike and walking paths, carpools, and car share programs. Increasing transit ridership through neighbourhood buses and more frequent and convenient trips is a significant means of cutting down on the dependence of single occupant vehicles.

c) c) Enhance the Green Building Sector: Create a healthy, local green building sector that supports energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. The opportunity for reduction in GHG in the building form is also an important consideration. New dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard – building above the current building code (EnerGuide 80 and over) increases the value and livability while reducing long-term energy costs. Residential buildings could should be retrofit, to increase efficiency, comfort and home value. A simple home energy audit helps identify best cost-value options. Simple steps like increased ceiling and crawl space insulation, air leakage

286


Page 21 of 134

reduction, window upgrades and more efficient heating systems (such as replacing inefficient wood heaters with energy efficient wood stoves, ) offer substantial savings and increased comfort. As much of the coast housing stock is old, retrofits are a significant source of energy and emissions saving. Rebate programs may be available to assist with improving energy efficiency and advice should be sought from the Regional District and new dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard in an effort to reduce the GHG output resulting from the residential building sector.

d)c) Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities: Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Explore and support opportunities for small scale energy production from sources such as creeks, geothermal and solar power. The Renewable Energy Atlas (SCRD, 2012)highlights opportunities for renewable energy on the coast and provides links to current and local suppliers/ installers. Consideration needs to be given to mitigating potential impact on the natural environment.

e)d) Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource: Optimize solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling while working towards zero waste. The SCRD solid waste management planning for the region with these goals in mind.

f)e) Strengthen the Local Economy: Build a local, energy efficient economy that employs and supplies goods and services to Sunshine Coast residents. Energy efficiency and sustainability workshops and certificate training were hosted in 2011 and 2012 to support local businesses and builders.

g)f) Manage Brownfield Sites: Transform appropriate brownfield sites (vacant, previously developed sites usually industrial or commercial) in to complete community assets. Roberts Creek does not have any historic industrial sites that are vacant and the commercial areas are in use. However over the OCP period vacant or underused sites may come forward. Any redevelopment should consider opportunities to create higher density or new uses compatible with the OCP that include community opportunities. Removal of invasive species should be a consideration.

h)g) Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community: Create a culture of energy conservation for residents and businesses on the Sunshine Coast.

5.2 The SCRD should produce a Sustainability Checklist to assist in reviewing development proposals and to assist developers in achieving ‘greener’ developments. Accessible one page flyers have been generated highlighting ‘easy wins’ for builders and homeowners around building siting, efficient design and water conservation.

287


Page 22 of 134

5.3 When reviewing applications for development, especially when rezoning or OCP amendment applications are required, the SCRD shall consider the potential impacts such as:

Impact of noise on neighbours and from neighbouring uses on the subject property;

Pollution; and

Preservation of the natural environment.

5.4 The Roberts Creek OCP shall establish subdivision parcel size restrictions that are linked to environmental, servicing and physical constraints.

5.5 The Roberts Creek OCP shall identify locations that are potentially hazardous and include these within development permit area designations which set out the issues that need to be addressed and the means to identify and, if possible, mitigate the hazards.

5.6 In light of anticipated ocean level rises, the setback requirements for locating structures from the marine high water (natural boundary) should be increased from 7.5 metres horizontal and 1.5 metres vertical to 15 metres horizontal or 2 metres vertical, whichever is the greater horizontal distance, except where determined under development permit area designations in Section 16,.

5.7 The recommendations set out in the Delcan Stormwater Management Study, or any future updates, should be implemented through amendments to SCRD subdivision Servicing and Development bylaws and in partnership with the Province when resources permit.

5.8 Archaeological sites are to be protected and at least the following steps shall be taken:

Residents must report the discovery of archaeological evidence to the Skwxwú7mesh Nation or the shíshálh Nation and the Province’s Archaeology Branch.

When requested, the SCRD will support the completion of an archaeological study to ensure the protection of heritage.

Developers will be encouraged to contact the relevant First Nation to determine if archaeological sites may be present, but not identified, on the subject property.

5.9 Historical sites of value to the community but not requiring protection under the Heritage Conservation Act could be identified in the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register, commemorated with signs and incorporated where feasible into development that is accessible to the public.

5.10 A development permit area designation may be considered for the protection of identified heritage sites, or to preserve and enhance the form and character of identified structures.

288


Page 23 of 134

5.11 The Province shall be strongly encouraged to liaise with the Regional District regarding issues affecting watercourse hazard assessment on residential, country residential and rural lands and other environmental issues including the use of pesticides and herbicides.

5.12 For significant developments requiring rezoning or Official Community Plan amendments, the Regional District may require that the Official Community Plan also be amended to designate the subject lands as a development permit area for purposes of protecting the natural environment.

The Regional District will assess the proposal with reference to the Habitat Atlas and Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory to identify potentially sensitive sites within or near the proposed development area.

Should such sites be indicated then an environmental impact assessment shall be required to ensure that impacts from any such development are minimized. The assessment should address issues such as buffer requirements, drainage management and alternatives to synthetic chemical applications to plants and soils.

The Regional District shall strongly encourage agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments to undertake similar environmental impact studies for all developments including road development and forestry use.

5.13 The Regional District shall strongly encourage relevant Provincial ministries to protect wildlife habitat at the mouth of all creeks, especially of Roberts Creek.

5.14 The effective enforcement of bylaws regulating noise and prohibiting the storage of junk and derelict vehicles shall continue to be a Regional District priority for the Roberts Creek community.

5.15 Developers, subdividers and the utility companies shall should be encouraged to place new hydro and telephone lines underground, and, as required by the Ministry of ransportation policy, to consolidate any separate utility lines for telephone and hydro on one side of a road.

5.16 Proposals for the release of smoke into the atmosphere that are referred to the Regional District for comment shall be carefully assessed with the objective of maintaining air quality.

5.17 The Regional District shall strongly recommend that requests for permits for the release of industrial and noxious chemicals into the atmosphere be denied.

5.18 Federal and Provincial agencies shall be encouraged to adhere to the Regional District's policy of "no application of pesticides and herbicides" in the use and management of land in Roberts Creek.

5.19 The Regional District shall discourage the use of pesticides and herbicides on private properties for cosmetic purposes.

5.20 The re-alignment and re-plotting of parcel boundaries to eliminate long narrow lots shall be encouraged.

289


Page 24 of 134

5.21 Applicants shall be encouraged to design residential subdivisions in a manner that maintains and enhances the natural attributes of the site, while maximizing safety, accessibility, and efficient use of land.

5.22 The Regional District should provide guidance on how to reduce light pollution and consider whether light pollution should be controlled through bylaw amendments and enforcement.

5.23 Development should be considered with regard to the impact on wildlife habitats, especially in the interface area between the rural/residential areas and the resource/hinterland areas. This should include developing and implementing a Bear Aware program.

5.24 The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to control and if possible eradicate invasive plant species. Removal of invasive species could be a community benefit identified when considering an application to amend the OCP or rezone property.

5.25 The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to reduce the potential for fires in the interface area.

5.26 The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to eliminate inhumane trapping.

5.27 The Regional District, in partnership with relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to protect the marine environment with specific consideration of identifying and protecting areas with forage fish spawning potential and offshore eelgrass beds.

5.28 Development near the natural boundary of the ocean should be reviewed regarding potential impact on the marine environment.

290


Page 25 of 134

6) VILLAGE CORE

The Village Core is focussed around the intersection of Roberts Creek Road, Beach Avenue and Lower Road. Immediately around this intersection are the main retail and community facilities that provide a village centre to serve local residents and visitors. This includes shops, offices for professional services, restaurants, post office, library and meeting spaces (both formal and informal).

Roberts Creek Road is a strong spine for the community with the Community Hall and fire hall at the north end near the Sunshine Coast Highway, the elementary school near the middle and the Roberts Creek Pier Park at the south end. All are important local facilities.

Lower Road provides an alternative route for vehicles and bikes towards Gibsons and an alternative entry point to the village. Beach Avenue, although local in character, provides an alternative route towards Sechelt.

The core is served by public transport that links Roberts Creek to Sechelt, Gibsons and the Langdale ferry. This helps to make Roberts Creek a visitor destination.

The Village Core is characterized by small scale commercial units that have a rural, natural ambience. Any new development must consider how it would enhance this rural character.

Further away but still within easier walking distance of the village core and public transport is a residential area that provides some small scale tourist accommodation and opportunities for home based businesses.

As the Village Core is the focal point for residents and visitors there is an opportunity to allow for slightly higher density of home based business activity than would normally be allowed for in more rural areas. This would reinforce the role played by the village core.

The wider residential area is generally built up with few opportunities for new development. As the area is well served by facilities and has public transport links there may be opportunities to allow for increased density of development within areas close to the core. Increased density should be accompanied by improved opportunities for amenities to serve the additional development and the wider community.

Overall there may be opportunities to strengthen the Village Core and surrounding area by allowing for modest expansion of the commercial area, limited increases in potential for home occupation and bed and breakfast uses and increased development density. Modest art Art galleries may be considered as an auxiliary a use to support local artists by expanding retail opportunities within the village area. The result should be a village core that meets a wider community need, thus reducing the frequency of trips to Gibsons and Sechelt, while protecting the area’s rural character. The OCP includes form and character led development permit area designations for commercial development in the village and for multi-family development. Additional site specific development permit areas or alterations to existing DPAs may be required as development proposals come forward. In order to support the potential for increased density, the SCRD should develop a liquid waste management plan strategy for the area.

291


Page 26 of 134

Objectives

6a To support economic activities that enhance the rural atmosphere of the Roberts Creek Village Core.

6b To satisfy some of the community’s commercial needs by supporting the existing role of the Roberts Creek Village Core.

6c To provide for some controlled, modest expansion of the existing commercial and community facilities in a way that is compatible with the area’s rural character.

6d Home office and home occupation to continue to play an important economic role in a manner compatible with the character and opportunities of the village core.

6e To provide for community amenities and development opportunities so that increased density close to the village core may be supported.

6f To support a mix of commercial and residential developments that create affordable housing opportunities.

Policies

6.1 VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE:

6.1.1 The Roberts Creek OCP designates as VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE (see Map 1A) land within and adjacent to the historic commercial focus in Roberts Creek partially developed with small scale uses such as:

a) retail outlets;

b) personal services;

c) medical;

d) offices;

e) specialized food establishments;

f) artisan studios and auxiliary art galleries; and

g) education services.

The potential for additional facilities of this scale and nature should be supported.

6.1.2 All new non-residential development within the designated area is subject to Development Permit Area 6 (ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA).

292


Page 27 of 134

6.1.3 Proposals to change land designation or rezone a parcel for commercial use shall be considered against at least the following criteria:

a) Within area from Timberland to Largo to Beach as shown on (add map reference);

b) Adjacent to or near existing commercial development;

c) Form and Character subject to Development Permit Area 6;

d) Impact on neighbouring properties and rural residential character;

e) Level of vacancy in existing commercial property;

f) Parking provision;

g) Stormwater management;

h) Access to public transport.

If approved, the boundary of DPA 6 will be amended to include the parcel(s).

6.1.4 Mixed use development that includes residential and commercial uses may be supported.

6.1.5 The Regional District should work with School District 46 to formally realize the potential of parking facilities at the Roberts Creek School to support the Village Core outside of school hours.

6.2 ENHANCED HOME OCCUPATION AREA

6.2.1 A specific land-use designation should be applied to a wider village area for properties within the Village Core or fronting Roberts Creek Rd up to Cedar Grove Road, permitting enhanced auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast (up to 3 bedrooms), home office and home occupation (each with an additional employee). Sufficient parking is to be provided on site.

Home office and home occupation uses must fit within the residential character of the property and area (see Polices 7.2 and 7.3 for details).

6.2.2 As the area is close to the Village Core and public transport, the specific land use designation, while primarily residential, may allow for further enhanced auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast, auxiliary art galleries and home based business with increased retail space and/or number of employees, subject to rezoning applications.

6.2.3 Any change in zoning shall be guided by at least the following criteria:

a) Maintain rural residential atmosphere;

b) Lots greater than 3500 sq metres;

c) Limit number of employees to resident family plus 2 non-residents;

d) On-site resident to operate the business;

293


Page 28 of 134

e) Sufficient on-site parking to be provided for staff and customers and hidden from street frontage and from neighbours such as by vegetation buffers;

f) Tutoring, such as for music, to be limited to no more than seven students, with a maximum of 10 people, at any one time;

6.3 TOURIST ACCOMMODATION:

6.3.1 Bed and breakfast facilities will continue to offer opportunities for tourist accommodation on a small scale basis. An Enhanced Bed and Breakfast area is identified on Map 1A, including the Village Core and Home Business Transition Zone, that may allow for a modest increase in bed and breakfast use, such as an increase to 3 rooms and an additional employee subject to at least the criteria set out in 6.2.3 (a) to (e)

6.3.2 More intensive forms of tourist accommodation such as sleeping units, lodges, and motels shall be discouraged.

6.3.3 Short term home rental where the owner or property manager is not present shall be discouraged.

6.4 COMMUNITY AMENITY BONUSING

6.4.1 Within the area identified on MAP 1A (waterfront to Highway, Blackburn to Marlene) the Regional District may consider development proposals that would provide higher density development.

6.4.2 Before the Regional District should consider approving increased density a Liquid Waste Management Plan Strategy must be completed for the core area. The Strategy should consider aspects such as soil type related to septic capacity, potential location for treatment plant(s) and link to development potential

6.4.3 In order to achieve community amenities, greater residential densities than would otherwise be allowed may be permitted subject to a rezoning process that includes a public hearing.

6.4.4 Any application to increase residential density will be considered against at least the following criteria:

a) Impact on adjacent properties;

b) Impact on environmental values and proximity to environmentally sensitive areas;

c) Enhance the protection of biodiversity;

d) Minimizing habitat fragmentation;

e) Distance from hazardous areas;

f) Minimizing impact on road traffic safety and levels;

g) Accessibility to services and public transit;

294


Page 29 of 134

h) Reduce dependency on cars by provision of safe infrastructure for bicycles, walking, and car share facilities;

i) Water conservation;

j) Energy efficient design;

k) Designed to conserve natural resources and minimize waste;

l) Protection of heritage and landscape features;

m) Clustering of development to maintain larger portion of site to be undeveloped; and

n) Maintain rural residential character.

The intention is to reduce possible negative impacts on the local area and encourage development that has a small impact on resource use.

The level of detail that developers are expected to provide will be based upon the size and potential impact of the proposed development.

6.4.5 The following are the range of amenities that may be required and depending upon the scale and location of the site several amenities may be required:

a) Provision of affordable and rental housing;

b) Heritage conservation;

c) Public access and/or use;

d) Natural habitat conservation/restoration such as removal and control of invasive plant species;

e) Protection of biodiversity;

f) Park dedication;

g) Community facilities;

h) Bike lanes and trails;

i) Energy efficient building design beyond that required by Provincial Building Regulations;

j) Land for community agriculture/community forest;

The scale of amenity will depend upon the size and potential impact of the proposed development.

6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING FACILITIES

6.5.1 The Regional District shall work with the residents, businesses, First Nations and the Province to improve the pedestrian and cycling facilities within the core area. This could include establishing new paths, reducing

295


Page 30 of 134

speed limits in specific areas and encouraging planting/maintenance of appropriate road side vegetation.

6.6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/CLUSTER HOUSING units at a density of no greater than 2,000 square metres per unit may be permitted on sites in the vicinity of the Roberts Creek commercial core to provide for seniors housing, special needs housing and co-housing opportunities within the Plan Area. Parcels being proposed to permit this type of housing should be evaluated on criteria that includes but is not necessarily restricted to the following:

a. the absence of high constraints and potentially hazardous conditions for the proposed building site;

b. the proposed location of the sewage disposal system shall be within soils recommended by Regional District consulting engineers as being appropriate for 2,000 square metre residential parcels, as indicated in the Roberts Creek Plan Area Technical Background Report and the design and engineering of the treatment system and land disposal system shall be subject to SCRD approval and may become a community sewer system owned and operated by the SCRD;

c. within a reasonable walking distance of the established Roberts Creek commercial core;

d. the availability of public transit to provide access to major commercial facilities such as supermarkets and medical offices in the neighbouring municipalities;

e. the potential for site ingress and egress;

f. the potential for pedestrian access to the waterfront and to other recreational opportunities;

g. the provision of on-site community facilities; and

h. the form and character of such a project shall be subject to development permit design guidelines established by the Regional District in consultation with area residents.

The above policies would expand the potential areas for commercial activity in and near the Village Core as follows:

Village Amenity/Density Bonus Area – development proposals that increased density where a range of community benefits are secured may be supported, this would be subject to community consultation and a rezoning application

Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area – new commercial (such as retail, professional offices, restaurants) may be supported, subject to community consultation and rezoning applications, enhanced home occupation and enhanced B&B would be permitted

Enhanced Home Occupation Area – increase in number of non-family member employees, increase in retail area over what is currently allowed in Zoning Bylaw would be permitted (such

296


Page 31 of 134

as 2 staff rather than 1, more than 20% area can be used to retail products made on site) and enhanced B&B would be permitted

Enhanced Bed & Breakfast Area – increase in the number bedrooms than allowed in Zoning Bylaw (such as an increase from 2 to 3)

297


Page 32 of 134

7) COMMERCIAL, TOURIST COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL

Outside of the village core area, there are possible economic development opportunities across the OCP area. Modest, small-scale commercial activity is supported to provide employment opportunities and economic activity within Roberts Creek. However it is important that these are provided within the context of the rural character of the OCP area. Major developments should be diverted towards those parts of the Sunshine Coast that are better suited to accommodate them, such as the Hillside Industrial Estate in West Howe Sound and the commercial areas of the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt and the Sechelt Indian Government District.

Roberts Creek is also home to significant Private Managed Forest Land and some potential gravel extraction locations. While the SCRD has limited power to influence resource extraction as this is managed under a different Provincial Legislative regime, the SCRD can establish limitations on the processing of these resources. Objectives and Polices relating to resource extraction are set out in the Resource Rural and Rural sections below.

Large scale industrial activity is not considered appropriate to Roberts Creek. However there is scope to allow for some around the Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road, subject to a public process.

Tourism is considered to be of growing importance to supporting the economic viability of the Coast. Development of small scale accommodation and sensitively located campgrounds are important to supporting tourism. Appropriate recreation facilities, such as those identified in the Parks, Trails and Recreation section will also improve the tourism experience in addition to offering facilities for local residents and those from elsewhere on the Coast.

Objectives

7.a Development requiring commercial zoning in areas outside the existing village core is not permitted.

7.b Other than home occupation or home office, all commercial and industrial development and small scale commercial and industrial activity along the Sunshine Coast Highway corridor is not permitted.

7.c To recognize the important economic role played by home office and home occupation and to allow for the continuation of these opportunities in a manner compatible with the rural, agricultural, country residential, and residential character of Roberts Creek.

7.d To support enhanced home occupation within and near the village core.

7.e To provide for tourist accommodation facilities compatible with the rural character of the area and consistent with servicing constraints.

7. f To maintain the existing provisions for small scale tourist accommodation facilities.

7.g To support tourist oriented opportunities provided through the Provincial and Regional District parks systems, and non-commercial assembly uses.

7. h To support enhanced bed and breakfast uses in and near the village core.

298


Page 33 of 134

7.i To prohibit marina facilities and boat launching facilities at the mouth of Roberts Creek and elsewhere along the OCP foreshore.

7.j Tourist facilities will continue to be provided through the Provincial Parks system, regional and community level parks, and the Sunshine Coast Golf and Country Club.

7.k The need for marina and boat launching facilities will continue to be met through opportunities in other communities on the Sunshine Coast.

7.l Future major commercial and service industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate within the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt and Sechelt Indian Government District, which have the supporting infrastructure and land uses for such activities.

7. m To support the existing and future roles of major centres on the Lower Sunshine Coast and the Port Mellon and Hillside industrial areas in providing employment opportunities of a major commercial and industrial nature for the Lower Sunshine Coast.

7.n Except for in the area around the Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road site but outside of the Chapman-Grey Watershed, to prohibit all uses that require an industrial designation within the OCP and to strongly encourage the location of hazardous industrial uses outside the Plan Area.

7.o To support opportunities for small scale commercial and light industrial activity auxiliary to residential use.

Policies

7.1 Through Roberts Creek the Sunshine Coast Highway is a visually important corridor which embodies and reflects the rural identity of Roberts Creek. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL and auxiliary small scale commercial and industrial activity will be prohibited. A specific land-use zone should be applied to this corridor area, permitting auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast, home office, home occupation, agricultural activities; and garden markets and art galleries.

7.2 Zoning provisions for home-based businesses in the form of home offices and home occupations shall be maintained throughout the RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL and RESIDENTIAL areas in order to provide economic opportunities compatible with the rural and residential life-styles of Roberts Creek residents. Suitable parking shall be provided on site. Conditions shall be established in the Regional District’s zoning bylaw regarding aspects such as amount of retail floor area, number of employees, signage and so on.

7.3 Home occupation uses should not produce any vibration, noise, heat, glare, odours, air pollution or electrical interference discernible from outside of the building in which the home occupation is located beyond that which is reasonable for residential activity. Guidelines will be established in the Regional District’s zoning bylaw.

299


Page 34 of 134

7.4 An auxiliary art gallery, a use for the display and sale of original or limited edition works of art created exclusively by local Sunshine Coast artists which may include a studio workspace, may be permitted subject to a site specific rezoning where the property is greater than 1 Hectare. Limitation relating to floor area, number of employees, parking requirements and other items as identified through the rezoning process will be placed on the gallery.

7.5 For areas designated AGRICULTURAL an application for non-farm use may be required for certain home-based businesses. Please contact the Agricultural Land Commission and the SCRD for advice.

7.6 Bed and breakfast facilities limited in scale to 2 bedrooms, will continue to offer opportunities for tourist accommodation on a small scale basis.

7.7 Tourist accommodation needs will be met in part through the Provincial Parks system and outdoor recreation camps.

7.8 More intensive forms of tourist accommodation such as campgrounds, sleeping units, lodges, and motels shall be discouraged. Campgrounds may be permitted in RESOURCE areas subject to limitations such as minimum parcel area of 1.75 hectares and 10 camp sites per hectare.

7.9 A full range of industrial activities, including petroleum product storage, shall be strongly encouraged to locate away from residential areas, and preferably in the Hillside and Port Mellon area, which will have both the supporting infrastructure and land uses for these activities.

i. Providing there is no negative impact on the Chapman/Grey Watersheds, the area near the Sechelt Regional Landfill may be suitable for light industrial development subject to rezoning applications which will establish uses permitted;

ii. Light industrial uses include: manufacturing, processing, servicing and repair and excludes uses such as log storage, auto wrecking, bulk fuel and chemical storage.

7.10 Zoning provisions for small scale commercial and industrial activity auxiliary to residential use shall be permitted in the RURAL areas in order to provide economic opportunities compatible with the rural lifestyle of Roberts Creek.

7.11 Policies relating to resource extraction are set out elsewhere in the OCP.

300


Page 35 of 134

8) PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION

A park is a protected area, in its natural or semi-natural state, or planted and set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats.

Parks can be divided into active and passive recreation. Active recreation is that which requires intensive development and often involves cooperative or team activity, including playgrounds, ball fields, tennis and basketball courts, such as Roberts Creek School playgrounds. They do not necessarily require substantial buildings or structures, however there may be changing facilities to support organized sports. Passive recreation is that which emphasizes the open space aspect of a park and which involves a low level of development, including picnic areas, scenic sights, and trails such as Cliff Gilker Park. Larger, community parks often provide for both passive and active recreation.

