PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE April 17, 2014 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC AGENDA

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE April 17, 2014 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 9:00 a.m. AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda INVITED GUEST Chief Calvin Craigan, shíshálh Nation PART 1 (pages 1-95) for pages see PART 2, for pages see PART 3, for pages see PART 4 PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 2. FortisBC, Bryan Balmer, Manager, System Integrity Programs and Rob Bradbeer, Operations Manager, Vancouver Island North Regarding Pipeline Safety and Security 3. Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No (Green for Saunders) i. Bear Bay Neighbours (Peter Robson) ii. James Green (Applicant/Agent) ANNEX A pp 1 7 ANNEX B pp 8 13 REPORTS 4. Woodfibre LNG Update (Regional Planning Services) 5. BURNCO Environmental Assessment Update Regional Planning 6. Proposed Changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act Regional Planning 7. Keats Island Dog Control Alternative Approval Process Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) 8. Bill Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, 2014 (Sections Regarding Planning only) Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services) 9. Bylaws , and Regarding Marihuana Production Facilities on all Land Use Zones that allow Agriculture (Areas A, B, D, E, F) Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX C pp ANNEX D pp ANNEX E pp ANNEX F pp ANNEX G pp ANNEX H pp 75 95

2 Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 3 PART 2 (pages ) for pages 1-95 see PART 1, for pages see PART 3, for pages see PART Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No Electoral Area A: Egmont/Pender Harbour (Green for Saunders) for Lot 32, D.L. 3681, Plan LMP21181 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 11. Bylaw 675: Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) 12. Development Variance Permit Application No (Hage for Lewis) (Area F) Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX I pp ANNEX J pp ANNEX K pp PART 3 (pages ) for pages 1 95 see PART 1, for pages see PART 2, for pages see PART Development Permit with a Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich)(Area A) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 14. Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application # E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 Area E Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) 15. License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island, Area A Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 16. Hillside Monthly Report - April 9, 2014 Hillside 17. BC Ocean Boating Tourism Association request for support Michael McLaughlin, Rural Futures Economic Development 18. Building Department Revenues March 2014 (Building Department) 19. Planning and Development Monthly Report March 2014 (Regional/Rural Planning Services) ANNEX L pp ANNEX M pp ANNEX N pp ANNEX O pp 278 ANNEX P pp ANNEX Q pp ANNEX R pp PART 4 (pages ) for pages 1 95 see PART 1, for pages see PART 2, for pages see PART Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of March 19, 2014 (Regional Planning Services) 21. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of March 25, 2014 (Regional Planning Services) ANNEX S pp ANNEX T pp

3 Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, April 17, 2014 Page 3 of Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of March 26, 2014 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 23. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of March 25, 2014 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) 24. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of March 31, 2014 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) 25. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of March 26, 2014 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) 26. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of March 25, 2014 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX U pp ANNEX V pp ANNEX W pp 322 ANNEX X pp ANNEX Y pp COMMUNICATIONS 27. Ruth Simons, Howe Sound Community Forum, dated March 15, 2014 Regarding new Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) backgrounder and newsletter, Summary of the February 21, 2014 webinar, and copy of the Powerpoint presentation. 28. Kevin Washbrook, Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, dated March 20, 2014 Regarding response to Vancouver Fraser Port Authority s review of the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. 29. David C. Cox, dated March 23, 2014 Regarding Special Planning and Development Committee Meeting of March 21, Deb Walters, Mayor, City of Pitt Meadows, dated April 2, 2014 Regarding Bylaw No. 2626, Medical Marihuana Zoning Text Amendment. 31. Brian Klassen, dated April 5, 2014 Regarding the issue of shipping containers on residential properties in Halfmoon Bay ANNEX Z pp ANNEX AA pp ANNEX BB pp 375 ANNEX CC pp ANNEX DD pp 385 IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Sections 90 (1) (a), (f), (g) and (i) of the Community Charter personal information about an identifiable individual, law enforcement.., litigation or potential litigation.. and the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitorclient privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose ADJOURNMENT

4 ANNEX L SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 27, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee April 2014 FROM: Stina Hanson, Planning Technician RE: Development Permit with a Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) (Area A) RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee receives the report titled Development Permit with a Variance Application No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) (Area A) and dated March 27, 2014; 2. AND THAT Development Permit with a Variance No. A-34 to relax the minimum required setback to the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake as required under Section 516(1)(c) of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw 337, 1990 from 20 metres to metres on Strata Lot 5, District Lot 4696 Strata Plan VR1414 to permit the construction of an auxiliary building be issued in accordance with Option 1 referenced below. 3. AND FURTHER THAT issuance of DPV A-34 be subject to: a. receipt of referral comments from the shíshálh Nation and that any issues raised by the shíshálh Nation be addressed; b. applicants submit confirmation that the proposed auxiliary building is in compliance with the Sakinaw Woods strata bylaws; c. registration of a restrictive covenant on the property that stipulates the following: a. proposed auxiliary building may not be used as a dwelling or for overnight accommodation; b. protection of the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Douglas Mulligan for Tim and Janet Belich LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Strata Lot 5 District Lot 4696 Plan VAS1414 PID: ELECTORAL AREA: A LOCATION: 105 Sakinaw Woods Drive, Pender Harbour ZONE: RU1A OCP DESIGNATION: Rural Residential C 198

5 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee - April 2014 Page 2 of 6 PROPOSED VARIANCE: To vary Section 516(1)(c) of Zoning Bylaw 337 to reduce the setback to the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake from 20 metres to metres to allow for the construction of a new garage with a building footprint of ~67 square metres. PARCEL AREA: 1.02 ha The Regional District is in receipt of a development permit with a variance request for the construction of a new garage within Development Permit Area #1 on Sakinaw Lake (see Attachment 1). The subject property is 1.02 ha with approximately 150 metres of waterfront along Sakinaw Lake owing to its location on the west side of a small bay. There are a number of factors that impact potential development on the subject property: the configuration of the bay (Sakinaw Lake shoreline), the topography of the lot (which slopes towards the water, levelling off only at the northern most section), and two streams that run through the property. In 1998 the owners of the property received a Development Variance Permit to construct a single family dwelling with a reduced setback of 15.3 metres from Sakinaw Lake. As part of this development the owners constructed a septic field along the eastern parcel line, a leveled parking area in front of the home and three constructed rock walls that allowed for leveling of the building and parking area. If this application is approved, one of these walls will be replaced by the proposed garage (see Attachment 2). The development of the home and its associated land clearing (completed as part of a previous development variance permit DVP in 1998) predated the Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) and thus did not contain the same kind of environmental assessment that is required today. As part of the development process the applicants worked with a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) to determine a site for the new garage that minimizes the need for land alteration and allows the protection of other intact ecosystems located on the property (see Attachment 3). Other than siting, the development proposal meets all other requirements of Zoning Bylaw 337 (including height (garage is 9.75 metres at its tallest point) and auxiliary building floor area (~200 m 2 )) and the proposed siting of the garage takes advantage of an area that had previously been cleared during the construction of the existing single family dwelling. The garage is proposed to be located metres of the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake, as shown on attached site plans (see Attachment 2). Development Permit Area 1: Riparian Assessment Areas (DPA1) applies to land 30 metres back from the natural boundary of the lakeshore or stream. Any development (construction or land alteration) within the 30 metres is subject to a development permit prior to the consideration of a building permit. The property owners have been working with their development agent and Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) to develop a proposal that, while requiring a variance to Zoning Bylaw 337, meets the habitat protection requirements of the RAR. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT There are two considerations for the development permit; the first establishes the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) and the second considers the variance request, N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-34 (V) (Mulligan for Belich)\DPV A-34 - PDC Report Apr-2.docx 199

6 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee - April 2014 Page 3 of 6 pursuant to the setback requirements of Zoning Bylaw 337. In the case of this proposal the two items are linked as the riparian assessment informs the siting of the garage and the variance request. Riparian Consideration The QEP, pursuant to the RAR, conducted a riparian assessment on the eastern lake-front portion of the property and on two streams (1A and 1B) which bisect the property. As part of the assessment report the QEP determined that the width of the SPEA for the lake-front was 15 metres, while the SPEA for each stream is 10 metres. The QEP also determined that within the 15 metre lake-front SPEA there is an area of 190 square metres that contains a previously approved disturbance. This includes a driveway and retaining walls first constructed as part of the existing single family home. The RAR considers this type of development grandfathered as it was completed prior to the introduction of RAR legislation in The QEP notes that the garage will be placed on an area that is already a disturbance, and thus the placement of the garage within the 15 metre SPEA is allowable under the RAR. This is justified by not disturbing the remainder of the lakeshore SPEA and the area around the two streams. The assessment report also considers that the SPEA for both streams remains largely intact and that the proposed garage placement will maintain these ecosystems including areas identified as fisheries sensitive zones. The assessment report includes an environmental monitoring program and a set of conditions aimed at ensuring the proposed garage will have no environmental impacts on the remaining native vegetation along the Sakinaw Lake shoreline (see Attachment 3 and Attachment 5). Setback Variance The goal of the watercourse setbacks in Zoning Bylaw 337 is to maintain intact shoreline ecosystems that provide habitat for a range of terrestrial and aquatic species. In this case the placement of the garage within the 20 metre setback zone will enable the preservation of the riparian area of both Sakinaw Lake and two streams on the property, as evidenced in the QEP assessment report. Additionally the 15 metre setbacks to both of the creeks limit potential garage locations to currently undisturbed areas, further from the existing house, that would increase the amount of land required for the development as an area would need to be cleared for both the building, and space to accommodate vehicles entering and exiting the garage. The current location takes advantage of an already cleared parking area at the front of the house, while maintaining adequate distance from the existing septic field. In spite of the request for a setback variance, the selected location for the garage is the most suitable location, which will provide the least overall impact. The constraints on the site, including the creeks, retaining walls, and septic field location are shown on the attached site plans (see Attachment 2). N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-34 (V) (Mulligan for Belich)\DPV A-34 - PDC Report Apr-2.docx 200

