PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, July 19, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m. AGENDA AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda DELEGATIONS 2. Re: DVP (Horst) a. Willis Horst b. Barbara Bolding 3. Norm Kempe, BC Timber Sales re: Cutblock A79517 (arriving at 10:30-11am) REPORTS 4. DVP (Horst) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX A pp 1 19 COMMUNICATIONS 5. Christy Clark, Premier, regarding UBCM Convention, dated June 25, 2012 ANNEX B pp Ida Chong, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, regarding Upcoming UBCM Conference 7. UBCM, regarding Electoral Area Directors Forum 2012, dated June 25, 201 ANNEX C pp 21 ANNEX D pp REPORTS 8. Expansion of Aquaculture Licence Crown File in Sechelt Inlet by Comfort Cove Shellfish Ltd. (Regional Planning Services) 9. Agricultural Area Plan Geographic Area (Regional Planning Services) 10. District of Sechelt OCP Amendment Referral for 35-Lot Subdivision (Rural Planning Services) 11. Draft (A) Zone & Road Map for Supporting Agriculture through Zoning (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX E pp ANNEX F pp ANNEX G pp ANNEX H pp 67 93

2 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, July 19, 2012 Page 2 of Referral regarding Amendment to Mine Permit MIN382IP, Sand and Gravel Notice of Work Application File by Steve Boyd located at Highway 101, Madeira Park. Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 13. Bylaw Enforcement in Halfmoon Bay Electoral Area B (Bylaw Enforcement) 14. Planning and Development Monthly Report for June, 2012 (Regional/Rural Planning Services) 15. Building Department Revenues to end of June, 2012 (Building Inspection) 16. Agricultural Advisory Commission Minutes of June 26, 2012 (Regional Planning Services) 17. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 18. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) 19. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of June 27, 2012 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) 20. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of June 26, 2012 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX I pp ANNEX J pp ANNEX K pp ANNEX L pp ANNEX M pp ANNEX N pp ANNEX O pp ANNEX P pp ANNEX Q pp BYLAWS 21. Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No (Copper Island) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 22. Rescheduling of Public Hearing OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos , (Jorgens) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) 23. Report of the Public Hearing for OCP/Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) 24. OCP Amendment Bylaw and TUP E-1 for 924 Gower Point Road, Elphinstone (Celebration House) Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) 25. Bylaw Floor Ratio Electoral Areas B, D, E, F (Rural Planning Services) 26. Roberts Creek OCP Bylaw 641 Area D (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX R pp ANNEX S pp ANNEX T pp ANNEX U pp ANNEX V pp ANNEX W pp

3 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, July 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 REPORT 27. Development Permit with a Variance A-11 (Goodman) Area A (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX X pp IN CAMERA The public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with the Community Charter, Section 90 (1) (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; are to be discussed. ADJOURNMENT

4 ANNEX R SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee, July 19, 2012 FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Zoning Bylaw Amendment be referred to the Board for Second Reading; 2. THAT a public hearing be held at 6:30 pm September 13, 2012 in advance of the regular SCRD Board meeting in the Board Room located at 1975 Field Road, Sechelt B.C.; 3. THAT the Board delegate the chairing of the public hearing for Zoning Bylaw Amendment to Electoral Area B Director Garry Nohr, with Electoral Area A Director Frank Mauro as alternate chair pursuant to Section 891 of the Local Government Act. Background The Regional District is in receipt of an application, submitted by the four property owners of Copper Island; Sue Milligan, Bob Harris, Sy Ornstein, and Jan Walker to rezone the island to enable subdivision. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ELECTORAL AREA: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: PARCEL AREA: District Lot 5415 Group 1 New Westminster District, A Egmont/Pender Harbour Copper Island adjacent to Hardy Island RU2 I RU2 J 7 hectares The subject property, Copper Island, is located within Electoral Area A and is outside of the Egmont/Pender Harbour Official Community Plan boundary. It is adjacent to the east side of Hardy Island and approximately 3 kilometres south of the Saltery Bay Ferry Terminal (see attached Location Map enclosed as Attachment A). The Island is approximately 7 hectares in size and contains two dwellings and other outbuildings, jointly owned by two families on a single property title. In 1992, when Zoning Bylaw 337 was adopted, the property along with many other islands in the area was given the I subdivision district. The I subdivision district has a 4 hectare minimum 134

5 parcel size for the purpose of subdivision and thus the property is not zoned for subdivision and accordingly remains on one title. The RU2 land use zoning does permit multiple dwellings on the parcel. The applicants are requesting a change to the J subdivision district, which would enable a 2.75 hectare minimum parcel size. The property would then qualify, through zoning, for a subdivision into two parcels. There is a history of similar zoning amendment applications in the area; for example, in 1996, the eastern portion of Hardy Island was rezoned to the H subdivision district to enable a multiparcel subdivision. More recently Fox Island off the south east end of Hardy Island has been rezoned from the I subdivision district from to the F subdivision district to facilitate a future subdivision development. Discussion The owners are proposing to rezone the island from the I subdivision district (4 hectare minimum) to the J subdivision district (2.75 hectare minimum) in order to facilitate a subdivision of the property into two parcels. The property has been owned by the two families for more than thirty years and at this time, the applicants propose to rezone the property to enable a subdivision that would divide ownership of the island. The property currently contains two dwellings, a shop and a number of other outbuildings such as generator buildings and sheds. The current uses on the property conform to the provisions of Zoning Bylaw 337. The property, at its current size of 7 hectares, is permitted to have 3 dwellings and one auxiliary dwelling (limited to 55 square metres). Should the rezoning be adopted and subdivision is achieved the two new parcels, proposed Lots 1 & 2, would each be zoned for two dwellings unless otherwise restricted through this rezoning application or future condition of subdivision. The subject property is an island with water access only and parking will be secured off site near Saltery Bay, at Hummingbird Cove Marina. Through this rezoning process it should be considered whether the provision of additional parking spaces is required to accommodate the potential construction of additional dwellings. Advisory Planning Commission At its June meeting, the Egmont/Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Commission considered the rezoning application. At the June 29, 2011, meeting the APC passed the following motion: This APC supports Rezoning Amendment Bylaw No subject to the notification area being extended to 200 metres and that the owners show evidence of having secured parking prior to the rezoning being finalized. The property owners have submitted an easement agreement for parking with Hummingbird Cove Marina near Saltery Bay within the Powell River Regional District. This agreement is similar to the agreement for the recent Fox Island rezoning application # First Reading: July

6 In July of last year the SCRD Board granted first reading to the zoning amendment with recommendations to refer the bylaw to neighbours within 200 metres, external agencies and the applicants confirming parking availability in the Saltery Bay area. A notice was sent to the property owners within 200 metres of Copper Island, in all this included seven parcels. Given the location of the properties and the fact that most of the surrounding properties are seasonal in their use, written notification was opted for over the applicants hosting a public information meeting in a neutral venue. No comments were received from the referral process. Agency Referrals Referrals of this proposed bylaw amendment were sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and shíshálh Nation. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure indicated that a no-build covenant, in the name of the Province, shall be placed over the proposed access route from the dock through proposed Lot 1 to Lot 2 and that the property owners enter into a reciprocal easement over this access area. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority commented in their referral response that interests regarding on-site sewage disposal and domestic water supply will be addressed through the subsequent subdivision review. The comments from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority are basic comments which can easily be accommodated during the subdivision review process if this bylaw proceeds to adoption. The shíshálh Nation Chief and Council responded with a letter reminding the SCRD that this area is located with the cultural emphasis area of their Strategic Land Use Plan. The shíshálh Nation requests that as a condition of approval a 0.5 hectare (1.23 acres) park be dedicated for public use and that a restrictive covenant be placed on title restricting further dwellings. The comments from the shíshálh Nation require a little more consideration. A two lot subdivision would not ordinarily require park dedication; however under the consideration of a rezoning application to enable subdivision the dedication of park becomes discretionary. The proposal has been reviewed with the Parks Division and at this time it appears there are many liabilities associated with accepting the park including; access, maintenance and fire protection. Typically waterfront subdivisions require a 15 metre no-build covenant though this wouldn t make the land public it will go a long way toward preserving the foreshore area and allowing it to remain as natural as possible. The second condition that the shíshálh Nation suggested was to limit the amount of dwellings to one per parcel. The applicants have expressed a desire to have care taker suites on site to enable an additional dwelling for care takers when the owners spend time away from the island. The applicants have met with staff at the shíshálh Nation office and have asked that they reconsider the comments. The applicants have indicated that shíshálh Nation staff have indicated a willingness to re-consider comments due to a potential misunderstanding of the scope of the 136

7 development. To date, revised comments have not been received. SCRD staff will contact staff to confirm if revised comments will be considered. Parking The applicants have secured a deal in principle with Hummingbird Cove Marina for parking and staging. If this bylaw is considered for third reading staff will request authorization from the Board to enter into the agreement for the parking with the applicants and Hummingbird Cove Marina. Public Hearing Property owners will be further notified in advance of the public hearing pursuant to the requirements within the Local Government Act. Given the likelihood of a small amount of interest in an up-coming public hearing it is recommended that the hearing take place in the SCRD Boardroom in advance of a regularly scheduled Board meeting. The Fox Island bylaw amendment public hearing in 2010 was also held in the Board Room prior to a regularly scheduled Board meeting. Summary & Next Steps The SCRD has received an application to rezone a portion of Copper Island to permit a two lot subdivision for the purpose of facilitating a subdivision which would create separate titles for each dwelling on the island. First reading was granted in July of 2011 with conditions; including neighbour notification, agency notification and the securing of a parking and staging area in Saltery Bay. No comments were received from neighbours, parking has been addressed and two of the three referrals garnered standard responses, where further technical issues can be considered at the subdivision stage. At this time a decision must be made regarding the referral comments received from the shíshálh Nation. The options are to not proceed with the application until such time that revised comments are received, if in fact they are forthcoming or to proceed toward public hearing. If the bylaw proceeds to public hearing further notification will be sent to the shíshálh Nation. It is recommended to proceed to public hearing. Andrew Allen, Planner 137

8 Location Map Saltery Bay Copper Island Nelson Islan d d Har nd a l s yi 138 µ

9 June, Planning and Development Committee Sunshine Coast Regional District 5555 Sunshine Coast Highway Sechelt, BC V0N3A0 Affention: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Copper Island, Subdivision Application No Good Morning Andrew By this letter, the owners of Copper Island requesthat the Planning and Development Committee resume its consideration of our application to have our property changed from the "I" subdivision disfrict under ZonngBylaw 337 (4 hectare minimum parcel size) to the "J" subdivision (2.75 hectare minimum parcel size). The Island is a total of 7 hectares and we wish to have both families own their respective 3.5 hectares in Fee Simple. Because of a number of matters set out in Mr. Allen's SCRD StaffReport dated October 27,2011 we have defened the Committee's firther consideration of our application until now. In the following headings, the Staff Report accurately sets out the main facts behind our application: -Background -Discussion -Advisory Planning Commission -First Reading -Adj acent Property Owner Notifi cation While we agree with these facts, as explained below, we do not agree with the balance of the report. We won't repeat the facts here except to reiterate that we have owned Copper Island together for 36 years. As stated inthe SCRD StaffReport of July 4,2011, 'this application is primarily intended to separate ownership of a property rather than create a new subdivision development'. The division of the property between the two couples has been a matter of practice; we want the boundarieset out legally, especially for the pu{poses of estate planning. At its June 29,2011 meeting, the Advisory Planning Commission supported our application subjecto two conditions, both of which have been met.-these had to do with the notification of adjacent owners and parking requirements. First reading was granted in July,

10 We believe that the confusion subsequently developed as a result of the Sechelt Indian Band not apprehending the nature of our application. It is apparent from the Band's letter of September 19,2011, that the Band thought our application was going to create either a new subdivision development or an industrial use of the property. The letter says that the Band would only support our application if a.5 hectare park was created on the Island, s well as a restrictive covenant put on title 'to prevent the constnrction of furttrer dwellings on each parcel'. Two of the owners met with Band representatives in November, 201 I and the meeting helped to clarify the precise nature of our application. The Band's concerns, as we understood them, focussed on protecting the clam beach areas on the island. While we discussed a buffer zone to protect these foreshore areas, we later rcalized that existing building and fisheries legislation amply protect these areas. A covenant is not needed to require us to obey the law, which we have done and will continue to do. We hope that the explanation and update in this letter are sufficient to enable the Planning and Development Committee to make its recommendations to the Commission without further conditions (as noted, the ones the Commission required have been met by us). However, out of an abundance of caution, we will directly address the park issue ffi{ although probably not necessary, any restriction on dwellings (see last paragraph, page 3 of the SCRD Report). I. Practical Affects of a Park The report attaches a Google map marked with a potential park location on the northeast part of the Island. This would obviously draw people to this location, which has no moorage on the Jervis Inlet side as it is too deep and too exposed, ild the only other access on the other side is across a commercial oyster lease, midden areas and a large area of drying clam beach. Any effluent, sewage and grey water from boaters would wash over the clam beach on the ingoing and outgoing tides. At high tide there is no beach at all and there is the danger of people building campfires too close to the trees, or having people camp on the rocky islets in the middle of the clam beach. There are two Provincial Parks, Saltery Bay Provincial Park and Mermaid Cove Provincial Park, and one Marine Park, Muskett Island Marine Park near the west end of Hardy Island, all three within approximately 5 kilometers of Copper Island, which satisff the needs of the boating public. Finally, it was noted in the SCRD Staff Report on page 3 that 'the Parks Department....would not be in a position to develop or provide maintenance to the park' In short, it is not in the best interest of the public or the environment for a park to be established on Copper Island. 140

11 2. Legal and Jurisdictional Problems of a Park In the legal regime governing the SCRD, we have not been able to identi& any jurisdictional authority which the Commission has for requiring a park as a condition of our application. The legislature has spoken about how parks can be established. The 'Local Government Acts s. 941 deals with the 'Provision of Park Lands'. This is a complete code for when an owner, seeking a subdivision, can be required to provide park land (or payment in lieu). (5) Subsection (l) does not apply to: (a) a subdivision by which fewer than 3 additionalots would be created, except as provided in subsection (5.1) (b) a subdivision by which the smallest lot being created is larger than2 hectares, or (c) a consolidation of existing parcels In other words, we cannot be required to provide a park land from our property as a condition of the approval of our application. This would be giving the SCRD a discretion which is not contemplated by the legislation. Further, even if the SCRD had such power, the SCRD must exercise their discretion in good faith, without bias and for purposes rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation. The historical practice of the SCRD with respecto similar applications is relevant. Not only is the park contrary to legitimate best interests, but other landowners in similar circumstances as we, have not been subjecto any such condition. 3. Restrictions on Dwellings Our Application must be treated fairly and within the principles established by law. There is no sound reason (nor has one been offered) which necessitates limiting the number of buildings on our prop try, were the application granted, except as provided in the legislation. Any such requirement, we suggest, would show bad faith. We are also attaching a copy of our letter to the Band of June l,20ll. Please contact us if you require further information. Thank you for your attention to this, Sue Milligan and Bob Harris Jan Walker and Sy Ornstein or Owners of Copper Island suerni I ligun0 I icrl qmai I.conr; janw alkcrt)3, {i} ahoo.ca 141

12 June 1,2012 Chief and Council Sechelt Indian Band c/o Rights and Title Branch RE: Copper Island Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No (Subdivision Application) Good Morning- We are attaching our letter dated June 1,2012 to the Sechelt District Planning and Development Committee. We are asking them to resume consideration of our application to have our property changed from the "I" subdivision district under ZomngBylaw 337 (4 hectare minimum parcel size) to the "J" subdivision district (2.75 hectare minimum parcel size. By way of backgroundo 2 ofthe owners of Copper Island, myself and my husband, met with Band Representatives ( Sid, Kelly and Jasmine) about our application back in November,20ll. We think that meeting helped to clarify the nature of our application. In other words, we don't want to develop Copper Island, but merely make official what has been the case for more than three decades: 2 couples share the property half and half. We understood the Band was mainly concerned about wanting to protect the clam, beach areas on the north and east tip of Copper Island. While we discussed a buffer zone to protect these foreshore areas, we later rcalized that existing building and fisheries legislation amply protect these areas and that hiring a lawyer to prepare a costly covenant wasn't required to make sure the Band's concerns were met. In addition to the statutes, you have our personal assurances that we will continue to do our utmost to protect these resources from anyone trying to degrade them. We also discussed assisting the Band with a shellfish/clam bed assessment in this area, and are still very interested in that project. We checked with the Archaeology Branch about the registered sites on Copper Island and the foreshore. The DkS a-24 is on the northnortheast tip of Copper Island, and the DkSa- 23 appears as 3 areas, of which part of one is on the south side of Copper Island. We are attaching a copy of the map we received from the Archaeology Branch. As you know, the Heritage Conservation Act gives further protection to these places on Copper Island. We have been guardians of this Island for 36 years and have actively worked to maintain the integrity of the clam beach and the middens. We are attaching a letter written to the Band on June 6,2006, with our concerns about the expansion of the commercial oyster lease. 142

13 We believe the attached letter to the SCRD addresses the issues concerning both the Band and ourselves about our Application, but if you would like to talk about this further at any time, please contact us. Thank You, Sue Milligan and Bob Harris ruenrillm Jan Walker and Sy Ornstein or janwalkert)3id,vahoo.gg 143

14 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT DRAFT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No , 2011 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2011". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule B of Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 is amended by rezoning a portion of District Lot 5415 Group 1 New Westminster District from the I subdivision district to the J subdivision district, as denoted on Appendix A to this Bylaw. PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 26 th DAY OF JULY 2011 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012 Corporate Officer Chair 144

15 145

16 ANNEX S SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 10, 2012 TO: FROM: RE: RECOMMENDATION(S) Planning & Development Committee July 19 th Gregory Gebka, Planner Rescheduling of Public Hearing - OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos , THAT the staff report titled Scheduled Public Hearing - OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos , dated July 10, 2012 be received; AND THAT the public hearing concerning Bylaw Nos and scheduled for Wednesday, July 18, 2012 be cancelled and re-scheduled to be held on Wednesday, September 5 th, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. at Coopers Green Hall, located at 5500 Fisherman Road, Halfmoon Bay; AND THAT the Board delegate the chairing of the public hearing for OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos and to Electoral Area A Director Frank Mauro, with Electoral Area B Director Garry Nohr as alternate chair pursuant to Section 891 of the Local Government Act. At its meeting of June 28 th, the Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation: Recommendation No. 20 Bylaw Nos / (Jorgens) THAT the staff report titled OCP and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application Nos and dated June 4, 2012 be received; AND THAT Bylaws and be forwarded to the Board for second reading; AND THAT a public hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. July 18, 2012 at Coopers Green Hall, located at 5500 Fisherman Road, Halfmoon Bay; AND FURTHER THAT the Board designate Director Mauro as Chair and Director Nohr as Alternate Chair, to conduct the public hearing. Staff recently discovered a procedural error in sending out mail notices concerning a public hearing scheduled to be held on July 18 th concerning OCP and Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos and The minimum 10-day requirement for mailed notices was missed by one day. As a result, the public hearing must be re-scheduled. 146

17 Staff notified the Directors Mauro and Nohr upon discovering the procedural conflict, in addition to the applicant and affected property owners concerning the need to re-schedule the public hearing. The earliest opportunity to hold the public hearing is Wednesday, September 5 th. Staff apologize for the inconvenience and any difficulties the procedural error has caused. Gregory Gebka Planner Planning & Development Division 147

18 ANNEX T SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 11, 2012 TO: Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 FROM: RE: David Rafael (Senior Planner), Planning & Development Division Report of the public hearing for OCP / ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NOS & (BROWN) RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the report titled Report of the public hearing for OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) be received; AND THAT with respect to 5322 Backhouse Road (PID , Lot 15, Block A, District Lot 4537, Plan LMP794) the Planning and Development Committee recommend to the Board that: Bylaw be given 3 rd Reading and Bylaw be given 3 rd Reading as amended to correct the following cross references: (i) Amend 1001D.2 (e) to read described in Section 1001D.2 (2) (a-d) (ii) Amend 1001D.5 to read no use permitted under section 1001D.2(4), 1001D.3(1) or 1001D.3(2) shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line ; or AND THAT the terms for covenants be as follows: a) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within the panhandle area, including no construction of panhandle road access to proposed Lot B from Backhouse Road. This covenant to be held in perpetuity and running with the land. This restriction will be reviewed if the panhandle is needed for access and that all parties would work to a suitable resolution, such as a 20 foot wide vegetation buffer and a 12 foot width for access. This is to be signed by the SCRD, the applicant, the owners of Lot 16, Block A, DL 4537, Plan LMP794, the owners of Lot A DL 4537, Plan b) New house on proposed Lot A to be no more than 8.5 metres in height, 186 square metres (approximately 2000 square feet) in floor area, 20 metres from the natural boundary of the ocean, 10 metres from the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan c) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within 5 metres of the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan d) existing driveway is to be covenanted as an easement to allow access across proposed Lot A to proposed Lot B (b) to (d) to be signed by the applicants and the SCRD. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 148

19 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 2 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) BACKGROUND: Ron and Lynne Brown (the applicant) have applied to amend the Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan (OCP) and rezone a portion of their waterfront property located at 5322 Backhouse Road in order to subdivide their 1.76-hectare lot into two. Specifically, the applicant proposes to create a new vacant lot of around 1 hectare and to have their residence and existing bed & breakfast on the remaining lot consisting of about 0.75 hectares. A public hearing was held on June 13, 2012 at Coopers Green Hall. There were 56 members of the public in attendance. A copy of the report of the public hearing is attached (Attachment C), it includes a summary of all the correspondence submitted for the hearing. A set of paper copies of the correspondence is available for the Directors in their Reading Room, for the public at the Field Road Office and on line. Options Bylaws A B C Covenants Cov 1 The Bylaws and not proceed Bylaw be given 3 rd Reading and Bylaw be given 3 rd Reading as amended to correct the following cross references: (i) Amend 1001D.2 (e) to read described in Section 1001D.2 (2) (a-d) (ii) Amend 1001D.5 to read no use permitted under section 1001D.2(4), 1001D.3(1) or 1001D.3(2) shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line Bylaw or Bylaw be amended such that density or use is altered and a new public hearing is scheduled. This option is a result of discussions between the applicant and owners of two properties adjacent to the panhandle area (5334 and 5418 Backhouse Road). Adoption to follow registration of covenants regarding: a) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within the panhandle area, including no construction of panhandle road access to proposed Lot B from Backhouse Road. This covenant to be held in perpetuity and running with the land. This restriction will be reviewed if the panhandle is needed for access and that all parties would work to a suitable resolution, such as a 20 feet vegetation buffer and a 12 feet width for access. This is to be signed by the SCRD, the applicant, the owners of Lot 16, Block A, DL 4537, Plan LMP794, the owners of Lot A DL 4537, Plan b) New house on proposed Lot A to be no more than 8.5 metres in height, 2000 square feet in floor area, 20 metres from the natural boundary of the ocean, 10 metres from the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan c) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within 5 metres of the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan d) existing driveway is to be covenanted as an easement to allow access across proposed Lot A to proposed Lot B (b) to (d) to be signed by the applicants and the SCRD. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 149