There are formal recreation facilities in Roberts Creek (RC Hall, Gun Club, Golf Course, Legion Hall, a dojo for judo training, the Community School and a music camp) which are significant facilities that contribute to the liveability of the Creek and to the Coast.

Trails, both formal and informal, are an important element in the Creek’s recreation mix. They can provide walking, cycling, horse riding and a limited amount of 2/4 wheel motorized recreation opportunities. Most of the proposed network makes use of existing roads, road rights of way and forest service roads to provide access through the built area and into the hinterland. The trail network forms an important resource that supports the use of alternatives to car use. Care needs to be taken to reduce possible conflict between the different types of trail users.

Parks in Roberts Creek can be owned and maintained by the SCRD (Cliff Gilker and land behind RC Hall), the Province (Roberts Creek Provincial Park, Provincial Picnic Park and Mt Elphinstone Park – in three sections), the School District (RC Elementary School playing field), by non-profit organizations (RC Golf Club and the Gun Club) or by community groups (Gazebo Park at Lower/RC Roads).

Our parks range in size from small community parks, such as the Roberts Creek Hall Park (2 hectares) to larger destination parks like Cliff Gilker (60.5 hectares). The golf course, open spaces, community and provincial parkland, undeveloped Crown lands and environmentally sensitive areas are included in the Park designation.

Citizens of Roberts Creek have always seen the existence, use, and need of park land and passive recreation as means of fostering an awareness of the natural environment and the desire to preserve green space and environmentally sensitive areas.

Beach accesses, green spaces, recreation facilities, and an extensive trail system, particularly on the gentle southern slope of Mount Elphinstone, are a source of pride and focus for residents and are attractive to visitors. Public input and involvement, education, and awareness are key to their stewardship, conservation and restoration.

While not officially a part of our parks system, the natural and diverse beaches that form the southern boundary of Roberts Creek are an important and highly valued recreational asset to our community. The variety of cobble, pebble, sandy and rocky beaches that connect upland areas of Roberts Creek to the waters of Georgia Strait support diverse ecological values and

301


Page 36 of 134

play a key role in defining the unique rural-coastal character of our community. Recognizing the importance of our coastal landscape to the community, public access to and enjoyment of our beaches are to be preserved and protected.

The community is dedicated to complimenting the road network and having access to the Crown Lands with bicycle paths and interconnecting greenways (pedestrian/equestrian trails).

Although Mount Elphinstone Provincial Park has been established, there is no management plan in place for its three separate pieces that have no interconnection, and that needs to be addressed. The OCP supports the expansion of Mount Elphinstone Park to the full 1500 hectares of Protected Area originally requested for the lower elevations of the mountain declared a Protected Area and to protect its many diverse habitats (tailed frog and mushrooms, particularly).

As the region's population grows there will be increased demands for parkland and leisure services. There is a role for active and passive recreation as a means of improving community health. A park and trails that encourages non-car based travel in a safe environment, should result in reduced accidents, As well, public

Public consultation identified park acquisition as a priority for the strategic plan. There is a range of ways that the SCRD can acquire open space such as: interagency partnerships, securing the use of UREPs, public/private partnerships, rezoning to encourage parkland dedication, requiring land to be dedicated for parks upon subdivision, and through donation of land. The Official Community Plan identifies park acquisition priorities.

Objectives:

8a To participate in the provision of park and recreational opportunities, such as wilderness experiences, playgrounds, and playing fields, at the neighbourhood, community, regional and Provincial levels to fulfill the recreational needs of all members of the community, where practicable.

8b To protect and support the recreational opportunities provided by provincial parks and lands that protect habitat, enhance ecological diversity and conserve resources.

8c To coordinate future park and recreational development with facilities of School District #46 (Sunshine Coast) and any other agency so as to minimize public expenditure, to provide an enhanced neighbourhood focus, and maximize the use of the services and facilities provided by all agencies, where practicable.

8d To ensure public rights of way are provided for public use and recreation, access to and from the waterfront and development of interconnecting trails between neighbourhoods and parks.

8e To protect foreshore areas, and where appropriate acquire additional upland areas and foreshore lease areas for enhanced public recreational use of the foreshore.

8f To protect major watercourse areas as they are a valuable recreation resource which should be preserved for appropriate public use while ensuring minimal impact to the environment.

302


Page 37 of 134

8g To protect and support the outdoor recreational opportunities provided by the private sector, including those provided by non-profit agencies and community groups.

8h To encourage and facilitate the development of additional recreational opportunities by non-profit agencies and community groups in appropriate locations.

8i To support the development and operation of the Dakota Ridge Winter Recreation Site under the supervision of the SCRD.

8j To pursue a Coast Wide Trail Strategy for Crown Lands under the umbrella of the SCRD which, through extensive public consultation, will include development of a Trail Users Code of Conduct and strategies which resolve conflicts between trail users as well as ensuring minimal impact to the environment.

8k To obtain use of the provincial Lands for the Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP) as Community Parks.

8l Support the development of the Roberts Creek section of the Suncoaster Trail that will run from ferry to ferry, subject to a public consultation process.

8m To encourage a broad range of recreational activities with an emphasis on those that do not consume resources, that benefit the safety and health of residents, and that preserve the rural character.

303


Page 38 of 134

Policies:

8.1 The SCRD should adopt a Parks and Trails Master Plan that includes statements about the purpose of each park and trail network. Maintenance Plans should also be developed for each park and trail network.

8.2 Map 2 designate as PARK and FUTURE PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USE those areas of land and water currently set aside for recreational activities to serve existing and future residents. These designated areas include:

1) Cliff Gilker Park: 55 Ha (136 acres)

The OCP supports the existing Management Plan (see Appendix AA) and the SCRD attempt to identify a third party to oversee an SCRD Board approved covenant to protect the park from further development and to ensure that the management plan is followed. Cliff Gilker Park now has 2 wheel chair accessible, barrier free trails from the playground to the top and the bottom of the waterfall. The Regional Districtt should work with the Ministry of Transportaiton and Infrastructure regading the existing road right of way through the Park which should not be developed as a road and if possible should be un-designated and incorporated into the Park. See Policy 8.8b

2) Roberts Creek Pier Park: 0.8 HA (2 acres) at the bottom of Roberts Creek Rd

Waterfront park with a large jetty/pier and natural driftwood bench seats overlooking Georgia Strait, sandbar at low tide. Mandala area recently acquired. In consultation with the community, decisions need to be made about whether to block off the Mandala area with a gate and whether to make adjustments to the parking area to ensure best use. Public toilets (one is wheelchair accessible). Pursue any possibilities for obtaining additional park space (or trail) at estuary and beside creek to Lower Rd. See policy 8.8d.

3) Roberts Creek Hall Park: 1.6 Ha (3.9 acres) of undeveloped park land located behind the RC Hall

The property, owned by the SCRD is a “hooked” parcel with a road allowance bisecting it into 2 pieces. The septic field for the RC Hall is located on this property. See policy 8.8c.

4) Land above the power line below lot 1505: 6 Ha (14.8 acres)

This east to west strip of land was acquired by the SCRD when Weyerhaeuser sold the land where the power line sits, below lot 1505 to the golf club. The purpose was to provide a trail for walkers and equestrians to be able to access the back country from the Lockyer Rd area and B & K Rd; 2 creeks (Clack and Roberts) need to be crossed, which require a bridge. The trail and bridges should be built.

5) Provincial Park: 3 separate blocks of land on Mt. Elphinstone-approx 140 Ha (346 acres) total

SCRD should work with the Skwxwú7mesh Nation to acquire or protect the horseshoe patch in largest block for inclusion in the Mt Elphinstone Park. Build or protect trails to

304


Page 39 of 134

link the 3 blocks. SCRD should pursue management and ownership of existing trails i.e. Wagon Trail

6) Provincial Lots Designated for Use and Recreational Enjoyment of the Public (UREP):

Consists of six lots each around 2.4 Ha (5 acres) for a total of 12 Ha (30 acres) between Crowe Rd. and Malcolm Creek Rd.

Apply to Province for development as parkland. Possible amenities include barrier free, accessible trails, a meditation site, and a memorial site. SCRD should approach the Province to acquire the right of way on Lehman Road between Malcolm Creek Road and Neilson Road to incorporate into the park and provide a connector to Cliff Gilder Park.

7) Flume Creek: approx 0.75 Ha (1.8 acres)

Undeveloped green space on creek corridor with no or poor public access, an isolated park that ‘serves’ only property owners whose property borders it. Additional park land should be acquired to follow Flume Creek from Margaret Rd. to the highway, providing trail to bus stop, protection of riparian area and additional parkland.

8) Crystal Crescent Park: 1 Ha (2.5 acres)

Access by foot path from Crystal Crescent. Beavers have built a dam which has left the park swamp-like, particularly in the winter, but it may dry out in the summer. Potential uses need to be investigated. The SCRD should investigate the potential to acquire Randall Lake if the opportunity arises and develop a trail around it subject to ecological protection.

9.) “Co-housing park and trail”: 1.67 Ha (4.1 acres)

This is a piece of land on the east side of the creek (between Clack and Roberts above the confluence). Need to acquire adjacent land when lots on Largo are developed. Possibly build a bridge to create access to other potential park land on other side of the creek. There is a trail on the west side of the Roberts Creek running from the bottom of the co-housing property up to the highway opposite Cliff Gilker Park.

10) RC Legion Trail: 0.14 Ha (0.35 acres)

A narrow strip running up from Lower Rd between the Legion property and Roberts Creek. This piece reaches up to the confluence of Clack and Roberts Creeks. Should be connected to the Co-housing trail and the Co-housing Park.

11) Blackburn below Hwy 101: approx. 0.04 Ha (40 sq m)

This tiny triangle of land provides habitat and leads from the bridge for the Blackburn Trail.

12) Joe Rd: approx. 0.1 Ha (0.25 acres)

Access from Joe Rd. Potential uses include off leash dog park, community garden, or fitness circuit. These options should be investigated with community input.

13) Roberts Creek Provincial Park – 40 Ha.

305


Page 40 of 134

In three portions split by the hwy, north portion not ‘developed’, south portion is ‘developed’ as campground (21 spaces) and a small ocean side park off Flume Beach and Flume Provincial Park approx 0.8 Ha used as picnic area Province adopted a Management Plan in 1981

14) Beach and Henderson – 470 sq m. (0.1 acres) Provides parking and access to the beach.

15) Community Association sites Lower Road (Gazebo) – 2 parcels total of approx 0.28 Ha (0.7 acres), owned and maintained by the Roberts Creek Community Association.

16) Roberts Ck Elementary School Play Ground and undeveloped land –

Approximately 0.9 Ha (2.2 acres) of formal play area on Roberts Creek Road and 2.4 Ha (5.9 acres) of treed area east and north of school. Owned by School District 46.

17) Camp Byng (Scout Property) – approx 86 Ha (212 acres),

The site is split by Lower Road and there is no public access.

18) Seaview Cemetery – approx 2.3 Ha (5.7 acres). The main cemetery for the Sunshine Coast

19) Golf Club –approx 58 Ha (143 acres). 18 hole golf course with club house facilities

20) RC Creekside - 0.15 Ha (0.37 acres), stream side area.

21) Camp Douglas – 3.6 Ha (8.9 acres) - owned and operated by the United Church.

22) The entire foreshore area extending 300 metres offshore into the Strait of Georgia

This area is identified on Map 2 as FUTURE RECREATION or PUBLIC USE OCEAN. The SCRD should work with the Province and First Nations to protect the foreshore with the objective of maintaining and improving the natural environment to assist in the recovery of salmon that spawn in the many streams in Roberts Creek. Initial efforts should be spent on identifying key locations, such as the mouth of Roberts Creek. Recreational use of the foreshore should be considered with regard to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, such as eelgrass beds.

Although shíshálh Nation members previously gathered resources throughout the territory, access to many foreshore areas has been lost because of the sale of public land, residential and industrial development, and pollution. In heavily developed areas, almost the entire foreshore is now inaccessible for gathering or other activities because of residential lots and the issuance of foreshore leases. The construction of private docks and moorages creates further problems, as it effectively contaminates areas up to 125 meters on each side, limiting opportunities for gathering of beach and intertidal resources. .

Moorage buoys may be a permitted use within this area providing they serve only the upland parcels (land directly connected to or closest to the facility).

8.3 The SCRD should encourage the Crown and owners of Private Managed Forest Land to consider land swaps with the objective of creating additional parks in the community

306


Page 41 of 134

interface. The parks should be leased to or owned by the SCRD and a process should be developed to work with the Crown and First Nations to identify lands that are suitable for park use.

8.4 Should all or parts of Camp Douglas or Camp Byng cease to be needed by the operators the SCRD should seek to acquire the land for park use. If acquired, they should be used for public recreation use in perpetuity. These sites are identified on Map 2 as RECREATION or PUBLIC USE LAND

8.5 Map 2 designate an INTEGRATED WALKING, BICYCLING, and EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM where road rights-of-ways, utility corridor and parks are toshould be developed as walking, bicycling and equestrian routes. The SCRD should consider establishing a Trails Committee to assist the SCRD in developing and maintaining the Trail System.

The SCRD should consider provision of additional or alternative trails negotiated through subdivisions and rezoning applications.

8.6 Map 2 designates as RECREATION or PUBLIC USE land areas currently zoned and partially developed by private non-profit organizations as recreational camps, equestrian facilities, gun club and for golf course purposes, and may include public uses such as trails. Such uses are important to making Roberts Creek a liveable community and land use designations should be maintained. Additional opportunities should be identified and supported, subject to a rezoning process.

8.7 Provision of off-leash areas should also be considered as there are limited dedicated facilities in Roberts Creek. They should be provided subject to neighbourhood consultation, provision of parking, maintaining separation from schools/playing fields; ensuring nearby sensitive ecological areas are protected; area is fenced and gated.

8.8 NEIGHBOURHOOD-LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES

a. A standard of 10,000 square metres (1.0 hectare) per 500 population and a 0.5 kilometre service radius should be utilized as a guideline for planning accessible neighborhood level parks of 10,000 square metres and greater in size.

The neighbourhood level parks should be developed for recreation opportunities such as junior sized playing fields, children's play equipment and tennis courts. These parks will contribute to maintaining a healthy population and offer recreation opportunities, especially for youth.

The creation of smaller parks shall be pursued to provide supplementary neighborhood level facilities in areas where there will be insufficient population to warrant a full sized neighborhood park, and where access to such a park is impeded by features such as creek ravines and major arterial roads.

These parks need to have value for recreation or environmental protection.

b. Detailed site development plans should be prepared with the participation of residents to establish the specific types and siting of neighbourhood level opportunities to be developed in existing and any future parks.

307


Page 42 of 134

c. When land for park purposes is to be dedicated by subdivision plan, the acquisition of the future NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITES shall be priorities.

d. The following neighbourhood level park areas and nature park areas depicted on Map 2 should be established:

FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE(S) 1

a minimum area of 1.7 hectares and up to 3 hectares should become new park(s) within the general vicinity of Joe Road and between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road. The neighbourhood open space in this area could consist of either one or two sites of 1 to 2 hectares in size or one site at least 3 hectares in size.

FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE(S) 2

a minimum area of 2.8 hectares should become new park(s) within the general vicinity of Roberts Creek park corridor and Roberts Creek Elementary School Site to serve the area between Blackburn Road to Marlene Road and between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Beach Avenue/Lower Road (Central Roberts Creek Neighbourhood). The neighbourhood open space in this area could consist of one or two sites of 1 to 2 hectares in size or one site of at least 3 hectares in size.

FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE 3

a minimum area of 1.3 hectares should become new park off Flume Road and preferably in proximity to Flume Creek located south of the Sunshine Coast Highway between Marlene Road and Henderson Road (Flume-Henderson Neighbourhood).

FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE 4

a minimum area of 0.5 to 1 hectare should become new park off Henderson Road to serve the Henderson Road to Camp Olave area (Flume-Henderson Neighbourhood).

FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITES ABOVE THE SUNSHINE COAST HIGHWAY

The SCRD shall develop and implement a community process for selecting sites for future neighbourhood parks above the highway.

8.9 COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL-LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES

a. A standard of 10,000 square metres (1.0 hectare) per 500 population and a service radius of 2 kilometres should be utilized as a guideline for planning community level parks of approximately 10 hectares in size. This type of park accommodates activities such as senior playing fields, jogging tracks, and specialized play equipment such as an adventure playground.

b. Cliff Gilker Park (approximately 53 hectares) partially provides regional park opportunities and playing field activities that serve the Roberts Creek community as well as other Sunshine Coast communities. Cliff Gilker Park will continue to be used for a variety of community and regional level activities, with provision for higher

308


Page 43 of 134

intensity use west of the Clack Creek. The layout of the park in this area should accommodate a variety of organized activities such as baseball and soccer.

The SCRD adopted the Cliff Gilker Park Management Plan in 2007. It states

Cliff Gilker Park is one of the jewels of the Sunshine Coast. This management plan for Cliff Gilker is a major step in the development of the final plan which will guide park management for the next decade or so, and will form the basis for a three-party conservation covenant. Cliff Gilker Park is valued most highly for its natural qualities combined with a diversity of recreation, all in close proximity to populated areas. The management plan uses these values to determine management actions. The forest will, of course, evolve over time into a different forest as part of natural succession. Management must work with this natural process while maintaining the same natural experience for its users: biodiversity, recreation, sanctuary, refuge, beauty.

The Plan shall be used to guide the future of Cliff Gilker Park and the SCRD should consider implementing it through a 3rd Party/not-for-profit community group. The terms of the Plan could be secured in a covenant registered on Title which details the roles and responsibilities of the SCRD and the 3rd Party or by some other means.

The recreation facilities in the park shall not be extended beyond the area identified in the management plan.

c Roberts Creek Hall Park

The site behind the Roberts Creek Hall has the potential to serve various functions. The area immediately behind the Hall could be used to provide open space that supports the Hall, such as area for the Farmers Market, formal play area, trails, and informal space. Subject to consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, The the road right way can contribute additional parking for the Hall. The area below the road right of way could be developed as additional park space or contribute to delivering innovative affordable multi-generational housing.

The options need to be fully considered by the community and lead to a park plan being developed to guide the future use of this important space. Any uses not normally associated with park use will be the subject of a rezoning process with community engagement as a key.

d Roberts Creek Pier Park

This park is a significant space for residents of Roberts Creek and the entire Coast. It is also a tourist destination. The site holds a special cultural and recreational place for Roberts Creek. The area is environmentally sensitive as it is adjacent to the mouth of Roberts Creek. It is also the location for several important community events, such as Roberts Creek Earth Day and the Roberts Creek Mandala Festival and Creek Daze. A park plan needs to be developed that considers the needs of the various user groups and the role the site plays in the community. The plan should address parking, where vehicles should be allowed and protection of the creek mouth.

309


Page 44 of 134

8.10 PROVINCIAL LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES

a. Roberts Creek Provincial Park sites will provide for Provincial level opportunities in the Plan Area.

b. The SCRD considers that there are opportunities to make better use of existing Provincial Parks and to expand the number of these within Roberts Creek.

c. The SCRD considers that sites designated by the Province for the Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP) should become either Provincial Parks or parks under SCRD ownership or lease.

d. There is a long held desire that a larger portion of Mount Elphinstone be granted park status and that the three existing sections Mount Elphinstone be linked by formal managed trails.

e. A first step could be to fill in the horseshoe shaped section by dedicated Crown land for addition to the Mt Elphinstone Park.

f. The SCRD should continue to work towards dedicating the full 1500 hectares area identified for the complete Mt Elphinstone Park. The Regional District should work with the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations, and the province to realize this.

8.11 WATER RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

The foreshore area fronting the park at the mouth of Roberts Creek and foreshore and land at the foot of Henderson Road are secured by the Regional District through lease. The leases should be renewed when required and the SCRD should acquire ownership of the land.

The SCRD should acquire leases for undeveloped road rights of way that provide access to the beach or to ocean views, shown on Map 2. Where there is sufficient land dedicated parking areas should be identified. Beach accesses and viewpoints should be considered in the Regional District’s Parks and Trails Master Plan.

8.12 WALKING, BICYCLING AND EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITIES

a. Implementation of the INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLING-EQUESTRIAN SYSTEM depicted on Map 2 as extending throughout the whole community should be subject to assessments of construction details and associated costs, including consideration of any alternatives that may also be acceptable to the community and that are cost effective. The INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLING-EQUESTRIAN SYSTEM would be partially implemented as part of a Region-wide Bicycle Concept Plan.

The preferred phasing of various elements of the system are to be confirmed through detailed assessments as follows:

i. work has started on paving a 1.5 to 2 metre wide strip on top of the natural gas pipeline right-of-way down Roberts Creek Road and along Lower Road to the cemetery and it should be completed.

310


Page 45 of 134

ii. pave the shoulder on one side of the Sunshine Coast Highway in conjunction with improvements to this road, or independently, whichever comes first. The aim is to extend the separated bicycle-pedestrian path both towards Sechelt, to the commercial, civic and industrial area at Field Road, and towards Elphinstone and eventually link to the Town of Gibsons.

iii. Until such time as a separate bicycle-pedestrian trail is available, pave both shoulders of the Sunshine Coast Highway in conjunction with improvements to these roads, or independently, whichever come first.

iv. Until such time as a separate bicycle-pedestrian trail is available, pave both shoulders of the Lower Road in conjunction with improvements to these roads, or independently, whichever come first.

b. Biking and walking paths should be developed with clearly marked lines separating these two types of activities from each other and from the vehicular traffic, and with routes being clearly sign posted.

c. Existing logging roads and forest recreational trails should continue to provide horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking and other types of backcountry non-motorized activities, supplementing those that will be made available through the INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLING-EQUESTRIAN SYSTEM.

d. Heritage sites and trails, including old logging roads and homestead sites should be identified and integrated with other opportunities for backcountry activities.

e. Map 2 identifies the general location for the Suncoaster Trail. This is a significant regional trail that will eventually establish a ferry terminal to ferry terminal route, subject to a public consultation process. The SCRD should identify and develop links from the Suncoaster to and from the Roberts Creek Village, existing parks and trail network and the residential areas. There should be a public process to determine the route through Area D so that the SCRD will be positioned to access grants as soon as they become available. The Trail should be developed in an ecologically sensitive way, such as hand built as opposed to use of heavy machinery.

f. Map 2 designates as a FUTURE BACKCOUNTRY RECREATIONAL SITE 1 land which is located in the vicinity of Largo Road (B & K logging road) and the BC Hydro right-of-way that is currently used as a regional and international mountain bike circuit.

This area should be restored by removing illegal dump sites and preserved and maintained for this specialized activity. Facilities such as an outhouse and garbage bins should be provided, especially for events. A Trail Plan should be developed to ensure that trails are developed sensitively along with a ‘code of use’ to ensure the site is cleaned up after events.

g. The opening up and development of the foreshore access points depicted on Map 2 should be pursued to provide enhanced recreational activities and public

311


Page 46 of 134

access. These access points and recreational sites should be clearly identified with appropriate sign posting.

h. Subject to community consultation sites suitable for motorized trails could be identified as part of a Parks and Trails Master Plan providing that they are separated from trails for non-motorized users.

j. Signage should be placed at all beach access points both on the road and beach ends of the access.

8.13 The Regional District should maintain and develop the existing joint use agreement between School District No. 46 and the Regional District for maximizing the community use of school facilities, including playing fields.

8.14 Existing areas with a UREP status (Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public) in areas designated by Map 2 as FUTURE RECREATION or PUBLIC USE LAND should be secured in Regional District ownership or some other form of tenure, to provide for a variety of community and regional level opportunities.