7 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee - April 2014 Page 4 of 6 The proposed garage also meets all other requirements of Zoning Bylaw 337 including parcel coverage, height and allowable floor area for an auxiliary building (see Attachment 4). By combining storage (for both boats and sports equipment) with new activity space (the top floor of the auxiliary building will contain a games room) in a single auxiliary building, the applicants have also minimized the building footprint, ensuring the auxiliary building will fit within the previously developed area. CONSULTATION The Development Permit with a Variance application was referred to the SCRD Building Department, the Egmont/Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Committee (APC), the shíshálh Nation and property owners within a 100 metre radius of the subject property for comments: Referral SCRD Building Department shíshálh Nation Area A APC Comments No issue with the application. Awaiting comments Motion: Moved by A. Skelley and seconded by A. Thomson This APC has concerns with the issue of the set-back variation requested, however approval is recommended subject to the property owners confirming that a satisfactory covenant will be entered into to ensure that an additional dwelling unit will not be created thereby, and the receipt of confirmation from the Strata Council and neighbouring freehold landowners that they do not oppose the proposed development. 3 in Favour, 3 Opposed Chairman cast deciding vote: PASSED Neighbours Two letters were received (see Attachment 6): Neighbouring property owner has concerns regarding the size of the garage, the potential of living quarters on the second floor and the location from the lake. Neighbouring property owner had a range of questions regarding the proposal and concerns related to the height of the garage and riparian vegetation. Planning staff responded to their questions and received no further comment. ANALYSIS Though the Area A APC recommended supporting the application, their recommendation contains two clauses to address some concerns raised during discussion of the application. The first clause addresses concerns that this auxiliary building could be used as a dwelling (this concern is also raised by the neighbouring property owner) and recommends the registration of a covenant to limit the use of the auxiliary building and prevent its conversion into a dwelling. N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-34 (V) (Mulligan for Belich)\DPV A-34 - PDC Report Apr-2.docx 201

8 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee - April 2014 Page 5 of 6 Planning staff note that since the property does not meet the parcel size criteria of the RU1A zone to contain a second dwelling unit any modification to the proposed auxiliary building that indicates it will be used as a dwelling (the attempt to put in kitchen facilities for example) would not be granted by the SCRD. Planning staff believe the application must be evaluated as presented (an auxiliary building, which is a legal use in every Residential zone in Bylaw 337), however staff feel the requested covenant is an appropriate way of dealing with the concerns raised by the APC and the neighbouring property owners. The covenant will also ensure future owners of the property and agents are aware of the legal use of the auxiliary building and are recommending the registration of this covenant as a condition of variance approval. The second clause requests the need for strata approval of the proposed auxiliary building and the need for the conformation of approval from adjacent freehold property owners. A second condition of variance approval will be the confirmation from the applicants that their proposal meets the requirements of the Sakinaw Woods strata bylaws. In terms of notifying adjacent freehold property owners, Planning staff have followed the notification requirements of SCRD Planning and Development Procedures and Fees Bylaw No. 522 and have notified properties within a 100 metre radius. It should be noted that the strata is surrounded by Crown land. The APC discussion, though not reflected in the motion above, also considered the discretionary nature of the auxiliary building and its size and position on the property. APC members questioned placing the garage at the edge of the predisturbed area as opposed to moving it closer to the middle of this area and thus reducing the setback distance from the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake. Planning staff note that Zoning Bylaw 337 permits auxiliary buildings in all residential zones and given that the subject property is accessed by road and is on the waterfront the request for a building that can contain covered parking for vehicles and boats is reasonable. Additionally the applicant s QEP provided a supplemental memo addressing the potential of moving the garage either west or south that confirmed there will be no environmental benefit to moving the garage (see Attachment 5). Thus Planning staff are of the opinion the current position, that allows optimum functionality of both the home and the auxiliary building (ie space for additional parking, space between the home and the garage, increased visibility of the driveway from the home, the use of the existing change of grade between the retaining wall and the top of bank (as shown on Attachment 2 and 4)) is the best potential location and are recommending this as Option 1 below. There are two options to be considered: Option 1: Issue the Development Permit with a Variance as requested with a reduction in the setback to Sakinaw Lake from 20 metres to metres to allow for the construction of the auxiliary building as proposed. This will be subject to the registration of two covenants (one to prohibit the use of the auxiliary building as a dwelling and one to protect riparian vegetation within the SPEA). Option 2: Deny the variance request and require the applicant to build in a location that respects the setback for both Sakinaw Lake and the two watercourses on the property. N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-34 (V) (Mulligan for Belich)\DPV A-34 - PDC Report Apr-2.docx 202

9 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee - April 2014 Page 6 of 6 Staff believe that Option 1 provides optimal functionality of the new auxiliary building and the existing home and also maintains the existing vegetation on site. If the variance is not approved, all other potential building sites, will involve the removal of mature vegetation and the potential loss of habitat and negative impacts on existing ecosystems, therefore planning staff recommend allowing the applicants to take advantage of the predisturbed area. SUMMARY The Regional District received a development permit with a variance application to vary Section 516(1)(c), the setback from Sakinaw Lake from 20 metres to metres to allow the construction of an auxiliary building. The placement of the garage takes advantage of a previously disturbed area, so while a portion of the building is located within the SPEA it does not result in the removal of mature vegetation. The configuration of the lake shoreline, two undisturbed watercourses and mature vegetation elsewhere on the property, the location of the septic system and a building design that considers the elevations of the previously disturbed area and the recommended covenants all provide a solid rational in support of Option 1 listed above. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Site Plan prepared by Strait Land Surveys, Inc. and dated October 13, 2014 and Site Plan prepared by Larry Penonzek and dated August 11, 1998 Attachment 3: Riparian Assessment Report and memorandum supplement, prepared by Cam Forrester & Associates Attachment 4: Garage Plans prepared by DM Design and Construction Attachment 5: Supplemental memo from Cam Forrester, QPF Attachment 6: Letters from neighbouring property owner Attachment 7: Draft Development Permit N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-34 (V) (Mulligan for Belich)\DPV A-34 - PDC Report Apr-2.docx 203

10 : Subject Property Sakinaw Lake Park Shady Lane Bear Bay Rd This information has been compiled by the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) using data derived from a number of sources with varying levels of accuracy. The SCRD disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this information. Date: 3/11/2014 Path: I:\GIS\PIMS\Projects\PIMS_2013NEW.mxd Legend Park Cemetery 204 Location Map DPV A-34 (Mulligan for Belich)

11 205

12 206

13 207

14 208

15 209

16 210

17 211

18 212

19 213

20 214

21 215

22 216

23 217

24 218

25 219

26 220

27 221

28 222

29 223

30 224

31 225

32 226

33 227

34 228

35 ATTACHMENT 4 Models of proposed garage including existing single family dwelling and spetic field. Models are to scale and show approximate colour and type of finishings. Looking north from existing gravel driveway Septic Field (raised by ~1 metre) Looking north east from neighbouring property Septic Field Looking south west 229

36 230

37 231

38 232

39 233

40 234

41 235

42 236

43 237

44 MEMO TO: STINA HANSON, DEVELOPMENT PLANNER, SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT FROM: CAM FORRESTER, R.P.F., ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS TIM & JANET BELICH SUBJECT: MOVING PROPOSED GARAGE ON STRATA LOT 5, DL 4696, STRATA PLAN VR 1414 DATE: 4/10/2014 CC: DOUG MULLIGAN, GRAY CONSTRUCTION This memo is intended to provide an opinion from a qualified professional on whether moving the proposed garage location towards the septic field from the original proposal site would result in less impact to the affected Sakinaw lake shoreline habitat. I considered that the preexisting conforming condition of the driveway and landing forms the site of the proposed garage and that no additional disturbance, clearing or vegetation removal is anticipated from the garage construction. Moving the garage will not change the existing condition of the rock retaining wall structure or the gravel driveway and will not result in any net improvement to the key riparian functions of shade, litter fall, nutrient rain, wildlife trees or coarse woody debris. These comments are consistent with the recommendations in the original Riparian Areas Regulation report. Sincerely, Cam Forrester, R.P.F. 238