20 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 3 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) The following four options are derived from proposals made by the owners of Lot 12 (5414 Backhouse Road). Maps 1 to 4 relate to the options presented by the owners of Lot 12 (5414 Backhouse Road) and are included in Attachment A for reference. Cov 2 b) Subdivision plan is to be amended as shown in Map 1, new house to be located east of existing driveway, no height or floor area limitations d) The driveway becomes an extension of Backhouse Road, thus no easement needs to be covenanted a) and c) in Option 1 not needed Cov 3 Cov 4 New house on proposed Lot A to be located to the east of the existing driveway, no height or floor area limitations, as shown on Map 2 a), c) and d) in Option 1 required b) in Option 1 amended to reflect no build area west of the driveway Portion of existing driveway is to be relocated to create a building site as shown on Map 3, or east of driveway, no height or floor area limits b) in Option 1 amended to reflect no build area west of the driveway c) in Option 1 not required a) and d) in Option 1 required Cov 5 b) New house on proposed Lot A to be no more than 8.5 metres in height, 2000 square feet in floor area, 20 metres from the natural boundary of the ocean, around 17 metres from the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan 14359, so that the house sits within the valley area, to be confirmed by site survey, this may require moving the proposed lot line further south towards the existing house on proposed Lot B. See Map 4. DISCUSSION: a), c) and d) in Option 1 required There continues to be a division in the community regarding the proposed OCP amendment and rezoning to allow for a two lot subdivision. Those who support the application note that there is no harm to the character of the area (the density with respect to number of dwellings will stay the same), the proposed lots will be larger than many of those existing on Backhouse Road, the pattern of waterfront development will not be out of character than existing, technical issues can be resolved, there are no outstanding agency concerns, covenants can provide protection for the neighbours with respect to concerns regarding slope stability and protection of views (enhanced setback and vegetation buffer). Those who oppose the proposal are concerned about the integrity of the Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan, the precedent setting nature of an approval, convoluted lot design, overreliance on covenants, lack of community benefit, harm to the local environment and loss of privacy. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 150

21 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 4 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) Staff note that there is a difference of opinion regarding the suitability of the proposed parcel size (8000 sq m minimum). Some see it as out of keeping with the character of a rural area and others consider that it is acceptable as the parcels will be larger than most of those on Backhouse Road. The issue of precedence is also of contention. Staff note that there has been a significant change in the area since the OCP was adopted in that the SCRD now maintains potable water supplied to the properties on Backhouse Road. In addition the designation of parcel size limits was based upon studies of soil capacity that while useful at individual site level it does allow site specific characters to be considered; for example the applicant s engineers have identified sufficient soil capacity to support the subdivision. From a legal point of view the Directors are required to keep an open mind regarding any application that comes before a public hearing and past decisions cannot bind a future decision. A substantial letters and s were received by the Regional District for consideration at the public hearing. Staff prepared a table setting out who the letter was from, their address (if available), main points raised and whether they support or oppose the application. This table was presented at the hearing and is attached to the report of the public hearing. The individual pieces of correspondence are available for review. The applicant has agreed to register covenants regarding: no land alteration in panhandle area adjacent to 5334 and 5418 Backhouse Road (this was agreed by the owners of these properties) 5m vegetative covenant on the Brown`s property 10m from the property line to build Limit the height of the building to 8.5m One neighbouring family (owners of Lot Backhouse Road) provided a range of alternative options for the Board to consider instead of the current proposal. Other than to maintain the current zoning and OCP designations, their preferred option, there are 4 options as follows: Option 1 and 1A - Option 2 and 2A - Option 3 - Option 4 - Alter the lot configuration (waterfront and upland lots) driveway becomes a lane (8m wide) or wider road that both being continuation of Backhouse Road (i.e. public road right of way). This relates to Map 1 prepared by staff and presented at the hearing. Driveway becomes a public lane thus no panhandle is required or stays a driveway and building sites are limited to east of the driveway (in the upland portion of proposed Lot A). This relates to Map 2 prepared by staff and presented at the hearing. Driveway route is altered and a new building site is created approximately 40 m from the ocean. This relates to Map 3 prepared by staff and presented at the hearing. No build covenant from the south lot line of Lot 12 is increased from 10 to about 17 m and new house site is located within the view line of the existing houses, this may reduce the setback from the ocean to less than 20 m but no less than 15 m, the new house should be within the valley area. This relates to Map 4 prepared by staff and presented at the hearing. Staff note that some of these options will require covenants to be registered regarding no build areas, areas where vegetation is protected, use of the driveway as an access, and limitations on N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 151

22 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 5 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) the new house (height and floor area). Option 2 would create a hooked parcel and neither portion would meet the proposed minimum parcel size, thus Bylaws and would need to be substantially amended and a new public hearing be arranged. Questions were raised about the number of letters with no known address. The applicants have stated that they do not accept any proposal that would remove the potential to build a new house on the waterfront portion of proposed Lot A. They also consider that they have already agreed to a substantial increase in the setback from Lot 12 (from 1.5 m to 10 m) and the ocean (from 15 m to 20 m) and do not want these to be further increased as this would place additional restrictions on potential building sites. Staff worked with the applicants and the owners of Lot 16 and Lot A (5334 and 5418 Backhouse Road) and propose the following covenants to be registered prior to consideration of adoption: a) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within the panhandle area, including no construction of panhandle road access to proposed Lot B from Backhouse Road. This covenant to be held in perpetuity and running with the land. This restriction will be reviewed if the panhandle is needed for access and that all parties would work to a suitable resolution, such as a 20 feet vegetation buffer and a 12 feet width for access. This is to be signed by the SCRD, the applicant, the owners of Lot 16, Block A, DL 4537, Plan LMP794, the owners of Lot A DL 4537, Plan b) New building on proposed Lot A to be no more than 8.5 metres in height, 2000 square feet in floor area, 20 metres from the natural boundary of the ocean, 10 metres from the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan 14359, unless located east of the driveway. c) No land alteration, destruction of vegetation, or removal of trees except for hazardous trees as agreed by the Regional District within 5 metres of the south lot line of Lot 12, Block A, DL 4537, Plan d) existing driveway is to be covenanted as an easement to allow access across proposed Lot A to proposed Lot B (b) to (d) to be signed by the applicants and the SCRD. As an alternative, the Board may opt to require the applicants register covenants that would achieve any of the alternatives proposed by the owners of Lot 12 (5414 Backhouse Road), the covenants proposed by staff; or none of them. To date, staff have not proposed that a subdivision lot layout forms part of a covenant. CONCLUSION: The Planning and Development Committee is requested to recommend Option B be forward to the Board. Staff note that should the bylaws receive 3 rd reading some minor amendments are required. Should the bylaws be recommended for 3 rd reading then the Planning and Development Committee is also requested to recommend the covenants set out in Cov 1 be registered prior to consideration of adoption. Copies of the bylaw as amended are attached for reference (Attachment B) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 152

23 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 6 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) Maps of Options proposed by Owners of Lot 12 (5414 Backhouse Road) MAP 1 (Cov 2) ATTACHMENT A Map 1a (Cov 2) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 153

24 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 7 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) MAP 2 (Cov 3) MAP2a (Cov 3) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 154

25 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 8 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) MAP 3 (Cov 4) MAP 4 (Cov 5) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 155

26 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 9 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No , 2011 A bylaw to amend the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989". ATTACHMENT B The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2011". PART B - AMENDMENT 2. Schedule A3 of Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 325, 1989 is amended by re-designating a portion of District Lot 15, Block A, District Lot 4537, Plan LMP794 from Residential B to Residential C, as denoted on Appendix A to this bylaw. PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 28 th DAY OF JULY 2011 READ A SECOND TIME this 26th DAY OF APRIL 2012 PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL 26th DAY OF APRIL 2012 GOVERNMENT ACT, CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FINANCIAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE WASTEMANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 13 th DAY OF JUNE 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012 Corporate Officer Chair N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 156

27 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 10 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 157

28 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 11 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No , 2011 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2011". PART B AMENDMENT 2. Amend section 301 (1) by adding the following in the appropriate location: RU1D Rural One D 3. Amend section 405 (2) (c) as follows the subject property is within the C, D, E, E1, F, G, or I subdivision district; and 4. Add the following text to section 406: (10 A) The minimum size of a parcel created within the E1 subdivision district shall be 8000 square metres. 5. Amend section 502 (11) to add the following in the appropriate location: RU1D 6. Insert the following in the appropriate location 1001D RU1D Zone (Rural One D) 1001D On a parcel in an RU1 Zone, Permitted Uses 1001D.1 except as otherwise permitted in Part V of this bylaw the following and no other uses are permitted: (1) agriculture; (2) garden nursery; (3) keeping of poultry or rabbits subject to Part 502 (2) and (3) of this bylaw; (4) home occupation subject to Part 502 (10) of this bylaw; (5) bed and breakfast subject to Part 502 (11) of this bylaw; N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 158

29 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 12 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) (6) the maximum permitted number and type of dwelling unit as calculated according to Table III in which Column I lists the parcel size and Column II lists the maximum permitted number and type of dwelling unit: TABLE III COLUMN I Where parcel size is: (a) less than 1.6 hectares (b) 1.6 hectares or greater COLUMN II The maximum permitted number and type of dwelling unit is: one single family dwelling two single family dwellings or one duplex or one single family dwelling and one transition house 1001D.2 with a parcel size exceeding 3500 square meters the additional permitted uses are: (1) the keeping of livestock; (2) vehicle repair and maintenance provided that: (a) there is no storage outside of an enclosed building; (b) no such building shall exceed 4.5 meters in height; (c) the required setback from all parcel lines is 7.5 meters; (d) the floor area of such a building shall not exceed 75 square meters; (e) with the exception of Electoral Area E, where the parcel size must be 8000 square metres to qualify for the use described in Section 1001D.2 (2) (a-d); (3) the raising of fish for domestic consumption; (4) wild bird rehabilitation as an auxiliary use to residential where the rehabilitation use operates under a valid permit from the appropriate authority; 1001D.3 with a parcel size exceeding 1.75 hectares the additional permitted uses are: (1) kennels only in Electoral Areas E and F (2) riding stable and academy; (3) a single fully enclosed building to house manufacturing or storage provided that: (a) there is no storage outside of an enclosed building; (b) no such building shall exceed 4.5 meters in height; (c) (d) the required setback from all parcel lines is 7.5 meters; the floor area of such a building shall not exceed 75 square meters; N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 159

30 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 13 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) Floor Area 1001D.4 The total floor area of a transition house shall not exceed 300 square metres. Setback 1001D.5 no use permitted under section 1001D.2(4), 1001D.3(1) or 1001D.3(2) shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line; Siting of Structures 1001D.6 no structures shall be located within: Parcel Coverage (1) 5 meters of the front or rear parcel line; (2) 1.5 meters of the side parcel line; and (3) 4.5 meters of the side parcel line where the parcel line is contiguous to a highway; 1001D.7 the maximum parcel coverage of all buildings and structures shall not exceed 15% of the parcel size except when the parcel is equal to or less than 2000 square meters in area in which case the maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed 35%; and Buildings Per Parcel 1001D.8 subject to compliance with all other provisions of this bylaw more than one principal building may be permitted. 7. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is hereby amended rezoning Lot 15, Block A, District Lot 4537, Plan LMP794 from the RU1 zone to the RU1D zone, as denoted on Appendix A to this Bylaw. 8. Schedule B of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is hereby amended rezoning Lot 15, Block A, District Lot 4537, Plan LMP794 from the F subdivision district to the E1 subdivision district, as denoted on Appendix B to this Bylaw. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 160

31 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 14 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 28 th DAY OF JULY 2011 READ A SECOND TIME AS AMENDED this 26 th DAY OF APRIL 2012 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 (3) (a) of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this 7 th DAY OF MAY 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 13 th DAY OF JUNE 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this ADOPTED this DAY OF DAY OF Corporate Officer Chair N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 161

32 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 15 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 162

33 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 16 OCP / Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos & (Brown) N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \Reports and Resolutions\2012-Jul-19 PDC Report and docx 163

34 SUNSIIINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT June 13, 2012 REPORT OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT 7:00 PM IN THE COOPER S GREEN COMMUNITY HALL 5500 FISHERMAN ROAD, HALFMOON BAY, BC Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 PRESENT: Chair, Area A Director F. Mauro Alternate Chair, Area B Director G. Nohr ALSO PRESENT: Senior Planner D. Rafael Recording Secretary T. Hincks General Manager Planning and Development S. Olmstead Members of the Public 56 Media 1 CALL TO ORDER The public hearing for Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 and Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 was called to order at 7:00 pm. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair introduced Board members and staff in attendance and read prepared remarks with respect to the procedures to be followed at the public hearing. The Chair then indicated that following the conclusion of the public hearing the SCRD Board may, without further notice or hearing, adopt or defeat the bylaws or alter and then adopt the bylaws providing the alteration does not alter the use or increase the density. He then asked David Rafael, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, to introduce Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 and Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , SUBJECT PROPERTIES The Planner began by noting that the Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoning bylaw amendments are intended to permit a subdivision of Lot 15, Block A, District Lot 4537, Plan LMP794, PD: locally known as 5322 Backhouse Road, Halfmoon Bay, BC affecting an approximate 1.76-hectare lot. REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION The Planner noted that the proposal was made by the property owners to subdivide and rezone a portion of the 1.76-hectare lot into two, each with one house. 164

35 one Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 2 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and CURRENT LAN]) USE AND ZONING Halfmoon Bay OCP General Land Use Designation: Residential B A minimum parcel size of 10,000 square meters due to the presence of nearsurface bedrock or high water tables posing difficulties for on-site sewage disposal. Implementation: Maintain existing zoning. Bylaw 310: Rural One (RU 1) - 2 dwellings if lot is greater than 8000 square metres F Subdivision Designation parcel per 10,000 square metres a) minimum 8000 sq m, max 19,999 square metres b) one parcel greater than 19,999 sq m, all others average 10,000 square metres, with 8000 square metres minimum PROPOSED OCP POLICIES The Planner noted that: New Residential Land use designation Residential Cl Minimum parcel size of 8000 square metres One dwelling per 8000 square metres Second dwelling allowed when parcel over 1.6 Ha PURPOSE OF BYLAWS The overall intent of Bylaw Nos / is to establish a new El Subdivision District that has an 8000 sq. metre minimum parcel area, created to facilitate subdivision of the property and anew RU1D zone that limits the number of dwellings to one per parcel upon subdivision on Lot 15 Block A District Lot 4537 Plan LMP794 (PID ), with a civic address of 5322/5324 Backhouse Road, Halfmoon Bay, BC. PERMITTED USES The Planner noted that the permitted uses in the RU1D zone (Rural One D) include: PERMITTED USES CONTINUED: (1) agriculture; (2) garden nursery; (3) keeping of poultry or rabbits subject to Part 502 (2) and (3) of this bylaw; (4) home occupation subject to Part 502 (10) of this bylaw; (5) bed and breakfast subject to Part 502 (11) of this bylaw; (6) if parcel less than 1.6 Ha- one single family dwelling; (7) if parcel 1.6 Ha or greater - two single family dwellings or one duplex or one single family dwelling and one transition house With parcel sizes exceeding 3500 square meters the additional permitted uses are: 165

36 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 3 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and (1) the keeping of livestock; (2) vehicle repair and maintenance provided that: (a) there is no storage outside of an enclosed building; (b) no such building shall exceed 4.5 meters in height; (c) the required setback from all parcel lines is 7.5 meters; (d) the floor area of such a building shall not exceed 75 square meters; (e) with the exception of Electoral Area E, where the parcel size must be 8000 square metres to qualify for the use described in Section (2) (a-d); (3) the raising of fish for domestic consumption; (4) wild bird rehabilitation as an auxiliary use to residential where the rehabilitation use operates under a valid permit from the appropriate authority; With a parcel size exceeding 1.75 hectares the additional permitted uses are: LIMITATIONS Other Limitations include: (1) kennels only in Electoral Areas E and F (2) riding stable and academy; (3) a single fully enclosed building to house manufacturing or storage provided that: (a) there is no storage outside of an enclosed building; (b) no such building shall exceed 4.5 meters in height; (c) the required setback from all parcel lines is 7.5 meters; (d) the floor area of such a building shall not exceed 75 square meters; Transition House no more than 300 square metres Setbacks Sm (front/rear); 1.Sm side, 4.5m highway Parcel Cover 15% NEW SUBDIVISION DESIGNATION The Planner explained that the new subdivision designation would be El with a minimum parcel size of 8000 square metres. REFERRALS The Halfmoon Bay Advisory Planning Commission (Area B) considered the OCP/zoning bylaw amendment application at its meeting of June 28, 201. The APC expressed no major concerns with the proposal, as long as the applicant registers a covenant on title to restrict the number of dwellings on the new lot to one. The APC also advised the applicant to consider the possibility of restricting the dwelling size and mass on any new lot as a means to minimize the visual impact on neighbouring properties. 166

37 no access Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 4 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Public Information Meetings August 19, 2011 a lot of concerns were brought forward in the neighbourhood November 12, facilitated by Betty Baxter - key members were not available November 26, 2011 again facilitated by Betty Baxter Infrastructure Services (Waste Plan) no impact Finance (Financial Plan) - no impact Sechelt Indian Band applicant carry out field reconnaissance, no evidence of archeological sites however if during construction if sites are found they need to be reported to the Band and the Province Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure through the driveway needs to have a covenant on title to identify the easement Panhandle Area no land alteration, tree removal (hazard trees only) They accepted the proposed covenants providing there is an opportunity to find an alternative access if the driveway is no longer useable. Vancouver Coastal Health PROPOSED SUBDIVISION objections The Planner showed a map that identified the proposed subdivision. COVENANTS During review of the original proposal, the following items were identified as needing to be secured thorough covenant prior to consideration for adoption: The following items are proposed: 1. Access to Proposed Lot B via driveway 2. Panhandle Area no land alteration, tree removal (hazard trees only) 3. Alternate access to be agreed by all parties if driveway becomes unusable, such as 20 ft buffer and 12 ft for new driveway in panhandle 4. Setback for Proposed Lot A l0mfromlotl2 20 m from ocean natural boundary 5 m vegetation buffer to Lot m height restriction for house in Proposed Lot A 6. Floor Area limit of 2000 sq ft for house in Proposed Lot A ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED BY NEIGHBOURS (LOT 12) The planner provided detailed maps showing the following proposals made by neighbours: 1. Alter the subdivision so that there is a waterfront lot and an upland lot access is via a public road over part of the driveway no height restrictions would apply to buildings 167

38 NEXT STEPS dwelling on proposed Lot B, Map 5 shows the contour lines and the valley area where The maps are attached as APPENDIX A the house could sit. 2. No build area below the driveway 3. Relocate the driveway to create building site 4. Setback to be 15 to 17 m from Lot 12 and move proposed lot line 1.5 m from existing waterfront nor to further increase the setback to Lot 12 (from the 10 m he has agreed up to 17 m proposed Mr Brown noted that he does not support options that would move the house site away from the Browns are prepared to agree to: 5m vegetative covenant on the Brown s property Limit the height of the building to 8.5m Septic has been approved by the Ministry of Health No increase in density and will not set a precedent property that SIB be notified lom from the property line to build MoTI has conditional approval subject to approval of zoning Sechelt Indian Band (SIB) has no concerns other than if any archaeological artefacts found on the The following points were brought forward during the Brown presentation: the side line and the building currently is 11 metres in height. each be 2 acres. The property is currently zoned to build 2 houses. They can also build 1.5 metres from The Brown s presented their subdivision proposal with a PowerPoint Presentation. The two lots would Mr. Ron Brown and Mrs. Lynne Brown, the Applicants Frank Mauro, Chair DISCUSSION The Planner noted that after this he intended to write a report to Planning and Development Committee of July 19, 2012 with the following options: Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 5 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Board can resolve to a. give Bylaws 3td reading b. Amend Bylaws and give 3 Reading (limitations) c. Amend the Bylaws and schedule a new public hearing d. Defeat the Bylaws 3. Board can set the terms of the covenants 4. Covenants are Registered 5. Bylaws can be adopted The Chair called afirst time for submissions. by the owners of Lot 12). 168

39 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 6 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and In conclusion, Mr. Brown stated that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the current land use in the Backroad area. Both properties would be serviced by municipal water at the lot line and the septic system has been approved by the Ministry of Health. Approval of this subdivision will not set a precedent and each lot will have one house resulting in no increase in density. Mr. Brown provided a written submission in conjunction with his presentation. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Sylvia Fockler from the speaker s list. Sylvia Fockler, 5323 Backhouse Road Ms. Fockler stated that her family has owned the property in Halfmoon Bay for 40 years. The family property is a special place to enjoy. Ms. Focker opposes the OCP/zoning bylaw amendment application for the following reasons: 1. Goes against community values 2. The proposed development sets a dangerous precedent 3. Does not maintain the quiet, low-density atmosphere and maintain rural characteristics 4. Endeavour to protect the natural environment 5. No community benefit 6. Enables pocket zoning In conclusion, Ms. Fockler stated that she and her family object to the rezoning due to higher density development and that the proposed development sets a precedent. The family has insisted on the long range planning of the community to preserve the natural environment and quiet, low-density atmosphere. Ms. Fockler provided a written submission in conjunction with her presentation. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Pat Fockler. Pat Fockler, 5323 Backhouse Road Mrs. Fockler stated that this rezoning application has created a division in the community. She also stated that the process has been confusing, lengthy and poorly communicated. She criticized SCRD staff and Board for letting this application go this far. She threatened that some neighbours may leave the community. She concluded that there has been a loss of community cohesiveness due to this rezoning application. Trisha Fockler Beaty, 5323 Backhouse Road Ms. Beaty started her presentation stating that precedents will be set and outsiders may not have concern about future community development. She is concerned that other potential subdivisions may use this to advance these subdivisions. She further stated that if this application is approved, the ramifications will be extensive throughout the Sunshine Coast. Ms. Beaty pleaded that community values are considered before individuals. Ms. Fockler Beaty put forward 6 proposals for lot configuration and covenants: Option 4 Least desired choice: Same lot configurations as Brown s proposal with circuitous panhandle 169