The acquisition of these sites would be subject to confirmation by the Province of the need for these sites for community purposes.

8.15 Assembly Uses provide important facilities that encourage and support greater connections to the area and a more complete community.

a) Existing Assembly Uses that provide for meeting places that support cultural, spiritual, religious, educational, entertainment and other community activities, such a local farmers’ markets, are supported and zoning should be established that allows for these to be permitted uses.

b) Existing Assembly Uses should be protected and any rezoning that removes such a use should not be supported.

c) New Assembly Uses that provide community facilities should be supported subject to a rezoning process.

d) Overnight accommodation as part of an Assembly Use is not normally permitted, however site specific designations may allow for this subject to a rezoning process.

312


Page 47 of 134

9) AGRICULTURE

According to local historians, Betty C. Keller and Rosella M. Leslie, (Bright Seas, Pioneer Spirits: The Sunshine Coast) prior to World War II Roberts Creek, in addition to being a logging community and a steamship tourist destination, was a farming community.

In the early 1900’s Albert and Gertrude Reeves cleared 12 acres of land for truck garden crops and raised pigs, chickens and geese for market; Mrs. Hanbury and sons planted an orchard and raised pigs; and Joseph Smith, on his waterfront property, made his living growing artichokes for the Vancouver market.

In the years after World War II, competition from the large scale farms of the Fraser Valley and produce imported from the United States gradually made it more difficult for Roberts Creek farmers to find markets. Much of the farm land was allowed to lie fallow while some of it was subdivided for homes. In the 1960’s the “Creek” was rediscovered by the “hippie” generation and many of these new “Creekers” settled on old farms. While many of these new “Creekers” may have drifted away by the end of the 1970’s those who stayed on have had a powerful influence on the philosophy of the community and have led the fight to preserve its rural character.

As citizens of Roberts Creek, we embrace our past, and like our predecessors, affirm that farming is integral to our rural lifestyle and economy. We recognize the importance of agriculture as a food source, an environmental resource, and a contributor to the local economy. We are committed to protecting and increasing where possible the supply of agriculture lands and ensuring the viability of farm operations.

The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan area contains approximately 500 hectares of land that is designated as Agricultural Land Reserve by the Agricultural Land Commission. The SCRD zoning bylaw allows for a broad range of farming activity on ALR parcels. The SCRD zoning bylaw also permits agricultural and the keeping of livestock on most rural land. Keeping of livestock and/or the keeping of poultry and rabbits is permitted in some residential zones, subject to limitations. In addition, the zoning bylaw allows horticulture and silviculture on all parcels.

Objectives

9.a Preserve and protect land for agriculture use.

9.b Support and promote small-scale farming as a social, cultural and economic priority and an ecologically responsible land use in Roberts Creek.

9.c Facilitate the sale of agricultural products produced in Roberts Creek both on site and at farmers’ markets.

9.d Support a strategy for diversifying and enhancing farm income by creating opportunities for value added activities related to local agriculture without adverse impacts on farmland capabilities.

9.e Minimize conflict between agricultural activity and other uses on adjacent properties regarding the environment.

313


Page 48 of 134

9.f Encourage the creation and implementation of a regional agriculture plan that leads to sustainable regional food self-sufficiency.

9.g Encourage best practices of water management and conservation to minimize the impact on the Regional District’s water and local aquifers, while considering the needs sufficient for agriculture use.

314


Page 49 of 134

Policies

9.1 Agricultural Land Reserve

The Agricultural Land Commission established the ALR between 1974 to 1976 through cooperative efforts with regional districts and member municipalities. Local input on an ALR plan was gained through a public hearing process.

These policies suggest the types of applications to the Agricultural Land Commission which could be supported by the Regional District. Applications for non-farm use, exclusion and inclusion are submitted to the Regional District for review. The Regional District can refuse the application or it can forward it to the ALC for final decision (either with or without comments from the SCRD). The final decision regarding approval for such applications rests with the Commission.

9.1.1 Agricultural Land Use

Map 1 shows land that is designated as Agricultural.

a) The designation shall include all land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and may include other land.

b) Subdivision of ALR land will not normally be supported;

c) The SCRD should continue to support an Agricultural Advisory Committee to provide local expert advice on agricultural issues and to assist with information programs;

d) The Regional District should work with the province, First Nations and the community to realize the agricultural potential of any ALR in Crown ownership;

e) All applications for exclusion, inclusion and non-farm use of ALR must be reviewed by the following:

(i) SCRD Planning Department;

(ii) Area Director;

(iii) Area D APC;

(iv) Area D OCPC; and

(v) Regional District Agricultural Advisory Committee

prior to consideration by the SCRD Board as to whether to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission.

9.1.2 Exclusion of property from ALR

a) The Regional District continues to strongly support the preservation and maintenance of the agricultural land base and applications for exclusion of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve will not usually be considered.

315


Page 50 of 134

b) The Regional District may consider an application that would result in inclusion of an equivalent area of existing non-ALR farmland into the ALR subject to relative farming capacity of the land under consideration.

c) Exclusion may be supported for essential community services, if the location of the service is limited by engineering constraints, or by strategic considerations, and that the proponent has demonstrated that there is no suitable alternate, non-ALR property.

9.1.3 Non-farm Use of ALR

The Regional District could support applications to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use within the Agricultural Land Reserve, in some situations, where local farming or the greater community would benefit. Support for such applications should only be considered if the application falls into one of the following categories:

a) the proposed non-farm use would allow an active farm to diversify and broaden its income, but not decrease the farming capacity of the property.

b) in the instance of a proposed exclusion, the Regional District may consider an application that would result in inclusion of existing non-ALR farmland into the ALR.

c) for essential community services, if the location of the service is limited by engineering constraints, or by strategic considerations, and that the proponent has demonstrated that there is no suitable alternate, non-ALR property.

Note: The removal of soil and placement of fill is a non-farm use, however there are exceptions set out in the ALC’s legislation. Please contact the ALC for advice.

9.1.4 Inclusion of new ALR

To offset the impacts of the non-farm use or the removal of lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve under this policy, the Regional District will encourage the inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve of other lands, in the planning area, that are at least as suitable for agriculture. The Regional District will work with property owners, the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Agricultural Land Commission to designate additional ALR.

9.1.5 Second Dwelling on ALR

The Regional District may consider permanent second dwellings within the ALR in accordance with policies established in the Zoning bylaw, providing the second permanent dwelling’s location would not adversely affect farming ability of the land or of the environment.

Unless refused by the Regional District, all applications for permanent second dwellings shall be referred to the ALC.

9.1.6 Strata Subdivision of ALR Lands

Agricultural activities are strongly encouraged for ALR lands. Strata subdivision of ALR will not normally be supported unless a proposed subdivision clearly improves farming

316


Page 51 of 134

capability or commercial production of the site in a way that would not be possible without a strata subdivision. The following criteria should be taken into consideration when making an application for strata subdivision:

a) average parcel size of 1.75 hectares shall be considered;

b) the parcels, dwellings and other structures are located to minimize harm to the agricultural ability of the proposed parcels and minimize the adverse effects on the environment;

c) the proposed subdivision would allow an active farm to diversify and broaden its income, but not decrease the farming capacity of the property;

d) A lower average parcel size may be considered if:

(i) a limit is placed on the total footprint of all residential structures;

(ii) a covenant will be registered to identify a common area that is set aside for agriculture equal to 10% of whole parcel to be available for use by the wider community (i.e. beyond those living in the development); the covenant will set out who the managing agency will be and other terms as negotiated with the applicant and the SCRD.

9.2 Non ALR Farm Land

9.2.1 Identification of Sites with Farming Potential

The Regional District should undertake or support initiatives to identify properties not currently in the ALR but which have agricultural potential and are primarily used for farming, so that these properties may be protected for future agriculture.

9.2.2 Community Farm Land

Community Farm Land is to be used by the wider community to provide farming opportunities. Community Farm Land may be secured as an amenity bonus. Support should be given for rezoning applications that would allow various forms of community farming activities including farm product processing or storage facilities for produce from off site.

A community farm is a multi-functional farm where the land is held “in trust” for community rather than owned privately. A community group or co-operative governs the land use agreements, and agricultural uses of the land are shared by a community of farmers. The primary focus of a community farm is local food production using sustainable agricultural practices. Land holders, land managers, and farmers work together by mutual agreement. Farmers are housed on or near the land.

9.2.3 Communal Farm Land

As an amenity bonus, the Regional District should consider rezoning applications to allow higher density where land will be farmed communally. Such sites are not available to the wider community but to a members of a specific group or organisation and secured through covenant.

317


Page 52 of 134

9.3 Reducing Development Impact on Farms

9.3.1 Roads through agricultural land

The Regional District shall work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to support the planning of new and modifications to existing roads that avoid disruption and fragmentation of existing and potential agricultural land.

9.3.2 Borders and Buffering and Zoning

When considering rezoning applications for land that borders or drains onto agricultural land, the Regional district will ensure that such zoning changes do not negatively impact farming. (See 9.4.7 Water Policies)

9.3.3 Utility Corridors and Telecommunications Development

The Regional District shall work with utility and telecommunications providers to reduce the impact of utility and communication corridors on existing and potential agricultural lots.

9.4 Support for Farming

9.4.1 Any parcel may be used for agricultural purposes. The sale of agricultural products should be allowed subject to the following criteria:

a) the agricultural product is grown on the same property,

b) availability of sufficient on-site parking,

c) any seperate produce stand is able to be easily moved and

d) limited retail floor area is subject to the same limitations as for home occupation as set out in the zoning bylaw.

Limitations for criteria b-d will be established in the relevant SCRD Zoning Bylaw.

9.4.2 The keeping of livestock, such as sheep, goats, cattle, horses, swine and bees, may be permitted as set out under the Regional District’s zoning bylaw which shall establish minimum parcel size and setbacks from parcel lines for features such as feeding troughs, manure piles and so on. Keeping of poultry and rabbits are considered in Policy 9.4.10.

9.4.3 Agricultural Advisory Committee and Agricultural Area Plan

a) The Regional District shall continue its support of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) to consider and advise the Regional District on agricultural matters.

b) Encourage the SCRD with assistance from the AAC to prepare an Agricultural Area Plan.

c) Encourage the AAC to develop programs to promote the education of farming activity

9.4.4 Food Security

318


Page 53 of 134

a) The Regional District should consider impacts on local food security when making land use decisions.

b) The Regional District should ensure a healthy, sustainable and stable food supply by working with Vancouver Coastal Health, Agricultural Advisory Committee, food producers, and other stakeholders to develop a long-term plan for improving local and regional food security.

9.4.5 Intensive Farming

The Regional District should develop appropriate regulations and guidelines for “intensive farming” in consultation with farmers and other stakeholders to minimize the impact of such activities on rural and residential neighbours. (ADD DEFINITION)

9.4.6 Environmental Values

The Regional District should encourage healthy and environmentally sound agricultural practices (e.g. promote the BC Environmental Farm Program and BC Farm Energy Assessments www.ardcorp.ca/index.php?page_id=14).).

9.4.7 Water

The Regional District should

a) develop a water management plan for the region that considers agricultural water needs.

b) Promote on-going education of farmers and public about farm specific water conservation and encourage storage of surplus water on farms and in general.

c) develop an education program to improve the management of farm waste, leachate collection, soil and water conservation, and water-nutrient balance.

d) when it considers rezoning applications that are not related to farming, ensure that the proposal will not reduce the quality and quantity of water for farming.

9.4.8 No Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

a) While there is limited power to prevent the introduction of GMOs the Regional District is encouraged to designate Roberts Creek and the Sunshine Coast as a genetically engineered crop free zone.

b) The Regional District is encouraged to support the control and eradication of non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

Note: Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. Item 6 of the Earth Charter states “ a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive. b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm. “

319


Page 54 of 134

9.4.9 Residential Agriculture

The Regional District should:

a) Strengthen local sustainable agriculture by supporting “backyard gardening” and community garden initiatives, such as allowing for horticultural sales.

b) In order to share food resources and to protect wildlife, support gleaning of crops and fruit.

c) Encourage new development to include contiguous space intended for food production and garden space for residents.

d) Permit community gardens, including community composting facilities, in any zone.

9.4.10 Support the Farming of Poultry and Rabbits

The Regional District, in consultation with the AAC, APC, OCPC and the community, should:

a) implement land use policies that allows for the keeping of hens only and rabbits in all residentially zoned parcels;

b) implement land use policies that allow keeping of poultry (including roosters and other fowl that are used for food production) and rabbits in all other zones;

c) allow commercial sale of rabbits, poultry and eggs produced on that lot, in any land use zone;

d) take action to reduce possible nuisance such as noise, smell, vermin and predators:

(i) establish reasonable setbacks for all structures, such as feed stations, and associated material, such as manure piles, must conform to provincial standards;

(ii) establish a reasonable limit on the number of rabbits and poultry allowed in residentially zoned lots;

(iii) develop best practices guidelines for the keeping of poultry and rabbits.

9.4.11 Soil Removal and Fill Practices

The Regional District should:

a) prohibit the removal of soil suitable for agricultural purposes from land designated as agricultural

b) support the placement of fill to protect the natural environment and where possible to preserve, maintain, and enhance soil for agricultural purposes

c) develop regulations regarding soil removal or enhancement

d) work with the AAC and ALC to develop policies regarding soil removal and fill

320


Page 55 of 134

e) refer any application for soil removal and fill to the AAC and ALC.

9.4.12 Agritourism

The SCRD should support agritourism as a means to strengthen local agriculture and expand knowledge and experience of agricultural activities throughout the wider community.

a) The Regional District should develop appropriate regulations and guidelines for agritourism activities in consultation with farmers and other stakeholders to minimize the impact of such activities on neighbouring properties.

b) Land use zoning policies should permit agritourism accommodation as the equivalent of bed and breakfast accommodation.

c) The Regional District may consider applications for rezoning or temporary use permit that would permit agritourism accommodation providing for more than 3 units, provided that:

(i) the use is accessory to working farm operations;

(ii) the use is on agriculturally designated land that is in the ALR; the application is consistent with ALC policies;

(iii) the working farm will continue in operation and will not be adversely affected;

(iv) potable water of sufficient quantity for both farming and non-farming use is available;

(v) sewage disposal facilities are suitable;

(vi) on-site parking is adequate;

(vii) the impact of increased traffic on adjacent roadways is considered;

(viii) the environmental impact of the proposal is considered;

(ix) and the impact on adjacent properties is addressed.

9.4.13 Farm Gate Sales

The Regional District shall allow sale of farm products, including livestock, poultry and rabbits, produced on the same lot by allowing small produce stands near the road lot line subject to considerations of parking and road safety.

9.4.14 Processing, Marketing, Education and Research

Within the OCP area, the Regional District shall consider rezoning applications or temporary use permits to allow facilities for:

(i) farm marketing

(ii) farmers’ markets;

(iii) small scale processing facilities of locally grown products;

321


Page 56 of 134

(iv) agricultural education;

(v) agricultural research.

Criteria to consider such uses includes:

(i) potential support of farming in Roberts Creek;

(ii) adequate parking;

(iii) minimizing impact on neighbouring lots such as from noise and smell;

(iv) environmental impact.

9.4.15 The SCRD shall require a 10 metre landscape buffer be established on any parcel adjacent to ALR prior to amending its Land Use Designation to facilitate an increase in development potential or density or additions of new uses. The landscape buffer shall conform to the Guidance set out in Development Permit Area 7.

9.5 The Regional District should provide guidance for how to reduce the potential for attracting bears to farm sites with the objective of protecting residents, farm produce and bears.

9.6 Site Specific Uses

a) 1710 Sunshine Coast Highway (DL 904, Block 9, Plan 4213, PID 011-749-351) The Land Use designation is amended to allow for activities that are in keeping with its rural surroundings including uses that are considered of community benefit such as education services, recreation facilities, cultural exhibits and performance halls.

322


Page 57 of 134

10) LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In the SCRD, liquid waste management is primarily handled by individual site owners as there is no comprehensive regional or electoral area system. Nor are there plans to develop one in the foreseeable future. However to ensure consistency of maintenance and operation, the SCRD has a policy to take over community systems (those that serve several lots) for residential and larger commercial developments providing they meet SCRD standards. As such, the SCRD has taken ownership and operation of some systems to date such as the Co-Housing site. The cost of operating these systems is met by the property owners and not subsidised by the general public.

Site specific conditions influence the development capacity because soil structure limits ability to meet provincial requirements. The Province no longer issues permits for individual lots and relies on qualified installers to register the plans with the Province. Technology is changing as package plants can respond to needs of sites that in the past were difficult to develop.

Community Sewage Systems means a common sewer or system of sewerage or sewage disposal which serves two or more parcels. Ocean outfalls are not supported.

Objectives:

10a To adopt an efficient liquid waste management approach that minimizes the potential for pollution of the land or aquatic ecosystems.

10b To adopt policies that reduces the possible impacts of treatment facilities that serve multi-parcels or large developments.

10c To not support sewage management systems that rely upon ocean outfalls

Policies

10.1 On-site sewage treatment and disposal systems and established individual parcel sewage treatment shall continue to be the preferred method of effluent disposal in the Plan Area and shall be subject to Provincial requirements.

10.2 Minimum parcel sizes to be permitted by subdivision shall reflect the suitability of soil types for ground disposal and treatment of effluent and by Ministry of Health subdivision standards.

10.3 At the time of subdivision or rezoning, MULTIPLE PARCEL or NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS with land disposal or ocean outfalls shall be discouraged unless unanticipated environmental problems or health hazards relating to sewage disposal need to be urgently addressed or where such facilities are required to provide for special housing needs.

10.4 Sewage treatment facilities required to address environmental problems, health hazards or to provide for affordable or special housing needs shall be designed and developed to Regional District standards and to Provincial requirements and subject to public consultation with local residents.

323


Page 58 of 134

10.5 Absorption field design should be based on Provincial septic tank criteria for large flow systems regardless of treatment quality.

10.6 Proposals for sewage treatment systems that rely on ocean outfalls are not supported.

10.7 Community sewage treatment systems, including common septic fields serving more than one parcel, are to be designed and developed to Regional District requirements.

10.8 Where a sewage treatment facility meets requirements of the Regional District’s subdivision servicing bylaw, it should be owned and operated by the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

10.9 The Regional District, in consultation with the Province and the local community, shall develop a liquid waste management plan strategy, initially for the village core and then the rest of the OCP area, to confirm and specify provisions for local community sewer systems (LCSS) that will provide a comprehensive approach to managing liquid waste reduction, treatment, utilization and disposal, that would include policies:

(i) Allowing LCSS for smaller-sized lot subdivisions and commercial uses regulated under Ministry of Health regulations (up to 22,700 litres per day).

(ii) Allowing LCSS for smaller-sized lot subdivisions or commercial uses regulated under Ministry of Environment regulations (over 22,700 litres per day).

(iii) Adopting an On-Site Sewer System Operation & Maintenance Bylaw to ensure maintenance and inspection of septic systems on existing smaller residential lots.

(iv) Regarding examination of existing subdivisions where there are existing or potential environmental health problems related to on-site septic disposal to determine if LCSS are needed to serve these areas.

(v) Allowing consideration of innovative solutions such as composting toilets.

(vi) Providing support for new technologies, such as smaller engineered systems, that meet Provincial and SCRD standards.

10.10 Technologies that reduce water use, such as grey water systems are encouraged.

324


Page 59 of 134

11) SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Located within the Roberts Creek OCP area, the Sechelt Regional Landfill on Dusty Road handled 11,600 tonnes in 2009 and is the largest landfill on the Coast and provides regional services for all areas with the exception of Egmont/Pender Harbour. The SCRD is altering its services in Egmont/Pender Harbour with the closure of landfill operations in 2012. The Sechelt Regional Landfill will become the only SCRD site for landfill on the Coast. Including the waste transferred from Egmont/Pender Harbour, the site has approximately 18 years remaining at current disposal rates.

The Landfill site is a lease from the Crown. Solid waste management is provided in accordance with the approved Solid Waste Management Plan, which was reviewed and adopted in September 2011. Provincial requirements change over time and the SCRD has responded by amending its operating plans and standards as necessary.

Over time disposal has moved from burying all non –toxic waste to separation at the site to encourage re-use and recycling. The SCRD is implementing energy recovery of methane gas at the Landfill. Neighbourhood recycling centres are a significant method of collecting recyclable material in the SCRD and are supplemented with recycling programs at the landfills. The SCRD encourages waste to be separated prior to drop off at the Landfill for example with differentiated charges for sorted and un-sorted material. The Landfill is organized such that there are different locations for recyclables, garden wastes, wood, construction material and other types of material. The Landfill also includes a ‘share shed’ to allow reuse of items.

As part of the 2010-11 Solid Waste Management Plan review, the SCRD is investigating the potential for curb side recycle pickup, including a public consultation process, as part of the SWMP review. Composting of garden waste at a central facility is an issue that is also being considered. There are two privately operated composting sites in the vicinity of the Landfill.

Objectives:

11a To provide for the management of municipal solid waste in a manner that meets the waste management and reduction requirements of the Regional District and Provincial Government as set out in the approved Solid Waste Management Plan.

11b To support the Zero Waste goal of the SCRD’s Solid Waste Management Plan.

11c To support policies and programs that reduce, re-use and recycle and thereby promote the wise use of the earth's resources.

11d To provide for the disposal of residuals at the existing landfill at Dusty Road.

11e To dispose of household hazardous waste in a safe and considerate manner.

11f To ensure that the disposal of solid waste does not negatively impact on wildlife and the environment.

Policies:

11.1 The Regional District will continue to provide a garbage pick-up service within the OCP area. While not all properties currently are served for various reasons, such as

325


Page 60 of 134

lack of access, the RD shall regularly review operational capability and local conditions to determine if service can be extended.

11.2 The Regional District shall provide solid waste management services for the Plan Area that meet the requirements of the Provincial Government and continue to strive to reduce solid waste deposited at the Sechelt Regional Landfill site on Dusty Road in Electoral Area D.

11.3 The Regional District's disposal site on Dusty Road will continue to be the main disposal site for residual refuse from the Plan Area.

11.4 The Regional District shall continue to support recycling as a means of reducing solid waste and if necessary provide collection facilities in appropriate locations subject to community consultation. Provision of curbside recycling should form part of consideration when reviewing the Regional District’s Solid Waste Management Plan

11.5 The Regional District shall investigate and if possible implement alternatives to landfill such as green waste composting facilities.

11.6 The Regional District shall investigate and if possible implement energy recovery facilities at the Sechelt Regional Landfill in Roberts Creek.

11.7 Residents will be encouraged to reduce, recycle and re-use materials in order to maximize the life span of the existing solid waste disposal site.

11.8 The Regional District shall prepare and regularly update a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.

326


Page 61 of 134

12) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND GREEN POWER

There is growing support for green energy solutions, however there is also concern regarding the scale and number of projects that may be ‘industrializing’ the back country. Government policy and agency regulation processes change over time. Currently, utilities in BC are supporting a distributed generation model – by encouraging homeowners, businesses and local developments to generate power onsite and then share this energy back either onto the grid and/or local buildings. BC Hydro currently offers a simplified and fast-tracked approach to support residential and commercial customers to generate heat and/or energy using a “BC clean” source and net-metering back to the grid (for capacity ratings below 50 kilowatts (50kW)). Examples of alternative energy technologies included under BC Clean include small/micro hydro, wind, solar, photovoltaic, geothermal, tidal, wave and biomass energy, cogeneration of heat and power, energy from landfill gas and municipal solid waste, and fuel cells.