45 Stina Hanson From: Cheryl & Antero Sent: Tuesday, April 01, :48 AM To: Stina Hanson Subject: Variance File No. DPV A-34 Phoned but no answer, have some questions regarding this application. We never received any notification but heard it was left on our property at the lake. We are concerned if this is strictly a garage, it's size and height. Will it have a second floor which will turn into living quarters? Not sure why it has to be so close to the lake. Cheryl and Antero Uunila Lot 107 Sakinaw Woods Drive Phone:

46 From: To: Stina Hanson Subject: Re: PID Date: Wednesday, April 02, :11:02 PM thank you From: Stina Hanson Sent: Wednesday, April 02, :00 AM To: Subject: RE: PID Hello, The building is a single bay garage (the door is 4.8 metres wide, so in effect it will be able to accommodate 2 cars) and is 9.75 metres at its tallest point (the south face is 7.3 metres). The building has been designed to work with the sloped portion on the east side of the existing retaining wall, leading to the different height of the building faces. In discussions with the applicants I believe that the clearing and construction of the parking area was done at the same time as the house was built and we are considering the measurements from this existing grade. If there was three metres of fill added when the level driveway was created the building as proposed still meets our height requirement of 11 metres as the base floor of the building will be placed on rock and the fill that had been placed previously will be excavated to make room for this building. There is a finished games room proposed for the top floor of the garage. As part of the conditions of variance approval we are requesting that the applicant register a covenant ensuring that this space cannot be used as a dwelling or for overnight accommodations. In terms of your question regarding vegetation removal: there is a Development Permit Area (DPA #1 Stream Riparian Assessment Area) that extends 30 metres from the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake that requires a development permit before any land alteration (this includes vegetation removal). This Development Permit Area enables the SCRD to enforce the provincial Riparian Area Regulations aimed at preserving riparian habitats on all fish bearing watercourses across the province. As part of this Development Permit with a Variance application the applicants have submitted an assessment report from a qualified environmental professional (QEP) that considers the placement of the garage in relation to the existing vegetation on the property. As part of the report the QEP has outlined the vegetated area that must be maintained. Any further land alteration (including the removal of the current brush) would require another Development Permit. Please let me know if you have any further questions about the application, or if you have further comments regarding the application that you would like us to include as part of our report to the Planning and Development Committee. Thank you, 240

47 Stina Hanson Planning Technician, Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt BC V0N 3A ext.1 SCRD Website From: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, :29 PM To: Stina Hanson Subject: PID I am part owner of the adjacent lot 6 in Sakinaw Woods. I have some questions before I can answer your question regarding the riparian setback. Your letter does not give any information regarding the height of the proposed building. Is the proposed garage a 2 or 3 bay, and does it have guest accommodation above the parking bays? What is the overall height of the building above the existing grade? With just the information that I have received from you, the proposed garage is not on an area cleared in 1998 but rather is on a section of the property that was cleared and filled approximately 3 meters with rip rap and fill to create a level drive to the home that was built on a rock outcropping. Let us assume that the garage is for 9 doors for boat storage plus 9 for the guest rooms plus a further 9 feet for the sloped roof. Switching back to metric measure, I think that the proposal would lead to a garage with a roof ridge that would be 9 meters above the current ground level, but also 11 meters above the prevailing ground level beside the fill (the prevailing ground level prior to the applicant s construction. If the applicant removed the current brush which hides the home and driveway (as would be his right), this building would tower over lot 6. Further details would assist me in responding to your letter.c 241

48 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT with VARIANCE No. A-34 DRAFT TO: Tim and Janet Belich ADDRESS: 937 Selkirk Crescent Coquitlam, BC V3J 6E4 This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of the Sunshine Coast Regional District applicable thereto, except those specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. This Development Permit Area#1 (Riparian Assessment Areas), within the Egmont/Pender Harbour Official Community Plan Bylaw 432, applies to those lands within the Sunshine Coast Regional District described below: Legal Description: Strata Lot 5 District Lot 4696 Plan VAS1414 P.I.D.: Civic Description: Sakinaw Lake, Pender Harbour, BC The lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this Permit and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit which shall form a part thereof. Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 337 is varied or supplemented, and conditions and requirements pursuant to Section 920 of the Local Government Act are imposed in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Egmont/Pender Harbour Official Community Plan. Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 is specifically varied as follows: To vary Section 516(1)(c) of SCRD Bylaw No. 337 to relax the minimum required setback to the natural boundary of a lake from 20 metres to metres for the purpose of constructing an auxiliary building; This Development Permit with a Variance for the purpose of constructing an auxiliary building and removing an existing shed within riparian area of Sakinaw Lake is issued subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions: Prior to Issuance: 242

49 Development Permit with Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) (1) Registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant to the satisfaction of the SCRD: to save harmless the SCRD; to retain all native vegetation within 15 meters of the high water mark of Sakinaw Lake and within 10 metres of Streams 1A and 1B. (2) Registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant to the satisfaction of the SCRD: to stipulate that the proposed auxiliary building may not be used as a dwelling unit or for overnight accommodations. General Conditions: (1) Adhere to the guidelines and recommendations in the Riparian Areas Regulation: Assessment Report prepared by Cam Forrester & Associates and dated February 28, 2014 attached to and forming part of this permit as Appendix A with particular attention given to: i. The Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) is set at 15 metres from the natural boundary of Sakinaw Lake, except for the portions with existing conditions and 10 metres from the natural boundary of Streams 1A and 1B (as shown on the Site Plan in Appendix A). No building, land alteration or vegetation removal (beyond what is outlined in Appendix A) is permitted within the SPEA; ii. No danger trees are currently identified on the property. The QEP must provide a recommendation stating that any trees prescribed for removal or modification represent a hazard to life or property. The development requires the removal of one tree within the SPEA, along the existing driveway; iii. Vegetation, trees and tree rooting zones should be protected from foot traffic and any further clearing. Property owners should avoid additional trails, refuse dumping, soil disturbance, vegetation disturbance or tree clearing in the existing riparian zone of Sakinaw Lake or Streams 1A and 1B. Additional planting with native trees and shrubs should be undertaken if any gaps develop from tree mortality or windthrow; iv. The shoreline vegetation and existing trees should be protected during construction. A tree protection zone that includes as much of the rooting zone as possible and at minimum the area of the dripline should be established by creating a clear barrier to construction equipment and activity. Contractual penalties may be established to ensure contractors and their agents respect this zone; v. An existing shed (shown on Appendix B) within the SPEA will be removed and pollution prevention measures such as spill protection trays and hydrocarbon spill kits will be installed; vi. Erosion and sediment management is related to minimizing soil disturbance of the garage construction. Bare soil should be minimized in 243

50 Development Permit with Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) extant and also by timing, clearing as close to construction as possible to avoid long period of bare soil being exposed to rain and run-off erosion. Interception and diversion of run-off to manage erosion and sediment should consider the appropriate combination of mulching, re-vegetation sediment fences and/or plastic covers on exposed soils; vii. QEP will oversee an environmental monitoring program during the construction phase of the garage. (2) The development shall substantially conform with the site plan attached to and forming part of this permit as Appendix B prepared by Straight Land Surveying and Dated October 29, 2013 (3) The owner is responsible for ensuring that all construction and works carried out under this permit are on the owner s land subject to this permit; (4) Arrange for a site inspection by a qualified environmental professional during foundation preparation, the results of which are to be submitted to the SCRD at that time; (5) The Qualified Environmental Professional provides a final letter to confirm that all construction is consistent with standard practice and with the Post-Development Habitat Report and this letter must be received to the satisfaction of the SCRD prior to SCRD approval of the final inspection for the development which is the subject of this Development Permit; (6) Except as may be authorized by the Minister responsible for heritage conservation, no person may damage, alter, or remove from a site any object, artifact, feature, material or other physical evidence of unknown origin that may be protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. In the event of finding a possible archaeological site or artifact immediately stop work and contact: a. The Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and b. The Rights and Title Department, shíshálh Nation ( ). (7) Post a waterproof copy of the Development Permit (8.5" x 11" minimum) on the development site for the duration of construction. (8) If the Permittee does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within two (2) years of the date of this permit, this Development Permit shall lapse. (9) The development is to be completed within four (4) years from issuance of the date of this Development Permit. 244

51 Development Permit with Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) Except as specifically provided above, this Development Permit, with setback variance, in no way relieves the owner or occupier of the responsibility of adhering to all other legislation of responsible authorities, which may apply to the land. This Permit is not a building permit. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION No. xxx/xx PASSED BY THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD THIS xx DAY OF Month, ISSUED THIS xx DAY OF Month, 2014 Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT 245