40 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 7 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Request a 17m No-Build covenant from southern property line with panhandle east west 1.5m from the northern corner 5 m vegetation preservation covenant 8.5 height/180 square metre are building restriction garage restriction has 4.5metre height restriction septic above grade Option 3 Option 2a Option 2 Option la Option 1 Same lot configurations as Brown s proposal with circuitous panhandle driveway 5 metre vegetation preservation covenant south of property line 10-metre no-build covenant set back south 40 m setback from high water line, 8.5 heightll8o square metre are building restriction garage restriction has 4.5metre height restriction septic would be above grade Lot configuration, covenanted driveway easement, panhandle and borders are as Brown s requested No-build covenant through the waterfront Ocean view building sites are located above the driveway Septic below building site Privacy and view issues are addressed 8 metre wide public lane which creates hooked parcel Area large enough to support house (8000 square metre) No-build covenant on waterfront projection East-west border has shifted slightly northward ocean frontage is 20 metres 8 metre wide public lane extends to the south Creates semi-waterfront and a waterfront lot building sites same as 2 and 2a public road would access both lots (M0TI preferred) Lot A semi waterfront with several viable building sites Ideally no changes would occur. Ms. Fockler Beaty provided a written submission in conjunction with her presentation. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Louise Bradford. Louise Bradford, 5323 Backhouse Road Ms. Bradford presented an overview of the Options Analysis with respect to maintaining privacy, financial short term values, precedent setting rezoning, permanent access, regular lot configuration, covenants, community benefit. 170

41 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 8 of 13 Report ofa Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and The proposed development is opposed by the majority of the neighbours. Ms. Bradford stated that 9 of 14 neighbours of the Backhouse Road I Ole s cove opposes or have serious concerns and prefer no building be allowed on the waterfront. She is proud of shared community values and strongly opposes the rezoning application. Ms. Bradford continued that the proposed development is non-conforming and the development provides no benefit to the community. The lot shape is non-conforming and not sensitive to the lay of the land. The community at large should benefit. Foreshore access, a public walk-way or road extension should be considered as a concession to the neighbourhood. In conclusion, Ms. Bradford stated that this ten month process has caused disrespect, division and hardship in our Backhouse Ole s Cove community which could have been prevented by stopping this application at the onset. This application for rezoning should only be approved to enable a subdivision to occur with specific conditions designed to provide some community benefit. Ms. Bradford provided a written submission in conjunction with her presentation. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Grace Taylor. Grace Taylor, 5404 Backhouse Road Ms. Taylor has owned her Halfmoon Bay property for 40 years. She enjoys the rural nature of the area. She feels if this application is approved, it will affect the entire Sunshine Coast. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called George Pratt George Pratt, Woodbay Heights Mr. Pratt stated that precedent is important. community benefit. He asked Senior Planner David Rafael for clarification on David Rafael, Senior Planner The Planner explained that the scale of community benefit is usually in proportion to the scale of the development. George Pratt, Woodbay Heights Mr. Pratt has spoken to Mr. Brown and the Focklers and feels that both parties are willing to work together. In reference to letter submitted (contained in Appendix H), the Board should not make a decision and allow for time for the parties to reach an agreement. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Barry Janyk. Barry Janyk, 639 Glen Road, Gibsons Mr. Janyk has lived and worked in every community since moving here in He has served 15 years on the Town of Gibsons Council, 12 years as Mayor and as the community s appointed SCRD representative. He understands the process. Mr. Janyk stated that this will have an effect on all if this application is allowed to proceed. Mr. Janyk was asked to review the work done on this OCPlzoning bylaw amendment application. He does not support this application. He is certain that allowing this OCP zoning amendment will change all areas on the Sunshine Coast with specific consideration for a multitude of properties in Elphinstone and Roberts Creek. 171

42 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 9 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Mr. Janyk criticized SCRD staff declaring that access suggested is clearly illogical and that the proposed covenant was bizarre and impractical. He then concluded by asking SCRD Board why they would consider the irregular lot shape and complicated, impractical covenants. Mr. Janyk provided a written submission in conjunction with his presentation. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Eleanor Lenz. Eleanor Lenz, 5334 Backhouse Road Ms. Lenz stated that they have a close community on Backhouse Road and they will stay that way. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Mitchell Rogers Mitchell Rogers, 5406 Backhouse Road Mr. Rogers do not want more houses on the coastline. He would like to see more beach access. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Michael Goldberg. Michael Goldberg, 8049 Wildwood Road Mr. Goldberg does not support the application. He stated that if approved, it should have a clear community benefit such as beach access. He also stated that if approved, this may create problems for the Regional District. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Ross Beaty. Ross Beaty, 5323 Backhouse Road. Mr. Beaty stated the whole process is a precedent for a failed system. One Public Hearing and many meetings and incredible effort from the Browns put into this cannot be good for the Regional District s resources. If approved, this will set a precedent. He advised this (application) should have been shut down in September when you realized that there was community division. There aren t the resources to do this every time someone wants to divide their property. There is worse division now than at the beginning. In conclusion, Mr. Beaty advised the SCRD now has a chance to kill this application once and for all. It is non-conforming, sets a terrible precedent, wastes valuable time, resources, and it has clearly created a great deal of angst and conflict between neighbours and ratepayers. Mr. Beaty stated it is not too late to shut it down. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Carey Brown. 172

43 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 10 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Carey Brown, 5422 Backhouse Road Mr. Brown does not understand how the rural aspect as they are currently allowed to have two houses on the property. He stated that the strange configuration and covenants are in place to satisfy the neighbours and mitigate the effects. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair requested a 3-minute break to allow updates to the speaker s list. The Chair called Barb Hately. Barb Hately, 5403 Ole s Cove Road Ms. Hately stated she is opposed to the OCPlbylaw amendment. She is a direct neighbour to the Browns. She further stated that the OCP should change only if there is a benefit to the community. She said there are no merits for proposal. She stated the OCP reflects the vision and values which are to maintain rural character and manager growth and there is no compelling reason why this should go ahead. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called Lauren Taylor. Lauren Taylor, 5406 Backhouse Road Ms. Taylor stated she has been coming to the area for 40 years. She is a teacher at Halfmoon Bay Elementary School. She does not see any benefit to the community, does not support the application and advises this will set a precedent for potential land development. Her two sons have the same opinions and do not support the application. She is strongly opposed to the application. Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called David Cox. David Cox, Woodbay Heights Road Mr. Cox advised that he came to listen to both parties and ask questions. He then asked Senior Planner David Rafael if this can be viewed as a one-off subdivision application for the Browns. David Rafael, Senior Planner The Senior Planner stated that since the OCP was adopted, staff must consider that there have been changes. We also take into consideration that the SCRD is providing municipal water. When the OCP was developed it was based on a soils capacity study for septic which provided guidelines for minimum parcel size. There is an opportunity to look at on a site by site basis to see if there are any merits that did not apply at the time the OCP was adopted. The main reason the SCRD considers this precedent setting is that there is now municipal water at the site. David Cox, Woodbay Heights Road What is your rational to turn down someone else s application? David Rafael, Senior Planner The Senior Planner stated that each application needs to be addressed on a site-by-site basis and that that the SCRD is required to look at every application. 173

44 The Chair called Elise Rudland. this is a good offer and guarantees that the area will remain beautiful. Ms. Rudland has been to every rezoning in Halfmoon Bay for the last 20 years and she is supporting this application. She has an extensive background in community planning on the Sunshine Coast. She stated that the solution provided by the covenants will protect the environment on this property. She believes Elise Rudland, 9167 lonion Road Frank Mauro, Chair Ms. Anderson has listened to both parties and feels Mr. Brown has made concessions for this application and was able to do this with community communication. She stated that someone will develop this property and neighbours will not have a say in this development. She further stated the neighbours have Adele Anderson SC Hwy Ms. Lenz stated that no one likes change and she does not like the panhandle which is adjacent to her property. The covenant offers protection to her. She is asking for a 20 buffer leaving a 12 driveway access. She hopes it is hard to break a covenant. She does not oppose the application. Eleanor Lenz, 5334 Backhouse Road stated that he has worked with the Browns, had no problem and he is happy with the result. He supports the application. Mr. McGowan explained that the covenants aren t a scary thing and his have existed for 40 years. He Richard McGowan, 1518 Backhouse Road making the lots unaffordable. Mr. Horst is concerned about setting precedents about only housing very wealthy people on the water and Willis Horst, SC Highway Mr. Brown summarized that all obligations have been met. MoTI is in support and the Ministry of Health has agreed the septic is okay. He believes there are no impediments for them proceeding. Ron Brown, 5322 Backhouse Road The Alternate Chair reminded the speakers to stay on the topic of this OCP/bylaw amendment. He further clarified that speakers cannot address individual members of the audience. Garry Nohr, Alternate Chair The Chair reminded the speakers that they are to address the SCRD staff or Board with questions and were further reminded that this is not a debate. Frank Mauro, Chair these 9 no longer oppose, George & Eleanor Lenz and Andrea Smith & Richard McGowen. With regard to statements that 9 of the neighbouring 14 properties oppose, Mr. Brown clarified that 2 of Ron Brown, 5322 Backhouse Road The Chair called for any additional first time speakers. Frank Mauro, Chair Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 11 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and The Chair called a second time for submissions. an opportunity to work together and keep valuable community members here. 174

45 Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 12 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair called a third time for submissions. Andrea Smith, 5418 Backhouse Road Ms. Smith supports this proposal because is that there are four lots that conform to the bylaw right now and the rest are much smaller. The Browns have the right to have a second dwelling which doesn t affect the density. She sympathizes with the Focklers and understands they don t want to lose their view. The division is caused by the differences of opinions. Sylvia Fockler, 5323 Backhouse Road Ms. Fockler empathizes with the difficulty of creating a subdivision. She stated that covenants can be in place for a long time but only satisfy the immediate needs. She advised that this is for the people that will come here in 100 years and have it like she did since her 20s. She questions if this is really that important for the Browns to lose their privacy. Think about the future generations. Look to the long term vision. The natural environment unites us. SUBMISSIONS David Rafael, Senior Planner The Senior Planner presented a table outlining all the submissions received for this application showing either in support or opposition for the application. Approximately 100 written submissions were received. These submissions have been compiled in a table attached to this report as APPENDIX B. All written submissions are available at the SCRD Field Road office. DISCUSSION Sylia Fockler, 5323 Backhouse Road Ms. Fockler clarified that she was opposing the OCP amendments and not the subdivision. She questions whether others understand the difference. David Rafael, Senior Planner The Senior Planner responded that although he cannot discern intent, and all letters must be included at the hearing. Carey Brown, 5422 Backhouse Road Mr. Brown noted that there were quite a few letters without addresses. Not all addresses are included as not all live there but spend a lot of time at the Backhouse Road location. Norm Hall, 5333 Backhouse Road Mr. Hall stated that his mother lives on the property however he visits often. He remembers when there were grouse in the area. He advised that growth is inevitable. Mr. Hall was very upset about growth in the Secret Cove area. He asks who has stood up for us. Ron is trying to change and improve Frank Mauro, Chair The Chair reminded the speaker this is not a debate or a conversation. Norm Hall, 5333 Backhouse Road Mr. Hall empathizes for both parties. Choose wisely. 175

46 The Planner concluded his remarks and passed the Hearing back to the Chair. There being no further submissions, the Chair advised that the public hearing for proposed Halfmoon CONCLUSION CLOSURE Frank Mauro, Chair Hincks, Recording Secretary Certified fair and correct: Prepared by: District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 closed at 9:57 p.m. The Chair thanked everyone for attending the public hearing. Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2011 and Sunshine Coast Regional Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 13 of 13 Report of a Public Hearing held June 13, 2012 regarding Bylaw Nos and

47 177

48 178

49 179

50 17 metre setback 10 metre setback 180

51 181

52 From Address (NK = not known by staff) General Comment Oppose/Support Bolding, B Cranston, G Brown, D Lot 1, LD 1485, Plan LMP 20428, Backhouse Rd (10583 Mercer Rd) Lot 1, DL 1485, Plan LMP 20428, Backhouse Rd (10583 Mercer Rd) 5417 Backhouse Rd All regulatory agencies requirements met, size of lots larger than many on Backhouse, not impact density, little traffic impact, fits No concerns, assume all protocols met, lot s larger than many will be in keeping with quiet nature of area No relation to applicant, continue to support Support Support Support Bell, P 5348 Backhouse Rd Should proceed with the covenants, area will remain a beauty spot Support Simpson, R 5347 Backhouse Rd 2 homes to 2 homes, tax benefit to RD, immediate neighbour can benefit from building restriction (location) Support Hall, Daphne 5333 Backhouse Rd See no reason why should not be granted, covenants- Support Potter, R&R Lot 2, Backhouse Rd Every effort to respect planning requirements and concerns of residents Support 182

53 Smith, A McGowan, R Lenz, E & G McGowan, R & Smith, L 5418 Backhouse Rd 5334 Backhouse 5418 Backhouse Need covenant on panhandle (wording suggested), existing driveway is the sole access, prefer MoTI suggestion of an 8m lane on driveway with upper hooked area as no build Concern about impact if panhandle is developed as a driveway; want a covenant to prevent this; wording suggested Conditional support Conditional Support Taylor, L 5406 Backhouse Rd Sets a precedent for next 50+, against the values of the OCP, precedent for 40 lots in area just less than 5 acres, opposed by majority of immediate neighbours 9 of 14, non-conforming, no community benefit, irregular lot shape, covenanted building site,/driveway/panhandle Greatest assets natural beauty and community, development threatens this, sets a precedent, Oppose Taylor Armstrong, J 5406 Backhouse Rd Oppose Taylor, G 5404 Backhouse Oppose Oppose Keep HMB rural by nature, OCP under Fockler Family 5414 Backhouse review, at least 24 lots in Wood Parmiters 5412 Backhouse Bay/Secret Cove area that this sets a Taylor, L& G 5406/5404 precedent for, 9 of 14 neighbours Oppose, Backhouse greater density not matched by community Hately, B 5403 Oles Cove benefit, Oppose 183

54 Hately, B Hately, C Hately, R Hately, A Patrick, D 5403 Oles Cove 5403 Oles Cove Rd Oles Cove Rd 5403 Oles Cove 5417 Oles Cove OCP should only change if benefit to community, this has no community benefit, OCP reflects vision and values- maintain rural character and manage growth, no compelling reason why this should go ahead (as required by SCRD guidance), know that they can stratify or build second dwelling, why are existing small lots a precedent, majority if neighbours oppose Oppose Preserve our small community and beautiful forested lands Oppose Negative impact on neighbourhood, no community benefit, against OCP and shared community values, precedent for other development that threatens way of life and community values, not working with community to find acceptable solution Oppose Ignores community values, sets dangerous precedent,, no community benefit, what is wrong with current zoning and subdivision, study issue further to accurately gauge opposition and support Oppose Guidelines of OCP and bylaws being challenged for financial gain, precedent, Diminishes work on OCP review Oppose 184

55 Bradford, L Beaty, T Fockler, S Beaty, R Fockler, P S Fockler, L Bradford, T Beaty 5323 Backhouse Rd 5323 Backhouse Rd 5323 Backhouse Rd 5323 Backhouse Rd Prefer a strata development, not able to input incorporated in current proposal, it impacts our privacy (also of the Micklejohns to the immediate north of our lot), the subdivision plan should result in a waterfront and upland parcel (Map 1), other options available (Map 2s and 3), Map 4 is least preferred option, rezoning a privilege not a right, need to reflect community needs and benefits, no community benefits OCP is to deny contentious applications and support non-contentious, this is a contentious proposal, there is a glut of a waterfront lots not selling, sets a precedent for all property owners, consider the OCP review The proposal would result in a new house that would impact on privacy and quality of enjoyment of my property, sets a precedent for other proposals to subdivide, could change rural to village need to consider community benefit, deforestation on steep slopes, lot configuration Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose 185

56 John Fockler (representing all members of the Fockler family) 5323 Backhouse Rd Build the new dwelling above the driveway good views of ocean, less impact on existing houses on Brown and Fockler properties Oppose Beaty, C 5323 Backhouse Alters density, impacts fragile ecology, loss of privacy, large part of site will become road, OCP contravened, consider individual needs of those who care for the land around Backhouse Rd Oppose 186

57 Fockler, E&S Family property at 5323 Backhouse Rd 9 local properties oppose, commit to long term vision and community benefits not personal needs, respect all, this is for personal financial gain, no community benefit, ignores intent of OCP, needs four covenants to protect neighbours, covenants can be removed, sets a injurious and poorly conceived precedent for much higher density, biodiversity and geotechnical concerns highlighted in previous SCRD studies such as Thurber 1992 and OCP review Planning Profile (Costal Douglas Fir zone), proposed driveway and panhandle does not guarantee access to proposed Lot B as a road would; why define a specific 8000 sq m subdivision district to accommodate irregular parcel only to allow for desire for 2 waterfront lots, other areas more suitable for higher density, please review the alternative proposals such as #2 which allows for waterfront Oppose 187

58 Parmiter, JR Meiklejohn, R&C&F Janda, K Webb, M Renix, L Borthwick, R A 5412 Backhouse RD 5329 Backhouse Rd HMB resident 8699 Redrooffs Rd 8230 Redrooffs Rd Enjoy area for rural, tranquil nature, views; this would be diminished by infill development, sets precedent, future OCP changes could relieve covenant terms, no material benefit to community Not keen to see the home and people density increase, recognize property rights, should the bylaw change then SCRD embrace responsibility to ensure new development considers those most affected and is in line with community spirit and interests against community values and OCP, dangerous precedent (lots of similar lots, traffic noise, density issues), opposed by majority of neighbours, non-conforming and irregular lot shape, no community benefit, area reached max density for a rural lifestyle Consistent with land use, one house per lot, no concerns water/septic, covenants regard location of house Land use, water, septic, agencies met, 2 acre lots larger than other view/waterfront, SCRD provide water change since OCP adopted, majority of area supports Oppose Oppose Oppose Support Support 188

59 Vance, L Pearce, D Butler, D 8439/8443 Redrooffs Rd 8699 Redrooffs Rd 5411 Secret Cove Rd Realtor, planning consultant and homeowner; proposal out of step to maintaining rural nature of community/ocp, inconsistent with objectives expressed by HMB residents through OCP review process, sets a precedent, no benefit to the community as a whole, non-conforming panhandle lot with extensive easement/covenants, Oppose Satisfactory and reasonable, no density increase, water/septic no issue, 2 acre lots Support proposal seems reasonable and maintains desirability of the neighbourhood Support M Kotwitz 7755 Redrooffs Rd Covenants to provide deep setbacks and plant buffer, no increase in density 2 acre lots are large in comparison with other waterfront lots Support M Garcia 8586 Redrooffs Rd Meets statutory requirements, majority of residents support, SCRD Infrastructure and Finance have no concerns Support M Padovani Mercer Rd See no reason why it should not proceed Support 189

60 Galway, A Mercer Rd Support Support Blockberger, M Mercer Rd & 9945 Wescan Rd All regulatory agencies requirements met, covenants, septic Support Cohen, M Mercer Rd Support Support Cameron, R&L Mercer Rd Covenants to protect any future concerns, larger lots, already zoned for two houses Support Pratt, G Woodbay Heights Board should not adjudicate neighbourhood disputes, what overarching merit does the proposal have, if no compelling benefit then the proposal should fail, parties do not appear that far apart and Board should direct them to come to an accord, then reapply, concern that covenants can t be applied, need a clear written comment from Mino f Transportation as to their view on the covenant re panhandle and driveway Mixed Karleen, K 9133 Hydaway Rd Supported by most immediate neighbours and numerous gov t agencies, not legally a precedent, well placed restrictive covenants, the neighbourhood will remain the same and benefits from new waterfront property, vocal minority is misrepresenting key facts, Support 190

61 Karleen, T D Steen, C Knight 9133 Hydaway Rd Mercer Rd SCRD commended for thoroughness and diligence, Browns have made effort to work towards viable solution, All requirements met No agency objections, changes are consistent with land use, no increase in pop n density (two homes to two homes), covenants proposed to be consistent with area character Support Support J O Reilly 9235 Truman Rd 2 houses to two house, lots will be larger than adj waterfront/view lots, land use consistent, potable water available from SCRD, septic met, no agency objections, SCRD Infrastructure and Finance have no concerns, setback and veg n buffer covenants Support 191

62 Denise & Dal Brynelsen 5385 San Souci Rd 2 houses to two house, lots will be larger than adj waterfront/view lots, land use consistent, potable water available from SCRD, septic met, no agency objections, SCRD Infrastructure and Finance have no concerns, setback and veg n buffer covenants Support A, A, S, C Serin 7787 Lohn Rd 2 houses to two house, lots will be larger than adj waterfront/view lots, land use consistent, potable water available from SCRD, septic met, no agency objections, SCRD Infrastructure and Finance have no concerns, setback and veg n buffer covenants Support Dana Brynelsen 5383 San Souci lots will be larger than average lot size, land use consistent, no water/septic issues, no agency objections, SCRD Infrastructure and Finance have no concerns Support G Politeski Sunshine Coast Hwy Reasonable application should be approved Support 192