(http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/net_metering.html)

It is likely that the regulatory ‘hoops’ for micro electric plans will be reduced for individual property owners and for smaller plants of less than 15 MW. Small microhydro projects under 5 kW capacity have been undertaken in the Roberts Creek OCP area – generating under 5 kW (sufficient to cover off a single household). Currently there are no independent power projects developed in the Roberts Creek OCP area that require provincial or SCRD approvals and meet the requirements of BC Hydro’s Calls for Power (over 15 MW generating capacity) or Standing Offer Program (from 0.05 MW50 kW to 15 MW generating capacity). These are generally run-of-river but can include wind or other types of technology.

Small scale green power projects that serve individual houses can make use of a variety of technologies, such as solar panels, geothermal or wind, to generate power for on-site use and sale to BC Hydro. Currently BC Hydro reviews projects that generate less than 0.05 MW, under their Net Metering Program. BC Hydro policies change over time in response to Provincial legislation and initiatives and changes in technology. The SCRD shall continue to review these changes to determine if OCP or other SCRD policies need to be amended.

The Renewable Energy Atlas (SCRD, 2012), provides a high level assessment of the potential for Renewable Energy on the coast and also highlights available resources and local installers which residents, businesses and institutions can use as a source to determine next steps for installing systems locally.

Energy conservation efforts are an important component in meeting future energy needs. New development should be built to minimize energy use. Existing development should be upgraded to reduce energy use. BC Hydro, as part of their energy planning relies on conservation as the main means to close the potential gap between generation capacity and demand. . As higher energy homes become the norm, the additional effect of increased computer and wireless technologies in homes represents a growing sector of home energy efficiency.

As a society we are becoming more reliant on and comfortable with rapidly changing telecommunications and computer technology. High speed internet and reliable cover for cell

327

http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/net_metering.html

http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/acquiring_power/current_offerings/net_metering.html


Page 62 of 134

phones and other equipment can contribute towards increased local employment opportunities and life style choices.

It is likely that technology and regulation will continue to change at a high pace. While local governments have limited control over the location of facilities and limited influence over Provincial and agency policies, it is useful to set out what the Roberts Creek community views are.

Objectives:

12a The Regional District should support improvement to telecommunications facilities that are shared, well located and do not negatively impact local residents.

12b Small scale household level green power projects (less than 0.05 MW generation capacity) should be encouraged.

12c Larger green power projects should receive full review that includes significant public consultation.

12d That the benefits offered by all green power projects do not neglect possible impacts on the local community and the environment.

12e Community energy systems should be supported.

Policies:

12.1 The SCRD will work with regulatory agencies and providers to ensure that local input is considered in the location of telecommunications facilities such as communications towers.

12.2 The SCRD supports the provision of high speed internet connection facilities provided local input is included in the decision making process and potential environmental impacts are mitigated and minimized.

12.3 The SCRD will continue to request and participate in provincial and federal working groups established to review proposals for green power projects in the OCP area.

12.4 For small scale, household level green power projects (less than 0.05 MW generation capacity), the SCRD shall consider reducing the fee for development variance permits or development permits that are subject to Development Permit Area (Stream Habitat), and restrictions of structure/building height could be relaxed.

12.5 The SCRD will investigate the potential for community led green power projects in the OCP area. These could include ocean or geothermal based heat pump system could support a small higher density living development – providing an example of this. Another example could be a community driven solar pV project for a shared facility/ building. The Renewable Energy Atlas (SCRRD, 2012) provides one source of information and opportunity for the region.

12.6 Under no circumstances does the community approve of the use of herbicide or pesticide on public utility rights of way.

328


Page 63 of 134

12.7 The potential impact of green power projects on sensitive environments needs to be considered with the objective of mitigating any potential harm.

329


Page 64 of 134

13) WATER SERVICE AREA and WATERSHEDS

Currently there is a split in provision of potable water. Most properties below Highway 101 (Sunshine Coast Highway) are served by the SCRD water system and treatment plant on Chapman Creek. Most properties above the Highway draw water from wells or streams as the SCRD system is currently not capable of servicing this area.

In September 2003, a Watershed Accord was signed between the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation, for the purpose of protecting community water drinking resources in the ts’úkw’um stulu (Chapman Creek) and Grey Creek watersheds. This agreement commits both parties to “sharing responsibility and the decision-making processes in respect of the shared management of the watersheds” and “for the sharing of the costs, expenses, and liabilities from the shared management of the watersheds”. All applications for industrial, commercial, recreational, or other activities within the watershed will be referred to the shíshálh Nation for their comment. The SCRD and the shíshálh Nation will continue to work together to protect the watershed from any development which will impact the drinking water supply.

In October 2005, a further Joint Watershed Management Agreement was established to co-manage these watersheds. This Agreement created a Joint Water Management Advisory Committee, which includes equal representation from the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation. This Agreement was renewed in January 2011 to acknowledge the mutual interests in improving and maintaining the safety and quality of the potable water supply. The Chapman Watershed above the water intake for the treatment plant is identified as ts’úkw’um stulu lil xemit tems swiya (Tetrahedron – Chapman Creek Conservation Area (CA)) in the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation.

The SCRD regularly updates its 10-Year Water Master Plan which identifies works that need to take place to maintain the existing system and sets out expansion and improvements needed to serve the Coast. Development approvals should be based upon water capacity.

SCRD’s main water treatment facility for the Coast is in the Roberts Creek area as is the intake on Chapman Creek. There is a longstanding SCRD and community commitment to protect the integrity and water quality of Chapman/Grey Watershed.

The SCRD does not have the power to issue licences to draw water from lakes or streams, this is a provincial responsibility. However the SCRD will continue to be sent referral notices from the province for new lease/licenses. Protection of aquifers that provide groundwater is an important consideration when reviewing any development or resource extraction proposals in Roberts Creek.

Water conservation programs, such as the low flow toilets replacement program, and improvements to existing infrastructure (such as waterman replacements, looping of water lines) are the primary focus of the SCRD as a means of improving service and controlling demand placed on the system. However in the longer term, increased treatment capacity and water storage will be needed. As preparation for meeting longer term needs a community-driven watershed study should take place.

330


Page 65 of 134

Objectives:

13a To protect watershed areas and the quality of water.

13b To supply sufficient quality and quantity of Regional District water for domestic consumption, agriculture and fire protection purposes.

13c Water conservation programs and development of related infrastructure are supported.

13d To protect surface and groundwater which are necessary for ecosystem health, independent supply to individual lots and Regional District community water systems.

13e To avoid zoning changes that result in the depletion of existing wells or springs or water bodies used as water supplies.

13f To avoid the creation of new flooding hazards or the aggravating of existing flood hazards that could result from changes to storm water drainage patterns.

13g To encourage the Regional District to undertake aquifer mapping.

13h To support a community-driven watershed study.

Policies:

13.1 The Regional District will develop and maintain RESERVOIRS, WATER MAINS and any other storage capacity, supply mains, or other transmission facilities required to provide water to that part of the Plan Area depicted by Map 4 as SCRD WATER SERVICE AREA (DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE BOUNDARY).

13.2 When the SCRD’s 10-Year Water Master Plan is updated then the OCP objectives and policies will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated subject to public consultation and environmental review.

13.3 The costs of distributing water from the supply WATER MAINS to new parcels and of providing hydrants for fire protection purposes for new development shall continue to be the responsibility of those creating new parcels.

13.4 The costs of extending and expanding Regional District water mains to serve new developments shall be the responsibility of those undertaking the development.

13.5 If as a result of new development the Regional District community water mains are extended beyond the current Water Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw area, the developer shall be responsible to make application to extend the DCC Bylaw area and/or other arrangements acceptable to the Regional District to off-set or accommodate future capital and operating costs imposed on the Regional District.

13.6 In order to minimize future needs and demands for community water supplied by the Regional District, average parcel sizes of at least 1.0 ha. (2.5 acres) shall be maintained in those parts of the Plan Area that are not served by the Regional District community water service that be provided with on-site water sources meeting Provincial Government’s environmental and health legislation and policies.

331


Page 66 of 134

13.7 The use of private and Crown lands should be conducted in a matter that does not jeopardize existing and future domestic public and private water quality, flow and supply.

13.8 Deforestation is a significant concern and any forestry activity should take into account possible impacts on water quality and supply.

13.9 Community-driven watershed studies to identify "Well-Head Protection Areas" and provide recommendations for management of development within such areas should be undertaken to ensure that the water quality of recharge areas for ground water wells is maintained.

i. The studies should consider the impact of forestry activity on both Crown and private land with regard to water quality, supply and flow.

ii. The studies should facilitate an innovative community-driven watershed study to examine horizontal rather than vertical movement of water using slowing-down devices, such as gabions and swales, to recharge the aquifer as one means of maintaining supply for wells.

iii. This will be a non-traditional watershed study to make Roberts Creek an exemplary community watershed/forest harvesting area ( i.e. not recommending larger culverts as the solution to controlling flow).

13.10 The Regional District should, as part of developing its next 10-year Regional Water Master Plan, include studies and policies regarding ground water protection, re-charging aquifers and potentially developing alternate water supplies.

13.11 Rezoning applications must consider the impacts on existing wells, springs, or other water supplies.

If development is expected to need more water than the uses already allowed on the property, then evidence shall be provided that wells or other water supplies in the neighbourhood would not be negatively impacted.

Information will also be required regarding whether water use would affect agricultural activities or negatively impact any springs necessary to maintain fish habitat.

Should a zoning change be proposed where groundwater supplies are not adequate, the applicant would be required to find other means of supplying water, such as rainwater catchment water storage or a water conservation program.

Provision of information and solutions options must be provided by a qualified expert (such as engineers with expertise in hydrology and biologists that have expertise in the role of groundwater on area ecosystems (i.e. wetlands fed from aquifers) and the SCRD will consult with the Province to ensure that relevant legislation and regulations are met.

13.12 The provision of a community water service to all parcels on the south side of the Sunshine Coast Highway shall be a Regional District priority due to the potential for

332


Page 67 of 134

contamination of surface water supplies by run-off from the Sunshine Coast Highway.

13.13 The Regional District shall take all opportunities in the planning and development approval process to implement the Regional District’s Universal Water Metering Master Plan.

13.14 Land that is presently designated and zoned for watershed protection should remain in such a zone and not have development potential.

13.15 All users are encouraged to conserve water by methods such as:

a. grey water reuse

b. introduction of low flow toilets and showerheads;

c. on site water collection and storage;

d. planting of drought tolerant, low water demand native species (xeriscaping or xerogardening); and

e. automated irrigation systems.

13.16 The Regional District shall take appropriate actions, such as public education programs and sprinkler regulation during periods of low precipitation, to ensure that sufficient water supply is available.

13.17 The SCRD will consider provision of water for fire fighting in reviewing proposals, especially where there is no access to Regional District water services. Appropriate facilities will be required.

333


Page 68 of 134

14) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE PLANS

Management of drainage and stormwater in the SCRD has traditionally been overseen by the Province through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, although their mandate is targeted at protecting the road system against flooding and damage. The guiding principle is to not increase flow from the site and to return to a ‘natural’ situation. Thus the infrastructure should not just funnel water into streams especially where there are geotechnical issues. Capturing run-off on site, such as using on-site retention, so that it can then be returned in the ground is a means of recharging the aquifer.

In 2006, the SCRD commissioned consultants, Delcan, to carry out a study of stormwater issues in eastern Roberts Creek, Elphinstone and West Howe Sound. This study was co-funded by the SCRD and the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure. The results of the study will inform the SCRD’s emerging policies related to development and subdivision reviews. It is used in discussions relating to allocating Provincial resources to address current road related drainage issues. The reports making up the Integrated Stormwater Management Plan were provided in two phases, the first received in 2006 and the second in 2008.

Soft solutions are preferred to hard engineered solutions (such as planted swales over hard pipes). There is a limit to what can be accounted for such as 1-in-10 year event as opposed to 1-in-100 year events. Over time as climate change has a greater impact, there is a potential for increased precipitation events of greater intensity along with longer hot/dry periods. Thus heavier impact events may become more regular.

It is important to consider downstream or downhill impacts of additional lots (subdivision) and new development on existing lots.

Roadside ditches are generally required by the province as means to protect the road system. Care needs to be taken when tying individual lots into such facilities and the property owner and SCRD should work with the province to ensure that the existing road ditch systems do not fail.

Building Permit controls such as perimeter drains are designed to protect the building and not to specifically protect adjacent lots. The SCRD is working with the province to ensure that adequate systems are implemented at the time of subdivision and rezoning.

Objectives

14a To maintain the existing natural watersheds’ flow characteristics to the greatest extent possible by taking into account the cumulative impacts of each development on watersheds.

14b To minimize each development’s contribution to the sedimentation and pollution of watercourses.

14c To limit the percentage of total impervious area (TIA) surfaces in each watershed to not more than the existing TIA or to a maximum target level set out by an Integrated Stormwater Management Plan.

14d To minimize the impacts of stormwater and drainage at subdivision stage.

334


Page 69 of 134

Policies

14.1 The Regional District should amend its current zoning bylaw to include provisions limiting the percentage of impervious paving and building areas on a parcel to reduce surface runoff. Allowances could be made where hard surfacing is incorporated into water collection and storage that reduces use of community water systems.

14.2 The Regional District should amend its current subdivision servicing bylaw, in cooperation with the Province, to discourage the use of curb and gutters on local residential roads and to require the construction of swales or shallow pervious ditches where road side drainage is required.

14.3 The Regional District should establish a protocol with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding requirements for site specific drainage plans to minimizing the impact of stormwater at subdivision both within the site and to properties downstream.

14.4 Any drainage plans to be formulated for the Plan Area shall be cognizant of water quality and quantity standards for independent water supply sources such as wells.

14.5 In addition to within development permits areas, native trees and vegetation should be maintained to reduce the effect of rainfall on stormwater flows where possible, at the time of approval of rezoning and other discretionary development applications.

14.6 Where retention of native vegetation is not possible, re-vegetation using the Naturescape BC guidelines should be undertaken to reduce the effect of rainfall on stormwater flows where possible, at the time of approval of rezoning and other discretionary development applications.

14.7 The Regional District should undertake stormwater planning at the watershed level and at the individual development level that takes into account the full spectrum of rainfall events in order to maintain or replicate to the greatest extent possible natural systems, thereby protecting stormwater as a resource for:

(i) Groundwater recharge to maintain base flows in streams;

(ii) Fish, other aquatic species and wildlife;

(iii) Potable water supplies; and

(iv) Aesthetic and recreational use.

14.8 The Regional District’s Subdivision Servicing Bylaw should be amended to ensure that development requiring building permit or subdivision applications meet on-site and off-site stormwater management criteria that support the above stormwater objectives for the following types of development:

(i) A dwelling unit, duplex, multi-family unit development, expansion or development of a mobile home park;

335


Page 70 of 134

(ii) Auxiliary buildings with a floor area exceeding 200 sq. m. (2152 sq. ft.);

(iii) A commercial, industrial or institutional building; and

(iv) Subdivisions that would result in a net increase in three or more parcels for any type of land use.

The infrastructure required should relate to the size of the development and its potential impact on the area.

14.9 Development should not result in the pollution of surface or groundwater supplies. Particular care should be taken to ensure that there are no detrimental impacts on agricultural land, to wells or to streams because of water pollution.

336


Page 71 of 134

15) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The road network has a significant impact on the character of the area. It can define whether an area is rural, suburban or urban in character. A well designed road network may reduce trip lengths, improve safety and encourage walking and cycling.

The road network in the rural areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional District is the responsibility of the Province to maintain, develop and improve. The SCRD does not have jurisdiction over roads. However, it is important the Sunshine Coast Regional District works with the Province Ministry of Transportation and Infrastrucutre in planning network and land use changes. The Regional District wants to ensure that any proposed network changes are the subject of consultation with local residents at a scale related to the proposal.

Not all roads are developed to Provincial standards and there are significant areas that are accessed via road right of ways that are not maintained by the Province. There are significant forest service roads in Roberts Creek that provide access to recreation areas and are sometimes used to access residential properties.

The Sunshine Coast Highway is the only road link to Gibsons, Sechelt and beyond. It is moderately busy and generally able to handle local traffic. However there are significant pulses of traffic tied to the BC Ferry schedule that can cause local congestion, hazardous conditions and make it very difficult to turn left onto or from the Highway; this is especially pronounced in the summer. The traffic light installed at Roberts Creek Road should assist in improving access into and out of the main residential areas below and above the Highway. Lower Road and Beach Avenue provide a local alternative below the Highway, although this route also experiences an increase during the Ferry pulse. It is not unusual to find vehicles travelling well over the 50 km/hr speed limit to try to catch the ferry as monitored by Speed Watch, a local residents group.

The Public Transit services were initiated in 1982, and have been expanded over the years to include a conventional transit service. The service operates from Halfmoon Bay to Langdale and offers accessible service to 18,400 residents, based on an estimate of 2006 population within 400 meters of a transit route. The Sunshine Coast Transit System (SCTS) is fully accessible for passengers with disabilities, and Handydart services are also available. Bicycle racks are available on all SCTS buses. In Roberts Creek, the Sechelt to Langdale Ferry Route alternates between travelling along the Highway and going along Lower Rd/Beach Ave/Flume Rd.

Objectives:

15a To work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to plan for an adequate road system that complements and supports the existing rural wooded character of Roberts Creek.

15b In cooperation with the Province, the SCRD should ensure that any proposed changes to the road network are the subject of consultation with local residents at a scale related to the proposal.

15c To provide for public transit and encourage road layouts and pedestrian links that facilitate transit use.

337


Page 72 of 134

15c To provide for a well maintained walking, bicycling, and equestrian system inter-linking residential neighborhoods with recreational areas and community facilities.

15d To provide for off-street parking, including bicycle parking that will adequately serve the various land uses.

15e To strongly oppose the off-loading of barges at road rights-of-way providing beach access.

15f To provide for park and ride facilities for cars and bikes.

15g To ensure that the road network and other transportation infrastructure are developed to minimize impact on the rural residential character, environmentally sensitive areas and the ALR.

15h Subject to future public consultation, to implement the relevant improvements identified in the Integrated Transportation Study (SCRD, 2011).

Policies:

15.1 The TRANSPORT NETWORK depicted by Map 3 and formulated by the Regional District should form the future PRIMARY HIGHWAY, MAJOR RURAL ROAD, MAIN RESIDENTIAL\RURAL ROAD and SCENIC HERITAGE ROAD system for the Plan Area.

15.2 As it is unlikely that a major alternative to the Sunshine Coast Highway will be built within the life of this Roberts Creek OCP, Map 3 has not identified a possible route. However, in the event that an alternate to the Highway is required through the Roberts Creek OCP area, the location and the transportation modes should only be decided following a meaningful public process that includes local residents.

15.3 The Integrated Transportation Study identifies a potential bypass route being developed around the Davis Bay community in the District of Sechelt. If Field Road is not deemed to be appropriate as the permanent or long term access around Davis Bay, then an alternative access in the vicinity of Jack Road should be considered.

As part of this bypass, the continuation of the separated cycling and walking path to Field Road should be included in the development of this alternative route.

In addition the specific proposal should be subject to a meaningful public consultation process that includes residents of Roberts Creek.

Regarding where the alternate route through the Town of Gibsons and Elphinstone Electoral Area intersects on the eastern side of Roberts Creek, there are a range of potential options and as such a separate public consultation process that includes residents of Roberts Creek should be conducted.

15.4 The SCRD shall establish a relationship between the Roberts Creek community, the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations, the Regional District, and the Province which enables public participation in the decision making process where new roads and highways are being planned or developed or where existing roads are being substantially changed.

338


Page 73 of 134

15.5 To provide opportunity for the province to work collaboratively with property owners adjacent to or substantially affected by new road and highway development to be notified sufficiently in advance of construction so as to have meaningful opportunity for comment on said development.

15.6 As not all of a road right of way is required for the actual developed road surface, shoulders and drainage, the SCRD shall work with the Province to ensure that adequate vegetation/tree lined buffers are maintained within the road right of way that screen adjacent lots. This should be , subject to road, bike and pedestrian safety, such that the rural character of the area is maintained. The Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road are the major road routes into and through Roberts Creek and should be the focus for developing buffers.

15.7 The development of roads as designated by Map 3 should continue to take place on an incremental basis as warranted, through the dedication of necessary rights-of-ways as land is subdivided along the designated routes.

15.8 The SCRD should develop a screening bylaw for properties adjacent to road rights of way, pursuant to the Local Government Act, for properties in Roberts Creek. Screening of properties would have to take into account sight lines and safety of the travelling public to ensure no obstacles are placed with a roads clear zone. Any landscaping or screenning within the right of way would require Ministry approval.The SCRD should develop a screening bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act for all roads in Roberts Creek.

15.9 The Province shall be strongly encouraged to make safety improvements to Highway 101, including Rat Portage Hill, and access lanes into major facilities such as the Sunshine Coast Golf and Country Club and Cliff Gilker Park, subject to Provincial funding priorities. should follow those set out in theThe Integrated Transportation Strategy Study (SCRD, 2011) should be referred to when making decisions on priorities for improvements.

15.10 The SCRD shall work with the Province, the shíshálh Nation, property owners the District of Sechelt, and the Town of Gibsons to extend the separated pedestrian and bike path along part of the Highway into the District of Sechelt, at least as far as Field Road industrial and commercial area, and towards the Elphinstone boundary and ultimately into the Town of Gibsons. The Regional District may require provision of separated path as consideration of a community benefit during consideration of rezoning applications.

15.11 The designations for larger COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL parcels adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway and associated land-use designations as shown on the Schedule XX 3 will help to maintain the rural, wooded atmosphere while minimizing the need for access points.

15.12 Any alterations to the The Transportation Network route road network shown on the Map 3 map should facilitate take into account the potential for provision of public transit or improvements to existing transit provision (such as provision of bus pull outs).

339


Page 74 of 134

15.13 Potential subdividers and developers should be required to plan rural road layouts and pedestrian links that provide controlled access to the Major Road Network and facilitate access to public transit services.

15.14 The parking requirements of commercial, home occupation and community facilities shall have a minimal impact on the visual and pedestrian and cycling environment in those areas. The Regional District may consider proposals to reduce minimum parking requirements through a development variance permit or rezoning application, subject to community, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and RCMP input.

15.15 In consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure consideration should be

given to establishing pedestrian and bike routes along undeveloped road rights of way. Such facilities should be clearly marked and developed in a manner enabling their integration with

future road development within the right of way.Undeveloped road rights-of-way In addition and green corridors (such as parks), where appropriate, shall should be used as pedestrian and bike routes to complement and integrate with road side routes. with clearly marked signs, and developed in a manner enabling their integration with future road development within the rights-of-way.

15.16 Where an undeveloped road right of way is to be developed to facilitate subdivision for other development activity, the Province is encouraged to work with the SCRD and local residents to protect or replace exiting trails or to provide new trails for pedestrian and bike use.

15.17 The Province should provide sufficient shoulder width, at least 2 metres, for bikes and pedestrians in their design of Major Road Network routes. Bike routes need to be well maintained and kept free of debris

15.18 The lease at the foot of Henderson Road should be renewed for recreation use and prohibit the barging of houses.

15.19 Park and ride facilities should be encouraged. Their location should be evaluated on criteria that includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following:

a. the potential for park and ride to be integrated with other forms of development, thereby making more efficient use of parking areas;

b. a location that facilitates transit use such as close to a bus stop;

c. near main intersection;

d. close to facilities such as the school;

e can accoomoadte parking for cars and bikes; and

f. visible, safe public space..

15.20 Vehicle access at Timberland Road and the Sunshine Coast Highway should be permanently closed. The Timberland Road right-of-way should be limited to pedestrian and bicycle access.