52 ANNEX M SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 31, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee (PDC) April 17, 2014 FROM: RE: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application # E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 Area E. RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled, Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application # E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 Area E and dated March 31, 2014; AND THAT ALR Application E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR be supported; AND FURTHER THAT ALR Application E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission noting SCRD support. BACKGROUND The Regional District received an application for subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) for the above-noted property (see Location Map Attachment A). The applicant notes his intention to re-align the boundary between the two subject properties so that the lot dimensions are more workable to improve the agricultural potential for each lot. Subdivision in the ALR requires application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). As part of the application process, the ALC considers comments from the SCRD. If the ALC approves the subdivision application, the owners may then apply to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) and the SCRD to subdivide the property. Conversely, if the ALC does not approve the request, there shall be no subdivision of the parcel. DISCUSSION The subject parcels are 6.43 hectares and 3.64 hectares, with a combined area of 10 hectares in size. Each lot is approximately 786 meters (2578 feet) long; one lot has a narrow width of 24.6 meters (80 feet), and the other has an 80.5 meter (264 feet) width. The proposed lot line adjustment will turn the two long skinny lots into two shorter, more equal sized lots (refer to Attachment B Survey). Accesses to the properties are from the Sunshine Coast Highway on the south. The parcels were initially created by subdivision plan 3877 in 1912 and plan 5758 in Properties to the north, east and west (partial) are also located in the ALR while the property to the south is not and has a Rural Residential designation within the OCP. The current use of the subject 246

53 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 2 of 10 properties are residential and the surrounding properties are residential or vacant (see Summary Report, Attachment C). The properties are zoned RU3 (Rural Three), which is a rural agricultural zone, typically granted to properties within the ALR. Soil Classification and Topography According to the 1975 National Topographic Series Map by the Department of Lands and Forest, the agricultural capability of the soil on the subject property is classified as Class 4 and Class 5 (see Soil Capability Map Attachment D). Class 4 land is capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions require special management considerations. Class 5 land is capable of production of cultivated perennial forage crops and specially adapted crops. Soil and/or climate conditions severely limit capability. The National Topographic Series Map notes that in the parcels, with irrigation and stone-picking, the mineral soil has the potential to be partially improved. The property is relatively flat, with about a 9% grade from the south to the north. Currently, there is one single family dwelling and a few outbuildings on the large lot, while the majority of both lots are treed. Elphinstone Official Community Plan The Elphinstone Official Community Plan designates the properties Agricultural A on the south and Rural Residential on the north. The OCP states that Agricultural A land is indicated to be generally good, to very good, for agricultural purposes, or soils improvable to this quality. These parcels are suitable for agricultural activities such as berry crops, cole crops and other fresh market vegetable crops, some hard tree fruits, and most aspects of nursery production. The OCP states that Rural Residential land is conductive to small acreage opportunities and a rural lifestyle where in addition to home occupations, activities such as garden nurseries, agriculture, small scale manufacturing, the keeping of livestock, limited or low density outdoor recreation assembly accommodation and public assembly facilities such as churches and private educational facilities may be permitted subject to appropriate development control measures and locational consideration. The OCP identifies extension of Reed Road on the north as a proposed Major Collector road. Subdivision Zoning The property is currently zoned with the I subdivision district, which carries a minimum lot size of 4 hectares. As the total combined lot area is 10 hectares, the lot line adjustment would result in two lots just over 4 hectares, which is in line with the subdivision zoning. Sunshine Coast Community Energy and Emissions Plan The Sunshine Coast Community Energy and Emissions Plan states, as Goal 1: Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices. An action identified to meet Goal 1 is to protect and enhance [land in the] ALR. Land can be used for a diversity of agricultural activities depending on land quality. Farming, growing, and composting for local nurseries should be encouraged on agricultural land. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 247

54 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 3 of 10 Sunshine Coast Regional Sustainability Plan We Envision, the Regional Sustainability Plan, outlines a strategic direction of increasing the amount of, and access to, locally grown and produced food. As the shapes of the proposed lots are easier to work with agriculturally, they could lead to the increase of locally grown food. Agricultural Advisory Committee Comments This application was referred to the Agricultural Advisory Committee on March 25, 2014 for comments. The following recommendation was made: That the Agricultural Advisory Committee concurs with the staff recommendation and has no concerns with the application. Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Comments This application was referred to the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission on March 26, 2014 for comments. The following recommendation was made: That we approve the subdivision as shown, with the recommendation that West Reed Road dedication be dropped in favor of Reed Road. It seems like a sensible land use move. Staff Comments The dimensions of the existing lots appear to be limiting for agricultural purposes. The proposed new dimensions ensure each lot meets the 4 hectare minimum parcel size. The proposed dimensions appear to be more functional. If the application reaches subdivision stage, the MOTI may request an extension of West Reed Road, although the APC recommended against this. As noted above, the OCP identifies extension of Reed Road on the north as a proposed Major Collector road. Staff recommend that any road dedication should involve Reed Road rather than West Reed Road to reduce the loss of ALR land. The two proposed lots may be accessible from the existing portion of West Reed Road. Access and road dedication will be considered in more detail at the subdivision stage. A stream is identified that runs halfway down the length of Block E. If this application reaches subdivision stage, a development permit with a riparian assessment report completed by a Qualified Environmental Professional will be required to ensure no negative impacts will affect the riparian area. The riparian area may impact access from West Reed Road. Proposed lot A on the north has a 20 meter wide covenant that runs across the property which could be dedicated for Mountain Road. Should this application for subdivision be approved by the ALC, staff recommend that a covenant be registered on title to ensure further subdivision of proposed lot A (through unhooking, for example) not be permitted. This application complies with the OCP and zoning bylaws; therefore, staff generally support this application. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 248

55 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 4 of 10 SUMMARY The applicant has exercised their right to apply for subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR. It is up to the ALC to determine whether or not this application will have a detrimental effect on agricultural land and will make their ruling accordingly. The ALC will take into account comments from the SCRD. Once an SCRD Board resolution is adopted, this application will be referred to the ALC with SCRD comments for a final decision. Staff recommend this application be approved. If this application reaches subdivision stage, staff recommend a covenant be registered on proposed lot A to ensure further subdivision is not permitted. Lesley-Ann Staats Planning Technician N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 249

56 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT A N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 250

57 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT B N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 251

58 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT C AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE APPLICATION SUMMARY Date of Report: January 22, 2014 ALR File: E-38 APPLICANT: Richard Andrews (for Fawcett s) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block E, DL 903, Plan 5758 PID Block 3, DL 903, Plan 3877 PID LOCATION: APPLICATION FOR: REASON: SOIL CLASSIFICATION: 1624 Sunshine Coast Highway, Gibsons, BC, V0N 1V2 Subdivision in the ALR (Lot-line adjustment) To re-align the boundary between the two subject properties so that the lot dimensions are more workable to improve the agricultural potential for each lot. The soils on this parcel have two Agriculture Capability Categories (see ALR Soil Capability Map ) with some soil improvability potential. Class 4 & Class 5 Noted constraints include topography, soil moisture deficiency, and stoniness. Agriculture Capability Class Definitions: Class 4 land is capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions require special management considerations. Class 5 land is capable of production of cultivated perennial forage crops and specially adapted crops. Soil and/or climate conditions severely limit capability. OCP DESIGNATION: Rural Residential (Northern 2/3rds of parcels) and Agricultural A (Southern 1/3rd of parcels) PARCEL SIZE: Block 3 = 6.43 ha Total combined area = 10 ha Block E = 3.64 ha EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE: North vacant Crown Land RU3 zoning (ALR) East residential (Andrews property) RU3 zoning (ALR) West residential North section is vacant with RU1 zoning and south section is residential with RU3 zoning (ALR) South residential RU1 zoning across highway N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 252

59 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 8 of 10 ZONING: See attached copy of zoning as listed in Bylaw 310. This application complies with the current zoning bylaw. Present: RU3 (Rural Three applied to ALR) Within surrounding area: RU1 and RU3 Applications for amendment within surrounding area: Not at this time. SUBDIVISION CONTROL: WATER: SEWER: ROAD ACCESS: ZONING ISSUES: OCP POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: Present designation and minimum lot size: I (4 ha) Within surrounding area: I (4 ha min) and F (1 ha average) Applications for amendment within surrounding area: None at this time. Community On site Access to site is via Sunshine Coast Highway (Hwy 101) from the south. None at this time OCP Goal #3: To protect the long term potential for agriculture and to provide for agricultural activities that promote food security on the Sunshine Coast. The properties are designated Rural Residential and Agricultural A by the Elphinstone OCP: Agricultural A Agricultural Land Reserve where minimum parcel sizes of 4 hectares are to be retained; and where land use zoning is to provide for agricultural activities, including the marketing of products grown on-site. This is land for which refined soils mapping by the Agricultural Land Commission has indicated soils in general to be good, to very good, for agricultural purposes, or soils improvable to this quality. These parcels are suitable for agricultural activities such as berry crops, cole crops and other fresh market vegetable crops, some hard tree fruits, and most aspects of nursery production. Such activities can be encouraged through agencies such as the Community Development Office of the Regional District. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 253