63 Bogardus, P & L 8756 Redrooffs Rd 2 lots, 2 houses, 2 acre lots large compared to other waterfront lots, panhandle would not be developed, Support Fentiman, K 8904 Armstrong Way Offer support Support Pickering, L Sunset Cove Rd Browns worked to address concerns, no logical reason why it should not be approved Support Carson, M Sunset Cove Rd Not a precedent, septic capacity, lots will be larger than all others on waterfront on Backhouse Rd, no statutory requirements outstanding, covenants offered Support Smith, S & B 5418 Donley Drive Considerable concessions made, can build second dwelling, new lots only one house Support Blockberger, S L 9945 Wescan Rd (has a cabin on Mercer Rd) Many lots on Backhouse are small, septic/water not an issue, covenants limiting building size, traffic increase unnoticeable, no agency concerns Support 193

64 Penn, D 6471 Sunshine Coast Hwy, Sechelt Property size, septic, water satisfied, Browns accommodating to immediate neighbours Support Anderson. K Sunshine Coast Hwy Covenants (10 m setback for house, 5 m veg n buffer, panhandle) Support Gillis, D & D Sunshine Coast Hwy Covenants are exceedingly generous (10 m to side)other criteria appear to be met Support Rowland, S Secret Cove Marina Not precedent setting, septic/water met, resulting lots dwarf other waterfront lots, covenants to please neighbours Support Hagedorn, N Secret Cove Marina Not precedent setting, septic/water met, resulting lots dwarf other waterfront lots, covenants to please neighbours Support Blockberger, T 441 Somerset St, North Vancouver (owns Mercer Rd) No reason why adding another waterfront home should be of concern, the new lots 2 acres, other lots smaller, covenants to minimize impacts Support Hagedorn, B Aube, N Roberts Creek PO Box 5430 Donley Dr, Pender Harbour No additional density, all statutory requirements met, water/septic no concern Support No reason why the proposal should be denied Support 194

65 Oldham, D Rutter, Val Maxwell, A Huntly, T Brown,, C Alexandre, E&K Hawkins, L&S Wharf Rd, Sechelt (work address) 6511Jasper Rd, Sechelt 536 Sargent St, Gibsons 536 Sargent St, Gibsons 5663 Carrington Rd, Nanaimo realtor involved in sale of property thus knowledgeable, all requirements met, most properties smaller, concessions made 10 m setback, 5 m veg n buffer Land use, water, septic, agencies met, 2 acre lots larger than other view/waterfront, SCRD provide water change since OCP adopted, majority of area supports Consistent with land use, no concerns water/septic, covenants regard location of house/access, no increase in density Consistent with land use, no concerns water/septic, covenants regard location of house/access, no increase in density Done everything possible to accommodate concerns, beyond setbacks, OCP is a guideline not a binding document, gov t can make decisions Proposal accommodates neighbours, proposed setbacks well beyond minimal and veg`n barrier are generous concessions, visual use of Browns property should be appreciated to date Support Support Support Support Support 2202 Lambert Dr, Courtenay Support 1747 Chesterfield Ave, North Vancouver Reviewed the info and fully support Support 195

66 Chase, H E Chase 4700 Mountain Hwy, North Vancouver 1745 Esquimalt Ave, West Vancouver Experienced in development (architect), efforts made to meet concerns, procedures followed No water/septic concerns, no agency objections, lots would be larger than adjacent waterfront lots, covenants to have substantial setback and vegetation zone, one house per lot Support Support Hughes, & S Schlaefer, F Bradley, L Ball, G Achurch, C NK NK NK NK NK Majority of neighbours approve, all statutory agencies approve, two lots larger than neighbouring, one dwelling per lot, respects community density and development Consistent with land use, no concerns water/septic, covenants regard location of house Met all requirements, supported by friends/neighbours Visited the property, the lots will be larger than Neighbouring half acre lots, met all requirements Visited the property, the lots will be larger than Neighbouring half acre lots, met all requirements Support Support Support Support Support 196

67 Harvey, M NK No objections from regulators, not set a precedent, no change to property density 2 to 2 homes Support Aune, C NK Visited the property, the lots will be larger than Neighbouring half acre lots, met all requirements Support Langlois, L NK Visited, met the requirements and taken account of neighbours concerns, Support Hughes, A NK Lots greater than 2 acres, one house per lot, 10 m from neighbour property, 5 m veg n buffer, OCP supports subdiv that promote taking advantage of scenic views, majority of residents support Support Brown, E NK Land use, water, septic, agencies met, 2 acre lots larger than other view/waterfront, SCRD provide water change since OCP adopted, majority of area supports Support Bellevance, L NK Met statutory requirements, larger than most lots Support Way-White, T NK Consistent with land use, covenants maintain high standard Support Dickenson, B NK No reason why it should be delayed Support Harvey, A NK Visited, larger lots, reasonable with the ir proposal Support Bradley, TA NK Met/exceeded expectation of local residents, Support 197

68 Lawlor, G&S Brown, H Fairhurst, L&M J Burke NK NK NK N/K 2 acre lots, municipal water, sseptic, covenants, 2 homes to 2 homes Not add to density, 10 m setback, driveway easement, lots larger than waterfront lots, water/septic satisfied Acted in accord with all requirements, necessary agency approvals, utmost respect for neighbours, does not infringe on enjoyment of neighbouring properties natural surroundings no agency objections, site served by SCRD water, lots would be larger than the existing homes have, not much change in density Support Support Supporrt Support M S Eterman N/K Two homes allowed, only change is separate ownership, property size it is reasonable to subdivide Support J W Harvey N/K No agency objectiond, property is secluded Support M Nyhuis N/K The guesthouse and website showcase the Coast Support 198

69 Bilingsley, J & D N/K All criteria met, land use consistent, no water/septic issues, no agency objections, not change density Support Anderson, A Sunshine Coast Highway, Halfmoon Bay Not a precedent, septic capacity, lots will be larger than all others on waterfront on Backhouse Rd, setback at 10m not 1.5m, no statutory requirements outstanding, covenants offered, since OCP adopted SCRD supplies water Support Hardistey, C NK Visitor, in keeping with reasonable/sustainable approach too increasing density, little disruption of neighbours and environment Support 199

70 Submissions received at the Public Hearing Fairley, J Smith, A-L, McGowan, R & Lenz, E & G 5442 Donley Drive 5334 Backhouse Rd 5418 Backhouse Rd Appears they have done due diligence to meet requirements Concern about impact if panhandle is developed as a driveway; want a covenant to prevent this; wording suggested Support Conditional Support Moore, Jeffrey Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure In response to an from E & G Lenz. Has no objection to the revised wording with respect to the panhandle. Agency comments 200

71 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 1 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 11, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (July 21, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: OCP amendment Bylaw and TUP E-1 for 924 Gower Point Road, Elphinstone ANNEX U RECOMMENDATION: THAT with regard to OCP amendment Bylaw and Temporary Use Permit E-1 for 924 Gower Point Road the Planning and Development Committee recommend that the Regional District Board that Bylaw and TUP E-1 be abandoned, based upon the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is not in keeping with the Elphinstone Official Community Plan land use and zoning designation for the area which promotes residential development with limited commercial activity; 2. Concerns regarding noise and traffic impacts on the neighbourhood raised by local residents; and 3. The potential for significant investment required to bring the building up to code is not compatible with a temporary use permit that may not be renewed; BACKGROUND At the March 22, 2012 meeting the Regional District Board adopted the following resolution: (149/12) Recommendation No. 8 Zoning Bylaw THAT the staff report titled Bylaw and Temporary Use Permit No. E-1 (Temporary Use Permit for 924 and 930 Gower Point Road, Elphinstone) dated March 6, 2012 be received as amended; AND THAT the OCP, rather than Bylaw 310, be amended to allow a Temporary Use Permit on this property; AND THAT the amending bylaw be titled Bylaw and forwarded to the Board for consideration of First Reading; AND THAT draft Temporary Use Permit E-1 be forwarded to the Regional District Board to show amendments to allow for cash bar and bed and breakfast use; AND THAT referrals be sent to the Electoral Area E Advisory Planning Commission, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Town of Gibsons, the Squamish Nation and other agencies as necessary; AND THAT the applicants arrange a public information meeting for Zoning Bylaw and TUP E-1; AND FURTHER THAT a sign be posted on site as required by Planning and Development Fees and Procedures Bylaw 522. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 201

72 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 2 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) (159/12) Bylaw THAT Elphinstone Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2012" be read a first time as amended to correct a typographical error in 2(b) from ff to of. In response to advice from the Area E Advisory Planning Commission (APC), the Regional District Board directed staff to draft a temporary use permit (TUP). The Board also directed staff to draft an amendment to the Elphinstone Official Community Plan (Bylaw 600.3). Bylaw received first reading on March 22, 2012, and it along with draft TUP E-1 underwent consultation with Ministry of Health, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the RCMP, Town of Gibsons and Squamish Nation. The applicants held a public information meeting, on May 8, The applicants placed a sign on their property, delivered and mailed notices of the meeting to owners/properties within 50 metres of the subject property and placed a notice in the previous week s edition of the Coast Reporter. These actions are required by the Regional District s Planning and Development Procedures and Fees Bylaw No The APC considered the TUP and Bylaw on May 23, OPTIONS 1. Abandon Bylaw and Temporary Use Permit E-1 At the public information meeting there was almost unanimous opposition to the proposal from local residents, many of whom also attended a meeting of the Area E APC and provided written objections. While the APC is willing to see the proposal go through the process there are concerns raised by several members. The use is not considered by staff to be one that should be located in a residential area; all properties in the neighbourhood are zoned Residential One and designated as Residential A land use in the Elphinstone Official Community Plan. The R1 zone has a limited set of permitted uses. For example it does not permit home occupation ; the R1 zone permits the more restricted home office. There is likely to be a need for significant investment required to meet building code and septic field requirements. A temporary use permit may not be renewed and this could result in an unfair burden on the property owners. 2. Amend Bylaw and TUP E-1 and Schedule a Public Hearing for Bylaw There is support from a number of residents both nearby and in the wider area. There is scope to identify the property as a temporary use permit area. Issues such as building code, septic field and food service permit could be made conditions to be met prior to issuing a temporary use permit. This would allow the applicant and the Regional District to understand the level of investment required to meet requirements. The public hearing can also consider the terms/conditions of the temporary use permit, although the permit itself is not the subject of a public hearing. However this will inform the Board if it considers whether to issue the permit should Bylaw be adopted. The public hearing notice can also set out the date when TUP E-1 may be considered as required by the Local Government Act. The applicants provided additional information regarding noise, traffic and wildlife. Bylaw should be amended to remove 930 Gower Point Road from the proposal. TUP E-1 should be amended to allow for a wedding rehearsal on a N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 202

73 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 3 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) separate day and limit outdoor amplification to before 6:00 pm except for the occasional wedding service. 3. If a public hearing is scheduled then the notification area should not be expanded from 50 m to 100 m from the subject property DISCUSSION Bylaw 522 sets out the notification process and directs staff to send letters to properties within 50 metres of the subject property for a site specific amendment in the Residential One zone. Staff note that the public hearing and consideration of a TUP would be announced in the Coast Reporter, thus allowing those living in the wider area an opportunity to have input. At this time staff do not consider it is appropriate to alter notification areas and the procedures that are set out in Bylaw 522. The issue of an appropriate notification area for TUPs can be fully consider within the context of amendments to Bylaw 522 that are being considered and will be the subject of a future report to the Planning and Development Committee. Public Information Meeting and Comments from the Public The meeting was attended by 15 people including the Area Director, Alternate Director and the Senior Planner. The notes of the meeting are included in Attachment A. Several of those attending raised concerns regarding the proposal with specific concern about noise, traffic and parking. Questions were also raised regarding the history of the use (e.g. was it allowed by building permit) and about a lack of a level playing field for other operators (e.g. tax). The proposed length of the TUP was also questioned (e.g. is 3 years appropriate). All who attended were advised by the Senior Planner to provide comments in writing to the Regional District and to contact him if they had any questions. Comments from the public are summarised and attached in a table (Attachment B); copies of the 48 pieces of correspondence are available from staff for review. Those supporting the proposal note that this is a well run facility, that it meets a need as there are few if any venues of similar size and quality, and they have attended events. Those objecting are concerned about traffic, noise, unfair to commercial operations (lower tax and other costs) and use not compatible with residential area. Area E Advisory Planning Commission At the meeting of May 23, 2012, the Area E APC considered OCP Amendment Bylaw and TUP E-1. Several remembers of the public attended and were invited by the Chair to ask questions. Senior Planner also attended the meeting. The minutes from that meeting state: 5.1 The Senior Planner reviewed his report regarding this proposal to allow for an Assembly use for a residential property on Gower Point Road. The report brought the APC up to date on developments with this application since it came before the APC in November The Board had directed staff to pursue a site-specific amendment to the Official Community Plan and draft a Temporary Use Permit for the subject properties. Staff explained the formal notification and advertisement processes and procedures for a bylaw amendment; public and agency feedback were now being sought at this stage of the process. Staff planned to forward a report on this application to the Planning and Development Committee in July that will include feedback received in the public and agency consultation, suggest options for next steps and request board direction. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 203

74 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 4 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) The Senior Planner inquired as to the Advisory Planning Commission s views on the draft bylaw and draft Temporary Use Permit. He noted the APC s recent stated opposition to allowing a blanket Temporary Use Permit (TUP) in Area E, and the APC s motion in November 2011 to investigate the possibility of a Temporary Use Permit for this property. He wondered if the APC had reconsidered directing staff to look at a Temporary Use Permit. Staff responded to comments and questions. 5.2 Points raised by APC members included: Clarification that the original motion was to see if there was an alternate way to look at things. At the next meeting the APC wanted neighbours to have a look at the proposal. At the following meeting the APC said it did not want a TUP as a blanket use in Area E. I am against the Temporary Use Permit as drafted. The problem I find with the Temporary Use Permit: Areas F, E, and D just did their OCPs. They were done by a group of people who spent a ton of time doing these. Don t understand why you are looking at TUP s to circumvent the work done by these people and through public hearings to circumvent the OCPs and Bylaw 310. Get the property rezoned. This is coming in the back door. We were considering a rezoning at the (November 2011) meeting, and didn t like the idea We saw some merit and asked staff to come back with recommendations without having to rezone. We did talk about a TUP that could accommodate this use, and build in the safeguards that would make it acceptable in this community nothing different than what could happen at any place in this community. Celebration House started as a business The people in the neighbourhood are impacted by it. When do they get their say? The biggest craw: ask for forgiveness, not permission philosophy. A problem that I have with a Temporary Use Permit in general is I have no security in reliance on Bylaw 310. How does the SCRD intend to address other locations in the Regional District where there are facilities like these? If TUP s are renewable, how are these temporary? I heard that the neighbourhood notification area needed to be expanded. 50-metre notification area is not far in an area with ½ acre lots. I think the applicant thought this was a legal use. Would there be a difference for private assembly as opposed to public assembly? (No.) What is the process for complaints? (Not yet determined.) 5.3 Director Lewis noted the current zoning allows for party, wedding and bed and breakfast uses. He mentioned there was no restaurant operating there. The Director noted the RCMP recently inspected the property on the basis of the number of liquor permits issued to that location, and had no issue with what they saw. He said the goal was to make a stringent process for the Temporary Use Permit, so applicants have hurdles to jump through; when finished with the use, there would be no mark on the map, whereas there would be with rezoning. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 204

75 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 5 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) 5.4 Members of the public in attendance, including Diana Lloyd, Lola Olmquest, Celia Fisher, Barbara Cole, Nest Lewis, all of whom reside in the area, and an unnamed gentleman, were invited to speak to the APC. Comments and concerns raised by the public included: (Referring to previous APC minutes) Concern: uncertainty about how a TUP process occurs. Comment: that the Regional District seemed to disregard two recent APC motions with regard to the TUP and consultation with the neighbours. Main issue: that this is going through the back door, and this is asking for help to make it legitimate That house when being built had a permit to build a house. It was built with no interior stud walls. When that was starting to happen I talked to (the APC Chair). He felt that people were trying to accommodate what was happening there if someone breaks a zoning bylaw or contravenes it, why bother having an OCP? Staff and the director seem to be trying to help this person. Assume that a wedding goes in and there is no way people will limit the guest list is there a special dispensation for bigger numbers than 100? What would a change of zoning do to property values along Gower Point Road? I think people don t want to move into an area where they expect one thing and now are getting something else. When this building was built, it was designed as more than a house. Did the building inspector inspect it as a residence? Does the building inspector have the option to not approve an apparent use? Regarding the fire and health issue, it would it be advisable to put in wording that the permit holder is obliged to abide with those regulations and ordinances, with the option of losing the permit if they don t. Why is the permit in years? There don t seem to be any business licensing and health and safety regulations (in the TUP). It seems this would have to be written into what a TUP is. It seems to me that a TUP is a euphemism for a business and without any regulations that other comparable commercial operations have to abide by. MOTION (JG/RK): That the application should proceed. (3 in favor, 2 opposed) Carried MOTION (JG/GC): That the Regional District include wording with respect to compliance regarding fire, health and safety and other agency requirements as well as insurance to indemnify the Regional District. Carried Unanimously Agency Comments Ministry of Health To date, the food service that has typically occurred in hosting events at 924 Gower Point Road requires a valid food service permit. Some upgrades were discussed with the applicant to bring the location up to standard for issuance of a conditional food service permit (with restrictions limiting food preparation). Should approval to host the "auxiliary residential assembly" events be granted by the SCRD, the applicant would need to apply for a food service permit through VCH. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 205

76 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 6 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) Upgrades needed to sewage system to accommodate commercial dishwasher, dishwashing sink, laundry facilities (e.g. to handle table cloths etc) and additional washrooms. Engineers report needed to identify grades. Should the temporary use permit be approved then the upgrades must be completed and requisite filing and letter of certificate are needed. Regional District staff consider that this report should be provided prior to holding the public hearing for Bylaw to allow time for public review. The Ministry does not support parking over a septic field. There is a location on site that is outside of parking are that may accommodate septic field. This would be the subject of the engineers report. Sunshine Coast RCMP Concern would be parking on Gower Point Road, however understand that parking will be provided on property, may want to consider installing a no parking signs in the area. Only one noise complaint (July 2009) for that property on records. Gibsons and Area Fire Department Awaiting comments Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Awaiting Comments Squamish Nation At this time the Nation has no concerns. Town of Gibsons Awaiting comments Parking and Traffic The applicants have proposed to expand parking on site by using parking over the septic fields. They provided the Ministry of Health with an example of a product (heavy duty protective pipes to cover the runs) that could allow for this. Staff specifically asked the Ministry if this solution is acceptable and would allow for parking over the septic field. If it is then the smaller of the lots (930 Gower Point Road may be removed from consideration as it will not longer be required to provide parking). The applicants believe that 924 Gower Point Road can accommodate 50 spaces. This is the number of spaces Bylaw 310 requires for an auxiliary residential assembly use (0.5 spaces per participant). The applicants provided a parking plan, showing the location and area to be dedicated for parking (Attachment C). The parking plan includes operational commitments, such as parking attendants. The plan currently allows for 2 metres width per space; this is too narrow and an amended plan was requested to show 2.6 metre width per space. A new plan was recently requested. With regard to traffic, the applicants provided comments about the nature of those attending events (where they are from, how they travel to the venue) and steps taken to provide advice about alternative transport to single cars (Attachment D). For example they encourage guest to stay at local B&Bs and walk to the venue; ask for parking attendants to ensure guests park on-site not on the surrounding roads. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 206

77 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 7 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) Noise The applicants discussed steps they have taken to reduce the impact of noise and provided an acoustic report (Attachment D) which examined noise around the site based upon a test of the sound system (not at an actual event the site is not to be used for events while the SCRD is considering the TUP and OCP amendment). The applicants have committed to not allowing any outdoor amplification after 6 pm, other than the occasional wedding service (for about a ½ hour). Wildlife The applicants provided comments regarding wildlife use of their property and that Celebration House operates in a way as to do no harm to wildlife and guests have never in the past harmed wildlife (Attachment E). Safety The applicants provided an extract setting out the measure for safety from the engineers report commissioned to consider building code issues (Attachment F). The information considers steps to consider fire safety and makes recommendations that will be integrated into the building permit. Indemnifying the Regional District Several people raised concerns regarding the potential risk the SCRD may face if it approves the TUP if there were to be an accident. In part this was raised due to the lack of a building permit for the use; a matter that would be taken care of as a prior to issuance condition. Thus there is no need for a save-harmless covenant. Existing Zoning The property and surrounding area is zoned Residential One (R1) which has a limited range of permitted uses. These are: All lots - Over 2000 sq m Over 3500 sq m one dwelling/home office (no retail component)/horticulture/child care (limited to 7 children under age of 12) bed and breakfast/horticultural sales/auxiliary dwelling livestock (keeping of poultry is not allowed)/second dwelling. As part of normal use of a dwelling, the occupant can hold parties, weddings and so on; there is no limit to the number and the SCRD Noise Bylaw would apply; the RCMP can enforce it after hours. However there is a difference between occasional personal parties/events that form part of normal residential use and an operation that regularly hosts events in a purpose built facility. It was also suggested that a bed and breakfast guest could also hold a party, again with no limits other than that imposed by the Noise Bylaw, site capacity and the B&B operator. Staff note that Bylaw 310 limits B&B use to two bedrooms, each no more than 28 sq m. The B&B should not have any external indication (other than a modest sign) that any building is used for any purpose not normally associated with a residential building. Building Permit As noted previously, the applicants have commissioned a report that identifies what improvements need to be made to bring the building up to code for an assembly use. Staff consider that prior to issuing a temporary use permit, a building permit needs to be applied for and the work substantially completed. The SCRD building inspectors can advise when the work has reached a stage whereby the assembly use can take place without any concerns. At this point the temporary use permit could be issued. N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 207