340


Page 75 of 134

15.2115.20 Any new road accesses onto the Sunshine Coast Highway should be discouraged for safety reasons.

15.2215.21 Map 3 designates Beach Avenue and Lower Road and all beach access road-ends as a SCENIC HERITAGE ROUTE to recognize the unique and significant scenic heritage value of these roads. Improvements to provide safer pedestrian and cycling use should be made. This could include provision of walking/cycling paths adjacent to the roads, reducing speed limits in specific locations and reducing the impact on roadside vegetation on pedestrians/cyclists. Appropriate signage to the route should be provided.

15.2315.22 While they are alternative routes towards the District of Sechelt and the Town of Gibsons for local residents and an alternative when the Highway is blocked, Lower Road and Beach Avenue are local roads and the Regioanl Distrcit shall encourage the Ministry of Transpotration and Infrastrucutre any improvements need to take to maintaining a the local character into account when completing any road improvements..

15.2415.23 When considering All issues relating to road layout or development the Regional District shall be referred to engage with the Roberts Creek community at large and relevant community groups.

15.2515.24 The SCRD shall work with the local community, developers, the Province and BC Transit to expand public transportation services that includes, but is not limited to: greater frequency, specialist services such as Handy Dart, increased bike storage at stops, bus stop shelters, expansion of service to properties north of the Highway and smaller community buses.

15.2615.25 Traffic calming measures should be investigated and implemented if appropriate, initially for Lower Road with other roads to be considered as identified, in consultation with local residents and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. If appropriate, implementation would be subject to Ministry approval and oversight.

15.2715.26 Support for non-Greenhouse Gas emitting vehicles, such as Electric Vehicles (EV) and limited speed electric scooters and Net Zero Emissions Vehicles should be investigated, including community engagement, and if appropriate implemented. Support for installation of EV charging stations and electric scooters/ bicycles would enhance uptake and use of these technologies. This Other actions could include traffic speed reductions, dedicated lanes or roads, additional controlled intersections across the Highway and electric charging facilities. Any changes would need to be agreed with and implemented by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

15.2815.27 The Regional District should work with property owners and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to balance the desire for roadside vegetation that enhances rural character with the need to provide for safe, usable roadside pedestrian and bicycle paths.

341


Page 76 of 134

15.2915.28 The following intersections, shown on Map 3, are identified for improvement:

a) Integrated Transportation Study -

i) Lower Road and Sunshine Coast Highway

ii) Flume Road and Sunshine Coast Highway

b) Other Sources -

iii) Roberts Creek Road and Timberland Road (identified by School District 46 and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure)

iv) Cedar Grove Road and Roberts Creek Road (identified by RC community).

The Regional District shall consider any applications to amend the OCP or rezone properties near these intersections with respect to potential to achieve the improvements or to ensure that the proposed development does not hinder future improvements.

15.3015.29 As there may be other intersections that are in need of improvement, the Regional District should work with the community and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to identify these and if needed amend Map 3 and Policy 15.29.

15.3115.30 When reviewing subdivision applications the Regional District should identify opportunities for providing new, usable beach access.

342


Page 77 of 134

16) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS and DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA

Development Permit Areas are designated to identify sensitive locations and protect them from the negative impacts of development and to protect development from hazards. This could include fish habitat in streams, steep slopes, shoreline and design guidelines for commercial areas.

The DPA designation does not stop development outright. Any development needs to be supported by detailed reports from qualified professional that identify where development can and can’t take place on a particular property or detailed design statements to respond to design guidelines.

There may be site specific information needed by the SCRD and the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations to assist in reviewing any proposals that require an amendment to the OCP or a rezoning application.

Objectives:

16a To protect development from hazardous conditions.

16b To protect the natural environment.

16c To ensure that the form and character of commercial and multi-family residential development reflect the wooded, rural community atmosphere that now prevails.

16d To protect Agricultural Lands from possible impacts of subdivision of adjacent properties.

16e The Regional District may require development approval information to support permit, OCP amendment and rezoning applications.

16f To protect archaeological and heritage resources.

Policies:

16.1 Development Permits shall be required in areas designated as DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS by Map 5 under the following categories as defined by Section 919.1(1) of the Local Government Act:

"a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity related to the control of silting or erosion or protection of stream banks or foreshore or the protection of fisheries resources requiring an environmental study for approval of subdivisions, alteration of the land, or for the issuance of building permits within Development Permit Area No 1;

"b" protection of development from hazardous conditions requiring development precautions and a geotechnical study indicating that such development precautions are necessary to use the land safely for its intended use under the present zoning for approval of subdivisions, alteration of the land, or for the issuance of building permits within Development Permit Area Nos 2 and 3.;

"e" establishment of objectives for the form and character of intensive residential development;

"f" establishment of objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential development.

343


Page 78 of 134

16.2 The policies in this plan are consistent with the requirements of the provincial government’s Riparian Areas Regulations.

16.3 Development permits shall be required prior to the subdivision of land; commencement of the construction of, addition to or alteration of a building or other structure; or alteration of land within a designated development permit area by Map 5, except where the following exemption provisions apply:

(i) to the proposed construction involves a structural change, addition or renovation to an existing lawfully conforming and constructed building or structures provided that the footprint of the building or structure is not expanded and provided that it does not involve any alteration of land;

(ii) to the removal of existing vegetation to allow for replanting or the planting of native trees, shrubs, or groundcovers for the purpose of enhancing the habitat values and/or soil stability within the development permit area;

(iii) to a subdivision, where an existing covenant or proposed covenant secured by a solicitor’s undertaking at the time of rezoning or subdivision, meets the development permit guidelines and protects the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity to the satisfaction of the Regional District;

(iv) to the alteration of land that involves removing dead or damaged trees as determined by a qualified person (registered professional forester, or an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist) providing that:

any damage resulted from non-human causes, such as a storm or landslip;

such trees pose an immediate hazard to life, living accommodation or other lawfully constructed structures; and

the removal is accomplished through the use of standard forestry practices and techniques

(v) for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only, to the removal of up to three trees per parcel in a calendar year and must be reported to the Regional District (Note: the root balls must not be removed without approval from the Regional District);

(vi) for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only, to the removal or alteration of vegetation, in an area of up to 10 sq metres once per calendar year per parcel and must be reported to the Regional District (NOTE: the land is not to be hard surfaced),

344


Page 79 of 134

(vii) to independent power projects that were subject to Ministry of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans approval and a “save harmless” covenant or agreement with the Regional District;

(viii) to emergency procedures to prevent, control or reduce erosion, or other immediate threats to life and property provided they are undertaken in accordance with the provincial Water and Wildlife Acts and the Federal Fisheries Act, and must be reported to the Regional District;

(ix) where a development has been approved but not yet built (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only);

(x) where the lands are subject to the Forest Act or Private Managed Forest Land Act;

(xi) where the lands are to be used for ‘farm operation’ as defined by the Farm Practices Protection Act (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only);

(xii) for park or parkland ancillary uses not related to commercial, residential or industrial activities (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only).

(xiii) within DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE, existing legal non-conforming buildings under Section 911 of the Local Government Act, and other existing buildings and impervious surfaces described within Policy 3.18 (2)(c) and (d) DPA4 Guidelines 2 (c) and (d) may be repaired within their existing 3-dimensional envelope without a Development Permit.

(xiv) within DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE, existing shoreline protection works or beach access steps within Policy 3.18 (2)(a) and (b) DPA4 Guidelines 2 (a) and (b) may be repaired without a Development Permit if they are within their original 3-dimensional envelope and are above the current grade and are above and landward of the current natural boundary of the ocean.

(xv) Exemptions set out in DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 6: ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA

16.4 Some sites/parcels are within two or more development permit areas and all relevant guidelines should be met.

16.5 The Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) indicates where sites of environmental interest may be found on the Coast. Any applications for permits or rezoning should refer to the SEI and the Regional District may require an environmental study to identify specific locations worthy of protection.

16.6 The Regional District should use the SEI as the basis for a detailed study to identify specific locations to be designated as new Development Permit Areas for the

345


Page 80 of 134

protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity.

346


Page 81 of 134

Development Permit Area 1: Stream Riparian Assessment Areas

DPA 1 as shown on Map 5, and including any mapped or unmapped stream tributaries that may provide fish habitat.

Research and analysis for wetland areas appears in the report by Taara Environmental titled The Confirmation of Effective Ecological Boundary of Wetlands in West Howe Sound and Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Areas.

They consist of the areas so designated by Map 5, and the following areas in the Plan Area, within and adjacent to all streams, which by definition includes wetlands and lakes:

(a) for a stream, a 30 metre strip on both sides of the stream, measured from the natural boundary;

(b) for a ravine less than 60 metres wide, a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the high water mark to a point that is 30 metres beyond the top of the ravine bank; and

(c) for a ravine 60 metres wide or greater, a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the natural boundary to a point that is 10 metres beyond the top of the ravine bank.

The Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation establishes the Stream Riparian Assessment Areas as described above.

CATEGORY: (a) "protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity".

JUSTIFICATION:

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 1: STREAM RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT AREAS include the following types of riparian areas that either provides fish habitat or flows to a waterbody that provides habitat. This consists of areas as illustrated on Map 5, and includes the following areas within and adjacent to all streams:

(a) The following watercourses known to have fish present: East Wilson Creek (resident and sea-run cutthroat trout):

Flume Creek (cutthroat trout); Clack Creek (resident cutthroat trout, dolly varden); Roberts Creek (coho, chum, steelhead, resident cutthroat, dolly varden), Stephens Creek (coho and chum); Malcolm Creek (coho and chum, steelhead, sea-run and resident cutthroat), Robinson Creek (resident cutthroat), Clough Creek (possibly resident cutthroat) and Molyneux Creek (resident cutthroat).

(b) All streams in the Plan Area, whether mapped or unmapped, are also designated as Development Permit Area 1 as fish and/or fish habitat may be present or they may flow into a waterbody that provides fish habitat.

(c) Randall Lake, which supports resident cutthroat.

GUIDELINES:

347


Page 82 of 134

(a) An environmental assessment report prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with Riparian Areas Regulation is required in support of a development permit application and for Regional District issuance of a development permit. The report must identify the width of the streamside protection and enhancement area to be protected, and measures necessary to protect the integrity of the streamside protection and enhancement area.

(b) The qualified environmental professional must:

(i) certify he or she is qualified to conduct the assessment;

(ii) certify he or she has followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation;

(iii) provide an opinion that no natural features, functions or conditions that support fish life processes in the assessment area will be harmfully altered, disrupted or destroyed; or

(iv) in the event that there will be a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions, and conditions that support fish life processes in the stream riparian assessment area (i.e. a HADD), obtain authorization from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada or authorization under a regulation under the Fisheries Act (Canada).

(c) Proposed developments and timing of construction should:

(i) minimize any damaging impact on the natural features, functions and conditions of the streamside protection and enhancement areas;

(ii) minimize the area of encroachment into the streamside protection and enhancement areas.

(iii) take into consideration fish passage and spawning times

(d) Development Permits issued may require that:

(i) areas of land, specified in the permit, must remain free of development, except in accordance with any conditions contained in the permit;

(ii) specified natural features or areas be preserved, protected, restored or enhanced in accordance with the permit;

(iii) natural watercourses be dedicated;

(iv) works, including improvements to channelized areas, be constructed to preserve, protect, restore or enhance watercourses or other specified natural features of the environment;

(v) protection measures, including that vegetation or trees be planted or retained in order to preserve, protect, restore or enhance fish habitat or riparian areas; control drainage, or control erosion or protect banks;

(vi) an explanatory plan or reference plan prepared by a BC Land Surveyor

348


Page 83 of 134

delineate the identified streamside protection and enhancement area; and

(vii) development comply with Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, published by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, May, 1992.

IMPLEMENTATION:

Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution unless delegated to the Manager of Planning and Development or their alternate;

Regional District issuance of a development permit is subject to notification from the Ministry of Environment and/or Fisheries and Oceans Canada that they have been notified of the proposed development, and provided a copy of the assessment report with the proper certifications and have provided the proper authorizations.

Environmental assessment report requirements;

Section 219 Covenants, Land Title Act.

349


Page 84 of 134

Development Permit Area 2: Beach Front And Ravine Slopes

CATEGORY: "b" Natural Hazardous Conditions

JUSTIFICATION:

Research and analysis supporting the identification of these areas as "Natural Hazardous Conditions" appears in the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Technical Background Reports (1994 and 2008) and in the report by Thurber Engineering titled Reconnaissance Study of Geotechnical Hazards Roberts Creek Official Community Plan.

The following areas are included in Development Permit Area 2, as shown on Map 5:

2A) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, EAST OF BEEMAN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO EAST OF EDMONDS ROAD delineates an area subject to erosion by ocean wave attack, soil landslides and groundwater seepage. The area within this designation extends 15 metres back from the crest of beach front slopes east of Beeman Road and east of Edmonds Road as mapped between Service Road off Marlene Road through an area of no mapped topographic detail and along Beach Avenue right-of-way to Edmonds Road area. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to erosion by wave attack. Small soil landslides are possible. Local groundwater seepage has been noted.

2B) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, BAYVIEW TO CLOUGH ROAD AREAS are characterized with soil over bedrock with soil subject to storm wave erosion, small soil landslides, and localized groundwater seepage. The area within this designation extends 15 metres from the crest of beach front slopes and slope crests along watercourses. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to storm wave erosion. Small soil landslides are possible. Local groundwater seepage may contribute to the landslide potential.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should consider high energy stream flood hazard along Clough Creek.

2C) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, JOE ROAD TO GEDDES ROAD AREA has the potential for erosion from wave attack, small soil landslides, and local rock fall hazard. The area within this designation extends 15 metres landward from the crest of beach front slope and 15 metres back from ravine or erosional slope along Joe Smith Creek south of Lower Road. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to erosion by wave attack. Small soil landslides and local rock fall are possible. There is groundwater discharge on steep soil slopes west of Geddes Road. Flood hazard requires consideration of stream control.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should consider:

350


Page 85 of 134

hazards from wave erosion on west beach front;

local flood proofing or other protection of area buildings below Lower Road; and

Heavy groundwater discharge in Geddes Road area may be temporary and should be monitored by residents. Changes in groundwater conditions should be reported to the Regional District

2D) EAST OF GULF ROAD has the potential for wave erosion and small landslides. The area within this designation extends 15 metres back from the crest of beach front and ravine slopes, and 20 metres back from highest beach front and ravine slopes. Relatively low beach front slopes just east of Gulf Road have soil over bedrock with soil subject to wave erosion and possible small landslides.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should consider:

toe erosion in gullies and high beach front slopes; and

Culvert outlet and eroded creek below require maintenance and reclamation.

GUIDELINES:

Development Permits issued in these areas for "Natural Hazardous Conditions" shall be in accordance with the following:

(i) Subdivision, building permits for dwellings and other structures, and the altering of land shall, in most cases, require a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical professional preferably also with experience in hydraulic engineering.

(ii) The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should also include the following types of analysis and information and consider:

Field Definition of land located within the areas noted above in the Justification section;

Appropriate land-use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, including building drains, filling and excavation and septic field location(s);

Erosion by ocean waves and possible slope instability caused by groundwater seepage;

Vegetation should be maintained on and above slopes to minimize erosion;

Drainage works should avoid surface or groundwater erosion of beach front slopes.

(iii) The report, which the Regional District Board will use to determine the conditions and requirements of the development permit, should certify

351


Page 86 of 134

that the land may be used safely for the use intended and that the Regional District’s policy related to meeting risk thresholds is satisfied.

(iv) Sewage disposal fields should be setback a minimum of 15 horizontal metres from the crest of all ravine eroded slopes unless other criteria such as a 30 horizontal metre setback from watercourses apply.

(v) The sequence and timing of any construction that may be required (for purposes such as pathways and utilities) should be managed to take place at low flows and to minimize the potential for erosion and degradation of the streamside habitats. In particular, the preferred in-stream work period is July 15th to September 1st of any year.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Liaison with Ministry of Health and with other relevant Provincial and Federal ministries;

Geotechnical report requirements;

Section 219 Covenants, Land Title Act.

352


Page 87 of 134

Development Permit Area 3: Creek Flooding And Associated Debris Flow And Erosion

CATEGORY: "b" Natural Hazardous Conditions

JUSTIFICATION:

Research and analysis supporting the identification of DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 3 as "Natural Hazardous Conditions" appears in the report by Thurber Engineering titled Reconnaissance Study of Geotechnical Hazards Roberts Creek Official Community Plan and the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Technical Background Reports (1994 and 2008).

The following areas are included in Development Permit Area 3, as shown on Map 5:

3A LOWER MOSCROP CREEK

Has the potential for flooding with associated downstream erosion. The area within this designation extends 15 metres horizontal from each side of the creek high water (limit of 1:200 year flood as defined by Provincial records or the natural boundary as determined in the field) or the crest of an eroded slope. The limit is also no lower than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary.

The creek may have been diverted from a former more direct course down slope and parallel to Park Road. Its course is highly controlled with culverts. Excess drainage contributions may cause breaching of channels (avulsion) and increased downstream erosion. As such, landowners should pay attention to changes in discharge that may indicate an imminent flood event.

3B LOWER FLUME CREEK

Has the potential for flooding and debris flooding (a water flood which mobilizes a large amount of sand, gravel and organic debris). The area within this designation extends 15 metres horizontal from each side of the creek high water (limit of 1:200 year flood as defined by Provincial records or the natural boundary as determined in the field) or the crest of an eroded slope. The limit is also no lower than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary. Flume Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species. Flume is a relatively large creek with no gauge data.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should consider the following:

Improved channelization and capacity of Margaret Road and Beach Avenue; and

An assessment of sediment loading causing turbidity and any other water quality or quantity concern which may affect domestic surface water users.

3C ROBERTS CREEK SYSTEM

Delineates areas with potential for water flooding, flood deposition and erosion, and instability along certain ravine slope crests. South of Lower Road the area within this designation extends 15 metres from ravine slopes east of Roberts Creek

353


Page 88 of 134

and as mapped on the west side of the creek. North of Lower Road the area within this designation extends 15 metres from the top of forested ravine and canyon slopes including all of Roberts Creek but only a portion of Clack Creek north of the Sunshine Coast Highway. Map definition is highly representational north of the Sunshine Coast Highway.

Roberts Creek is the largest stream in the area and there is significant flood potential south of Lower Road. A very narrow neck of land separates the canyon of Clack Creek and the ravine of Roberts Creek between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road. This ground should be protected from erosion which might result in local stream capture (one stream overtaken by another). Roberts Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species.


Potential for creek flooding, erosion and deposition as well as channel conditions upstream of gauge site;

Tides may complicate flood effects below Lower Road. The bridge at Lower Road is vulnerable to flood damage;

Use caution with design of surface drainage works to avoid local and downstream erosion especially north of the Sunshine Coast Highway; and

Very narrow erosional remnant between Clack and Roberts Creek south of the Sunshine Coast Highway requires careful attention.

3D ROBINSON AND CLOUGH CREEKS NEAR POWER LINE

Represents a relatively narrow neck of gravelly land which is subject to potential erosion and possible eventual stream capture of either Robinson or Clough Creek. The area within this designation extends 15 horizontal metres from ravine crest slopes. Robinson Creek supports a species of resident fish. Gravel extraction should be avoided in area of narrow neck between creeks.

3E CLOUGH CREEK

Delineates an area 15 metres from ravine slope crests each side of Clough Creek from the Plan Area boundary to the marine shoreline.

A destructive debris flow originated in a clear cut during heavy rain in November 1983. This flow ran out below Orange Road and caused severe property damage. Lower Road was washed out by the flood event. The source area of this event has been mapped as having high potential instability and high to very high potential for erosion. There is much coarse sediment mobilized in the upper creek bed beyond the limits of the Pplan Aarea. The area south of Highway requires special consideration of high energy flood activity.


Flood proofing or other protection of residences below Orange Road;

local bank erosion protection that may be required between Orange Road and Sunshine Coast Highway to ensure the creek does not avulse (flood);

354


Page 89 of 134

The engineer should observe conditions on upper creek and evaluate future potential for debris flow; and

High energy flood activity is possible south of the Sunshine Coast Highway.

3F STEPHENS CREEK IN STEPHENS ROAD AREA

Has the potential for water flooding along the lower creek. The area within this designation extends 15 horizontal metres from each side of the creek's high water mark (natural boundary as determined in the field) or from the top of ravine slope crests or any canyon.

Stephens Creek is relatively large and originates on the west shoulder of Mount Elphinstone. The creek may avulse (flood) especially where it turns west along the shore. There is a recent debris flow high on the creek beyond the Plan Area. A flood hazard affects properties along the lower creek. The lowest creek is confined in a channel which parallels the ocean shore. There is a bedrock canyon between Lower Road and the Sunshine Coast Highway. Stephens Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for sea-run fish species.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should consider improved channelization and capacity of culverts south of Lower Road.

3G LOWER MALCOLM CREEK AREA

Has the potential for water flooding. The area within this designation extends 15 metres from the top of beach front slopes west of Malcolm Creek outlet and as indicated by mapping. Malcolm Creek is relatively large and originates on the west shoulder of Mount Elphinstone. A flood hazard affects properties along the lower creek. The lowest creek area is confined in a channel which parallels the ocean shore. Low beach front slopes west of the creek have wave-eroded exposures of dense gravel and sand. This area has been protected by shoreline riprap. Malcolm Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species. Malcolm Creek is a relatively large creek with no gauge data.


Improved channelization and capacity of culverts south of Lower Road;

The creek may avulse (flood banks) especially where it turns west along the shore;

Vegetation and riprap should be maintained on beach front slopes of Malcolm Creek; and

Drainage works should avoid surface of groundwater erosion of beach front slopes.

3H NORTH OF THE SUNSHINE COAST HIGHWAY AND WEST OF CONRAD ROAD

Has the potential for water and related debris flooding. The area within this designation is below the incised portion of the creek. This is low ground subject to potential minor water and related debris flooding. Slater Creek (informal name) has

355


Page 90 of 134

no gauge data, the designated potential flood area shown on Map 5 is the creek's alluvial fan.

3J UNNAMED CREEKS NEAR POWER LINE

Have the potential for debris flooding. Thurber (1992) has mapped the extent of this area designation to include all ravine slopes, forested ravines and canyons. The area is shown on Map 5. These creeks may be subject to relatively small debris floods. Slopes above are steeper than 30% and join comparable area just east in Electoral Area E - Elphinstone.

The qualified geotechnical professional’s report should evaluate upstream conditions of creeks to refine estimate of debris flow or debris flood hazards

GUIDELINES:

Development Permits issued in this area for "Natural Hazardous Conditions" shall be in accordance with the following:

a. Subdivision, building permits for dwellings and other structures, and in most cases the altering of land shall require a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical professional preferably also with experience in hydraulic engineering.

b In addition to matters set out in the Justification section above, the qualified geotechnical professional’s report should also include the following types of analysis and information:

Field Definition of land located within the areas noted above in the Justification section

Land Use

Appropriate land-use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, including building drains, filling and excavation and septic field location(s).