60 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 9 of 10 Rural Residential Land that is conducive to small acreage opportunities and a rural life style, where in addition to home occupations, activities such as garden nurseries, agriculture, small scale manufacturing, the keeping of livestock, limited or low density outdoor recreation assembly accommodation and public assembly facilities such as churches and private educational facilities may be permitted subject to appropriate development control measures and locational considerations; and where a minimum parcel size of l hectare shall be required for subdivision purposes for most parcels of land. PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES: The property is serviced by SCRD water. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 254

61 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT D N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 255

62 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT A N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 256

63 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT B N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 257

64 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT C AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE APPLICATION SUMMARY Date of Report: January 22, 2014 ALR File: E-38 APPLICANT: Richard Andrews (for Fawcett s) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block E, DL 903, Plan 5758 PID Block 3, DL 903, Plan 3877 PID LOCATION: APPLICATION FOR: REASON: SOIL CLASSIFICATION: 1624 Sunshine Coast Highway, Gibsons, BC, V0N 1V2 Subdivision in the ALR (Lot-line adjustment) To re-align the boundary between the two subject properties so that the lot dimensions are more workable to improve the agricultural potential for each lot. The soils on this parcel have two Agriculture Capability Categories (see ALR Soil Capability Map ) with some soil improvability potential. Class 4 & Class 5 Noted constraints include topography, soil moisture deficiency, and stoniness. Agriculture Capability Class Definitions: Class 4 land is capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions require special management considerations. Class 5 land is capable of production of cultivated perennial forage crops and specially adapted crops. Soil and/or climate conditions severely limit capability. OCP DESIGNATION: Rural Residential (Northern 2/3rds of parcels) and Agricultural A (Southern 1/3rd of parcels) PARCEL SIZE: Block 3 = 6.43 ha Total combined area = 10 ha Block E = 3.64 ha EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE: North vacant Crown Land RU3 zoning (ALR) East residential (Andrews property) RU3 zoning (ALR) West residential North section is vacant with RU1 zoning and south section is residential with RU3 zoning (ALR) South residential RU1 zoning across highway N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 258

65 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 8 of 10 ZONING: See attached copy of zoning as listed in Bylaw 310. This application complies with the current zoning bylaw. Present: RU3 (Rural Three applied to ALR) Within surrounding area: RU1 and RU3 Applications for amendment within surrounding area: Not at this time. SUBDIVISION CONTROL: WATER: SEWER: ROAD ACCESS: ZONING ISSUES: OCP POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: Present designation and minimum lot size: I (4 ha) Within surrounding area: I (4 ha min) and F (1 ha average) Applications for amendment within surrounding area: None at this time. Community On site Access to site is via Sunshine Coast Highway (Hwy 101) from the south. None at this time OCP Goal #3: To protect the long term potential for agriculture and to provide for agricultural activities that promote food security on the Sunshine Coast. The properties are designated Rural Residential and Agricultural A by the Elphinstone OCP: Agricultural A Agricultural Land Reserve where minimum parcel sizes of 4 hectares are to be retained; and where land use zoning is to provide for agricultural activities, including the marketing of products grown on-site. This is land for which refined soils mapping by the Agricultural Land Commission has indicated soils in general to be good, to very good, for agricultural purposes, or soils improvable to this quality. These parcels are suitable for agricultural activities such as berry crops, cole crops and other fresh market vegetable crops, some hard tree fruits, and most aspects of nursery production. Such activities can be encouraged through agencies such as the Community Development Office of the Regional District. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 259

66 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 9 of 10 Rural Residential Land that is conducive to small acreage opportunities and a rural life style, where in addition to home occupations, activities such as garden nurseries, agriculture, small scale manufacturing, the keeping of livestock, limited or low density outdoor recreation assembly accommodation and public assembly facilities such as churches and private educational facilities may be permitted subject to appropriate development control measures and locational considerations; and where a minimum parcel size of l hectare shall be required for subdivision purposes for most parcels of land. PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES: The property is serviced by SCRD water. N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 260

67 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding ALR Application E-38 (Andrews for Fawcett) Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT D N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\ ALR Applications\E-38 (Andrews)\2014-Apr-17 ALR E-38 PDC Report - Area E.doc 261

68 ANNEX N SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 FROM: RE: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island, Area A. RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the report titled, License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island, Area A and dated April 9, 2014 be received; AND THAT Application for a shellfish aquaculture expansion area be supported subject to meeting the following conditions: 1. the shíshálh Nation being contacted and consulted with to ensure their archaeological interests are fully addressed; 2. the Sliammon Nation being contacted and consulted with to ensure their archaeological interests are fully addressed; 3. the upland owners being consulted with to ensure their concerns are addressed; 4. no structures permitted within the proposed license expansion area; AND FURTHER THAT no further aquaculture expansion to this license area be permitted due to increasing private upland use of the surrounding area; BACKGROUND The Regional District has received an application from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, to expand an existing oyster tenure that has been in place since The tenure is located on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island (see Figure 1 below). Please review Attachment A, which includes sections of the application for more information. 262

69 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding file (Aquaculture Shellfish Expansion) by Richard Fair Page 2 of 5 Figure 1: Location Map (license areas not to scale) Previous SCRD Comments In 2006 the SCRD received an expansion application to increase the area from 0.1 hectares to 0.22 hectares. Staff recommended approval of the expansion providing the following conditions were met: First Nations (shíshálh and Sliammon) are contacted and that their archaeological interests are fully addressed. Operational adjustments will be made in the event that undue issues arise due to the expanded aquaculture operation. No further aquaculture expansion to this tenure will be permitted due to increasing private upland use of the surrounding area. The expansion application in 2006 was disallowed. Staff understand that this was because the applicant wanted to put a 16 ft X 20 ft work raft in the area and some stacks of oyster trays on the beach. However, the decision states that The client amended his shellfish operation and no longer required the expansion area. DISCUSSION The applicant is seeking permission to expand a small, established pacific oyster farm from 0.1 hectares in size to 1.42 hectares. This expansion proposes to include manila clams as well. Manila clams were introduced to British Columbia in the 1930s and are now a dominant clam in the commercial fishery. The application notes that no structures will be built and no mechanical clam harvesting machines or stinger harvest gear will be used at this site. The reason for expansion is to sustain a more viable business. Archaeological Sites The subject area has four identified archaeological sites in the vicinity. The shíshálh and Sliammon Nations should be contacted and consulted with to ensure their archaeological interests are fully addressed. The applicant has commented that the shíshálh nation had concerns with the initial tenure site having a potential risk to the stone fish trap in the area; however, the applicant completed an N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\ Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\ ILMB Aquaculture Shellfish\2014-Apr Aquaculture PDC Report AREA A.docx 263

70 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding file (Aquaculture Shellfish Expansion) by Richard Fair Page 3 of 5 archaeological study in 2005, which indicated the tenure would not have an impact on the stone fish trap. The applicant further notes that the expansion is in the opposite direction of the identified stone fish trap however, as the expansion area covers new ground this time, it appears to be in the direction of another archaeological site which may not have been identified in the 2005 review. Zoning The foreshore around Hardy Island and Nelson Island is not zoned. The applicant should be aware that upland from the application area is zoned Rural Residential (RU1) on Hardy Island and Rural Resource (RU2) on Copper Island. Regional District staff have increasing concern about intensifying commercial use of the foreshore fronting private residential parcels. The applicant noted in his letter that the upland owners have no concerns with this application however, it is not clear if all upland owners have been consulted with. Staff recommend that all upland owners be consulted with by the province on this application. This proposed application expansion area is larger than the 2006 application expansion area, and staff recommend that no further aquaculture expansion to this license be permitted due to increasing private upland use of the surrounding area. Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) Comments Members of the NRAC noted concerns with the project including: - proximity to archeological sites - potential interference with recreational use and public access - potential destruction of foreshore habitat - lack of zoning, and - intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas They also noted that - decisions about individual applications for aquaculture development would be much easier if foreshore zoning were included in the OCP for Area A, - shellfish aquaculture as proposed in this application is considered a relatively clean form of aquaculture and - the Natural Resources Advisory Committee is not fundamentally opposed to this type of development However; without further information with respect to the above concerns, the NRAC made the following motion: That the SCRD does not support the application at this time due to insufficient information. Egmont/Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Commission (APC) Comments The APC provided the following comments: - Concerns were raised with the number of residential buildings in the proposed area. - Factors to consider would be notification of local residents that may be impacted by the License, how much infrastructure would be involved, could residents still be able to construct approved docks, are navigable waters still being maintained, and is recreational shellfish harvesting still possible. - This committee commends this type of industry and would like to see it be successful on N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\ Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\ ILMB Aquaculture Shellfish\2014-Apr Aquaculture PDC Report AREA A.docx 264