78 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 8 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) Notification Area for Letters Several members of the public and the APC expressed concern about the notification area for TUPs and suggestions were made to increase it. The proposals ranged from 100 m up to 1 km. from the site. They felt that the 50 m area from the subject property, as required by Bylaw 522 (Planning and Development Procedures and Fees), does not reflect the potential impact that could be felt to a wider area. Staff note that the public hearing and consideration of a TUP would be announced in the Coast Reporter, thus allowing those living in the wider area an opportunity to have input. Staff have not varied notification areas for site specific notifications for other rezoning or OCP amendments. Staff do not support altering the procedures in isolation form considering how this would impact other applications, staff time and costs. Bylaw 522 provides a consistent process and avoids creating problems if each application underwent different processes. Staff will review Bylaw 522 with respect to notifications and provide options at a later date. Amendments to Bylaw Bylaw initially proposed to identify both 924 and 930 Gower Point Road as temporary use permit areas. However, the applicant is confident that there is no need to include 930 Gower Point Road as part of the application as all parking can be provided on the one property. Thus Bylaw is amended by removing 930 Gower Point Road from consideration as a site specific temporary use permit area. Amendments to TUP E-1 Number of Events The applicants initially stated that t they would only hold one event a weekend but are now proposing holding another during the week. At the information meeting they noted that for weddings, there is normally a rehearsal the day before (with the wedding party). The draft TUP is amended to allow a wedding rehearsal on a separate day. At this time staff do not consider adding a second event would be advisable due to the concerns raised by local residents. It would be better to test one per week and consider allowing more events as part of a renewal or new permit. Length of Permit The length of the permit is reduced from three years to two years. This would allow for the operators to take advance bookings for weddings (which are often arranged up to a year in advance). This also addresses concerns raised at the information meeting regarding the length of the TUP. Outdoor Amplification This is to cease at 6:00 pm. Outdoor, unamplified wedding services are permitted. Conditions to Be Met Prior to Issuing TUP If the Board considers issuing the temporary use permit then staff consider that the following conditions need to be met before the permit is issued: 1. installation of the septic field and confirmation that it meets provincial requirements need to be a condition to be met prior to the Board issuing a temporary use permit. 2. conditional food service permit (with restrictions limiting food preparation) issued. 3. building permit issued for works need to meet code and work substantially completed (to be assessed by SCRD Building Inspectors) N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 208

79 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Page 9 of 9 Regarding Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Celebration House) CONCLUSION Staff consider that there are two options to consider as follows: 1. Abandon Bylaw and TUP E-1 (Staff propose this as to option for the PDC to recommend). 2. Should the Planning and Development consider that there is merit in continuing consideration of the proposal then staff propose that an acceptable alternative would be to give amended second reading to Bylaw and amend TUP E-1, establish conditions to be met prior to consideration of issuing the TUP and schedule a public hearing. The following amendments are proposed: Bylaw a) Remove 930 Gower Point Road from consideration as a temporary use permit area; Temporary Use Permit E-1 b) allow for a wedding rehearsal on a separate day as part of the wedding event; c) outdoor amplification to cease at 6:00 pm, unamplified outdoor wedding services are permitted; and d) the term for the permit is to be 2 years. The following conditions should be met prior to the Board considering issuing a temporary use permit: 1. installation of the septic field and confirmation that it meets provincial requirements need to be a condition to be met prior to the Board issuing a temporary use permit. 2. conditional food service permit (with restrictions limiting food preparation) issued. 3. building permit issued for works need to meet code and work substantially completed (to be assessed by SCRD Building Inspectors) Staff have not determined what date in September is best for this and will provide an update at the PDC. The venue should be Frank West Hall. Staff do not consider that the process set out in Bylaw 522 should be altered for this application and the notification area should remain at 50m from the site. This issue will be considered in the context of the amendments proposed for Bylaw 522 as a whole (regarding TUPs). A report will be provided to a future meeting of the Planning and Development Committee. Copies of the amended Bylaw and TUP E-1 are attached for consideration (G). David Rafael, Senior Planner N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw and TUP E-1.docx 209

80 Notes of Public Information Meeting 7pm May held at 924 Gower Point Road Meeting was called to order at 7:10 13 members of the public were present, as well as David Rafael SCRD staff, the Elphinstone Director Lorne Lewis & Alternate Director Laurella Hay. The applicants introduced themselves & David Raphael. David Raphael, Senior Planner, SCRD explained the background process of the application, that this meeting was to gather comment from the community, and to identify issues yet to be resolved in this application. Applicants briefly outlined the historic use of the property and what this application aimed to achieve with rezoning. Iola Almquist, 933 Gower Point Road She lives across the street and has heard music late at night that disturbs her. She feels there is insufficient parking. Cars park on Gower Point Road so that sightlines for traffic exiting her driveway are limited. She does not feel 50 parking spots are sufficient. Will 930 Gower Point Road be used for parking? The applicants explained 930 would be excluded from the application if 50 parking spaces can be provided on 924 GPR. Diane Lloyd, 939 Gower Point Road She was concerned firstly about opening the door to any commercialization, and that guests from Celebration House will park on the new bike path space making pedestrians walk on the road. She feels parking from CH would compete for parking space with Secret Beach visitors. The applicants agreed that the bike path should not be parked on, and they would prefer if it were illegal to park on it, and explained the measures they have developed to get all vehicles associated with Celebration House onto the property & off the bike path. Ms Lloyd reported she has heard amplified music quite late. The uncertainty of the development of Gospel Rock adds to her concern for our small rural road which she feels already suffers from traffic problems. She does not want our neighbourhood to change with this application. 210

81 Nest Lewis, 98 Kelly Reading from the application documents she noted the uses allowed under the permit will include educational, civic, cultural, recreational, religious, charitable, entertainment, philanthropic events, which is not what your application says. These activities are way beyond what you say you do, only weddings & CoLs. The applicant said that in the past they restricted events to those NOT on that list in order to conform legally to SCRD bylaws and definitions, that is, weddings & celebrations of life. She said the SCRD language of Auxiliary Residential Assembly came closest the historic use, and that bylaw language includes those activities, and a TUP was not originally applied for. David Rafael confirmed ARA was an existing zone in the SCRD, already applied to a similar use in Roberts Creek for this property, and the SCRD is looking at similarities of use with its zoning application of ARA, ease of enforcement for the SCRD, and ability to apply BCBC to the space. Nest Lewis feels the community has plenty of venues for weddings including Chaster House, Frank West Hall, churches and buildings like the Heritage Playhouse Theatre. She asked whether the building was legal. David Rafael explained this zoning requires adherence to the BCBC for assembly use. He explained the applicants have provided proof that, with minor modifications, the building meets code of assembly use. John Austin 98 Kelly Wanted to know why both properties were attached to the application. The applicants explained they would prefer to remove 930 GPR from the application if sufficient parking can be determined on 924 GPR, and that decision is the Health Inspectors. Marilyn Magas, 351 Harry Rd A business owner in Sechelt, she said doubted the property was built as a rural residence at all, and asked why this rezoning application was not for commercial zoning. She believes it is a commercial venture, queried whether appropriate taxes are submitted, and whether applicable code is being met for commercial building. She asked what the price of a wedding is & whether business license fees are paid, and whether the building was built under SCRD permit. David Rafael confirmed BCBC for Assembly would need to be met. The applicants confirmed health, fire & safety engineering has proved code can be met. The applicants feel the limits of the TUP do not constitute full commercial activity, as the number of events is limited and events are never open to the public. 211

82 John Austin asked whether overnight accommodations would be provided. The applicants said they have had B&B bookings in the past, and the potential for that to continue is available with this zoning. The applicants said that they refer as many guests as possible to local B&Bs, mostly in Elphinstone, then Gibsons area. Some are within walking distance, and flashlights are offered to get guests safely home if walking. Georgina Covey 962 Gower Point Road She does not hear any noise, but she has concerns for traffic, especially increased traffic negatively impacting wildlife in the area. She lives beyond the homeowner notification area & felt the notifications of the meeting were insufficient. Nest Lewis said the applicants cannot be trusted as they did have events here that were not weddings or celebrations of life, proof in the Habitat for Humanity letter of support. The applicants responded that it was 12 persons on a Saturday afternoon, and they were personal, not paying guests. Ms Lewis feels the neighbourhood was negatively impacted by that kind of activity whether people pay or not. The applicants reviewed measures taken so far to reduce traffic generated: mini bus, car pool, taxis & neighbourhood accommodations. The applicants explained that a sound engineer, Patrick Taski designed the sound system & it was intended to keep noise on the property. The applicants said they ensure outdoor amplification ends at 10 pm, turning it off themselves. The audience queried why there was a need for amplification. Iola Almquist says there is projection of sound from inside the building even after the outdoor speakers are turned off, when the doors open. The applicants asked Ms Almquist if her comfort would be increased with the removal of outdoor amplification. Yes, she agreed, however she still does not want the activity to happen. The applicants explained there will be an 11pm end to events. Ms Lloyd said the neighbours would still hear car doors and conversation as guests leave. Claudia Ferris, 1646 Grandview Rd She appeared as the President of the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is interested in supporting level playing fields for business. The Chamber prefers a commercial rezoning, rather than the new TUP process. The applicant explained the conditions of the TUP allows very limited events per week, and that they service a very local clientele. 85% of the couples who have married at Celebration House currently live on the Sunshine Coast. The applicants 212

83 suggested local families who do not have suitable homes can still marry in their community using ours. Celebration House embraces the Coastal economy of Do It Yourselfers, charging a flat rate, and the hosts arrange their event vendors themselves. The applicants feel they do not directly compete with Bonniebrook Lodge, and, rather have a history of referring weddings to the Lodge. Bonniebrook is also one of the local lodgings Celebration House recommends to off coast wedding guests. Lena Jahom 1532 Ocean Beach Esplanade As owner/operator of Bonniebrook Lodge, she feels these applicants are stealing from her through this TUP application. She cited the costs of Bonniebrook s commercial zoning that Celebration House will not pay: higher financing rates, the annual fee for liquor license, the high costs of code upgrades to the Bonniebrook building and new infrastructure required, the costs of annual health inspections. Ms. Jahom reported the maximum capacity of Bonniebrook events is 50 persons. She does not believe CH can comply with code to accommodate 100. She feels the applicants are trying to back door a commercial venture with this application and sees no compelling reason for the SCRD to spend time & money on the application. She said she could work with the applicants if they applied for commercial zoning, but cannot work with them while they are stealing her business. Ms. Jahom thinks a TUP will not force these applicants to abide by commercial regulations. She does not believe these applicants can or will meet fire & safety regulations, and that constitutes an unfair advantage over her operation in that she had to install sprinklers in the Lodge at great expense, and she sees no sprinklers have been installed at Celebration House. The applicants responded that they did originally applied for a commercial zone. David Rafael confirmed that the original application was for a split residential/assembly (commercial) zone, ARA. He said the applicants were advised by the APC and the SCRD that a TUP was the SCRD preferred zoning designation. He pointed out the advantage of a TUP to the SCRD and the neighbours is ongoing monitoring and an ability to end the permit when necessary in contrast to commercial rezoning which remains on the land forever and cannot be revoked. The applicant, responding to Ms Jahom, said a head on comparison between Bonniebrook Lodge & Celebration House is not valid as each serve a different client base, and that Bonniebrook Lodge has a public dining room, bar, & suites, with the ability to operate 7 days a week, unlike Celebration House. The applicant said a feature of Celebration House weddings is that family & friends here on the coast can help provide elements of the celebration; some or all of the food, licensed bartending, flowers, music, cake etc. This adds economy for local couples and provides them the ability to DIY. 213

84 The applicants offered to have their sound engineer work with the neighbours who hear noise, and design noise abatement measures. David Rafael was asked where was the compelling reason for the SCRD to entertain this application. He responded, the SCRD must look at all applications. His response was characterized as biased in favour of the applicants. David Rafael was asked about the other property in the SCRD with ARA. He said it was on Day Rd in Robert s Creek & he could give people more info if they call him. Georgina Covey has concerns around the notification given to neighbours. She was unaware of any meeting happening until a wayward deer forced her to halt in front of the sign on the property. Nest Lewis said notification was insufficient as no one reads the legal notices in the paper cause they are never about your neighbourhood. David Rafael explained the requirements of the SCRD for notification and that those neighbours who did not get notice lived beyond the zone where mailed plus hand carried notice is required. The applicants were told they should have acted more pro actively and sent letters to a larger circle of neighbours, and in doing so, may have received a more positive response. The applicants said they were following the rules set out by the SCRD, and apologized for not informing Ms. Covey and the Lewis/Austins in a more personal manner. David Rafael explained the legislative requirements & SCRD policies for notification. He also asked interested persons to enquire of him where the application is in the process at any time in the future. Lindsay Nelson 921 Gower Point Road She stated she lived across the street and does not object to activity from weddings. John Austin queried does Celebration House have a web page? The applicants said they do not. Nest Lewis, John Austin and Lena Jahom brought with them material downloaded from the internet, a google map & an ad from the local newspaper as proof that the applicants do have web page advertizing, are lying about it, and cannot be trusted. The applicants said they never have had a web site. They explained the downloaded material brought by Ms Jahom contained a photo from Jonathon & Shelly Cargos private on-line wedding site from The google advertizing is a basic street map with directions to 924 GPR and nothing more, as Mr Austin pointed out. 214

85 The applicants said notice/ad from the local paper does not publish anything but phone number & contact for Celebration House Services. Ms Jahom, Ms Lewis, Ms Urquist and Ms Lloyd all said they understood the applicants are not allowed to be running any business from their home, and the ad the applicants publish in the local newspaper proves they do. The applicants said they do not advertize as a wedding venue. David Rafael responded that the applicants are allowed a home business in R1 zone, and are welcome to run a planning or service business from their home. He said the applicants cannot advertize a wedding venue until after a positive resolution of this application, if there is. He said the SCRD has been working with the applicants for a couple of years now to resolve all the issues before bringing forward a rezoning application. Nest Lewis stated she thought that the SCRD had it backwards in having the applicants prove code compliance before making application. The applicants agreed they felt it was backwards, but said they did what they were asked by the SCRD anyway. David Rafael explained the SCRD wanted to know whether the property could conform to Code before spending their resources on an application that would fail. The applicants said they spent thousands of dollars on engineering to prove the building meets health & safety code before they made application for rezoning. Ms. Lloyd asked whether the applicants proposed the TUP to the SCRD. The applicants said they did not propose the TUP, they applied for ARA zoning. David Rafael was asked how the alternate solution of a TUP was proposed. He explained the APC had made that recommendation to the board in their comments on the application for ARA zoning. Ms. Almquist asked a letter submitted be read. Ms. Fisher had written for the record as she thought the meeting was a public hearing. Celia Fisher 82 Head Road She thinks this is a classic case of breaking the law & seeking absolution later. Her concerns include parking on Gower Point Road, and that 930 Gower Point Road might become a parking lot. She has concerns that parking is or will happen on a septic field. She wrote that on summer evenings when doors & windows are open, music can be heard coming from the building down at the road (Gower Point Road). Ms. Fisher asked whether Catherine sat on the Elphinstone APC while the building was being constructed. Applicant Catherine McManus responded that she thought not, but could not remember the exact date she resigned. 215

86 David Rafael outlined how the process will proceed, how people can get updates and thanked people for their input & interest. The meeting ended at 8:30 pm. After the meeting ended Lorne Lewis, Director for Elphinstone, spoke to the SCRD problems of enforcing no parking on SCRD bike lanes; that the RCMP will not ticket, nor will local companies tow away from the bike lanes on the coast, and drivers know they will not be fined. The SCRD, not MOTI pays to have the lane built, but there is no SCRD budget for enforcement. He said the regional district also would like the bike lanes to be strictly no parking. Minutes prepared by: Catherine McManus 216

87 Synopsis of issues identified at the public information meeting May 8/2010. Issues of process got the greatest number of comments from seven different persons: -three neighbours, living beyond the notification zone, reported they did not get sufficient notice, one within the notification zone said she got more than enough, -three attendees felt the SCRD process was biased in favour of the applicants, -three felt a TUP for ARA zoning was insufficiently commercial and that the SCRD should be requiring commercial zoning, not a TUP, -two attendees said the activity is not needed by the community and the reason for this application not compelling and should have been rejected by the SCRD earlier in the process, -one said the term of a TUP is too long. -one comment, by letter suggested the applicant had a conflict of interest by sitting on the Elphinstone APC while building. Parking and traffic concerns got the second most comment: - two comments that they do not want vehicles from Celebration House to compete for parking on the bike path on Gower Point Road or at Secret Beach. - two commented they do not want 930 Gower Point Road to become a parking lot. -two persons are concerned there will be increased traffic on Gower Point Road. -two area neighbours are concerned there may be an increase of injury to wildlife by Celebration House generating traffic. -one person wants no parking on the septic fields. -there was unanimity among those present that the bike path should be parking free. Noise concerns had the third most comments. -one close neighbour requires quiet time from 10 pm, as she retires at 10pm with her window open, and events at Celebration House would not end until 11 pm. -one neighbour said she has heard music late at night in the past. -a letter reported music from Celebration House events has been audible on summer evenings when walking by on Gower Point Road. Four neighbours who attended made no comment. 217

88 Notes from May 9, 2012 meeting with RCMP members: Two members of the RCMP did a site inspection of parking and access/egress from 924 Gower Point Road. The members reported to the applicants during that visit that, in their view, there was sufficient parking being offered and Gower Point Road (GPR) was both wide and straight in both directions where traffic would turn into or out of 924 GPR. They noted that pedestrians use the opposite side of Gower Point Road, so vehicles from 924 GPR and pedestrians are well separated. They did not anticipate traffic conflicts between vehicles parking at Secret Beach and vehicles from 924 GPR. They noted the building is set well back from the road and screened, providing large separation from the public. They noted two driveways offered good emergency access to both levels of the building. The applicants discussed Celebration House guest policies: safe parking on site for guests to leave cars overnight and ride home safely mini bus, taxi, limo and designated driver rides prearranged by the hosts directing guests to local accommodations, some within walking distance leftover alcoholic beverages not removed by the host until the next day Subsequently, by telephone, the Staff Sergeant confirmed to the applicants the above report from his two officers who did the site visit, and offered the information that there has never been any reported noise or nuisance complaints from Celebration House activities, nor police incident at 924 GPR. The Staff Sergeant confirmed the RCMP feel there is sufficient parking on site and that they do not think the use of Gower Point Road will be compromised by traffic generated by Celebration House events. He reported to the applicants that the RCMP has no policing concerns about future use. The Staff Sergeant said a member from the detachment had been married at Celebration House, and many members attended. Members who did attend that wedding reported to him that they had no concerns about similar use of the space or noise generated by similar use. The Staff Sergeant said the Liquor Licensing body had requested the RCMP make a site visit to see if there were any policing concerns, and that his report to them would reflect there are no policing or traffic concerns. Notes prepared by Catherine McManus 218

89 Bylaw From Suzanne Dunkerton- Pemberton Address (NK = not known by staff) NK General Comment Long-time resident. Loves the Coast and feels Celebration House is a gift. Environmentally sound venue. Larry & Lynn Koopman NK have attended numerous events and always impressed with professional services. Marcus Bartley NK No other suitable facilities with amenities and capacity on the Coast. Considered a valuable community resource. Oppose/Support Support Support Support Doreen Bartley NK Only large venue in Area E. Unique to the Support Coast. Suggests a TUP for this property James & Phyllis Gurney NK supports TUP for venue for special use. Support Kevin & Traci Stremlaw 2508 Lower Road, support a TUP for Celebration House. Support Roberts Creek Sharon Danroth NK valuable asset to community, a gem. Support JM Decker NK alternate place for families to support celebrate/commemorate. Anastasia & Aras Balali NK would definitely have a large event there. support Moghaddam SA Macintyre NK let us support Mom & Pop Operations. support Carol Stewart 555 Eaglecrest Drive, supports application for TUP. Facility fills a support Gibsons needs in community. Lola Westell NK supports TUP to allow continued use for rentals support and the public good. Asset to community Alan Barnes NK good facility, property well maintained and support ample parking on site Graham Walker NK Believes it s important to have informal places to support perform and gather. Encourages Use Permit. Alan Sirulnikoff 852 Poplar Lane, in support of TUP. Hopes facility will be support Gibsons V0N 1V8 available in the future Brad Benson Wilson Creek recommends TUP. Has attended many events support at the facility David Stow 1795 Lower Road, in support of TUP. Believes wedding groups bring in dollars to the community such as B&Bs, restaurants, hotels etc. Glad to hear there is a support N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 219

90 Bylaw From Address (NK = not known by staff) General Comment solution in sight Melissa Braithwaite 863 Quinn Place, Lives about 100 metres from the venue. Has Gibsons never been inconvenienced or bothered by the gatherings and has enjoyed hearing stories about the events. Would like venue to continue operating. Katie Janyk NK Much-needed facility in the community. Has attended several events there. Believes we should support such venues Sarah Roberts Box 45, Gibsons, V0N 1V0 Got married at Celebration House. Huge asset to the community and needed. Offers high level of care and quality. We are fortunate to have it. Patricia Braithwaite 863 Quinn Place, Gibsons lives about 100m from the house. There is lots of parking and noise from events is rarely heard. Mary Kenny NK asset to the Sunshine Coast. A class facility. Celebration House keeps residents on the Coast for celebrations. Lee Haffner NK We need beautiful venues with variety and quality. Nelson McPhail Gibsons Way Child developed diabetes at the age of 3. Celebration House has donated space for his child s birthday party every year. Bonnie McMackon NK Hard to find decent space with wheelchair accessibility. Celebration House was planned for seamless handicap access and inclusion. Also an economical venue. Proven benefit to the culture and citizens on the Coast John Leary NK Lives next door to Celebration House and not been negatively impacted. No traffic or noise problems. Miles Varly 1444 Sunrise Place, Elphinstone supports application for rezoning. (not able to attend the public hearing) Ian J. Ford NK supports application for rezoning. (not able to attend the public hearing) Oppose/Support support support support support support support support support support support support N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 220