An assessment of shallow groundwater conditions and the anticipated effects of septic systems, footing drains, etc. on the natural environment;

potential for creek flooding, erosion and deposition as well as channel conditions;

local flood proofing or other protection of area buildings;

local culvert size and capacity, where present;

use of available gauge data for any hydrologic study;

local bank erosion protection.

c. The report, which the Regional District Board will use to determine the conditions and requirements of the development permit, should certify that the land may be used safely for the use intended and that the Regional District’s policy related to meeting

risk thresholds is satisfied.. Sewage disposal fields should be setback a minimum of 15

356


Page 91 of 134

horizontal metres from the crest of all ravine eroded slopes unless other criteria such as a 30 horizontal metre setback from watercourses apply.

d. The sequence and timing of any construction that may be required (for purposes such as pathways and utilities) should be managed to take place at low flows and to minimize the potential for erosion and degradation of the streamside habitats. In particular, the preferred in-stream work period is July 15th to September 1st of any year.

e. If deemed necessary by the Ministry of Environment, vegetation should be retained and replanted in order to control erosion and to protect banks and the streamside habitat

IMPLEMENTATION:


Sunshine Coast Regional District Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw No. 350, 1991;

Liaison with Ministry of Health and with other relevant Provincial and Federal ministries;

Geotechnical report requirements;

Section 219 Covenant, Land Title Act.

357


Page 92 of 134

Development Permit Area 4: Roberts Creek Shoreline

DPA4 is shown on Map 5

CATEGORY: "a" Protection of the Natural Environment, its Ecosystems and Biological Diversity; and

"b" Natural Hazardous Conditions.

JUSTIFICATION:

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE extends 15 metres landward of the natural boundary of the ocean and extends for any works seaward of the natural boundary.

Research and analysis supporting the identification of DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE as "Protection of the Natural Environment" and "Natural Hazardous Conditions" is provided in the report entitled Green Shores Case Study: Roberts Creek Overview of Key Shore Management Issues and Green Shores Opportunities (2007).

Residential development and shoreline protection works may threaten the integrity of the foreshore and upland parcels.

The objective of this designation is to provide long-term protection of the existing shoreline, and adjacent foreshore and upland for their ecological values and to guard against erosion and damage to existing and future buildings and structures.

To address the above, a development permit shall be required to ensure development will neither contribute to nor be unduly subject to natural shoreline hazards nor damage the shoreline and marine environments.

GUIDELINES:

Development Permits issued shall be in accordance with the following guidelines:

1. An assessment prepared by qualified coastal professional(s) addressing any natural hazards and the marine environment shall be required for specified development activities within this development permit area which extends 15 metres landward from the natural boundary of the ocean and includes any works below the natural boundary.

2. Within this development permit area, the following types of development shall be confirmed, via a report(s) prepared by a qualified coastal professional(s), to not be subject to or cause erosion, flooding, landslip or damage to the marine environment, and be in accordance with Provincial and Federal legislation. Such specified development, requiring certification, shall include:

a. Shoreline protection works;

b. Beach access steps requiring footings on the natural boundary;

c. Dwellings; and

358


Page 93 of 134

d. Other buildings or impervious surfaces with more than 10 sq. m. (108 sq. ft.) floor area or parcel coverage.

3. The required assessment prepared by the qualified coastal professional(s) shall, as a minimum, address the following as applicable to the proposed development activities:

a. Existing shoreline processes, including erosion and deposition of land and beach materials;

b. Existing and anticipated shoreline processes, including erosion and deposition of land and beach materials, given projected environmental trends including climate change and sea-level rise;

c. The impacts of the proposed development activities, including shoreline protection works, on the shoreline abutting and within the vicinity of the subject parcel;

d. The impacts of the proposed development activities, including shoreline protection works, on the foreshore ecology abutting and within the vicinity of the subject parcel; and

e. The long-term safety of the existing and proposed shoreline protection works, dwellings and other buildings on the subject parcel from natural hazards including shoreline erosion, landslip and flooding.

359


Page 94 of 134

Development Permit Area 5: Multi-Family/Cluster Housing Development,

DPA5 is shown on Map 5.

CATEGORY: "e" Form and character of intensive residential development.

"f" Form and character of multi-family / cluster housing development.

JUSTIFICATION:

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 5: MULTI-FAMILY/CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT describes the area of a co-housing development near the Community Commercial core of Roberts Creek. This area comprises Lot 3, District Lots 809, 810 and 1506, Group 1, Westminster District, Plan BCP916, which extends from the end of Emery Road north to Highway 101.

The objective of this designation is to preserve and enhance the established rural character of Roberts Creek, to ensure building and site design that encourages and supports sustainable community living, multi-family specialized housing, and to complement the commercial core of Roberts Creek nearby.

GUIDELINES:

A development permit is required for the construction or addition of a building involving either:

(a) a floor area exceeding 25 square metres located on land designated pursuant to the Land Title Act as "strata"; or

(b) a floor area over 100 square metres located on land designated pursuant to the Land Title Act as "common property".

A development permit is not required for the construction or addition of a greenhouse, irrespective of its floor area.

All developments shall be in accordance with the following guidelines, irrespective of whether a development permit is required:

General Form and Character of Development

(a) Preservation of the established rural character of Roberts Creek will be achieved through:

(i) creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural or natural-like materials, and which is compatible with the scale and character of its surroundings;

(ii) preservation of existing mature coniferous trees; and

(iii) siting of buildings and structures in a manner that gives priority to pedestrians over automobiles.

Form, Exterior, Design and Finish of Buildings

360


Page 95 of 134

(b) Building form that is of a consistent style and character throughout the site, and which ensures design diversity and rhythm by varying and alternating building mass, siting and various major and minor design elements.

(c) Buildings should incorporate elements that add vertical definition, including sloped roofs and façade treatments such as porches, balconies and verandas.

(d) While meeting Building Code requirements for building separation, building walls should be well articulated through the placement of windows and other design elements, and by varying exterior cladding materials, finishes and colours.

Parking and Landscaping

(e) The retention of natural vegetation, including large mature conifers, is required as a landscaping element.

(f) Parking should not visually dominate the co-housing development. The amount of surface parking on-site may be determined by considering the overall number of co-housing residents and visitors potentially utilizing the site.

(g) While separating parking from residential buildings, parking areas should be integrated with the overall development, with well-established links between parking areas and buildings.

(h) Where possible, parking areas should be broken up by landscaping elements, and visually screened from adjacent properties and public areas.

(i) Where possible, parking areas and other hard surfaces should be constructed of permeable or semi-permeable materials.

(j) Support service facilities and structures such as refuse containers, composters, recycling facilities, storage areas and utilities should be located and screened to minimize visibility from adjacent properties and public areas.

Lighting and Signs

(k) The majority of lighting and signs on-site should be oriented towards pedestrians. Carved or painted wood signs will incorporate limited front lighting, and shall be coordinated with the overall building design. Light fixtures shall incorporate a high cut-off to minimize surrounding glare. The SCRD’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines provides advice regarding types of lighting fixtures.

(l) Vehicular oriented signs on-site are restricted to maximum height of 1.8 metres.

361


Page 96 of 134

IMPLEMENTATION:

Issuance of development permits, as required, prior to issuance of building permits.

362


Page 97 of 134

Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area

DPA6 is shown on Map 5.

CATEGORY: "e" Form and character of commercial development.

JUSTIFICATION:

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 6: ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA describes the commercial core of Roberts Creek. This area is located in the vicinity of the junction of Lower Road and Roberts Creek Road, from Largo Road to Timberlands Road.

The objective of this designation is to support economic activities and development that enhances the established rural atmosphere and environmental stewardship of downtown Roberts Creek and encourages innovative design.

APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES:

Development permits are required to regulate the form and character of development prior to the construction, addition or exterior alteration of commercial or mixed use buildings containing commercial uses or land alteration within Development Permit Area No. 6.

Development permits are not required where the construction or site development is consistent with these guidelines and where:

1. either a new building or an addition to an existing building has a floor area of less than 10 sq. m. (108 sq. ft.); or

2. the value of the alteration to an existing building is less than $20,000 (2008 value to be increased on January 1st of each subsequent year by Statistics Canada’s Vancouver CPI increase for the previous year); or

3. site landscaping that covers less than 100 m² (1080 sq. ft.) or

4. greenhouses in general and, where artificial lighting for plant growth is provided, greenhouses must be shielded to prevent light pollution.

For items 1 to 3 this is a one-time only exemption to be indicated through a covenant registered on title.

Development permits issued in this area shall be in accordance with the following:

A) Green Building Materials and Energy Efficiency

a. The Regional District may consider relaxation of the following guidelines where the applicant demonstrates to the RD’s satisfaction that green building materials and/or energy efficiency beyond that required by Building Regulations will be applied.

363


Page 98 of 134

B) General Form and Character of Development

a. Preservation of the established rural character and environmental stewardship of downtown Roberts Creek will be encouraged by:

(i) creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural materials and respects the scale of existing development;

(ii) varying building heights or shifting rooflines on buildings with long street or road way frontages;

(iii) shaping larger buildings to give the building the appearance of being composed of a number of smaller sections or blocks;

(ii) siting of buildings in a manner that gives priority to pedestrians over the automobile;

(iv) promoting significant landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-ways and integrated within sites;

(v) where possible, new buildings should be positioned to maintain sun exposure to sidewalks, pedestrian areas and adjacent residential buildings;

(vi) providing walkways or paths to allow for continuous unobstructed links with adjacent parcels;

(vii) walkways and pedestrian paths must be universally accessible;

(viii) supporting use of green/energy efficient design and materials.

b. "Roadway commercial strip" character should be avoided by:

i) siting buildings near the front or exterior side parcel lines fronting roadways;

ii) creating landscaped open spaces within developments of various scales from outdoor patios in smaller developments to commons and squares in larger developments;

iii) locating surface parking at the rear or interior side setbacks of buildings instead of within the front setback; and

iv) planting significant landscaping adjacent to roadways that is integrated with landscaping within the site taking into consideration maintaining safe sightlines for roads, pedestrians and bikes.

364


Page 99 of 134

C) Form and Design of Buildings

a. Building form that compliments existing buildings will be required.

b. Single story buildings should incorporate elements that add vertical definition such as sloped roofs or facade treatments such as facia, awnings and/or verandas;

c. Covered walkways, designed for accessibility, should be provided to provide weather protection for shoppers;

d. Blank walls and large expanses of any one material, especially on street oriented facades are unacceptable unless measures are taken to minimize visual impact by adding facade treatments such as facia, pilasters or other such elements;

e. The ground levels of commercial buildings should be emphasized through careful arrangement and proportioning of windows and entrances;

f. Modification of standardized corporate franchise building designs or features shall be required in the event of conflict with these design guidelines.

D) Exterior Finishing

In general, a variety of cladding and trim materials is permitted, provided that the materials have a natural or traditional appearance and are complimentary to existing development.

E) Site Planning: Landscaping

a. The retention of trees and natural vegetation as a landscaping element is strongly encouraged;

b. Where trees and natural vegetation cannot be maintained, landscaping should include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plants and/or trees which are suitable for the local climate (such as from the BC Naturescape plant list);

c. Provision and retention of edible landscaping is supported;

d. All other site areas not covered by buildings, parking areas, or retained natural vegetation and pedestrian areas and walkways shall be landscaped;

e. Provision of xeriscaping or landscaping which requires minimal watering is encouraged;

f. Provision should be made to conserve and supply adequate water to all planted areas, such as use of drip irrigation and/or rainwater barrels, and to maintain landscaping as approved.

365


Page 100 of 134

F) Site Planning: Parking and Support Services

a. Parking should not visually dominate a development. Where possible, parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a commercial building;

b. Parking areas should be integrated into the overall development by means such as incorporating significant landscaping, coordination of outdoor elements and linking of buildings with parking by distinctively paved walkways;

c. Handicapped accessible parking spaces must be provided close to building entries and the number of such spaces shall depend on the scale of the development;

d. Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at least in equal number to parking spaces;

e. The drive aisles in parking areas shall be predominantly covered in permeable materials, although asphalt, concrete, or pavers may be used subject to (f) below;

f. The areas used for parking spaces shall be covered with permeable pavers or in gravel where the gravel is contained within a system design to keep the gravel in place;

g. Subject to soil suitability, at least one-half of a parking area should be water permeable and designed to allow for stormwater infiltration to assist with a stormwater management plan developed in accord with Stormwater Management policies;

h. Landscaped areas within the parking lot are required when more than 10 vehicles are to be accommodated, with a row containing no more than 5 parking stalls being permitted without a landscape feature;

i. Driveway entries to parking lots should be defined by landscaped nodes that may include low-ground cover and entry features that ensures visibility and safety;

j. Parking areas that abut a roadway shall be buffered by a minimum 3.5 metre (11.5 ft.) wide landscaped strip that includes a sidewalk or path;

k. Support service facilities and structures such as loading bays, refuse containers, storage areas and utility services should be located preferably to the rear or side of buildings and be screened to minimize visibility from public areas. Screening should be constructed of natural materials compatible with the main buildings;

l. Underground hydro servicing should be provided.

366


Page 101 of 134

G) Signage

The intention is to prevent proliferation of signage and encourage quality design that is coordinated within the development as a whole.

a. All signs should be architecturally coordinated with the overall design of buildings and landscaping;

b. Painted canopy or painted awning signs are acceptable, but shall occupy an area not exceeding 15% of the area of the canopy

c. A limited number of free standing signs shall be restricted to a maximum height of 2.0 metres above the grade and limited to a combined surface area on all sides of 3 sq m (32.3 sq ft.) and mounted upon a base made of stone, brick, wood or other natural-appearing material

d. Roof signs; interior lit or back lit signs; revolving, flashing, or moving signs; as well as use of reflective or dayglo paint, permanent banners and advertizing flags are prohibited;

e. Notwithstanding (d) above ,non-flashing interior lit “Open” signs, less than 0.129 sq metres (200 square inches), shall be allowed for each unit in the development;

f. Multi-unit buildings should have unit number and/or address number signs of compatible size, arrangement and character;

g. Other than a limited number of directional signs, all signage must be for units/activities within the development, 3rd Party signage is not allowed.

H) Site Lighting

a. The starting point in designing a lighting scheme should be to provide responsible lighting that has minimal negative impact upon people, the environment and property. This should provide a safe and welcoming development while eliminating light pollution which is any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste;

b. Site lighting shall be directed downward to avoid “light spill” and designed following the Regional District’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines;

c. Site lighting should be neutral in colour. High-pressure Sodium (orange) and Mercury Vapour lights are not permitted.

367


Page 102 of 134

I) Fencing and Commercial/Residential Interface

a. Commercial buildings should be sited to afford maximum privacy to adjacent residential properties and minimize the impacts of noise, glare and shadows;

b. Boundaries abutting residential zoned parcels shall be fenced and/or landscaped with dense shrubbery or a hedge with a minimum width of one metre to create an effective buffer;

c. Fencing adjacent to residential zoned parcels should be solid, unless combined with landscaping, and clad in wood;

J) Large Scale Development

a. A design context statement is to be provided by the developer that indicates how the proposal meets the guidelines and OCP objectives.

b. Further site-specific design guidelines may be created for any large-scale development on parcels exceeding 4000 sq m (0.98 acres) when a parcel within the Comprehensive Development zone is developed.

c. No individual building that is used for retail sales as a principal use shall have a maximum footprint of 300 square metres (3230 sq ft) and a maximum floor area larger than 500 square metres (5380 sq ft).

IMPLEMENTATION: Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution prior to issuance of a building permit;

Review of development permit applications by local residents, the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission and Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee;

Liaison with the Province and other relevant authorities.

368


Page 103 of 134

Development Permit Area 7: Agricultural Buffering

DPA7 is shown on Map 5

The designation is established for the purposes of the protection of agriculture land reserve designated parcels which are adjacent to parcels that have subdivision potential.

Justification

Protection of Farming

Description:

Development Permit Area 7 is applicable to all land shown on Map X that is within the Roberts Creek Plan Aarea. Land designated as Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) requires protection for long term agricultural use. The subdivision of lands adjoining or reasonably adjacent to farm lands may facilitate development that might compromise the agricultural use of the ALR lands. As a result of this, land use conflicts may develop. In order to reduce potential conflicts a 10 metre landscape buffer should established and protected.

Research and analysis supporting the identification of Development Permit Area XX: Agricultural Buffering appears in the publication by the Agricultural Land Commission titled Landscaped Buffer Specifications.

A development permit is required for the following activities:

1. Subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act ;

Guidelines:

Those lands identified within Development Permit Area 7 that have the potential for subdivision. A minimum 10 metre wide landscaped buffered area should be maintained and/or established on land to be developed if it is adjoining an ALR boundary. The intent of the buffering is to enable uses within proximity to large ALR properties, without hindering present and future use of these ALR lands.

All buffer areas shall be landscaped using native vegetation in accordance with Schedule C of the BC Agricultural Land Commission's publication entitled Landscaped Buffer Specifications published in 1993;

The buffering shall take place prior to the proposed subdivision;

Security in the form of a cash bond for 50% of the value of the buffering shall be submitted to the SCRD and held for a minimum of one year to enable some further planting in the event that some of the planted native species need to be re-furbished;

No new buildings and structures, except for fencing, shall be situated within the 10 metre vegetation buffer area unless the zoning is varied under a development permit issued under this section or development variance permit issue by the Board; and

369


Page 104 of 134

A Section 219 covenant for the vegetation buffer area may be required which restricts the removal of vegetation and the construction of any buildings or structures other than fencing within the buffer area.

Exemptions:

The following is exempt from requiring a development permit:

where an existing covenant or proposed covenant secured by a solicitor’s undertaking at the time of rezoning or subdivision, meets the development permit guidelines’

a structural change, addition or renovation to an existing lawfully conforming and constructed building or structures provided that the footprint of the building or structure is not expanded and provided that it does not involve any alteration of land.

Where there is a road right of way, either developed or not, between the ALR and subdividing parcels.

370


Page 105 of 134

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA

The entire Plan Area is a Development Approval Information Area. The Regional District may require development approval information for development permit and rezoning applications. These types of proposals shall be evaluated, at a minimum, on:

(a) The impact of the proposed development on the natural environment such as adjacent aquatic areas, vegetation, soils and erosion, geotechnical characteristics, topographical features, ecosystems and biological diversity, fish and wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive features, and rare or endangered plant or animal species.

(b) The impact of the proposed development on groundwater quantity and quality, surface water generated by the proposed development, and the options for collection, storage, reuse and dispersal of such drainage.

(c) The aesthetic values of the proposed development such as visual character, integration with public areas and the natural environment, lighting, noise, and odour;

(d) The impact of the proposed development on traffic volumes and roads including the ability to provide safe and effective access to both the development as a whole and to individual dwellings/buildings within development;

(e) How the proposed development impacts and buffers adjacent uses; and

(f) The ability of the proposed development to provide on-site water and sewage disposal or to connect to community services, if available.

(g) When requested by a First Nation, an archaeological study will be conducted to ensure the protection of First Nations interests.

(g)(h) . energy efficiency and emissions reduction

371


Page 106 of 134

17) RESIDENTIAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL and RURAL

The Roberts Creek Technical Background Report provides an estimated growth potential for additional dwellings and new parcels in Roberts Creek. Based on a conservative estimate that 30% of eligible parcels may eventually build an auxiliary dwelling, an additional 239 secondary residential dwellings are possible. The total build-out, including second dwellings, is estimated at 2,259 units. That The build-out scenario allowing for untapped subdivision potential and vacant or underutilized land provides for 540 additional parcels and 921 additional residential units. The build-out population, bBased on 2006 average household size, 2.4 people, this could be is approximately 4,800 2200 additional people added to the 2006 Census population of 3307 for an estimated total population of 5507. The population in 2011 was 3244. Thus there is an untapped potential for a further increase of 1276 2263 residents or 3941% growth. (Sources: Roberts Creek Technical Background Report, July 2008; 2006 and 2011 Census of Population, Statistics Canada.)

Outside of the significant Crown and Private Managed Forest Lands in the northern area of the OCP, the majority of land is used for residential purposes. For the most part this is in single parcels that may allow for up to two dwellings. Provision should be made for a range of house types to serve the whole community. This includes affordable housing, transition housing and special needs housing.

The lack of affordable rental and home ownership housing in Roberts Creek has become an increasingly important social and economic issue due to the rise in real estate values and only modest increases in income levels in recent years. Affordable housing issues affect all sectors of our community (economic, social and cultural), all age ranges and all types of residents from individuals to families to seniors. Senior government assistance for low income rental and non market home ownership has all but disappeared in the past ten years. Some funding has been restored in support of developments involving partnerships of private housing developers, non profit societies and local governments.

There are many approaches to providing affordable rental and home ownership housing and Official Community Plans can play a significant role in the areas of density bonusing, community amenity contributions and multifamily residential zoning (see glossary for definition of terms). Using these tools the Roberts Creek OCP can support the creation of affordable housing – rental and home ownership. Development proposals that include the creation of Affordable Housing can also enhance the goals set out in the Regional District’s response to climate change - Our Coast, Our Climate initiative.

The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan encourages local private housing developers, non-profit housing providers, local governments, the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee, the Roberts Creek Community Association and the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission to work with the Sunshine Coast Housing Committee to support the creation of affordable housing in Roberts Creek.

Special needs housing provides accommodation for specific users that require various levels of assistance either from staff living on site or in attendance during ‘normal’ working hours. There may be auxiliary facilities, such as medical rooms, small administration office space or a communal dining room. Such facilities are often subject to Provincial regulations and oversight.

372


Page 107 of 134

There may also be financial assistance from Provincial or Federal programs. For example there are seniors’ housing developments around the Coast that fall within this type of housing. The facility is normally the primary (only) or long term home for residents. Such developments may be specifically designed and consist of apartments or dwellings with limited features, such as no individual kitchens.

Transition housing may provide temporary homes for people needing short term residences due to personal situations. There is often an element of care provided and there may be direct Provincial oversight. Normally these facilities are provided within a dwelling where facilities are shared. An example is a transition home for women and children leaving abusive situations. A greater level of Provincial oversight is provided the larger the facility. Quite often the facility appears as a regular dwelling with no visual clues that it is anything other than a regular house.

Innovative design and construction, especially where ‘green’ materials are used and low energy use is realized, are encouraged. Smaller dwellings, especially those that make use of alternative building materials and techniques, for example straw bale, may also provide a source of affordable housing. In some cases the BC Building Code may not support such alternatives and code compliance alternatives would need to be researched.

In Roberts Creek significant portions of the Sunshine Coast Highway are next to residential land. The OCP supports maintaining larger lot sizes next to the Highway. This will help to provide a green, forested area next to the Highway and is a visual barrier and sound buffer between the Highway and higher density residential areas towards the ocean.

Objectives:

17a To provide for future growth, while recognizing there is a limit on the amount of residential, country residential and rural properties which can be supplied due to servicing availability and the land base required for other activities.

17b To provide for a variety of housing types and parcel sizes.

17c To minimize residential conflicts by establishing appropriate buffer zones to resource activities and areas of natural hazard and environmental concern.

17d To encourage subdivision design and development which provides a variety of parcel sizes, minimizes land clearing, and promotes a natural landscape buffer to all roads.

17e To encourage dwelling design and siting which takes advantage of opportunities for energy efficient homes including passive solar heating and geothermal.

17f To provide a range of housing opportunities to address affordable housing.

17g To encourage the use of natural building materials in keeping with the treed, rural character of Roberts Creek.

17h To promote house design and style which reflects the rural wooded atmosphere of Roberts Creek.

17i To promote alternative residential development.

17j To encourage and reinforce the country residential, non-commercial and non-industrial character along the Sunshine Coast Highway.

373


Page 108 of 134

17k To establish and maintain a buffer of natural treed vegetation along the Sunshine Coast Highway.

17l To discourage access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway from country residential properties.

17m To support the SCRD working with property owners, residents and builders to explore innovative housing design which improves affordability and energy efficiency.