71 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding file (Aquaculture Shellfish Expansion) by Richard Fair Page 4 of 5 the Sunshine Coast. The APC did not make a recommendation. Applicant Comments Staff forwarded NRAC and APC comments to the applicant. The applicant responded by (attached as Attachment B) which addresses some of the concerns raised. Some comments from the are as follows: - I go to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the [foreshore] habitat in the area [is not destructed] as this industry depends on clean and healthy waterways. An intact habitat helps ensure the survival of shellfish... - The type of farming I will be doing is just oysters sitting on the beach. It does not get much simpler of low impact than that. If you were to take a photo of the area today and another 5 to 10 years from now, the only difference you would notice is there would be more oysters on the beach. - There will be no infrastructure, no floats, no docks, no nothing. Staff Comments and Recommendations The proposed site extends towards 4 registered archaeological sites. If shíshálh and Sliammon nation archaeological interests can be fully addressed, this would satisfy the Regional District. The foreshore is not zoned. This should be considered when updating the Pender Harbour Official Community Plan (OCP), although this area is currently outside of the OCP area. There may be consideration of zoning some foreshore areas outside the OCP area, or possibly extending the OCP area to include areas such as these. OCP policies and zoning can address concerns such as intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas, potential destruction of foreshore habitat, potential interference with recreational use and public access. To consider local resident concerns, staff recommend the province consult with upland owners to ensure concerns are addressed. The local residents may have concerns regarding the amount of infrastructure involved, overlapping licence areas (to allow upland owners to have private moorages), navigable waters, and recreational shellfish harvesting. Based on comments received from the applicant, there will be no infrastructure, most upland owners but one have existing private moorages (and there is room for the more moorage facilities to be put in), there should be no navigation impediments from the proposal (because there is no infrastructure), and recreational harvesting can happen anywhere else along the foreshore. Even though the above concerns were raised, the APC noted that it would like to see this type of industry be successful on the Sunshine Coast. The NRAC noted that this type of shellfish aquaculture is a relatively clean form of aquaculture and that it is not fundamentally opposed to this application. Planning staff have no objection to this type of shellfish aquaculture so long as appropriate consultation has taken place. SUMMARY The applicant has exercised their right to apply for expansion to his license of occupation shellfish aquaculture site. It is up to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to approve the application and comments from the SCRD will be taken into account. N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\ Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\ ILMB Aquaculture Shellfish\2014-Apr Aquaculture PDC Report AREA A.docx 265

72 Staff report to Planning and Development Committee April 17, 2014 Regarding file (Aquaculture Shellfish Expansion) by Richard Fair Page 5 of 5 Final SCRD comments will be forwarded to the Ministry for consideration no later than April 25, Based on the type of low-impact shellfish aquaculture with no infrastructure, planning staff recommend that Application for a shellfish aquaculture expansion area be supported subject to meeting the following conditions: 1. The shíshálh Nation being consulted with to ensure their archaeological interests are fully addressed; 2. The Sliammon Nation being consulted with to ensure their archaeological interests are fully addressed; 3. The upland owners being consulted with to ensure their concerns are addressed; and 4. No structures permitted within the proposed license expansion area; Staff further recommend that no further aquaculture expansion to this license area be permitted due to increasing private upland use of the surrounding area. Lesley-Ann Staats Planning Technician N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\ Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\ ILMB Aquaculture Shellfish\2014-Apr Aquaculture PDC Report AREA A.docx 266

73 267 ATTACHMENT A

74 268

75 269

76 270

77 271

78 i st r.l ltb hr,ud ts& $ffi o l&#ffi : Efs# +}ffi ttsffi $qi $E.rr& U d \,qb] L* f\\ Nq S. t/) o 'l- \b d (\ v. F{ f,' a_ fl- <( "41/ o w 617 SJ oc. ^o Ju s.s i qry" -a{ 5 Lz? <f,,\n is is\ ej :4, 272 QJ

79 273

80 ATTACHMENT B From: Rick Fair To: Lesley-Ann Staats Subject: RE: Referral Request - Aquaculture Use Amendment Application Date: April :35:23 PM Dear Lesley- Ann, I apologize, but I am confused with the contents of the I received last week. The comments raised by the NRAC and the APC have included 2 short sentences supporting the shellfish industry but everything else in this strongly suggests otherwise. I will start with the comments from the NRAC. The first regarding "zoning" or lack of. I can not comment on this as i'm just an oyster farmer. A portion of the area under expansion application has been a working oyster tenure for almost 8 years. " Proximity to archaeological sites". I had a archaeological survey done by a well recognized archaeologist in 2005 and the survey showed the boundaries I indicated at the time would not impact the archaeological sites in the area. I will forward a letter to you if requested. The expansion area applied for will not be closer to those sites. " Potential interference with recreational use and public access". This should be a very small concern as there are thousands of km. of coastline for recreational use on the sunshine coast. I have no concerns with people walking or passing over the area providing they take care and are mindful of the young oysters on the beach." Potential destruction of foreshore habitat". This is something I go to great lengths, is to ensure the integrity of the habitat in the area as this industry depends on clean and healthy waterways. An intact habitat helps ensure the survival of shellfish as they all depend on each other. " Lack of zoning ". Once again I can not comment. " Intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas". This is something that does not exist in the lower Jervis Inlet and Blind Bay area. I do not know how many shellfish applications your office and these committees have received in the last 10 years but I'm sure it's close to zero. I have been in the shellfish industry for 35 years and 25 years in the lower Jervis Inlet/Blind Bay area and there has been NO intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas from shellfish farms or other industries. I have seen no grown in this industry in the last 10 years or more. It is a struggle to survive in this industry and from various reasons, but one for sure is the ' red tape' and decisions that are made by people who know little about the industry. The type of farming I will be doing is just 'oysters sitting on the beach'. It does not get much simpler of low impact than that. If you were to take a photo of the area today and another 5 to 10 years from now, the only difference you you would notice, is there would be a lot more oysters on the beach. The only destruction I have seen in the last 10 to 20 years in the area is upland owners destroying the land to overbuild, with many multi thousand sq. ft. houses ( summer houses 274

81 at that ) and docks every few hundred meters around the islands. Housing provides no long term economic benefits for the community ( other than short term construction jobs ) and provides no real wealth for the country. The wealth created from housing is just an illusion. The owners of these docks, along with their friends and relatives boats are pumping sewage overboard and bilges being emptied are doing far greater damage to the environment than the shellfish industry as oysters just filter the water. Comments from the APC. " The number of residential buildings in the proposed area". There are 2 lots on Hardy Island that the oyster tenure would be adjacent to. I would guess that there would eventually be 1 house on each lot. Lot 28 already has a cleared building site that faces North, away from the main area of expansion. Lot 27 I do not know and have never seen the owners but I would guess they would eventually build a summer house ( most houses in the area are summer houses ). Copper Island is owned by 2 year round residents that have 2 homes and a dock on the opposite side of the island. I also have a good relationship with my neighbours in the area. " How much infrastructure would be involved". This would be zero, no floats, docks no nothing. " Could residents still be able to construct approved docks". Only lot 27 has yet to build a dock as Copper Island and lot 28 already have completed docks West of the present site I occupy and the owners of lot 27 would probably build in the protected bay South West of the applied area that is also their property, as it would offer much better protection from the weather and the wake of passing boats through Telescope Passage. " Navigable waters still being maintained". I would hope that no vessel would hit my oysters on the beach. All applications are forwarded to Transport Canada, Navigable Waters dept. and those decisions are made by experts there. " Is recreational shellfish harvesting still possible". I would not object to my neighbours or the odd visitor to the area taking their legal amount allowed under their sports fishing licence. But this is how it works, the area is removed from the public for harvesting shellfish, just like I can'not show up on a fish farm and start removing salmon. There must be 2000 km of coastline in the Sechelt Regional District, people still have lots of area to harvest in. Finally the last question. My application for expansion in 2006 was not changed by me to no longer request this expansion. The application, I was told, was denied ( although I never did receive any of letter stating such, when the decision was made ). I did move in 2007 so maybe the letter got lost at that time. I was told on the phone that the expansion application was denied because I wanted to put one 16'x20' work raft in the area and some stacks of oyster trays on the beach. I have worked hard in this industry for years and always done my best to maintain good relations with my neighbours and protect the area I work in but is is very discouraging there 275

82 is no support from anybody, just the opposite. yours truly richard fair From: To: Subject: FW: Referral Request - Aquaculture Use Amendment Application Date: Tue, 1 Apr :00: Hi Mr. Fair, Please find below the recommendations and comments received from the Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) and the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) from the meetings held in March: Comments from NRAC Decisions about individual applications for aquaculture development would be much easier if foreshore zoning were included in the OCP for Area A. Members of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee have concerns with the project including proximity to archeological sites, potential interference with recreational use and public access, potential destruction of foreshore habitat, lack of zoning, and intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas. Without further information with respect to the above concerns, it is difficult for the committee to recommend supporting the application. Shellfish aquaculture as proposed in this application is considered a relatively clean form of aquaculture and the Natural Resources Advisory Committee is not fundamentally opposed to this type of development. Recommendation No. 9: That the SCRD does not support the application at this time due to insufficient information. Comments from APC Concerns were raised with the number of residential buildings in the proposed area. Factors to consider would be notification of local residents that may be impacted by the License, how much infrastructure would be involved, could residents still be able to construct approved docks, are navigatable waters still being maintained, and is recreational shellfish harvesting still possible. This committee commends this type of industry and would like to see it be successful on the Sunshine Coast. I will prepare a staff report for the Planning and Development Committee for April 17, The Planning and Development committee will review your application and make a recommendation to 276