91 Bylaw From Address (NK = not known by staff) General Comment Brent & Sorojin Chemerika Chaster Road supports provision of space for special events (names unclear) in community R. Caporance (name NK supports provision of space for special events unclear) in community Name unclear NK supports provision of space for special events in community L.D. Borley NK supports provision of space for special events in community Phil Campbell 486 Oceanview Drive supports provision of space for special events in community Graham Webb 566 Pratt Rd, Gibsons supports provision of space for special events in community L. Olynykn (name unclear) NK supports provision of space for special events in community Donald MacDonald 539 Reed Road supports provision of space for special events in community S. D. (name unclear) NK supports provision of space for special events in community Angel Juarez NK supports provision of space for special events in community John Austin and Nest Lewis 98 Kelly Road Renovation for house ended with a hall, R1 zone is not prone to misinterpretation, former APC member and SCRD employee should know better, staff and Area E Director appear to defend/condone, old boys network/nepotism. (Staff note that neither of the applicants have worked for the SCRD) Gordon and Leslie Bishop 172 Mabel Road Misuse of residential property, running business without respect to neighbours for too long, service of liquor not in best interest of community, the OCP must be respected Bob Hilson 120 Swallow Road Area zoned residential not commercial, walked by when there was an event and traffic was Oppose/Support support support support support support support support support support support Oppose Oppose Oppose N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 221

92 Bylaw From Address (NK = not known by staff) General Comment impaired by parking, built for hall before zoning was changed, why have a community plan and zoning if it is a simple matter to change it or skirt around it, unfair to commercial businesses who pay more tax and have other costs, Dale and Debra Rapke 877 Gower Point Road Commercial operation in a quiet residential setting, people find creative ways to circumvent standards, road has poor lighting and is narrow with no median/shoulders + consumption of liquor+ not familiar with area can lead to accidents, site access is narrow and steep,, need proper turning or merge lane, need to comply with parking (50 spaces)/fire code/, level playing field, health and safety requirements met as any other commercial operation, RD may be liable for accidents if permit approved, precedent setting, noise issues, this will not be temporary, property values may drop, Hilary Anne Stephens 958 Gower Point Road Parties have caused me stress, loud music/ boisterous party goers disruptive inside and outside my house, can be after 1am, parties on Friday and Saturday, moved to enjoy peace and quiet, the close pending permit has relieved problems Diane Lloyd 939 Gower Point Road No building permit to allow lower level; for event use, after complaints owners applied to SCRD for zoning, if allowed hey would not have to pay commercial fees/licensing/businesses license, little oversight and open to abuse, rewarding ignoring/circumventing building requirements, downplay neighbour concerns, undercut viable commercial enter[rises, event use at 924 seems to not have to follow regulations to operate, Oppose/Support Oppose Oppose Oppose N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 222

93 Bylaw From B & C Fisher B & K Grisenthwaite R Carlile Address (NK = not known by staff) 82 Head Rd 90 Head Rd 79 Head Rd General Comment concern about process and lack of neighbour input, unwanted noise from music and those leaving late in the evening, several suitable venues exist in the region, this proposal circumvents rules other businesses face, thin edge of wedge to change area s character, negatives outweigh benefits Lack of parking cars parked along GPRd from Gospel Rock to Kelly Rd, daytime parking on water side blocks pedestrian/bike path, classic example of break rules ten ask to have rules changed, was building permit issued for commercial,, was S McManus on APC while this was built, is on-site parking over septic field, will 930 GPRd become a parking lot, why is this public hearing being held at the venue Charles Russell 903 Gower Point Road Contravenes current zoning of rural residential, not constructed to meet commercial requirements, 50 cars would overwhelm the area congestion and dangerous traffic conditions, adds to beach parties and garbage on Secret Beach, sets unacceptable precedent Iola Almquist 933Gower Point Rd Could be located in a more suitable area, not residential, parking and noise a problem, music starts on Fridays for rehearsals and Saturday, voices carry, have to close windows not nice on a hot summer night, even if ends at 11pm there is still noise until all cars gone. Huge difference from gatherings of friends and family, area should stay residential Lina Jako Bonniebrook Lodge, 1532 Ocean Beach Owner/operator of Bonniebrook Lodge, Hard to see sign at site, seems to be some attempt by Oppose/Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 223

94 Bylaw From Address (NK = not known by staff) Esplanade General Comment staff or Board to railroad this through, July not a good time for a public hearing, if so this to a issue investigate, why have staff spent so much time to help legitimize an obvious illegal activity, info meeting showed no support, as there was subterfuge, struggle to find parking, lack of noise control/ service & consumption of alcohol concern, no sprinkler system in hall, only food prep but has knowledge of at least three chefs that used residential kitchen to cook guest meals, commercial operation should have a commercial property, not fair playing field, commercial costs and regulations are not faced, temporary permit would allow them to have a clear advantage, why consider a temporary permit, let them rezone to commercial and face regulations etc or move to a commercial venue,, refuse this and take court action so enforcement is out of SCRD hands e.g. contempt of court if it continues Oppose/Support N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\ Official Community Plan\Bylaw 600.3\2012-JUN-27 letters of support or oppose.docx 224

95 t N P \ \ 11 \Jj I 225 I I \ - * I I I_ I- \ \\ - -- I I I I I H I \\ I I I I I - _j_* \ç\i_) zz I I I I I r \ I I \ I F I I I I ri ATTACHMENT C

96 disturbed by noise from guests of CH. Celebration House (CH), May 8, 2012, two neighbours reported they have been very At the public information meeting to discuss the TUP rezoning application for Report on Noise Issues from 924 Gower Point Road Public Information Meeting there is a burst of increased sound. She reported additional to music, the noise of doors closed, she continued to be bothered by music when the door gets opened, as Further she reported that even when the outdoor music was turned off at 10pm and reported she is extremely upset by the noise she hears, especially the amplified speech. The most unhappy about noise was the 933 Gower Point Road (GPR) neighbour who More Identified Issues This will result in an end to outdoor music by 6pm (approx.), rather than at 10pm. as has been our custom. Additional Benefit inside the party room to dine. (approx. 6pm.) Further, we undertake to end all outdoor amplification of music when guests move ceremony only. exceptional amplification of the microphone would last for 1/2 hour during the wedding -when it rains, or handicapped guest/s cannot walk to the main ceremony site. This The single exception to this policy will be when the ceremony is held on the front terrace involved wants neighbours subjected to the personal remarks of a family gathering. We regret not knowing this situation was problematic to neighbours sooner. No one We will permanently end using the microphone through the outdoor speaker system. Solution offered would make them more comfortable. they find it offensive. We asked them if ending outdoor amplification of the microphone These neighbours asked if the projection outdoors of the microphone is necessary as Potential Solution hearing the toast to the bride at her property. projecting through the outside speakers. The closest of these neighbours reported The most troublesome noise was reported to come from use of the remote microphone Identified Problem ATTACHMENT D

97 persons talking loudly is extremely bothersome to her, particularly after she retires at 10 pm with her bedroom window open. Car doors shutting, and guests having loud conversations were also identified as annoying to the 939 GPR neighbour. Attached as Appendix 1, a table-db SPL in Real Life explains the relationship between measured dba and the human experience relative to ordinary conversation of 60 ciba. (Appendix 1) Inconsistent Reports Yet other neighbours, on both sides of GPR including 914, 921, 930, 936, 962 and both houses on Quinn Place have reported that they are not bothered by noise. 914, 930 and 921 are all closer to the source than the neighbours reporting bothersome noise. Possible Explanations There is more than one possible explanation for these inconsistent reports. Sound usually decreases with distance from the source, but there are some instances where geography or local circumstances maintain levels or even amplify sound, for instance, in a rock canyon sound does not necessarily decrease over distance. Another possible explanation is that both persons reporting loud noise are acutely sound sensitive, wherein they experience sound as bothersome at much lower levels than most people. To establish whether our local geography affected the sound we emit, we needed to measure at different distances from the source to see if levels dropped over distance. We also needed to put a number to the maximum sound output in order to be able to compare it to known levels of sound. Testing dba Levels We hired an acoustic engineering company to measure dba levels the sound system delivers at its maximum volume, at several distances from the source. For the testing the party room was empty of furnishings which might provide sound dampening. Reliability of Results To ensure events in the future cannot produce noise louder than these measured levels, CH will require events where DJs are being employed to only amplify music through our (capped) sound system

98 Test at Gower Point Road RoW A letter received at the public information meeting complained music can be heard on GPR in front of Celebration House by passers by. To put dba values to that report, one set of measurements was taken at the north RoW of GPR. The results determined our loudest music, averaging 62 dba, was quieter than passing traffic, which averaged 64 dbas. (Soundwerks Report, Appendix 2, Table 3.1) Test outside 933 GPR Measurements were taken on the RoW just north of the gate to 933 GPR. The maximum volume measured at this location averaged 56 dba. (Appendix 2, Tables 3.1) which can be compared to one dba more than low volume of radio or 1 m. (Appendix 2, Table 4.1) When the outdoor speakers are disengaged, the average decibels measured at this location decrease to 48 dba (Appendix 2 Table 3.1) quieter than bird twitter outside at 15m (Appendix 2, Table 4.1). Outdoor speakers disengaged, doors open registered 53 dba (Appendix 2, Table 3.1) slightly quieter than Low volume of radio or TV at lm. (Appendix 2, Table 4.1) Test outside 939 GPR The average sound levels decreased consistently over distance from the source. source 2m from source 35m from source 75m from source 96 dba 87 dba 62 dba 56 dba 939 GPR is 150m from source, twice as far away as 933 GPR. As the measured levels did drop over distance, we feel assured the level of sound this property receives is less than the values listed for 933, and declined to have measurements at this property line. Interpreting Report Results Some municipal governments limit sound emission in residential areas by dbas measured at the receiving property line. The Maryland state example attached indicates a 7am-11 pm 65 dba limit applies, and llpm-7am 55 dba limit. (Appendix 3, Table.2) Soundwerks measured 56 dbas at the 933 GPR property line, 9 dba below Maryland daytime standards, and only 1 dba louder than the nighttime maximum.(appendix 3, Table.2) 3 228

99 loud as that of the passing traffic on Gower Point Road. local area causing unusual acoustic amplification or echoing. from our property, particularly when the microphone was being used inside the building, We feel confident turning off outside speakers before the microphone is used inside will 4 The results of this testing, applied to the comparative tables provided, establish the noise being emitted from our property is within normal municipal acceptable sound The consistent decrease of levels over distance had determined there is nothing in the forever end that objectionable situation, and prove less intrusive to neighbours. within the sound system. We do not dispute that neighbours have heard music and people talking and laughing Conclusions experienced by a human being as being 50% quieter.(appendix 4) average road traffic noise of 64 dba measured at the same location. A California state receive public reactions ranging between acceptance under 50 dba, and rare noise planning document, attached, indicates a 10 dba decrease in sound is The sound levels measured outside 933 GPR, dba, would be expected to complaints at under 60 dba. (Appendix 4) levels. Measured at our property line, and at its loudest, the sound produced is not as When outside speakers are off the average dba emitted was 53, 11 dba (20%) below property line extrapolates to less than 50 dba. when saturday evenings are otherwise extremely quiet, below 40 dba. and closer to Quiet Urban Daytime levels.(appendix 4) These levels are well below the municipal daytime standards, attached for comparison, and pink noise tests did, the levels of conversation heard at the 933 neighbour s Into the Future noise ends. By 6 pm levels at the neighbour s property will range between dba. At 11pm, the subjected to measures 56 dba. As our TUP limits or activity to one event per week, our neighbours will hear us only terrace CH). Assuming this noise of conversation drops at the same rate as the music as that described by neighbours, increases the level by 15% to 70 dba at source (front and outside speakers were on. It may well have been too loud outside if the person using it was being loud, as the microphone was the single channel not volume-capped Before dinner, the maximum volume our closest complaining neighbour will be Appendix indicates ordinary conversation averages 60 dba. Loud conversation, such 229

100 We will continue to be the loudest noise heard when there is no other, louder noise, closer to the listener such as; passing traffic, power equipment, wind, dog barking, lawn mowers, or kids playing. Although we will be heard, testing proved that level will be 20% quieter than generally accepted daytime standards of 65 dba, and quieter than the passing traffic. (Appendix 2) We do not feel that sound at these levels unduly burdens our neighbourhood with nuisance noise, as it is slightly under generally acceptable daytime noise limits. As we move forward, with new policies in place limiting the use of outdoor amplification to afternoon hours only, plus removing outdoor microphone amplification, we anticipate the two neighbours who are extremely sensitive to noise will have a less negative experience. If this is not the case, and they continue to report being unduly distressed by our noise, although that noise clearly lies within reasonable limits for residential neighbourhoods, we could have our engineer explore solutions and or design measures that could be applied to their property or ours to better limit their noise exposure

101 APPENDIX I db spi in REAL life Gregg Vnderheiden Ph.D. 231

102 Where to get more information To give you an idea of how a db SPL measurements relate to daily life, a listing of the [ Vacuum Level (dba SPL) to ordinary conversation oun flvi onmen S d E r Sound Pressure Approximate loudness with regard db SPL in Real Life Threshold of pain 120 :si:rt at 10 ft. or 100 [16 times as loud Passing bus or truck at 10 ft. or disposal at 3 ft Passing car at 10 ft. or garbage cleaner at 10 ft. 70 ETwice as loud dishwasher in next room Quiet suburban area or Quiet rural area or small theater [40 1/4th as loud ugoffice interior or watch Quiet house interior or rural Broadcast studio interior or Threshold of hearing 0 Don t hear anything column added) (see also db SPL and db(a) SPL discussion on next page) p:/a, vs.. - with the Approximate Loudness 10 1/32nd as loud as conversation nighttime 20 1/16th as loud 30 1/8th as loud 50 1/2 as I OU d Office interior or ordinary conversation I i times as loud 90 8 times as loud Night club with band playing times as loud 64 times as loud as conversation (twice as loud as night club) A good resource on this topic (referred to from the Acoustical Society of America Site) 232. Acoustics FAQ 60 Ordinary Conversation approximate sound pressure level for various sounds is provided below. (From

103 APPENDIX 2 SOUNDWERKS REPORT June

104 Audio!Vdeo Systems Soundwêrks Prepared by: REPORT 6O4J473OD 234 Updated June June Celebration House, Gibsons BC Noise Level Report File No: Celebration Celebration House Services Prepared for

105 Page2 June 18, 2012 BC. of non-amplified noise include vehicular noise and persons speaking on the property. existing installed sound system at Celebration House, 924 Gower Point Road, Gibsons 1.3. Measurements of noise levels were gathered in the field on June 6th 2012 utilizing the reference of possible noise levels emanating from Celebration House during hosted events. behalf of Celebration House, Gibsons BC. It has been prepared objectively to provide a 1.1. This noise level report has been prepared by Soundwerks Audio Video Systems Inc. on 1.2. The report covers amplified sounds including music. This report does not provide 1. INTRODUCTION reference information for non-amplified noise emanating from the property. Examples Celebration House Noise Level Measurements AudIQ/VIdeo Sys*erns 235

106 Celebration House Noise Level Measurements AudioiVidea Systems 2. ASSESSMENT OF NOISE INTRUSION 2.1. There is no specific published reference for permissible noise available beyond the wording found in the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) BYLAW NO. 597, Bylaw to regulate noise within the Electoral Areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional District. Specifically, there is no measured method listed to determine at what sound level complaints may be made and acted upon. Bylaw 597 states: Section 3 - GENERAL REGULATIONS (a) No Person shall cause, permit or allow to be caused any noise which disturbs the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience ofany person orpeisons In the neighbourhood or vicinity. (b) No Person, being the owner or occupier of property, shall cause, permit or allow that property to be used so that any no,ce or sound which emanates from the propeny disturbs the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of any person or persons in the nei hbourhood or vicinity. Section 5 EXCEPTIONS In the opinion of the Board, the emission ofsound or vibration in connection with the acts listed below are necessaty and are therefore excluded from the prohibitions, regulations and penalties contained in this bylaw: (b) Sound customarily emitted or usually associated with traditional, cultural, re//7ious or other similar activities Many municipalities in Canada have moved to adopting specific sound pressure levels within their noise bylaws to allow bylaw officers and police to act on specific noise complaints. These reference sound pressure levels may be measured and used to prosecute offenders without possibility of cases being disputed over interpretations of acceptable noise levels. As an example, the City of Burnaby noise bylaws offer the following notes: Residential noise (continuous): Levels shall not exceed 55 aba between 7:00 22:00 45dBA between 22:00-7:00 Page3 June 18,

107 Page 4 June 18, 2012 made June with no outside speakers on) with low wind speeds and no precipitation. (Secondaiy measurements were 3. SOURCE NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE PROPAGATION Celebration House Noise Level Measurements Aud&VIdeQ Systems 237 maximum and no additional volume levels can be obtained. system consists of 10 flush-mounted ceiling speakers with 6.5 woofers inside and 3 outside. No subwoofers are present in the system. The system is programmed to this 3.5. Celebration House built-in sound system was to turned to maximum output level. Sound 10 dbv (standard in consumer electronics) Sound Source was ipod connected in stereo into existing sound system with a level of - (heavy bass & horns) was used for the measurements. These sources were measured and noted separately Standard pink noise (each octave cai7iesan equal amount ofnolce power) and music meter recorded overall db(a) levels in terms of the Lmax and Lavg indices Maximum and average or continuous noise levels were measured at set points. The above ground level. Weather conditions were suitable for noise measurements, using a professional sound level meter, tripod mounted at a height of 1.2 m 3.1. Initial Sound Pressure Level measurements were conducted on June

108 Celebration House Noise Level Measurements Audio/Video Sy5tems Table 3.1 Noise Level Measurements Location Sound Level Max Sound Level Avg Pink Noise Max Pink Noise Avg. Inside Venue Outside Venue Property Line 3 69 dba 62 dba 69 dba 70 dba NeighbourA Neighbour B5 56 dba 53 dba Neighbour C6 5OdBA 48dBA Traffic Garbage Truck dba 96 dba 103 dba 101 dba 2 95dBA 87dBA 95dBA 94dBA 4 58dBA 56dBA 61dBA 56dBA 7 69 dba 64 dba 8 74 dba 69 dba 1 inside Celebration House, centre of room, no speakers directly above measurement Instrument, inside speakers at maximum. 2 Outside Celebration House, 2m from outside wall, no speakers directly above measurement Instrument, outside door opened to allow music from inside to add to music from outside speakers, Inside and outside speakers at maximum. 3 CelebratIon House property line, bottom of driveway, outside door opened to allow music from inside to add to music from outside speakers, Inside and outside speakers at maximum Gower Point, 2m from property line on road easement, outside door opened to allow music from inside to add to music from outside speakers, inside and outside speakers at maximum Gower Point, 2m from property line on road easement, outside door opened, no outside speakers, Inside speakers at maximum Gower Point, 2m from property line on road easement, outside door closed, no outside speakers, inside speakers at maximum Gower Point, 2m from property line on road easement, no speakers on, local traffic only, average over 3 passing vehicles (2 westbound & I eastbound) 8 Garbage truck westbound attending to pickup across street ftom 933 Gower Point Road. Page 5 June 18,

109 Page6 June 18, db Auditory threshold 95 dba Loud crying, hand circular saw at 1 m 80 dba Very loud traffic noise of passing trucks at 7.5 m ; high traffic on an expressway at 25 m 70 dba Level close to a main road by day, quiet hair dryer at 1 m to ear 60 dba Noisy lawn mower at 10 m 35 dba Whisper at 2 m or very quiet library 25 dba Sound of breathing at 1 m 115 di3a Take-off sound of planes at 10 m 110 dsa Siren at 10 m, frequent sound level in discotheques 105 dba Chain saw at 1 m, banging car door at 1 m (maximum level) 90 dba Angle grinder outside at 1 m 85 dba Chain-saw at 10 m 75 dba Passing car at high speed at 7.5 m 55 dba Low volume of radio or TV at 1 m, noisy vacuum cleaner at 10 m 50 dba Refrigerator at 1 m, bird twitter outside at 15 m 45 dba Noise of normal living; talking, or radio in the background 100 dba Frequent level with music via head phones, jack hammer at 10 m Table 4.1. Noise Level References levels were only achieved with maximum levels from both inside and outside speakers only. with exterior doors opened References of everyday noise levels are provided in the table below to assist in 4.3. Soundwerks is not commissioned to make opinion on acceptable levels of noise 4.4. Average measured noise levels (music content) of 56 dba at 933 Gower Point Road are solely as a reference for Celebration House and any discussions they may have providing a link between measured levels and standard references. similar to the average volume level of a TV at im distance (refer to Table 4.1). These 4.1. Noise measurements at selected locations around Celebration House were gathered concerning possible infractions and disturbances. 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Celebration House Noise Level Measurements Aud1Video Sycms emanating from Celebration House. The purposes on our work is to provide reference 239

110 APPENDIX 3 MARYLAND STATE DOCUMENT TABLE.2 Maximum Allowable Noise Level For Receiving Land Use Categories 240

111 (1) The following sound levels represent the standards for the.03 are intended to achieve these goals. (1) The standards are goals for the attainment of ai adequate environment. The standards set out in Regulation B. Standards for Environmental Noise-General. A. Noise and Vibration Prohibitions..03 General Regulations. IM Table I State by general zoning district: dba jleq(24) I fday J jupon Adoption fnight j75 62 j55 leffective Date JDay/Night [TndustHa [bommercial IResidential For Receiving Land Use Categories Table.2 Maximum Allowable Noise Level (dba) in A(2) or (3), or B, below. 1) A person may not cause or permit noise levels which exceed those specified in Table 2 except as provided CIBA jldn jlndustrial 170 Residential 55 dba ILdn Zoning District I1ve1 jmeasure - Environmental Noise standards

112 APPENDIX 4 CALTRANS TRAINING MANUAL Effects of Noise on People 242

113 ne PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL (dba, Leq) COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTiVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION inside Subway Train (New York) Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. I4T1mesAsLoudI ) - - LETTERS OF PROTEST Food Blender at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft ITwiceAsLoud = - COMPLAINTS LIKELY Shouting at 3 Ft. COMPLAINTSPOSSIBLE IREFERENCE li2asloud - 60 COMPLAINTS RARE Large Business Office GarbageDposalat3R. NoisyUrbanDaytime Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft As Loud ) - - Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime SmaiiTheater,Large Conference Room (Background) Library Quiet Suburban Nighttime Concert Hail (Background) Quiet Rural Nighttime Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 SOURCE: CaltransTransportation Laboratory Noise Manual, 1982; and Divestiture ofelectric Generation Assets / Modification by Eiwiroriniental Science Associates Figure Effects of Noise on People ACCEPTANCE 243