Policies:

17.1 Map 1 designates as RESIDENTIAL A, RESIDENTIAL B, RESIDENTIAL C and RESIDENTIAL D parcels for which the principal use shall be single family detached housing and duplexes and for which the parcel size requirements for subdivision purposes shall be as follows:

RESIDENTIAL A

In general, soil types and terrain characteristics for on-site sewage disposal may support a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 2,000 square metres (0.494 acres), subject to Provincial ministry approvals. This minimum parcel size requirement will also support the community's goal of maintaining larger sizes of residential parcels in residential neighbourhoods.

RESIDENTIAL B

Due to a lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 3,500 square metres (0.864 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals.

RESIDENTIAL C

Due to a lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal combined with the presence of near surface bedrock a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 5,000 square metres (1.235 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals.

RESIDENTIAL D

Due to sloping terrain characteristics or shallowness to bedrock and lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal a minimum parcel size requirement of 10,000 square metres (2.47 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals.

17.2 Map 5 designates as COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL land adjacent and in proximity to the Sunshine Coast Highway where parcels of approximately one hectare and larger are to be maintained and where land-uses and forms of development that maintain the rural atmosphere of this important visual corridor will be encouraged. Examples of preferred land-uses and forms of development include rural acreage with limited access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway, and activities such as agriculture and small scale home occupations.

374


Page 109 of 134

17.3 Land use activities of a commercial or industrial nature shall not be permitted in the area designated as COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL.

17.4 The screening of land uses from the Sunshine Coast Highway in the COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL designation shall be required wherever feasible in order to maintain and enhance the visual quality of this area and to minimize the impact of noise and pollution of vehicular traffic. A natural treed vegetation buffer shall be encouraged as a screening method.

17.5 To restrict access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway particularly for new development within the COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL designation.

17.6 Map 1 designates as MOBILE HOME PARK land where existing zoning recognizes established mobile home parks as providing alternative and affordable housing opportunities.

17.7 The Regional District, through the review process for subdivision and building permit applications should encourage applicants to organize their projects to capitalize on available opportunities for passive solar heating and to encourage subdivision design which provides a variety of parcel sizes and shapes.

17.8 Opportunities for affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing in residential and country residential zones shall be made available through zoning providing for auxiliary dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes, transition homes, and full size second dwellings in most parts of the Plan Area subject to parcel size and other requirements.

17.9 i. Proposals to increase residential development density beyond that established in the OCP may be supported where the additional development capacity is to provide:

a Affordable housing; and/or

b Special needs housing

subject to consultation with local residents through an OCP and rezoning amendment application process with public information meeting(s). Specific design criteria may be established and if so the site should be included within a development permit area for Form and Character, such as DPA 5. Cluster housing will be encouraged to minimize land use.

Affordable Housing is where the cost either is subsidized or held at below market value. There is a range of types such as:

1 Affordable Rental Housing: Housing where the total monthly shelter cost (gross monthly rent including utilities – heat, hydro and hot water) is at or below one times the average rent in the region and costs less than 30% of total before tax household income.

2 Affordable Market Homeownership: Housing produced by the private sector and rented or sold at a price that is affordable to a broad segment of the local population. Housing that is affordable in perpetuity and subject to a selling

375


Page 110 of 134

agreement (covenant registered on the title) between the developer and the region’s housing authority

3 Affordable Non Market Homeownership: Housing produced with a purchase price that is affordable to households of low and moderate income, which are households within the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for the region as determined by Statistics Canada. Housing where the total monthly costs (mortgage and utilities) cost less than 30% of total before tax household income. These are permanently affordable

4 Life Lease Housing – A legal agreement that permits seniors to purchase and occupy a home for life (or until they are no longer capable of living there) in exchange for a lump sum payment and subsequent monthly payments to cover the ongoing project management fees and maintenance and operating expenses (and in some cases rent, depending on the size of the initial payment). The major difference between a life lease and a condominium is that the title to life lease units remains with the sponsoring organization, not with the occupant. The sponsoring org is usually a non-profit housing organization.

5 Minimal or Alternative Housing – use of alternative building materials and small size may result in relatively affordable housing. There are potential issues with respect to meeting BC Building Code requirements however this may prove to be a useful source of market housing. Additional research should take place to determine what if any changes in Regional District or Provincial policy and regulation should be supported.

ii. The SCRD shall require a housing agreement or covenant to ensure that the housing is permanently affordable

17.10 Zoning provisions for auxiliary dwellings on parcels over 2,000 square metres and second dwellings on parcels over 3500 square metres shall be supported. However, these provisions shall not be used as an entitlement for increasing density through a rezoning application to facilitate subdivision.

17.11 To further provide affordable housing, innovative forms of housing will be considered, such as units with shared facilities, use of alternative building materials and smaller units. This should be subject to rezoning and located where servicing requirements can be met.

17.12 Map 1 designates land as RURAL. This includes land located outside the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land areas where land-use zoning will permit:

i. residential,

ii. limited forest related activities,

iii. other compatible rural activities such as agriculture, small scale, value added manufacturing of local forest products, and

iv. limited forms of assembly.

376


Page 111 of 134

This land serves as a buffer to the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land and provides community diversity and a rural-lifestyle alternative. Some areas are also characterized by terrain less conducive to residential settlement.

17.13 Minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes for RURAL shall be 1.75 hectares (4.3 acres) to provide a buffer of larger parcels to adjacent resource lands, to provide for community diversity and a rural-lifestyle alternative, and in part to satisfy soil constraints for on-site sewage disposal purposes.

17.14 Secondary suites may be allowed in all zones subject to criteria established in the SCRD zoning bylaw.

17.15 RURAL designated lands that are located north of but not immediately adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway may be considered for COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses and the minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes shall be 1.75 hectares provided that

1. significant road access issues can be resolved by the parcels owners to the satisfaction of the Regional District and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;

2. parcels are to have no more than one dwelling;

3. the re-designation is the subject of a Plan and, if required a rezoning amendment application; and

4. at least 20 percent of the parcel’s area will be set aside as forested land such that:

a) this is in addition to and exclusive of any land that is identified as a streamside protection and enhancement area as set out under Development Permit Area 15: Riparian Assessment Areas;

b) areas set aside as forested land provide connectivity and environmental benefit; and

c) the set aside areas are agreed to by the Regional District and secured through covenant.

Where road access issues were resolved as a result of re-designating the parcels then any subsequent applications to re-designate parcels adjacent to that access will be requested to provide a community benefit, to the satisfaction of the SCRD, equal to what would have been their portion of access improvement costs.”

The properties will be designated Country Residential

377


Page 112 of 134

18) RESOURCE and COMMUNITY WATERSHED

Since time immemorial the shíshálh Nation and the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation have used the Roberts Creek area for economic, food, spiritual, medicinal, ceremonial, and cultural purposes. When the settlers arrived in the late 1880’s, they settled mainly along the shoreline, but logged in the uplands. For decades, there were sawmills and shingle mills run by local entrepreneurs. These were eventually replaced by corporations such as Port Mellon Pulp and Paper and the Howe Sound Log Sort.

Over the years residents of Roberts Creek have worked in the forest industry. Harvesting has been on-going in the forested uplands, and a small number of forest-based enterprises still endure. Almost every residential property has evidence of a stump with spring-board scars reminiscent of the Forest Pioneers. Through the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Community was very active in Forest Watch and Forest Walkers, and challenged many forest harvesting practices. The 1994 OCP reflected this commitment, and proposed ecological (holistic) harvesting of forests and more sustainable and planned forest management.

While the community embraces their logging history, mounting evidence confirms the Roberts Creek Uplands as a valuable ecological forest resource at a time when world forest resources continue to shrink. In addition to the critical importance of maintaining healthy, ecologically vibrant forests, the Uplands also have a commensurate economic value as recreational land.

The OCP takes this history into account and also considers some critical changes that have taken place since the first OCP was adopted in 1994, such as:

Water: increasingly a key issue and frequently associated with climate change. The upland forested areas within the OCP proposed boundary contain much of the Chapman and Grey watersheds as well as with many major creeks and subsidiary streams that require protection and maintenance to allow safe movement of water through residential areas. There is concern that Roberts Creek will need their own source of water in the future.3 The Technical Report which guides the OCP has suggested that Roberts Creek have a back-up water supply anticipating the effects of climate change and drought. It is also noted that 30% of Roberts Creek residences use well water4 and changes in upland forest harvesting and clearing for residential dwellings affect the movement of water and the aquifers that support the wells. The shíshálh Nation Strategic Land Use Plan (2007) identifies water as the greatest overall concern5 .

Territorial Land Claims: At some point in the future, the shíshálh Nation and the Skwxwú7mesh Nation will settle their territorial land claims with the Provincial Government. The Roberts Creek OCP area is included in these claims.

Climate Change: an expressed goal of citizens of Roberts Creek6 as well as a commitment of the SCRD7, the Province of British Columbia8, and the Canadian

3 Technical Review p. 5 4 Technical Review p.45 5 A Strategic Land Use Plan for shíshálh Nation Approved Draft 20007 6 Creek Café October/Nov 2008? 7 Carbon Charter Commitment 8 BC Government signed up with California on GHG commitments

378


Page 113 of 134

Government9 is to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate climate change. Forests sequester carbon, and are a major part of the GHG strategy. Smart Growth has also been accepted as a GHG strategy, with plans for densification in the core of Roberts Creek and reducing “urban sprawl”. Although none are currently proposed for Roberts Creek, there is also an initiative to “trade” carbon credits in the marketplace, with those “polluting” (such as companies mining the tar sands) being obligated to buy carbon credits, while those sequestering carbon can sell carbon credits.

Environmental Services: Forest cover on sloped land provides significant services such as erosion control, stream maintenance, water quality and aquifer protection. These services protect the increasingly high-value Roberts Creek waterfront and dense residential areas in the central core as well as public infrastructures. In the past Roberts Creek has experienced log jams creating debris floods, washout of roads and increased water flow as a result of upland changes.

Tenure: Since the 1994 OCP, the Province has undergone dramatic change in tenure arrangements, with a blend of corporatization, privatization and decentralization. Much of the Roberts Creek forested uplands is now held in Crown Land with BC Timber Sales (BCTS) as the main harvesting lease arrangement as well as an emergence of privately managed forest lands (PMFL). In 2010, the Ministry of Forests announced critical cutbacks in forest protection (fire), compliance, reforestation, planning and management. In addition, the District of Sechelt established a Community Forest part of which is within the Roberts Creek OCP area. Land formally owned by Canfor Corp has seen significant increase in harvesting and road construction activity, these are subject to the Private Managed Forest Land Act and require reforestation

Population: Since the 1994 OCP, the Roberts Creek population has increased by an estimated 20% (from 2700 to 3244). There are projections of an increased population in Vancouver, which is likely to result in a spill over to the Sunshine Coast. Considering these projections, there is a need to identify future park and recreational areas while also considering water and environmental services and the needs of the logging industry. There has also been an increase in trail use in the uplands, with conflicts between the various trail users and with resource extraction.

Given the expressed long-term commitments for GHG reductions at all levels, the concerns about water and healthy watersheds, the need for environmental services, the changes in forest tenure, the shíshálh Nation and Skwxwú7mesh Nation territorial land claims, the historic land parcel designation, and the future need for recreational parks and trails, the forested uplands within the OCP Boundaries of Roberts Creek will be preserved as much as possible. This can be done using current and new policy instruments (by-laws and zoning) and clearly stated and achievable OCP objectives and activities.

The following objectives and policies for RESOURCE designated lands in this section of the community plan recognize the value of forestry to the community - not only economically, but also for its potential contribution to ecosystem (environmental) resources, wilderness areas,

9 Canada also signed the REDD++ with the UN (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in 2008.

379


Page 114 of 134

old growth attributes (where identified), watershed reserves, and recreational resources. The objectives and policies recognize that the mandated responsibility of the Province is one of integrated resource management. The objectives and policies also reflect the community's desire that the Ministry of Forests, when permitted under its enabling legislation, adopt both a holistic and community-oriented approach to forestry management.

Holistic, sustainable forestry recognizes that the forest is a diverse, interconnected web which sustains all life forms. One part is not more important than another and retention and protection of all the "parts" is crucial not only to the continuation of the forest ecosystem, but also to ensuring long term sustainability and economic value. This approach would result in balanced uses of this resource and therefore represent sound stewardship.

Sustainable forestry works best when there is a ‘closed system’ where resources are extracted in a responsible way that allows for growth to replace the forest to allow for perpetual resource extraction. Thus there is no extensive land clearing then long re-growth period where resources are not available for many years. This would be reinforced by local small scale manufacturing to create value added products for the local or wider market. Partnerships between the local community, the SCRD, land owners (especially the Province and forestry companies) are needed to give sustainable forestry the chance to succeed.

Map 6 shows the current resources within and immediately adjacent to the pPlan aArea (gravel and forestry). The following objectives which stem from the foregoing principles should also extend outside the community Pplan Aarea, as the forest functions as an ecosystem and not in terms of artificially imposed boundaries.

Objectives:

18a To keep as much forest as possible in the watershed area and uplands of the OCP area and beyond for the provision of:

a) environmental services such as: a steady quality and quantity of water, carbon sequestering (GHG) benefits, erosion control, flood mitigation and wildlife sanctuaries;

b) economic benefits in a sustainable working forest and viable recreational areas, and;

c) social, cultural, spiritual, and generational resilience.

18b To ensure the protection and maintenance of the biological diversity and sustainability of the forest.

18c To ensure that forest uses are ecologically, economically and socially responsible and balanced.

18d To encourage the effective involvement of the local community in Forest Management planning by way of meaningful consultation and cooperation with the Province, First Nations and forestry companies in forest lands stewardship.

18e To support the development within the community of value added manufacturing of local forest products.

380


Page 115 of 134

18f To allow Crown Provincial Forest lands to be used for public education in integrated resource management and holistic, sustainable forestry and to demonstrate the associated economic aspects of forestry.

18g Within Crown Provincial Forest lands to allow for uses, such as outdoor recreation, that are compatible with integrated resource management and holistic forest practices.

18h Residential uses will not be permitted in RESOURCE designated lands;

18i To discourage the alienation of Crown Provincial Forest Lands and Private Managed Forest Lands for uses other than Forestry and compatible resource orientated activities.

18j To provide for agricultural activities, including the opportunity for marketing locally produced agricultural products.

18k To provide for appropriate forestry related uses of both Managed Forest and Crown Provincial Forest lands, such as sorting and storage of timber harvested on the same parcel and wood processing in the form of sawmills, shake mills and wood chippers of timber harvested on the same parcel.

18l To provide for auxiliary small scale commercial and industrial activity in appropriate areas away from residential and rural areas.

18m The interface of RESOURCE and those areas which are rural or residential should be considered within the context of interface fire potential, emergency planning and as well as potential impacts on residential uses.

Policies:

18.1 A Roberts Creek Forest Resources Board, with a broad base of community representation, should be established to:

i. initially monitor for ecologically, economically and socially sound forest management practices;

ii. promote public forestry education;

iii. work with similar community organizations in the region to seek and maintain consultation and cooperation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, managed forest land owners and the Private Managed Forest Land Council in managing the forest lands.

18.2 Map 1 designates land as RESOURCE. This includes land within the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land, designated under the Private Managed Forest Land Act and identified under the Assessment Act, where the potential exists for resource activities such as the establishment, management, and harvesting of the forest cover for timber and other forest products and values, as well as educational opportunities in holistic forestry and ecology. Areas with identified gravel resources are identified.

381


Page 116 of 134

18.3 Residential uses are not compatible with such activity and will not be a permitted use.

18.4 Temporary work camps required to support resource activities may be a permitted use.

18.5 Protection of the Community Watershed is a primary concern of the SCRD and is a key part of the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation (SLUP), and any activities near the Community Watershed boundary must take this into account. The SLUP sets out the shíshálh Nation’s objectives to protect the Chapman and Gray Creek watersheds and notes the Joint Water Management Agreement signed by the shíshálh Nation and the SCRD.

18.6 The Regional District adopted a Source and Assessment Response Plan (2012)for the Chapman Creek watershed and it supports the COMMUNITY WATERSHED land use designation and Rural Watershed Protection zoning designation.

18.7 With the exception of lands located immediately adjacent to Highway 101, minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes shall be 100 hectares in order to minimize the alienation of land which may contribute to the establishment of land-uses that conflict with forestry related activities.

18.8 The RESOURCE designated area located immediately adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway near Pell Rd, currently owned by the Crown, may be considered for COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses or for expansion of the adjacent Provincial Park.

18.9 Any proposed rezoning to COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses and density will be subject to confirmation of effective, safe access and other required servicing infrastructure, as well as any environmental issues being addressed.

18.10 Map 1 designates land as COMMUNITY WATERSHED, this is land within the boundary of the Chapman Creek Watershed and is the location for the main water collection and treatment facility that serves the majority of residents on the Sunshine Coast. No resource, commercial or industrial activities shall be permitted within this area. Recreational and environmental based activities that have no negative impact upon the watershed shall be permitted. Restricted watershed use areas may be designated and protected. Residential development is not permitted in this area.

18.11 Portions of the RESOURCE designated lands may have good potential for sand and gravel resources. Should these resources be proposed for development in the future, the Province requires that the development meet the requirements of the legislation and regulations for mining. The SCRD will work with the Province to ensure that appropriate safeguards and reclamation are set out as conditions within any mining permits.

18.12 Sand, gravel and mineral extraction shall strongly be discouraged in the Plan Area.

18.13 Processing of minerals, including sand and gravel, shall not be permitted other than that required to remove the mineral from the site.

382


Page 117 of 134

18.14 Proposals that support sustainable forestry are supported although they may be subject to rezoning or OCP amendments.

383


Page 118 of 134

19) INSTITUTIONAL

The provision of institutional uses such as schools, libraries, community halls, and local government facilities is an important aspect of creating a self-sufficient community. These community resources help to attract a broad range of people from all age groups to create a balanced community. They offer local employment and leisure opportunities. Establishing and retaining such facilities reduces the need to travel to other parts of the Coast in order to meet most needs. Thus there is a reduction in green house gas created through transport and allows for trips that serve more than one purpose.

Objectives:

19a To protect established institutional uses, such as schools.

19b To provide for additional institutional uses that can be appropriately located in the OCP Area to serve existing and future residents.

19c To encourage future institutional property and structures to be of a multi-use nature.

19d To encourage community use of school facilities.

Policies:

19.1 Map 1 designates as:

INSTITUTIONAL

This is land set aside for public and community uses such as Roberts Creek Community Elementary School, the Roberts Creek Community Hall, churches, fire hall, the cemetery, the Roberts Creek Library and other important community uses. Changes from this designation are not supported.

19.2 The Regional District should discourage the location within the Plan Area of major institutional uses such as government offices, colleges, and Courts of Law which have a service area that extends over a major part of the coastal community. Such facilities should be located in neighbouring municipal areas.

19.3 Additional parking for the Roberts Creek Community Hall should be acquired.

19.4 To encourage community use of school facilities.

384

Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan

Page 119 of 134

APPENDIX A: Community Energy and Emissions Plan Goals and Implementing OCP Policies

Energy & Emissions Reduction

Goals

8. Foster Culture of

Conservation

1. Support Energy

Efficient Land Use Practices

2. Reduce Dependance

on single Occupant Vehicles

3. Enhance the Green Building Sector

4. Expand Local

Renewable Energy

Opportunities

5. Reduce & Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource

6. Strengthen Local

Economy

7. Manage Bronwfiled

Sites

385


Page 120 of 134

In the following Section, each CEEP Goal, has general supporting OCP Policies and specific Community Actions identified that can be achieved through the implementation of the OCP.

Goal 1: Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices

Energy efficient land use practices in the OCP area include focusing on infill development within the existing residential neighbourhoods, in walkable areas close to village core. Small-scale neighbourhood commercial uses will be concentrated in in the Village core, Energy efficient land use choices also include not supporting increases in residential development potential into areas beyond the community water supply boundary and into the Agricultural Land Reserve. Increased land use efficiency reduces energy demand and GHG emissions in all sectors with compounding effects over the long term, while generating savings for public and private sectors, both in terms of operating and capital expenditures.

• Focus growth within existing developed areas with support for increased density near the Village Core

• Preserve ALR and outlying rural residential areas following OCP land-use policies

• Enhance connectivity, with special consideration for alternative non-vehicular transportation paths in new and existing developments

• Support small scale home businesses

Increase efficiency of settlement patterns

CEEP goal

OCP policie

s

• Review zoning by-laws to allow expanded home-

based small business. • Review taxation for functions and fee for

services that reflect real costs for servicing low density to higher density areas (e.g. varied DCC charges and water user fees)

• Encourage higher density mixed use in Village core

• Review off street parking requirements and enhance walking and biking amenities instead

Community & Development

Actions

386


Page 121 of 134

Goal 2: Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles

Create reliable transportation alternatives to move residents efficiently between communities, including frequent transit, bike and walking paths, carpools, and car share programs. Increasing transit ridership through neighbourhood buses and more frequent and convenient trips is a significant means of cutting down on single occupant vehicles dependence. Bicycle and walking pathways throughout the OCP area, particularly from the Langdale Ferry Terminal to the Town of Gibsons should be developed as identified in the OCP, with the Marine Drive corridor being the priority. This is a particularly important as additional transportation route for cyclists and pedestrians, serving as a gateway to the Sunshine Coast and providing sustainable transportation options to downtown Gibsons.

• Plan for fine grain mixed use development interconnected by pedestrian (and wheelchair accessible, where possible) and bicycling shortcuts, taking into consideration local topography, as discussed in the other CEEP Goals

• New residential developments should prioritize non-motorized travel and be within walking distance to major roads and existing/ proposed public transit corridors

• Provide non-interrupted cycling and walking path through the Plan area

• All new higher density developments and renovations should include facilities such as bike racks and lockers

• Significantly reduce off street parking requirements and front setbacks for mixed use nodes and instead enhance walking and biking amenities

• Established neighbourhood shortcuts or their reasonable replacement should be legally protected (Rights-of Way) at the time of rezoning and subdivision

• On existing roads, where ROW is not sufficient for separate bicycle path and sidewalk, establish “shared space”

• Enhance opportunities for non-motorized transportation alternatives

• Plan for connectivity and transit oriented development

• Support increased density near Village core

• Support improvements to trial, paths for pedestrian and cycling

Provide alternative transportation infrastructure and options

CEEP goal


Actions

OCP policies

387


Page 122 of 134

Goal 3: Enhance the Green Building Sector

Create a healthy, local, green building sector that supports energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. The opportunity for reduction in GHG in the building form is also an important consideration. Residential buildings could be retrofitted, new dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard under the new building code, and volunteer home owner initiatives can all contribute to reduce the 14 per cent of GHG output resulting from the residential building sector.

• Familiarize SCRD staff and the community in the use of Sustainability Checklist for all applications. Phase the Checklist tool, to make it mandatory in future to achieve a certain level for the applications’ discretionary approval

• Require minimum Energuide95 for all new municipal buildings

• Amend Building and subdivision Servicing by-laws to incorporate on-site stormwater management, solar orientation, invasive species management

• Establish equipment and appliance efficiency standards for new buildings; replacement procedures and recycling for old equipment

• Require all new residential buildings to include “pre-wiring” for future energy efficient retrofit, similar to “solar readiness” (needs only adjustments in the project, to include sufficient space)

• Explore opportunities, grants, and Local Improvement Charges to retrofit existing homes to increase the level of efficiency (such as, for example, recent SCRD Bylaw No. 535.6 amendment, to provide for discounts to encourage energy conservation)

• Regularly update and make the funding information available for home owners and builders

• Consider density bonuses for high efficiency developments in the growth areas


Actions

• Consider amendments to the Building Bylaw to increase energy efficiency requirements and include low-impact development standards OR:

• Require all new developments to be constructed to high standard of efficiency - Energuide85 or higher, where rezoning are required particularly for multifamily buildings in the Comprehensive Development Areas

• Promote both innovative approach and time tested solutions in the new constructions and renovations (LEED or PassiveHaus, Green Building concepts)

Increase efficiency of buildings

CEEP goal

OCP policies

388


Page 123 of 134

Goal 4: Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities

Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Explore and support opportunities for small scale energy production from creeks and solar power. Where possible and practical, share utilities among properties. Independent power projects (IPPs) and associated power lines should be developed in a planned and orderly sense and an unnecessary proliferation of hydro line should be avoided. Impact on sensitive ecosystems needs to be considered.