83 the SCRD Board. The Board will then adopt the Planning & Development Committee recommendation as a final resolution. Once the resolution is adopted, I will send that to you and the Province, by April 25 th. Can you please advise why you changed your initial application in 2006? I understand there was initially an application for expansion, but then you changed the application to no longer request this. Can you tell me what the reason was? Respectfully, Lesley-Ann Staats Planning Technician Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1 Phone: ext 6 Fax: Follow us on Twitter at sunshinecoastrd Visit us: 277

84 ANNEX O HILLSIDE ACTIVITY REPORT April 9, McNair Creek Bridge Repair Staff were advised that in the first week of April the DL 1365 Consortium owners gathered and had a productive discussion surrounding the bridge repairs as well as other issues relating to the property. The ownership group is in the process of formalizing road use and access agreements. From the Consortium owners perspective three agreements will need to be in place: One with the Ministry of Forests to use the first 100m of McNair Forest Service Road that goes from Port Mellon Highway to the turnoff to the bridge One with the SCRD to provide access from the McNair Forest Service Road across SCRD property/bridge to DL 1365 One amongst the consortium members for internal use of roads on DL The property owners are requesting assistance from SCRD staff in drafting the road use agreement to get them from the Forest Service road across the bridge to DL Staff have previously noted the need to formalize access across SCRD property through a right of way or easement and will bring a report to a future PDC meeting outlining the results of discussions on this matter. 2. Sale of Lot H The sale of Lot H completed on March 26, with remaining funds of $324,000 received/deposited on March 28 th. This is few months early than the agreement date of June Steven Olmstead, General Manager of Planning and Development Division 278

85 ANNEX P From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Michael McLaughlin Steven Olmstead BCOBTA letter of support Tuesday, February 25, :35:07 AM BCOBTA Request for Support RD.pdf ATT00001.htm BCOBTA Executive Summary.docx ATT00002.htm Hello Stephen. The "marine highway" initiative has advanced. The BC Ocean Boating Tourism Association is incorporated and engaged in fundraising. The BCOBTA would be grateful for a letter of support from the SCRD. A request for a letter is attached. I have also attached the Executive Summary of the Sector Development Strategy which provides an overview of the initiative. Thank you for adding this to the appropriate agenda. Michael McLaughlin Rural Futures

86 280

87 281

88 EXPERIENCES BC POWER AND SAIL CRUISE SECTOR SECTOR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY March 18, 2013 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, Tourism BC Representative: Heather Boyd (604) Tourism BC Facilitator: Jennifer Nichol Grant Thornton LLP (604)

89 Executive Summary This executive summary presents highlights from the Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Development and Marketing Plan, which was developed through the Experiences BC program of Tourism British Columbia, as part of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. The Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Development and Marketing Plan was created with input from a provincial sector Steering Committee, in addition to over 100 sector stakeholders along BC s coast. Background The BC coast offers outstanding opportunities for power and sail cruising and currently attracts visitors from several key markets. However, in terms of formalized, collaborative tourism product development and marketing, the sector is not developed. There is strong interest by stakeholders associated with power and sail cruising in BC to formalize the sector and conduct coordinated, effective tourism product development and marketing to capitalize on the significant opportunities the coast presents. In response to this situation, key stakeholders formed a Provincial Steering Committee in March, 2012, to lead the development of this Sector Tourism Plan through the Experiences BC Program. Sector Definition The BC power and sail cruise sector includes cruising by powerboat or sailboat anywhere along the BC coast. Other attributes that define the sector are as follows: Cruising or sailing is the main purpose of the activity (as distinct from fishing being the main purpose of the boating activity) 1 ; The sector includes private recreational boaters (transient), bareboat charters and guided charters; and, The sector does not include pocket cruises, cruising on large cruise ships and companies that primarily offer fishing charters. The typical experience involves visiting multiple marinas and/or harbours, usually over the course of one or more nights and often over several weeks. Key Learning and Findings from Situation Analysis The Situation Analysis which was developed to support the planning process for the power and sail cruise sector offered the following insights. 1 This does not mean that visitors participating in power and sail cruising will not fish or participate in other activities while on their cruising vacation; rather, it means that the main reason for their trip is for the actual power/sail cruising experience, which may involve other activities as well. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (DRAFT FINAL #2) 283 i

90 BC s coastline offers outstanding natural assets that support power and sail cruising, including: exceptional scenery, 450 kilometers of protected water, 20,000 kilometers of coastline, intact wildlife populations and ecosystems, wildlife diversity, an abundance of islands, many marine parks/ protected areas, beaches and clean water. These natural assets are supported by cultural attractions, communities, boating infrastructure and services and a range of land-based tourism activities to complement boating. Future marketing efforts should focus on building awareness about and promoting these outstanding assets. Currently, stakeholders in the power and sail sector operate independently. There is very little, if any, coordination with regard to tourism, including sharing information, setting sector standards, coordinating tourism marketing activities and addressing issues that are of collective concern to the sector. Future efforts to coordinate the tourism development and marketing of the power and sail cruise sector must recognize that the BC coast offers considerable diversity with regard to: The coastal settings within which people participate in power and sail cruising; The scale of marinas, docks and other facilities and services available to visitors; and, The types of products and experiences available for visitors. Tourism product development and marketing efforts must recognize this diversity and ensure that we are marketing the right product to the right markets at the right time. At the same time, while this diversity exists, there is a common interest to: Enhance awareness about the entire BC coast as an exceptional power and sail cruising destination: and, Collectively address issues that affect the sector as a whole. Given the outstanding assets and the current lack of coordination noted above, there is a significant opportunity to coordinate the sector and enhance the overall competitiveness of BC as a world-class power and sail cruise destination. In turn, this presents opportunities to increasing power and sail visitation and spending in BC, particularly in areas where and seasons when excess capacity exists. Very few jurisdictions have sector organizations that coordinate product enhancement, communication and marketing for power and sail cruise. The absence of many such organizations also suggests that BC could gain a competitive advantage over other coastal destinations by establishing an effective power and sail cruise tourism sector organization. Other tourism sectors in BC that have realized success through the Experiences BC program have several factors in common, from which the power and sail sector should observe and learn. Common success factors include: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 284 ii

91 A sector or tourism champion to serve as a catalyst for other stakeholders and the organization; A mix of both private and public sector stakeholders engaged in the organization; A governance and membership model that is tailored to the sector and its stakeholders; A clear vision, supported by marketing and development priorities that are based on sound research; The ability to raise funding; and, The identification of a few, key action items to be implemented in the first year, which, in turn, will motivate other stakeholders to support the organization (in other words, quick wins to gain momentum for the organization). Creation of a Tourism Sector Organization The Provincial Steering Committee has proposed the formation of a tourism sector organization the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association to address the above-noted opportunities and, ultimately, to lead the coordination, development and marketing of the sector in BC. The types of activities that the Provincial Steering Committee identified for the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association include: Marketing and branding to help increase the volume of visitors and increase the yield per visitor; Increasing awareness about the sector both internally (amongst stakeholders in BC) and externally (within key markets); Supporting and facilitating tourism product/experience development and enhancement; Supporting and facilitating the consistent adherence to high standards of service, operations and environmental and cultural stewardship; Supporting and facilitating coordination and communication amongst sector stakeholders; Encouraging profitability within the sector and with sector partners; Generating economic benefits for coastal communities; Conducting research to support the sector s tourism activities; and, Collectively addressing critical issues and barriers for the sector. Strategic Framework The following vision, mission and goals developed with input from the Steering Committee form the Strategic Framework for the Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 285 iii

92 Strategic Framework for the Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training iv BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 286

93 Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives were developed with input from the Steering Committee and are designed to help achieve the vision and fulfill the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association purpose and mission. They are also intended to capitalize on key opportunities and address priority concerns documented in the Situation Analysis. While reviewing the goals and objectives, it is important to be cognizant of the following points. Given that the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association is in its early, formative stage, the implementation of the objectives and initiatives will need to be carefully staged, focusing first on the more foundational initiatives. The goals and objectives are inter-related. For example, clearly the goal related to Sector Leadership, Coordination and Funding is critical to the realization of all of the subsequent goals and objectives. Also, as an example, the goal and objectives related to Branding and Awareness support the Stakeholder Engagement and the Marketing goals. A summary of the goals and objectives is provided below. A more detailed description of each goal, objective and supporting initiatives is presented in the full Sector Plan. Goals A. Establish strong and enduring sector leadership, coordination and funding. Objectives A-1 Establish the governance model and structure for the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association A-2 Establish the management structure for the Tourism Sector BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association A-3 Establish a membership model for the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association A-4 Establish a three-year operating plan, budget and funding model for the BC Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association B. Generate strong awareness about the unique, competitive features of the sector and the destination. B-1 Develop a corporate identity for the Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Sector Association B-2 Create a solid and compelling brand and message for BC s power and sail cruise destination and sector B-3 Develop and maintain a BC power and sail cruise website to support marketing initiatives and stakeholder engagement and communication initiatives B-4 Prepare collateral material to help build awareness about the sector, the destination s unique assets and the sector s products, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 5 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 287