114 Report on Traffic Issues Raised at Public Information Meeting At the Public Information meeting, traffic congestion & overburden concerns were raised. Neighbours wanted assurance cars would not be parked on the bike path, and there is sufficient parking on site. This is our response to those issues, as well as our submission of a parking sketch indicating 50 onsite parking spaces. All events to date have been hosted by locals who live in; Elphinstone, Gibsons, West Howe Sound, Sechelt, Roberts Creek, Halfmoon Bay, the lower mainland, Victoria, Manitoba & Alberta. (descending order) The greatest proportion of their invited guests are friends, neighbours and family who live on the Coast, with next greatest number traveling from the lower main land. Of their invited guests attending, many are from the lower Coast. These motorists coming to CH are not creating a net increase to community traffic. Many of these drivers would be using the very same roads to travel to a wedding at other Coast venues-a consequence of our limited road network. To decrease traffic from off coast guests, we ask clients enclose alternative transportation information with their invitations, and on wedding websites (transit, taxi & rental info, car pooling and rideshare plans, local lodgings). These guests, learning they don t need a car,often are happy to avoid the time, cost & stress of driving aboard. Guests choosing to walk aboard lower vehicle overloading on the ferries, and lowers our carbon footprint a tad. We encourage traveling guests stay in lodgings in our immediate neighbourhood. We list B&Bs within walking distance first (CH stocks complimentary flashlights) bike distance next, and note which are/not on transit routes. All but 2 of our listed B&Bs are within 1 km. of CH (see attachment). CH guests who bring vehicles to stay at a neighbourhood B&B generate no more traffic in our neighbourhood than these B&Bs do every other weekend. Since Gower Point Road is designated a major collector road in the OCP, we think the net new traffic we do create with an event is within acceptable levels for the capacity of this road. Our clients are required to provide parking attendants (2) before an event in order to ensure guests park on the property and do not park on the bike path or in Secret Beach parking lot. Our clients are required to ensure guests get home safely at evening s end. They have options including; designated drivers, limo service, larger taxis (6 passenger)on call, rent an 11 seat van, or 21 passenger mini-bus. Using multi-person vehicles decreases individual vehicle exits at the end of an event, stretching the vehicle arrival & exit volume out over two days

115 2 CH, and no policing concerns with operation into the future. ever become a policing concern. the Constables who did the inspection reported CH raised no police concerns about their opinion. They remarked two driveways was good for emergency vehicle access to pedestrian and cyclist safety and said they thought 40 parking spaces were plenty in available parking. We discussed with them access, parking, safety issues and the CH They had no concerns with regard to safe access/egress, site lines or visibility, Meeting with RCMP both levels of the building. They said they could not see the volume of traffic generated This verbal report was subsequently confirmed by Staff Sergeant H. Berdahl. He stated day. That overnight parking is screened from view from Gower Point Road. May 9, 2012 two members of the RCMP attended CH to ascertain the amount of policy of no parking by guests on bike path. traffic or parking or safety. He also said the RCMP has no history of complaints about Guests are welcome to leave cars on the CH property overnight for pick up the next 245

116 B & B s Within Walking distance to Celebration House (20 mins walking max, 5 minute bike ride) from closest to furthest Some have the ability can accommodate families or group bookings. Some give group discounts. Enquire. Secret Beach B&B Suites 995 Grandview Whispering Cedars Retreat 1168 Grandview Rd Caprice B&B 1111 Gower Point Road Ocean Breezes B&B 1243 Gower Point Road Wrenhaven House 1365 Gower Point Road Cedar cottage Getaway 1374 Gower Point Road Happy Clam Cottage 1565 Gower Point Road Deer Fern B&B Swallow Rd The cottages on Swallow Hill (owners will drive guests-prearrange pls) Further away, but still In Gibsons, and close to transit routes (buses accept bikes) Grant s B&B Gibsons Arcturus Retreat B&B Gibsons Stonehurst Cedar Grove Cottage Gibsons Ocean Ridge Retreat Gibsons Captain J s Seaside Suite Gibsons Sunshine Lodge Gibsons Cedars Inn Gibsons Very special but further away -off transit route. you will need wheels, bikes/cars local taxi car rentals. Sechelt Rosewood Country Home Bonniebrook Lodge Encil House

117 247

118 Here at 924 Gower Point Road, we have successfully lived in bear territory for 30 yrs with not a single negative encounter. We live in a female bear s territory. She & her cubs spend spring & summer in the ravine beside us & they use our fresh water pond to drink from, and cool off in, especially in hot weather when Kullander creek is dry. She teaches her cubs to swim in this pond. Celebration House maintain a very strict bear program: -food scraps & garbage must be removed from the property at the end of service. -all equipment must be clean and free of all food debris, - the BBQ must be scraped and stripped of its foil liner and that liner removed with the garbage. Caterers who do not comply, don t work here again. This bobcat often travels through our property and only shows up in this photo because there was snow for contrast. The conservation officer has tracked cougar through this yard, and one was sighted last summer in our yard. We have no fence nor dog, and we happily accept we are part of a wildlife corridor where these larger mammals move between the ocean and mountain. We feel we are blessed to coexist with such a variety of animals and that its our responsibility to see they have safe passage through our property. 248

119 Celebration House is on a regular deer browsing route and is a Spring fawning ground. When building parking areas for guests we have left a wild area of bush & big trees in the south eastern corner for the deer, as each Spring fawns are born there. We have not had any reported hits or near misses between motorists coming or going from Celebration House and local wildlife. It is true that deer tend to spring out of the roadside bushes & vehicles traveling by sometimes must stop abruptly on Gower Point Road to avoid hitting them. It is unlikely that motorists coming to or leaving from Celebration House would add to any harmful deer/car incidents as they are driving very slowly when arriving or leaving. At low speed they are much more able to avoid hitting wildlife than the average driver going by at the legal limit of 50k. The biggest threat deer have here is our domestic cat, who thinks she s as big as they are. You can see this buck is not threatened! This little one was born on the property where mom leaves him safe as she goes browsing the neighbourhood. 249

120 When danger trees had to be removed we left large trunks (20+ feet) for the wildlife. This is an example above left. Generations of pileated woodpeckers have taught there young how to find their first bugs in our forest. Flickers have a dry dust bath spot where they bring their young to learn how to repel mites & ticks. Large flocks of migratory birds stop in our yard to bath & drink at our pond & forage under our fallen leaves. Kestrels hunt from the top of our highest hemlock trees, rocketing down on unsuspecting prey. High in our evergreen canopy tiny birds like chickadees, and wild canaries reel and swoop between the trees in massed flight. These birds come to our waterfall to bathe. Kingfishers and herons come fishing at the pond. Our pond has become a favorite watering hole for area birds and beasts. We maintain an organic lifestyle with no chemicals used in the pond or pesticides on the grass or gardens, so our visiting wildlife does not get poisoned. This pair of mallards comes to our pond almost every day, sometimes twice in early Spring. Our pond is large enough that they can sleep in the middle and no predators can reach them. They bath and mate here in our pond, but nest elsewhere. 250

121 During our local summer drought, Kullander creek is dry, and the closest fresh water is Charman creek in Gibsons. A huge number of the neighbourhood creatures come here for their fresh water; all kinds of birds, bats, owls, otter, coyote, weasel, feral cats, garter snakes, alligator lizards, rats, mice, frogs, voles, deer, bobcat, cougar, bear, and more. This young coon is fishing in our pond by reaching deep in between the rocks feeling with one paw for snails. Celebration House is aware of the wildlife we share our neighbourhood with, and we treasure them. We have goals of providing safe feeding, drinking, resting and birthing areas on the property for the wildlife that shelters here, and conducting events in such a way as to not do any harm to any wildlife. Guests have never in the past interfered or harmed any wildlife, we would not tolerate that activity if it arose, and the wildlife keeps its distance too, staying away from confrontation with the humans. A number of these creatures who do visit, particularly the larger mammals, visit during the night, when its dark, and they very purposefully do not interact with humans. 251

122 ATTACHMENT F Murray Johnson Engineering Ltd. Specialising in Codes, Fire & Life Safety, and Fire Protection Systems August24, 2011 Revised September 19, 2011 Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC, VON 3A1 Attention: Mr. Peter Longhi Dear Sirs: RE: ALTERNATiVE SOLUTION - CELEBRATION HOUSE 924 GOWER POiNT ROAD, GIBSONS, BC (Full Report on file with SCRD, the following is condensed from that report.) Analysis The primary concern about the change of use is occupant safety. Standard wood frame buildings, particularly those two storeys in height, have behaved well in earthquakes so the structural aspects are not of major concern. There are two broad safety aspects that will be covered by this Alternative Solution: fire protection and day to day use. Assembly occupancies cover facilities such as night clubs with potential pyrotechnics displays, large schools, gymnasia, pubs, etc. This facility does not have many of those hazards. The very small size of assembly area and relatively low occupant load reduce the hazard compared with the much larger venues which the Code anticipates and addresses. Exiting provisions within the new assembly suite are very good. The ground floor is provided with 3 sets of double doors with a combined exit capacity of 900 persons, which is much greater than the posted occupant load of 100 persons. The maximum travel distance is approximately 13 m whereas up to 30 m is permitted. It would take far less than 45 minutes for occupants to exit, with likely maximum times being approximately 10% of the rating. The mineral wool insulation would protect the structure better than other insulation (such as fibreglass) and would have a more effective smothering effect on a fire should the ceiling membrane fail and insulation fall down. 252

123 2. Summary of proposed improvements The following features will be provided: 1. The floor assembly will provide a FRR of between 45 minutes and 1 hour. The stairs between the floors will be provided with a 1 hour rating and appropriate closures. 2. Exiting from the ground floor is very good and has very short travel distances and exit capacity which significantly exceeds the occupant load. 3. The upper and lower floor suites will rarely, if ever, be occupied at the same time. The owners of the building will be the operators of the ground floor assembly hall and hazards and disturbances associated with the adjacent occupancies will be minimized. 4. Smoke alarms will be provided in all lower floor rooms and will be interconnected with smoke alarms in the upper floor suite. Additional smoke alarms will be provided in the attic of the residential suite. 5. The posted occupant load will be 100 persons. 6. Two universal toilet rooms and a total of three water closets will be provided. Conclusion The above features will improve the level of fire and life safety performance commensurate with the renovation and change in use required by the Code. 253

124 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No , 2012 A bylaw to amend the "Elphinstone Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 600, 2007" The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Elphinstone Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2012". PART B AMENDMENT 2. Insert the following at the end of B-6.1 Policies: 7 Temporary Use Permits The following properties or areas, shown in Schedule F, are designated to allow a temporary use permit to be issued: (1) That Part of Block 4 (Reference Plan 2654) Lying to the East of a Line Drawn Parallel to and 50 feet Perpendicularly Distant East of the West Boundary of the said Block District Lot 842 Group 1 New Westminster District, PID: as denoted on Appendix A to this Bylaw. 3. Insert Map 7 Temporary Use Permit Area Designations to the Table of Contents, Map 7 shall consist of the map denoted on Appendix B to this Bylaw 254

125 PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 22 nd DAY OF MARCH 2012 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012 Corporate Officer Chair 255

126 Appendix A to Bylaw Legal Description: That Part of Block 4 (Reference Plan 2654) Lying to the East of a Line Drawn Parallel to and 50 feet Perpendicularly Distant East of the West Boundary of the said Block District Lot 842 Group 1 New Westminster District, PID: Existing: Not designated as a Temporary use Permit Area Proposed: Designated as a Temporary Use Permit Area Corporate Officer Chair 256

127 Appendix B to Bylaw MAP 7: Temporary Use Permit Area Designations Legal Description: That Part of Block 4 (Reference Plan 2654) Lying to the East of a Line Drawn Parallel to and 50 feet Perpendicularly Distant East of the West Boundary of the said Block District Lot 842 Group 1 New Westminster District, PID: Corporate Officer Chair 257

128 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT TEMPORARY USE PERMIT No. E-1 TO: Catherine McManus Garth David PO Box 1956 PO Box 53 Gibsons, BC Gibsons, BC V0N 1V0 V0N 1V0 This Temporary Use 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 Permit applies to those lands within the Sunshine Coast Regional District described below: Legal Description: That Part Of Block 4 (Reference Plan 2654) Lying To The East Of A Line Drawn Parallel To And 50 feet Perpendicularly Distant East of The West Boundary Of The Said Block District Lot 842 Group 1 New Westminster District P.I.D.: Civic 924 Gower Point Road Description: 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. 310 is varied or supplemented, and conditions and requirements pursuant to Section 920 of the Local Government Act are imposed. This Temporary Use Permit for an auxiliary residential assembly use is issued subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions: 258

129 Draft Temporary Use Permit No. E-1 Page 2 of 4 General Conditions: (1) auxiliary residential assembly means the gathering of persons for charitable, cultural, educational, philanthropic, political or religious purposes on a parcel that is used principally as a residence, and may include overnight transient accommodation and related gatherings within a dwelling. (2) Bed and Breakfast use is permitted for 924 Gower Point Road as set out in the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. Bylaw 310, 1987 can provide transient overnight accommodation for the auxiliary assembly use. (3) auxiliary residential assembly permitted on 924 Gower Point Road, provided that: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) no more than 100 persons, including catering or similar staff employed specifically for the event, are assembled at any one time and per day; no more than one event per week, for a wedding this would include a rehearsal held on a separate day than the reception; the total combined floor area used for auxiliary residential assembly, does not exceed 190 square meters; any area used for auxiliary residential assembly is located at least 7.5 meters from a parcel line; on-site parking is provided for 50 vehicles and 1 loading space, which shall be located at least 7.5 meters from a parcel line; provision shall be made for at least 2 of the parking spaces to be designed and designated for persons with disabilities to be located close to the building s entry; other than a cash bar for those attending the gathering, no sale of food or beverage on the property; no on-site food cooking (other than what a caterer needs to finish off for presentation); special occasion licenses only for serving liquor; no music or sound to be played or projected outdoors after 10:00 6:00 pm other than a wedding service; the auxiliary residential assembly is operated by the principal residents; employees of the auxiliary residential assembly are restricted to members of the family who are the principal residents plus one other person; (m) no more than one sign is installed on the parcel, in a manner that does not obstruct or obscure site access or egress, nor have an area exceeding 0.35 square meters; and N:\Land Administration\3040 Temporary Use Permits\ Temporary Use Permits\TUP E-1\2012-Jul- 21 draft TUP E-1.docx 259

130 Draft Temporary Use Permit No. E-1 Page 3 of 4 (n) a building used for auxiliary residential assembly purposes is to be connected to either a community sewer facility or on-site sewage disposal facilities in accordance with current regulations pursuant to the Health Act. (4) Surface parking permitted on 930 Gower Point Road, provided that: (a) (b) four parking spaces are identified and laid out; and the parking spaces are for the exclusive use of staff of or those attending events at the auxiliary residential assembly use on 924 Gower Point Road. (5) Unless renewed by the Regional District, upon expiration of this Temporary Use Permit, the applicant shall carry out all undertakings described in the letter of undertaking attached as Appendix A to this permit (6) This permit is non-transferable and may be amended or cancelled by Board resolution; (7) The Permit will expire three (3) two (2) years of the date issued. This Permit is not a building permit. Except as specifically provided above, this Temporary Use Permit 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. Authorizing Resolution No. XX/2012 passed by the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board the DAY OF Month, ISSUED THIS DAY OF Month, 2012 THIS PERMIT EXPIRES ON DAY OF Month, 2014 Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT N:\Land Administration\3040 Temporary Use Permits\ Temporary Use Permits\TUP E-1\2012-Jul- 21 draft TUP E-1.docx 260

131 Draft Temporary Use Permit No. E-1 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A DATE Catherine McManus Garth David PO Box 1956 PO Box 53 Gibsons, BC Gibsons, BC V0N 1V0 V0N 1V0 Dear Ms. McManus and Mr. David RE: Temporary Use Permit E-1 Within 30 days of expiration of Temporary Use Permit E-1, the applicant shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) Remove any signage associated with the use Remove any advertising, such as on 3rd party websites, associated with the use; Remove any works associated with parking areas dedicated for the use; and Provide a letter to the Sunshine Coast Regional District confirming that the above is completed. Yours truly, SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT Angie Legault, Corporate Officer N:\Land Administration\3040 Temporary Use Permits\ Temporary Use Permits\TUP E-1\2012-Jul- 21 draft TUP E-1.docx 261

132 ANNEX V SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: Bylaw Floor Area Ratio Requirements RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional District Board give Bylaw second reading as amended to allow an extra 45 sq m for garages on parcels less than 1500 sq m in zones R1, R2, CR1, RU1, RU2 and RU3; AND THAT a public hearing be arranged at 6:30 pm on September 13, 2012, Regional District Field Road Offices; AND THAT a Chair and Co-chair be identified at the Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND The issue of whether enclosed parking (garages) should be included in the definition of floor area arose due to a situation where a property owner enclosed a carport, creating a fully enclosed garage, on a small parcel. This added floor area which resulted in the total floor area of all buildings exceeding the maximum floor area allowed for smaller parcels. Staff were directed to initiate a bylaw amendment to remove enclosed parking areas/garages from the definition of floor area however it was recognized that some level of control is still required for small parcels. Thus it was considered that enclosed parking up to 45 square metres should be excluded from consideration for these properties. The Advisory Planning Commissions (APCs) for Areas B to F were consulted during February Referrals were sent to agencies and a public information meeting was held on July 5, DISCUSSION Referrals While Bylaw is proposed for all of the areas covered by Bylaw 310, the impact is limited with respect to agencies interests. The Ministry of Health may have interest as the impact, if adopted, would be to possibly increase the amount floor area and could impact on existing septic field capacity. Comments were also requested from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as the SCRD will need to receive Section 52 approval as the amendment applies to properties within 800 m of a controlled access highway; the Ministry noted that their interests are unaffected. Staff sent referrals to the shíshálh and Squamish Nations. The Squamish Nation noted that at this time they have no concerns with this referral. Public Information Meeting A PIM was held on July 5 and was attended by 12 people. The following comments were raised: Why change the bylaw if there is only one property that triggered the rezoning N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \2012-Jul-19 PDC Report docx 262

133 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Regarding Floor Area Ratio Requirements Page 2 of 4 The proposed amendment was triggered by one property, however this has come up before. In researching other Coast governments requirements (Sechelt, Gibsons) and Bylaw 337 (where there is no 30% rule for small lots) staff considered that there is value in amending 310 to allow for greater flexibility and to bring the provision closer in line with other parts of the Coast. How many properties will this impact and where are they? I have not calculated this, however I think most would be in Area F (older subdivisions with smaller lots such as Grantham s) with several sites scattered across the other EA. For the most part, for subdivisions, the minimum parcel area is 2000 sq m; however there are some exceptions. Another attendee pointed out that many of the smaller lots in Area F would likely not be able to provide a garage due to site constraints (steep slopes). Will this increase the size of auxiliary dwellings, what impacts will it have on them? Auxiliary dwellings are only allowed if the lot is over 2000 sq m; the 30% ratio only applies when the lot is less than 1500 sq m. So there will not be an impact. To date staff have not received any correspondence from residents. Bylaw Amendment The average area for a 2 car garage is 40 m 2 and to add flexibility and allow for storage this could be increased to 45 m 2. This would allow for a reasonably sized garage but maintain some control over the total floor area on a smaller parcel. Bylaw should be amended to read (new text bold and underlined): 504 (1) On a parcel less than 1500 square metres in the R1, R2, CR1, RU1, RU2 and RU3 zones, the maximum total floor area of all buildings on a parcel shall be the parcel area multiplied by 0.30; (2) In addition to the floor area in (1) up to 45 square metres is allowed for enclosed parking. The SCRD could consider applications to vary the 45 sq m limit on a case-by-case basis. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In reviewing the current provisions and definitions in Bylaw 310 staff note that most other jurisdictions exempt enclosed parking areas from their definitions of floor area. SCRD staff consider that the definition of floor area in Bylaw 310 should not be amended to exclude enclosed parking as this would have an impact on limitations of auxiliary buildings. However, provisions of Bylaw 310 also include a floor area limitation for smaller parcels in most residential and rural zones in order to reduce the risk that over time non-septic generating floor area is converted and the existing septic treatment fails. In order to continue to provide some level of control, staff consider that there should be a limit of 45 m 2 for enclosed parking areas on smaller parcels. Bylaw received first reading; however staff consider that an amendment would provide a significant degree of flexibility, while maintaining reasonable controls for smaller parcels. It would also resolve the current site specific issue. Bylaw would need to receive second reading as amended. Staff also reconsider that the hearing could be scheduled at 6:30 pm on September 13, 2012 at the SCRD Field Road boardroom, before the Board meeting. An alternative date could be at 7:00 pm, September 12, 2012 at the SCRD Field Road boardroom. The Planning and Development Committee should recommend a Chair and Co-chair for the hearing. A copy of the amended draft bylaw ( ) is attached. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \2012-Jul-19 PDC Report docx 263

134 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Regarding Floor Area Ratio Requirements Page 3 of 4 DRAFT ATTACHMENT A SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No , 2011 A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2012". PART B AMENDMENT 2. Amend section 504 to read: 504 (1) On a parcel less than 1500 square metres in the R1, R2, CR1, RU1, RU2 and RU3 zones, the maximum total floor area of all buildings on a parcel shall be the parcel area multiplied by 0.30; (2) In addition to the floor area in (1) up to 45 square metres is allowed for enclosed parking. N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \2012-Jul-19 PDC Report docx 264

135 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) Regarding Floor Area Ratio Requirements Page 4 of 4 PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 26 th DAY OF APRIL 2012 READ A SECOND TIME as amended this DAY OF 2012 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2012 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2012 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2012 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2012 Corporate Officer Chair N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\ \2012-Jul-19 PDC Report docx 265