• Encourage and promote “solar readiness” of new and renovated f single family buildings in conjunction with CEEP Goal 3 above

• Require new multi-family and, where density allows, single family developments, to share energy resources

• Engage existing property owners to retrofit for energy efficiency, provide information about available funding and grants

• Support energy recovery project at Dusty Road Landfill

• Explore potential for shared community scale geothermal &small scale wind power systems in rural and residential areas

• Explore potential for shared community scale IPPs from local creeks in rural and residential areas

Adjust zoning bylaw to support low impact localised renewable energy projects, IPPs (including micro IPPs: water, wind, geothermal, solar), for internal use, in rural and residential areas

Locate energy producers close to energy consumers by requiring mixed use in development nodes (example – use recovered heat from restaurant/ laundromat/ etc, to heat adjacent premises)

Share and re-use energy systems

CEEP goal


Actions

OCP policies

389


Page 124 of 134

Goal 5: Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource

Optimize solid waste reduction, reuse, and recycling, and use residual materials as an energy resource while working towards zero waste.

• Support reuse of products and materials,

especially building materials, as a diversion strategy

• Increase proportion of recyclables and organic materials collection

• Facilitate location of collection bins in commercial/ public areas for recycling companies such as Gibsons Recycling (only “clean” recyclables, such as paper, electronic equipment, batteries),

• Require onsite organic materials management, especially on ALR and rural lots (and for urban lots over certain size); restaurants, preschools and schools.

• Regularly engage in public awareness campaign (target youth, schools, businesses)

1. Collaborate with other communities, consider Regional waste-to-energy projects

2. Support neighbourhood green waste & compost drop off facilities

3. Encourage the re-use of building materials

4. Adjust zoning bylaws to accommodate small scale, “clean” recycling facilities outside of industrial zones

Reduce waste shipped to landfills or illegally dumped

CEEP goal


Actions

OCP policies

390


Page 125 of 134

Goal 6: Strengthen the Local Economy

Build a local, energy efficient economy that employs and supplies goods and services to the OCP area and the Sunshine Coast residents. Encourage and support the retrofitting of existing houses, possibly through the means of government incentives in the form of Local Improvement Charges. Consider expanding the provisions of home occupations and agricultural use.

• Review zoning by-law to accommodate more home-based businesses within both rural and residential areas (including small scale production, artisan workshops, food retail, etc), especially close to and within Village core

• Clearly permit the range of businesses within ALR and other rural zones, as allowed by Agricultural Land Commission document Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, Part 2: Permitted Uses

• Adjust zoning by-law and increase the size of signage for better visibility for home-based businesses

• Provide alternative transportation options; bike path and ferry to ferry trail will provide benefits the economy of the OCP area while reducing GHG's across various sectors

5. Establish incentives for mixed use developments within Settlement Containment Boundary

6. Support farming and agricultural uses, agricultural product and marketing

7. Put more jobs closer to residential areas, encourage home-based business

Encourage economical growth in a local rural setting

CEEP goal


Actions

OCP policies

391


Page 126 of 134

Goal 7: Manage Brownfield Sites

Roberts Creek has little industrial and few commercial sites, thus the potential for brownfield renewal is limited. However, there are sites near the Dusty Road Landfill that over the longer term may become available for renewal. Transform appropriate brownfields into complete community assets.

• Work with the land owner and the community to establish a development potential that meets community needs

8. Any such proposal would need to be considered on its merits with public engagement

9. Removal of invasive species should be part of consideration

Redevelop brownfields into community assets

CEEP goal


Actions

OCP policies

392


Page 127 of 134

Goal 8: Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community

Create a culture of energy conservation for residents and businesses within the OCP area and on the Sunshine Coast.

• Familiarize SCRD staff and the community

in the use of Sustainability Checklist for all applications. Phase the Checklist tool, to make it mandatory in future to achieve a certain level for the applications’ discretionary approval

• Amend Building and subdivision Servicing by-laws to incorporate on-site stormwater management, solar orientation, invasive species management

• Prepare accompanying brochures and make relevant information available (online, possibly workshops)

• Create community awareness around climate change and energy efficiency through outreach, dialogue, and community events, partner with other municipalities

• Encourage outreach and education within the SCRD and community to promote a transition to a more sustainable community

• Regularly engage in public awareness campaign (target youth, schools, businesses)

Move beyond regulation into culture of conservation

CEEP goal


actions

OCP policie

s

393


Page 128 of 134

Strategy

Energy conservation and Greenhouse Gas reductions can be achieved by following the above policies and actions under each of the eight goals from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. There is an opportunity to achieve progress in each of these goal areas.

Applying integrated community energy solutions in all sectors gives best long term results.

Roberts Creek will continue to be primarily a rural area, however, there is potential to increase density within and near the Village core, while maintaining rural acreages outside of these settlement areas. Settlement nodes are more easily serviced by infrastructure and neighbourhood buses and present opportunities for some neighbourhood commercial uses. Further settlement and densification of the ALR and rural and resource forest landscapes should also be discouraged in order to promote more walkable, livable, and efficient settlement patterns in core areas and within established, easy to service, transportation corridors, while maintaining the existing community qualities.

Significant future opportunity for reduction lies within the transportation sector and increased efficiency in the residential sector. Increased transit and efficient land use planning go hand in hand in this regard, reducing the number of vehicle trips, particularly single occupancy vehicle trips will lead to a significant reduction in the GHG output. Location of new and efficient housing stock near the transit service will enable significant GHG reductions.

Increasing the efficiency of new housing and retrofitting existing housing will also enable a reduction of the total GHG emissions attributed to residential buildings. The following is a summary of the Energuide housing efficiency ratings:

Typical Energy Efficiency Ratings

Type of House Rating

New House build to building code standards 65-72

New house with some energy-efficiency improvements 73-79

Energy-efficient new house 80-90

House requiring little or no purchased energy 91-100

Note: For a brand new house, a rating of 80 or higher is excellent and areas of high density residential should have dwellings that exceed an Energuide rating of 85. The following chart, figure 7 from the CEEP, indicates the difference in efficiency between a single family dwelling and other types of multi-family dwellings:

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

Single Family Row Low Rise High Rise

Annu

al En

ergy

Use

[KW

h/yr

] Lights and Appliances

Domestic Hot Water

Space Heat

394


Page 129 of 134

APPENDIX B: ROBERTS CREEK OFFICAL COMMUNITY PLAN COMMISSION (OCPC)

While the OCPC should establish its own terms of reference, and procedures the Regional District suggests that the following:

The mission of the OCPC is to preserve the values expressed in the OCP by:

Providing the community with a forum to facilitate an open, consultative process that will keep the OCP valid and relevant.

Ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the OCP.

Reviewing and suggesting improvements to the OCP which express the wishes of the Roberts Creek Community.

Providing liaison with the RCCA, SCRD and APC on matters relating to the OCP.

The duty of the OCPC is to advise the SCRD and the Roberts Creek Community Association (RCCA) on all matters relating to the Roberts Creek OCP. This advice is to be in the form of written recommendations to the SCRD and regular reports to the RCCA. The Area Director shall be the liaison between the OCP Committee and the SCRD. The Chair of the OCP Committee shall be the liaison with the RCCA.

Number of Committee members: 11 people

Elections: Elections will be held through the RCCA, and are presided over by the SCRD Director; in order to vote in elections you must reside in Roberts Creek.

Quorum: A quorum will be five (5).

Vacancies: There shall be no fewer than seven members at any given time. If the numbers go below seven, there will be a bi-election to finish the term.

The term is for 2 years; 5 and 6 members are elected in alternate years.

Residency: Members must have resided in Roberts Creek for at least one year. If they move, they must forfeit their position.

Selection of Chair: The elected members will select their own Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary.

Meeting Schedule: Meetings will be bi-monthly. Meetings shall be advertised in advance to permit community attendance and involvement.

Meetings of the Official Community Plan Committee should be advertised by the Official Community Plan Committee in advance to permit community attendance and involvement. Minutes of the meetings should be available such as on a website.

395


Page 130 of 134

APPENDIX C: Definitions

"ALR" means the Agricultural Land Reserve, as established under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, C.9.

"ALC" means the Agricultural Land Commission.

"alteration of land" means:

(a) for the purpose of protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity:

(i) construction and erection of buildings and structures for residential, commercial or industrial activities or ancillary uses;

(ii) removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, including mature and native vegetation;

(iii) the disturbance of soils, including grubbing, scraping, and removal of top soils;

(iv) the digging of trenches and placement of fill for any purpose including but not limited to construction of roads, docks, wharves, bridges and trails, placement and maintenance of sewer and water services; and the development of drainage systems and utility corridors;

(v) the creation of structural and non-structural impervious or semi-pervious surfaces;

(vi) subdivision; and

(vii) flood protection works;

and

(b) for the purpose of protection of development from hazardous conditions:

(i) removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, including mature and native vegetation;

(ii) the digging of trenches and placement of fill for any purpose including construction of roads and trails, placement and maintenance of sewer and water services; and the development of drainage systems and utility corridors; and

(iii) the creation of structural and non-structural impervious or semi-pervious surfaces.

"assessment report" means a report prepared in accordance with the assessment methods to assess the potential impact of a proposed development in a riparian assessment area and which is certified for the purpose of the Riparian Areas Regulation by a qualified environmental professional.

"auxiliary dwelling" means an ancillary dwelling unit such as a cottage or suite, having a floor area less than the primary dwelling;

"biological diversity" means the diversity of plants, animals, and other living organisms in all their forms and levels of organization, including genes, species, ecosystems, and the evolutionary and functional processes that link them.

"community sewer system" means a sewer system consisting of collection, treatment and disposal facilities owned and operated by the Regional District.

"fish" means all stages of

396


Page 131 of 134

(i) salmonids

(ii) game fish, and

(iii) regionally significant fish.

"fish habitat" means the areas in or about a stream such as, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

"geotechnical assessment" means a study or studies carried out by a qualified geotechnical professional licensed in the Province of British Columbia which: interprets the physical condition of surface or subsurface features in a study area with respect to stability, potential seismic disturbance, interrelated chemical activity, and size and volume analysis; specifically addresses the possible effects of physical alterations or deformations of land related to proposed buildings or other projects; and may establish standards for the siting and construction of proposed buildings or the nature and location of proposed uses.

"highway" means a street, road, lane, bridge, viaduct and any other way open to public use, but does not include a private right of way on private property.

"integrated resource management" means the identification and consideration of all resource values, including social, economic, and environmental needs, in land use and development decision-making. It focuses on resource use and land use and management and is based on a good knowledge of ecological systems, the capability of the land, and the mixture of possible benefits.

“intensive agriculture” means a farm operation that grows large volumes of mushrooms commercially or confines more than 5 agricultural units per hectare for commercial food production, which may include a feedlot or animal slaughter or processing on the same farm. An “agricultural unit” means an equivalent live farm animal weight corresponding to 455 kg (1000 lbs) for livestock, poultry or farmed game, or any combination these equalling 455 kg (1000 lbs)

"Main Residential\Rural Road" means a road designed to carry traffic from local residential streets to a Trunk Highway or a Major Rural Road.

"Major Rural Road" means the Sunshine Coast Highway.

"may" means a course of action that could be followed provided specified criteria are met.

"natural boundary" means the visible high water mark of any lake, river, stream or other body of water where the presence and action of the water are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark on the soil of the bed of the lake, river, stream or other body of water a character distinct from that of the banks thereof, in respect to vegetation, as well in respect to the nature of the soil itself, and includes the active floodplain.

"natural features, functions and conditions" include but are not limited to the following:

(i) large organic debris that falls into the stream or streamside area, including logs, snags and root wads;

(ii) areas for channel migration, including active floodplains;

(iii) side channels, intermittent steams, seasonally wetted contiguous areas and floodplains;

(iv) the multi-canopied forest and ground cover adjacent to streams that

moderates water temperatures,

397


Page 132 of 134

provides a source of food, nutrients and organic matter to streams,

establishes root matrices that stabilize soils and stream banks, thereby minimizing erosion, and

buffers streams from sedimentation and pollution in surface runoff;

(v) a natural source of stream bed substrates;

(vi) permeable surfaces that permit infiltration to moderate volume, timing and velocity and maintain sustained water flows in streams, especially during low flow periods.

“OCP” means Roberts Creek Official Community Plan

"qualified coastal professional(s)" means one or more professional engineers, geoscientists, geotechnical engineers, applied scientists or technologists in good standing with his/her professional organizations within British Columbia, acting within his/her abilities in accordance with their professional designations and with demonstrated experience and/or training pertaining to shoreline protection measures, coastal processes and the marine environment.

"qualified environmental professional" means an applied scientist or technologist, acting alone or together with another qualified environmental professional, if:

(i) the individual is registered and in good standing in British Columbia with an appropriate professional organization constituted under an Act, acting under that association’s code of ethics and subject to disciplinary action by that association;

(ii) the individual’s area of expertise is recognized in the assessment

methods as one that is acceptable for the purpose of providing all or part of an assessment report in respect of that development proposal, and

(iii) the individual is acting within that individual’s area of expertise.

"qualified geotechnical professional" means a professional engineer or a professional geoscientist with experience in geotechnical study and geohazard assessments.

"qualified person" for geotechnical issues means a professional engineer registered in the Province of British Columbia with experience in geotechnical engineering; and a Registered British Columbia Professional Forester for tree cutting permits.

"ravine" means a narrow, steep-sided valley that is commonly eroded by running water and has a slope grade greater than 3:1.

"Regional District" and "SCRD" means the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

"Scenic Heritage Route" means a system of roads which enhances the identity and contributes to the character of a community. Natural features which help define a scenic heritage route include significant roadside vegetation and associated canopy cover, the presence of mature first or second growth indigenous tree species, a diversity of mixed vegetation, breakages in the natural terrain such as ravine embankments and associated vegetation, foreshore slopes, creek corridors, undulating topographic features and ocean viewscapes. Human features which help define a scenic heritage route include access to rest and picnic areas, access to foreshore areas, the presence of historical points of interest, open public space, bridge crossings, and examples of historical human settlement including native settlement. A scenic heritage route reflects the unique character of a given community. Actual route

398


Page 133 of 134

design is featured by a narrow, curvilinear roadbed and slow speed zones with an overall multi-functioning purpose to accommodate pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle and motorized traffic alike.

"School District" means the Sunshine Coast School District #46.

“secondary suite” means an additional dwelling unit within a single family house. In general, the presence of an additional kitchen means a house is considered to contain a secondary suite. Secondary suites have to be built according to the requirements of the B.C. Building Code.

"shall" means an imperative course of action which is within the scope of the Regional District's powers to provide, enact, regulate, or enforce.

"shoreline protection works" means the range of modification measures to the shoreline, or adjacent seaward or landward areas, for the purpose of protection against erosion.

"should" means a desirable course of action to be taken by the Regional District or other body or person.

"species diversity" means the number and relative abundance of species present in a particular ecosystem.

"stream" includes any of the following that provides fish habitat;

(i) a watercourse, whether it usually contains water or not;

(ii) a pond, lake, river, creek or brook;

(iii) a ditch, spring or wetland that is connected by surface flow to something referred to in (i) or (ii) above.

"streamside protection and enhancement area" means an area;

(i) adjacent to a stream that links aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems and includes both existing and potential riparian vegetation and existing and potential adjacent upland vegetation that exerts an influence on the stream; and,

(ii) the size is determined according to the Riparian Areas Regulation on the basis of a report provided by a qualified environmental professional in respect of development proposal.

"structure" means an erection or construction of any kind whether fixed to, supported by or sunk into land or water, including those relating to flood protection works, docks, wharves and bridges; but excluding fences two meters or less in height.

"subdivision" means subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act or in the Strata Property Act.

"Sunshine Coast Highway" means the Sunshine Coast Highway Route 101.

"sustainable development" means the development which meets the needs of the present generation

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

"top of ravine bank" means the first significant break in a ravine slope where the break occurs such that the grade beyond the break is flatter than 3:1 for a minimum distance of 15 metres measured perpendicularly from the break, and the break does not include a bench within the ravine that could be developed.

399


Page 134 of 134

"value added manufacturing" means an increased value given to a product as a result of a manufacturing process.

“holistic forest practices” is based on two main principles: ecological responsibility and balanced use. Ecological responsibility means any forest use must protect the integrity of the whole forest both during and following the activity, that is, each activity in the forest must maintain a fully functioning forest at the stand and landscape level in the short and long term. Balanced use means that within the limits of ecological responsibility, human and non-human forest-uses are balanced across the landscape ensuring a fair and protected land base for all forest users

"will" means a course of action to be expected on the basis of facts.

400

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 1 General Land Use

:

0 1,000 2,000500

MetersSunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Local Roads

Resource

Rural

Agricultural

Parks

Watershed Protection

Country Residential

Mobile Home Park

Residential A

Residential B

Residential C

Residential D

Multi-Family Residential/Cluster Housing

Institutional

Potential Future School Site

Future Recreation or Public Use Land

Future Recreation or Public Use Ocean

Recreation or Public Use

Village Commercial Core

Industrial

Village Amenity / Density Bonus Area

Enhanced Home Occupation Area

Enhanced B&B Area

Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area

See Map 1a for further detailof village core area

401

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 1a

:

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Local Roads

Landuse

Parks

Country Residential

Mobile Home Park

Residential A

Residential B

Residential C

Residential D

Multi-Family Residential/Cluster Housing

Institutional




Village Commercial Core

Village Amenity / Density Bonus Area

Enhanced Home Occupation Area

Enhanced B&B Area

Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area

General Land Use Village Core

0 275 550137.5 Meters

402

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

� � ��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

Byn

g R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Crystal Rd

Lower Rd

Lock

yer R

d

Pixton Rd

Jo

e R

d

Linwood Rd

Lower Rd

Flum

e Rd

Ro

be

rts C

reek Rd

Beach A

ve

Spruce Rd

Le

ek

Rd

Kraus Rd

Pe

ll R

d

Porter Rd

Co

nra

d R

d

Ranch Rd

Gib

b R

d

Rd

Ora

ng

e R

d

Hansen Rd

Fir

bu

rn R

d

Grauman Rd

Cro

w R

d

Han

bu

ry R

dDay Rd

Larg

o Rd

E W ilson FSR

Dusty Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 2 Parks and Trails

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Existing Trail

Paved Bike Path

Proposed Bike Path

�� Road ROW Trail

Suncoaster Trail (Route TBD)

Local Roads

Forest Service Roads

� Beach Access

Future Neighbourhood Park

Cemetery

Pier

Provincial Park

Regional Park

School

UREP

Proposed Mt Elphinstone Park

Land Parcels

Golf Course

Landuse




�

!

!

1

2

3

4

403

!!I

!!I

!!I

!!I

Byn

g R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Crystal Rd

Lower Rd

Lock

yer R

d

Pixton Rd

Jo

e R

d

Linwood Rd

Lower Rd

F

lume

Ro

be

r ts C

r eek

Beach A

ve

Spruce Rd

Le

ek

Rd

Kraus Rd

Pe

ll R

d

Porter Rd

Co

nra

d R

d

Ranch Rd

Gib

b R

d

Rd

Ora

ng

e R

d

Hansen Rd

Fir

bu

rn R

d

Grauman Rd

Cro

w R

d

Han

bu

ry R

dDay Rd

Larg

o Rd

E W ilson FSR

Dusty Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 3 Road Network

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Existing Main Residential/Rural

Existing Major Rural

Scenic Heritage

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Local Roads

!!I Intersection Improvements

404

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

po

Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 4 Services

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Solid Waste Disposal Boundary

Water Reservoir

Fire Protection Area

WaterMains

SCRD Water Service Boundary

Development Cost Charge Boundary

!( Individual Treatment Plant

!( Pump Station

po SCRD Water Intake

405

Byn

g R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Crystal Rd

Lower Rd

Lock

yer R

d

Pixton Rd

Jo

e R

d

Linwood Rd

Lower Rd

Flum

e Rd

Ro

be

rts C

reek Rd

Beach A

ve

Spruce Rd

Le

ek

Rd

Kraus Rd

Pe

ll R

d

Porter Rd

Co

nra

d R

d

Ranch Rd

Gib

b R

d

Rd

Ora

ng

e R

d

Hansen Rd

Fir

bu

rn R

d

Grauman Rd

Cro

w R

d

Han

bu

ry R

dDay Rd

Larg

o Rd

E W ilson FSR

Dusty Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 5 DPA's

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Local Roads

Stream

Stream Riparian Assessment Areas

DPA #2A - Beach Front Slopes

DPA #2B - Beach Front Slopes

DPA #2C - Beach Front Slopes

DPA #2D - Beach Front Ravine Slopes

DPA #3A - Lower Moscrop Creek

DPA #3B - Lower Flume Creek

DPA #3C - Roberts Creek System

DPA #3D - Robinson and Clough Creeks

DPA #3E - Clough Creek

DPA #3F - Lower Stephens Creek

DPA #3G - Lower Malcolm Creek Area

DPA #3H - Slater Creek Area

DPA #3I - Unnamed Creeks

DPA #4 - Shoreline

DPA #5 Multi-Family/Cluster Housing

DPA #6 - Commercial Core

DPA #7 - Agricultural Buffering

406

Byn

g R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Crystal Rd

Lower Rd

Lock

yer R

d

Pixton Rd

Jo

e R

d

Linwood Rd

Lower Rd

Flum

e Rd

Ro

be

rts C

reek Rd

Beach A

ve

Spruce Rd

Le

ek

Rd

Kraus Rd

Pe

ll R

d

Porter Rd

Co

nra

d R

d

Ranch Rd

Gib

b R

d

Rd

Ora

ng

e R

d

Hansen Rd

Fir

bu

rn R

d

Grauman Rd

Cro

w R

d

Han

bu

ry R

dDay Rd

Larg

o Rd

E W ilson FSR

Dusty Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 6 Primary Resources

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Crown Land

Resource Landuse

Sunshine Coast Community Forest

Sechelt Aggregates Land

Private Managed Forest Land

Gravel Deposits

Local Roads

407

Byn

g R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Crystal Rd

Lower Rd

Lock

yer R

d

Pixton Rd

Jo

e R

d

Linwood Rd

Lower Rd

Flum

e Rd

Ro

be

rts C

reek Rd

Beach A

ve

Spruce Rd

Le

ek

Rd

Kraus Rd

Pe

ll R

d

Porter Rd

Co

nra

d R

d

Ranch Rd

Gib

b R

d

Rd

Ora

ng

e R

d

Hansen Rd

Fir

bu

rn R

d

Grauman Rd

Cro

w R

d

Han

bu

ry R

dDay Rd

Larg

o Rd

E W ilson FSR

Dusty Rd

Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 7 Statement of Intent

:

0 1,000 2,000500

Meters

Sunshine Coast

Regional District

Legend

Plan Area Boundary

Land Parcels

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Local Roads

Statement of Intent

Squamish Nation

shíshálh Nation

Squamish Nation

shíshálh Nation

408

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE · Regarding referral from Gibsons for a subdivision Page 2 of ....

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE · Regarding referral from Gibsons for a subdivision Page 2 of ....