94 Goals Objectives services and experiences C. Generate sustained enthusiasm and commitment from stakeholders to support the sector's balanced growth. D. Attract existing and emerging target markets to BC's coast to participate in power and sail cruising, particularly during shoulder seasons. C-1 Generate awareness about and support for the sector and for the Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan C-2 Encourage communication, coordination and collaboration within the sector D-1 Conduct the required research to support the development and evaluation of power and sail cruise sector tourism marketing initiatives D-2 Develop the capacity to conduct collaborative tourism marketing initiatives within the sector D-3 Establish strategic partnerships with key stakeholders and partners to pursue collaborative marketing initiatives D-4 Prepare a succinct three-year sector tourism marketing plan E. Ensure BC s power and sail cruise products and experiences exceed the expectations of existing and new visitors, while maintaining the environmental and cultural integrity of the destination. E-1 Conduct the required research to support tourism product and experience enhancement and development E-2 Encourage high standards of environmental and cultural stewardship within the sector E-3 Enhance the visitor experience by making visitors aware of the diversity of products and services available E-4 Encourage the sector to provide consistently high standards of service E-5 Develop themed routes and/or areas that appeal to existing and emerging markets F. Provide a business and operating environment that supports the balanced growth of the sector. G. Provide essential research, monitoring and evaluation to support the balanced growth of the sector. F-1 Identify and monitor barriers to sector growth and, where resources permit, work to address priority barriers to help ensure that the sector can deliver outstanding and safe power and sail cruise experiences G-1 Acquire, coordinate and/or conduct essential research to support the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Sector Tourism Plan G-2 Prepare and implement a monitoring and evaluation framework Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 6 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 288

95 Next Steps A three-year implementation schedule is presented in the last section of the main body of the Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Sector Plan. The implementation steps for Year 1 are shown below. The next steps for Year 1 are critical to ensure the Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association is established and the foundational work is completed to enable the sector to mature. These timelines were defined with input from the Steering Committee. YEAR 1 - IMPLEMENTATION WHO WHEN A. SECTOR LEADERSHIP AND FUNDING A-1 Establish the governance model and structure Name search Constitution Inaugural board (draw from Steering Committee) Legal entity Governance Sub- Committee By August 2013 A-2 Establish the management structure Governance Sub- Committee A-3 Establish the membership model Governance Sub- Committee A-4 Establish 3-Year Operating Plan and budget Governance Sub- Committee B. BRANDING AND AWAREESS B-1 Develop corporate identity Governance Sub- Committee B-3 Develop website (start) Selected members of Steering Committee C. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Fall 2013 Fall 2013 By December 2013 By August 2013 Start in September 2013 Complete in 2014 C-1 Generate awareness and support Regular Communication with Steering Committee Communicate regularly with the Steering Committee regarding progress and milestones and to seek assistance with implementation of the Sector Plan Governance Sub- Committee Monthly Steering Committee teleconference during 2013 Post-planning Communication with Stakeholders Obtain list of stakeholders involved in process to date Prepare announcement about the formation of the Power and Sail Cruise Tourism Association Include highlights from the Power and Sail Cruise Governance Sub- Committee to lead this Steering Committee members to support this By June 2013 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 7 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 289

96 YEAR 1 - IMPLEMENTATION WHO WHEN Tourism Sector Plan and indicate how the full document can be obtained Distribute this to all stakeholders who have been involved in the process to date, in addition to other key stakeholders Have Steering Committee members distribute this communication to their respective networks of stakeholders Ongoing Regular Communication with Stakeholders Develop a communication plan and schedule: o o o Use a simple template for periodic one-page updates Primarily use distribution Decide upon frequency (possibly quarterly) C-2 Encourage communication, coordination and collaboration amongst stakeholders Fall Steering Committee Meeting Work with Tourism BC to host a Steering Committee meeting to report on progress to date, establishment of the Association and confirmation of the Board Broader Stakeholder Meeting (Following Steering Committee Meeting D. MARKETING Consider working with Tourism BC to host a broader stakeholder session following the fall Steering Committee meeting to update existing stakeholders and engage new stakeholders D-1 Conduct the required research to support the development of marketing initiatives Start assembling existing research and identifying gaps and research priorities (refer to Situation Analysis) Do this in conjunction with Tourism BC s Research, Planning and Evaluation Branch Coordinate this with E-1 and G-1 Governance Sub- Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Governance Sub- Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Governance Sub- Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Tourism BC Governance Sub- Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Tourism BC Selected members of Steering Committee After the June 2013 communication noted above, issue communication quarterly Start in September 2013 Host in fall 2013 Host in fall 2013 Start in fall 2013 and continue to build in subsequent years Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 8 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 290

97 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 9 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 291

98 E. PRODUCT/EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT E-1 Conduct the required research to support product development Start assembling existing research and identifying gaps and research priorities (refer to Situation Analysis) Do this in conjunction with Tourism BC s Research, Planning and Evaluation Branch Coordinate this with D-1 and G-1 F. OPERATING ENVIRONMENT F-1 Identify/monitor barriers and, where resources permit, address priority issues Develop the process for identifying and monitoring barriers Include this in the Three-Year Operating Plan developed under A. Sector Leadership and Funding G. RESEARCH, MONITORING AND EVALUATION G-1 Acquire, coordinate and/or conduct essential research to support the sector Develop a three-year research plan and budget Coordinate this with D-1 and E-1 G-2 Prepare and implement a monitoring and evaluation framework for the Power and Sail Tourism Sector Plan and for sector performance more broadly Selected members of Steering Committee Governance Sub- Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Selected members of Steering Committee Start in fall 2013 and continue to build in subsequent years By December 2013 Start in fall 2013 and continue to build in subsequent years Complete framework in 2013 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 10 BC Power and Sail Cruise Sector Tourism Plan (FINAL March 18, 2013) 292

99 ANNEX Q SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: April 1, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee, April 17 th, 2014 FROM: Building Department RE: Building Department Revenues for March, 2014 RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report regarding Building Permit revenues for March 2014 be received for information. DISCUSSION: Permit revenue for March continues to hold and is equal to February s revenue. Applications and inquiries regarding proposed single family dwellings continue to be strong. There were 15 new applications for permits in March and 1/3 of the applications submitted were for single family dwellings. There are approximately 830 residential and 30 commercial permits active. Active permits are permits issued and still undergoing construction and therefore requiring inspection at various stages. There are 30 permits pending. Pending permits are still within our department awaiting plan check and have issues to be resolved prior to being issued. Two larger commercial projects expected to be issued in March have been delayed but these permits will be issued in April. We are currently re-examining our criteria for requiring a Geotechnical Landslide Assessment on a property. A pre-permit inspection is currently done to assess whether or not a geotechnical engineer assessment is required. There are clear cases where property is not at risk for landslide and therefore the additional expense to the homeowner can be avoided. In all cases, we need to ensure that our criteria are strict enough that potential hazards are avoided. Respectfully, Teresa Agnew, Building Department Attachment A - Summary of 2014 permit activity to date Attachment B - Graph of building department revenue history Attachment C - Summary of activity with 3 year history and area breakdown. 293

100 Building Department Revenue and Permit Activity for January and February 2014 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH # of permits Revenue # of permits Revenue # of pemits Revenue 1 Permits issued 14 $ 13, $ 27, , Permits renewed 11 $ 1, $ 2, n/a 3 New applications pending** 28 $ 6, $ 7, n/a 4 Misc revenue $ $ 7, Total $ 22, $ 44, $ 44, * This is the number of permits renewed per month but does not include existing active renewals. **This is the number of new permit applications. These pemits are not yet issued but are being plan checked or awaiting bylaw approval or supporting documentation ATTACHMENT A 294

101 March 2014 $44, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec ATTACHMENT B 295

102 WOODSTOVE/CHIMNEY Nork Code DescrIption ADDITIONANDALTERATION Three Year Construction Type Comparison For the Month of: March UILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT ATTACHMENT C Area: Ai Aas?erlod : 3 To 3 istrict : A Year : Grand Totals: 23 $ 44, $ 4,207, REA F 3 15, ,586, UPGRADE, reaa 7 12, ,006, rea E , Total Permits: rea D 6 8, ,000.00,REAB 6 7, , )istrict Name Total Number of Permits Total Billings Total Project Values District Breakdown CHANGEOFUSE Special Inspection SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PERMIT RENEWAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING plumbing fixtures only for SFD 0 0 o TEMPORARY PERMIT WOOD STOVE/ CHIMNEY MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AGRICULTURAL BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION SWIMMING POOL DEMOLITION RETAINING WALL COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TENANT IMPROVEMENT AUXILIARY DWELLING AUXILIARY BUILDING rnit lwe: All Stafts Coce: SSED a:e: iz0l, 204 Ti.e: 1:03 YP