136 ANNEX W SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (July 19, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: Bylaw 641 Roberts Creek Official Community Plan RECOMMENDATION: THAT the SCRD Board give Bylaw 641 second reading to incorporate the amendments set out in the draft attached to the report titled Bylaw 641 Roberts Creek Official Community Plan ; AND THAT a public hearing be scheduled for 7:00 pm on Tuesday October 2, 2012 to be held at the Roberts Creek Hall BACKGROUND A public information meeting was held on April 1, 2012 and referrals were sent to the following agencies: Squamish Nation shíshálh Nation Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Ministry of Health Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations School District 46 (SD46 District of Sechelt Private Managed Forest Land Council (PMFLC) Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (OCPC) Roberts Creek Community Association (RCCA) To date staff had responses from shíshálh nation (met with staff) SD46 (met with staff) PMFLC OCPC RCCA (attended meeting) Staff have spoken with representatives from the District of Sechelt and Ministry of Health and they will be submitting responses in the near future. Staff will continue to contact the other agencies. A copy of all comments are provided in a table (Attachment A) that also contains staff N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\ Official Community Plan\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw 641 RC OCP.docx 266

137 Staff Report to July 19, 2012 Planning and Development Committee Regarding RC OCP Bylaw 641 Page 2 of 3 responses and proposed actions. The draft OCP was updated to incorporate these and to correct typos and formatting errors. The amended draft is attached and the changes are shown in underlined text. DISCUSSION The main changes proposed are as follows: 1. page 12 update population data 2. page 16 move details regarding the OCPC into an appendix to allow them flexibility in establishing their own terms or reference and processes 3. page 23 highlight use of Habitat Atlas and Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory in reviewing applications to amend OCP or rezone 4. page 24 greater awareness of protection of marine habitat 5. page 27 work with SD46 to realize potential for school parning area to support the Village Core 6. page 28 clarify what enhanced B&B is 7. page 33 allow consideration of auxiliary art gallery on Country Residential and Agricultural site, setting out some criteria and noting others to be defined through rezoning application 8. page 33 allow for campgrounds on Rural land (currently allowed for in Bylaw page 44 note that First Nations and province are agencies that RD should work with to realize Mt Elphinstone Park 10. page 49 note that First Nations and province are agencies that RD should work with in addition to the community to realize the potential of ALR on Crown land 11. page 54 note that sale of produce should be allowed on the same property 12. page 55 community composting can be part of a community garden 13. page 56 note role of AAC and ALC in developing soil removal and fill policies and review of any proposals 14. page 63 that green power projects need to consider impact on natural environment 15. page 73 potential for separate pedestrian and bike paths as a community benefit 16. page 74 potential to reduce parking requirements 17. page 75 balance roadside vegetation with safe paths 18. page 75 note intersections identified for improvement and suggest a process to work with community and MoTI to identify others 19. page 76 potential to request ne beach accesses at subdivision stage 20. page 111 note forestry activity on former Canfor lands and PMFL Act 21. page 113 note role of PMFLC and Min of F, L & NRO in establishing a Resource Board 22. page 114 reference SARP N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\ Official Community Plan\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw 641 RC OCP.docx 267

138 Staff Report to July 19, 2012 Planning and Development Committee Regarding RC OCP Bylaw 641 Page 3 of incorporate the following maps Map 1 General Land Use Map 1A General Land Use Village Core Map 2 Parks and Trails Map 3 Road Network Map 4 Services Map 5 Development Permit Areas Map 6 Primary Resources Map 7 Traditional Territories Colour copies of the maps are available from staff and in the Directors reading file. Bylaw 641 should receive second reading to incorporate these amendments CONCLUSION As noted above comments are awaited from several agencies and it is likely that additional amendments will be required. One outstanding item is to develop a set of definitions for key terms. Another is to incorporate a new development permit area for geotechnically sensitive areas in the upland are (expansion area of the OCP); the technical work is completed but the policy needs to be defined. A copy of the amended OCP is attached along with the draft bylaw. Staff propose that any additional amendments can be incorporated in September and that this would allow for a public hearing to be held on October 2, 2012 at the Roberts Creek Hall, 1039 Roberts Creek Road. David Rafael, Senior Planner N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\ Official Community Plan\2012-Jul-19 PDC report Bylaw 641 RC OCP.docx 268

139 ATTACHMENT A 269 Judith Reeve a worthy goal for the OCP is separated bike/walking paths along the highway (because the general population considers a lane unsafe, with only a white line painted on the asphalt to separate them from 90+ traffic). Offer a reduced tasatinn level to property owners along the highway who would donate a meter (or whatever it cakes) of their frontage to provide separate bike/walk from the traffic on highway Carolann Gloves My first thought Is that too many trees woulu have to be sacrificed on tower Rd., unless the present road was incorporated into the plan by etpanding the road surface and moving the centre line a meter or so. Alternatively, we could probably achieve a reasonable level of safety with 2m lanes the entire length of Lower Rd., on bath sides of the road, no parking decais an the lanes, and the speed limit of 50Km enforced )request the RCMP to use Lower Rd occasionally when they travel Gibsons to Sechelt, and more Speed Watch deployments on Lower Rd...presencly only 2 of us in Roberts Creek participate in Speed Watch Howie Charters My family owns property on Lower Road. With reference to the Roberts Creek Village Center I think there should be encouragement of future mised use development that would include rental residential. This would contribute to a more dynamic village and help address the shortage of rental accommodation in Roberts Creek. Judith Reeve 1. While it is clear that a significant amount of work nas been done during throughout the process. and I know that it is difficult to get people to volunteer for this work, or even to come and review it. I have the sense that much of the plan is somewhat derivative and lacking in ingenuity or original thought a) A large part of this plan sounds and feels so familiar, as if onif the names have been changed to protect the location bi While I understand that it is common practice to use other community plans as references it certainiy reminds me of any number of community plans developed in the Pacific Southwest and Northwest over the last forty years. ci There is a sense chat what might have scatted out as an esciting creative set of ideas nas been somenow dulled and minimized by a strong adherence to bureaucratic processes and punctuation Judith Reeve 2. Although I have not been here full time during the last two years allow me to comment briefly on just a few items: There is very little eocitement in the plan pedestrian and bicfcle paths which are merely painted lines along the road edge are dated, boring and not really safe: a) Where are the creative, innovative ideas about how me move through the community b) Where are the new ideas about how economic development could occur without destroying this beautiful place? c) How do we create revenue without resorting to increased taxation? d) Using Upper Gibsons as an esample of what me do not want to do along the highway, while definitely a true statement, is not a valid reason for doing nothing. e) The highway is an etisting corridor with esisting utilities; development in this area would potentialif create less environmental damage and be less costly f) Forms of development can be tightly controlled with strong and creative design guidelines which respect and reflect environmental values and the genius loci g) Think of Cannon Beach in Oregon, as a good esample of small scale appropriate design h) What is the Band K logging road going to be used for in the future? Is this road perceived as an asset or a liability? Property owners may donate land to SCRO for a tas receipt; usually Add reference to provision of separate bike/walk path along Hwy for park use. SCRO could negotiate provision of bike path as part as a community benefit at rezonlng stage. of reconing; this could include ownership or easement. SCRO can t reduce taa rate for this. Policy sets out the desire for a separate bike/walk path gnfnrcement of no parking/speed controb not an SCRO function; No Change as this an be considered outside of OCP need to work with MoTI and RCMP, however the criteria normally road safety or to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Road alignment changes should be considered outside of OCP in partnership with residents and MoTI. Housing policies note the need for rental as a means of delivering more affordable accommodation (17.9) aod in Comment oe the tooe of the OCP; no specific changes other thao to be origioal. To achieve a change in cone would require a significant rewrite of the draft OCP which would push the project back several months. The key will be in how the OCP is implemented and che types of proposals that come forward. Should the OCP open up the Hwy for creative commercial development? There is currently no defined need for increasing commercial on the hwy; main commercial areas in Coast will be in Town, District and RC will provide local commercial that can attract visitors. SCRO may embark on regional economic development plan. Policy 8.12c considers role of esisting Forest Service Roads that are well used public routes such as B&K. No Change No Change No change Bill and Barbara Cooley First as creekers, we support the Official Community Plan Vision Statement It is well considered: it a inclusive and comprehensive and it allows flexibility to the future needs of the cnmmunity whatever they may be. We offer three suggestions with respect to the Official Community Plan Goals. This support is appreciated No change Page 1 of 15

140 there 270 Sill and Barbara Cooley Sill and Barbara Cooley Bill and Barbara Cooley Ruth Emerson 1) Recreational - Goal 4 Many would support the position that the oar world is getting hotter. Drought conditions can and will show up in the future even in Roberts Creek. We wanted to ask what if anything has been done to study and plan for a potential fire risk in the community specially lower Roberts Creek between the Coast Highway and the ocean? Has a professional forester or equivalent been tasked previously to analyze the potential for serious fire related consequences. If so, has a mitigation plan been established? If not, should this be considered? Perhaps a professional view of the community situation with a number of recommendations would encourage property owners to take action to clear those potential risks like eocessive bramble, bush or ground cover build up that if removed might starve a potential hot spot in it s tracks. It is evident that the Sunshine Coast is a forest and it would be impossible to mitigate all potential threats, but it seems to us that for the community proper may steps can be taken to reduce the threat within the community while aiding resources that might be called on to fight such an event locally. This action would then allow us to say that we are responsible: that we are protecting, restoring and enhancing the biodiversity of the habitats in our community. Doing nothing or espetting others to lead in this regard for our community might be reckless. Goal 9 We offer two suggestions 1. We have often wanted to take public transit Ibus) from home to the ferry terminal )as commuters) specifically for the early ferry for very good reasons. We tried that only once. The bus stops particularly along Lower Road are not lit. Standing out there at 5:30am in the dark Is an adventure. We have sighted bears and cougars over the years in this area. When the sun goes down in Roberts Creek it Is dark penodl We understand that the community generally does not want to install any more stieetlamps for numerous reasons. However, we wonder how many other creekers Iwiso would otherwise take the ous) arive to she ferry to avoid standing in the dark waiting for it? We suggest consideration be given to installing solar power LED streetlamps at the stops that are on a ten or twenty minute timer that can be activated by a bus rider at the stop. This will provide light to the location to deter animals at the stop for the rider and it provides riders an element of safety allowing early morning drivers to see them; it identifies them to the bus driver, as the light would only be on when the stop is occupied; it would minimize light pollution in the community; and being solar powered would be cost effective minimizing costs to property owners. There are many commercial grade solar streetlamp providers ioentified on the internet. 2. Trying to be responsible, we reuse and/or recycle as much as we can. That usually means that we accumulate a truckload of items befom we make the trip to the Gibsons recycler. This is a time consuming activity creating a large recycling pile between trips. At a previous lower mainland residence we had a very successful Blue Boe program. All the accumulated recycling, including newspaper, metals, glass, cans were removed weekly. The recycled items had valce which was used by the municipality to fund the cost of the program. We suggest consideration be given to having a street side recycling program in Roberts Creek. This could be a multi-year offering to the private sector to take up or handled by the District. Property owners might be willing to pay a nominal charge for the initial bus costs as it would offset the time, effort and costs of going individually to the remote recyclers or landfill sites; It could possibly result in more individuals actually recycling which would reduce landfill activity; and it would reduce pollution and litter In the community. is reference to a Gun Club. There has been no gun club in Roberts Creek for some time. The only Gun Club on the lower Coast is the one located in Wilson Creek. Can you tell me the Gun Club the plan reters to? Ruth Emerson 2) Living on the raceway of Lower Road can you give an eaample of traffic calming measures that may be considered? None were referenced and it seemed like the people would have to suggest them. The traffic along Lower Road is becoming increasingly non-rural made especially unattractive by large paved shoulders that people park on defeating the purposes of a bike path/walkway. Dne should never walk with their back to the traffic. Roberts Creek has become a former community area divided by Lower Road and Highway 101 and those above the highway are doing all they can to route the traffic thcough our neighbourhood and not theirs. The DCP review did not include any commissioned work to consider fire risk. This is an issue that could impact the entire Coast and should be considered on a wider scale than RC. Policy 5.25 notes the need to develop a plan to reduce fire risk in the interface area. Lighting for bus stops shuuid be considered in the contest of the No change, provide comments to SCRD Transit entire network under SCRD Transit; thu is an issue for wider area than RC. Planning staff will inform Transit of this comment. No change Policy 11.4 comiders community recycling cullection facilities; thh Amend 11.4 to saggest street side recycle collection as an option policy could be amended to include consideration of street side to be investigated In the context of the SWMP collection of recycling. Details on how to achieve this would be through the Solid Waste Management Plan The Gun Club opened a site in upper Roberts Creek cowards Dusty No change Road. The sita was rezoned The mad network above the Hwy is not suited to t/w movement No change and below the Hwy is better developed with a much higher number of residents so the balance of traffic will be in lower RC. As noted above parking and speed control requires action outside of the DCP Page 20115

141 271 Ruth Emerson 3) (looked at your new proposed commertiai cone and (have to comment that the natural boundary on the east side should not be Largo Road. I believe this Is because you are trying to incorporate the BC Legion into the commercial area. The Legion can remain until it is no more but it is not a reason to create commercial property around it. Commercial area should end with the property to the weuc of Roberts Creek with maeimum setbacks from the creek. These setbacks should be left in a treed pristine state on both sides. This sethack creates a natural bamer from commercial to residential. Adding a tag of three commercial properties to Largo Road is nor necessary and out of proportion. I ask that this commercial area not go as far as Largo Road but be rolled back to the creek boundary Ruth Emerson 4) Holding meetings at Roberts Creek Hall. I spent 15 minutes in the Hall at Christmas and got a headache, listened to the all candidates meetings because it was important to do so and suffered for 48 hours afterward and will urtend a funeral of a close friend if held in that hail. This hall is old and musty smelling. Why cannot regional meetings be held in a healthy location? Ruth Emerson 5) At the pier. Do not build a gate across where the mandela Is blocking more access. The mandela is a rather new creation and may not stand the test of time It is not a reason to block off the round area at the end of the road leading to the pier. Not all of us in Roberts Creek appreciate the public events held at the pier. They are noisy, evasive and do they really reflect Roberts Creek. Ruth Emerson Roberts Creek has changed many times since I moved here and mill change again. Lately it has not been for the barter or been the Roberts Creek I originally came to visit, live and raised a family. I do not see much of that Roberts Creek in the Community Plan. Sharon Oddie Brown (like what I have seen One of my concerns continues to be that me keep on encouraging (carrot & stick?) owners to not encroach on the road shoulder with plantings and fences - moving us more to pedestrian-friendly, bicycie-friendiy, handicapped-scooter friendly a short to keep in environment The changes in the heart of the Creek are a great step forward on that front. BC OCPC Se To protect marine foreshore areas, such as those areas with forage fish spawning potential and off shore eelgrass beds. BC OCPC 5k To reduce conflicts and deterioration of habitat at the wildlife human interface, especially along shorelines. RC OCPC SI To prevent introduction of invasive plants. BC OCPC 5.1 d) tspand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities; Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Eaoiore and support opportunities for small scale energy production, such as from creeks, soiar power, and geothermal, taking into careful consideration impact to the environment. BC OCPC 5.1/) Monoge Brownfleld Sites; Transform appropriate bromnfield sites (vacant, previously developed sites usually industrial or commercial) in to complete community assets. Roberts Creek does not have any historic industrial sites that are vacant and the commercial areas are in use. However over the OCP period vacant or underused sites may tome forward. Any redevelopment should consider opportunities to create higher density or new uses compatible with the OCP that include community opportunities, and prevent introduction and culture of invasive plant species. BC OCPC Re To protect foreshore areas, and where appropriate acquire additional upland areas and foreshore lease areas for enhanced public recreational use of the foreshore, and protection and Legion site included as it provides a facility that supports Village Core. Land Use is recreation and residential. The site is well plated to for Village Core uses, however to change to retail would require a rezoning and allow for publit input, policy 8.15 looks to protect assembly uses and rezoning away frow this is not supported. The land use map needs to be corrected to identity both Legion sites as Assembly; the espansion area could be reduced to include only these two sites This comment relates to the choice of meeting venue and not the OCP The BC Pier area is a significant public resource that is well used by No change the community for outdoor events and as a destination venue. The Mandela is good esample of public, community art and there is no indication that it will not be maintained. The area needs to be kept open and protected from parking; however there is scope to consider a park plan to address issues such as a gate and use polity 8.9d calls for such a plan to be developed. The OCP aims to protect what is best about BC but allow for No change appropriate change that reinforces the community. Not all change will be supported however it is important that there is an opportunity for public input. Several policies set out the need for public engagement when considering proposals to implement the OCP (such as at rezoning stage) The OCP considers the need to provide adequate vegetative buffers on road right of way lpolicy 15.6). Policy notes reducing impact of roadside vegetation, general reference to other roads could be added Objective Se looks to preserve natural site characteristics. Could add a polity to eupressly consider marine environment The obiective covers all interface and there Is no need to add a No change specihr reference to the shoreline. The SCRO has limited powers to enforte this. There is corporate No change support for an initiative to educate about the issue. Polity 5.24 considers establishing a multi-agency program to do control and if possible eradicate invasive species. Could add reference to geothermal and consideration of impact on the environment The SCRO has limited powers to enforce this. There is corporate No change support for an initiative to educate about the issue. Policy 5.24 considers establishing a multi-agency program to do control and if possible eradicate invasive species. preservation of sensitive areas uuth as forage fish spawning areas and eelgrass beds offshore. environmentally sensitive areas Amend the Land Use Map and after the boundary for commercial expansion area to eaciude the two residential properties No change Add new policy (15.29) to work with property owners and MoTI to balance roadside vegetation and need to provide safe walking/cycling opportunities. Add new policy to Chapter S (PolIcy 5.27 and 5.28) Amend S.ld as suggested Retreationa; use of the formhore should include protection of Amend 8,2 (22) as suggested sensitive areas. Reference could be added to 8.2 )22) to protecting Page 3 of 15

142 272 RC OCPC ) The entire foreshore area extending 300 metres offshore into the Strait of Georgia The SCRO shoold work with the Province and First Nations to protect the foreshore with the objective of maintaining and improeing the natoral environment to assist in the recovery of salmon that spawn in the wany streams in Roberts Creek. Initial efforts should be spent on identifying key locations, soch as the mooth of Roberts Creek, and eelgrass bed location data should be Included in sensitive habitat maps. Although shishdlh Nation members previously gathered resoorces throughout the territory, access to many foreshore areas has been lost because of the sale of poblic land, residential and industrial developwent, and pollution. In heavily developed areas, almost the eetire foreshore is now inaccessible for gathering or other activities because of residential lots and the iwuance of foreshore leases. The construction of private docks and moorages creates farther problems, as it effectively contaminates areas up to 125 meters on each side, limiting opportunities for gathering of beach and intertidal resources. gducation in regard to sensitivities of the foreshores is needed. Moorage buoys may be a permitted use within this area providing they serve only the upland parcels jland directly connected to or closest to the facility) and are not located within eelgrass beds. Private docks must not be located over eelgrass beds. RC OCPC 8.9 d Roberts Creek Pier Park This park is a significant space for residents of Roberts Creek and the RC OCPC RC OCPC RC 0CPC RC OCPC entire Coast. It is also a tourist destination. The site holds a special cultural and recreational place for Roberts Creek. The area is environmentally sensitive as it is adjacent to the mouth of Roberts Creek and has offshore eelgrass beds and potential forage fish spawning sites on the sandy intertidal areas. It is also the location for several important community events, such as Roberts Creek Earth Day and the Roberts Creek Mandala FestIval and Creek Daze. A park plan needs to be developed that considers the needs of the various user groups and the role the site plays In the community. The plan should address parking, where vehicles should be allowed and protection of the creek mouth. 16g To protect fish habitat and passage OPAl Guidelines cj iii) Take into consideration fish passage and spawning times. DPA2c Guidelines ii) The qualified geotechnical professional s and qualified fish biologist s report should also include the following types of analysis and information and consider 38 LOWER FLUME CREEK The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following improved channelization jdont want channelixationj and capacity of Margaret Road and Beach Avenue; and Fish passage through the culvert An assessment of sediment loading causing turbidity and any other water quality or quantity concern which may affect domestic surface water users. 3C ROBERTS CREEK SYSTEM The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following: Potential for creek flooding, erosion and deposition as well as channel conditions upstream of gauge site; Potential forage fish spawning sites and potential impacts on offshore eelgrass beds. RC OCPC St CLOUGH CREEK Delineates an area is metres from ravine slope crests each side of Clough Creek from the Plan Area boundary to the marine shoreline, the area which encompasses Tailed frog habitat, and is being considered for Amphibian Rehabilitation Habitat Area, Noting protection of eelgrass is supported Amend as suggested No changes proposed No change This is included within Objective 16b jprotect natural environment) thus there is no need to single out fish habitat over other habitats, This is a useful addition as the main purpose of the OPA is fish protection The purpose of this OPA is to prevent geotechnical failures. Protection of fish habitat is covered by OPAl jfreshwaterj. Impact on the ocean is considered in part in DPA4 jshnrelinej. There is no need to expand the technical requirements to Include a biologists report. The OPA refers to improving existing channelization. Any development near the stream will fall within OPAl and a OEP report b required. It Is unlikely that currently channeled sections of the stream will be returned to natural state, although this is an option for the I2EP ta consider The purpose of this OPA is to protect from flooding/landslide and No change locate develop appropriately. Protection of fish habitat Is covered by OPAl )freshwaterj. Impact on the ocean is considered in part in DFA4 jshorelinej. There is no need to expand the technical requirements to include a biologists report regarding forage fish and eel grass. The purpose of this OPA is to protect from flooding/landslide and locate develop appropriately. Protection of tailed frog habitat would require a separace stady to determine sensibve locations that require separate OPA or other policy related protection. This would be a resource intensive study and subject to regular change as the boundaries would adiust to annual conditions. No change Amend as saggested No change Add reference to OPAl and the QEP considering proposed Improvements to channel In the context of Impact on fists habibat In Guideline (d) (lv) Add reference In Chapter 5 to reviewing the Habitat Atlas/Sensitive Ecosystems InvenEory when considering OCP amendments or rexonlag applications. See Policy 5.12 Page 4 of 15

143 in an BC OCPC BC OCPC SF STEPHENS CREEK IN STEPHENS ROAD AREA The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider improved channelization (don t want channelization) and capacity of culverts south of Lower Road considering fish passage and habitat. 30 LOWER MALCOLM CREEK AREA The qualified geutechnical nrufessional s report should consider the following: improved channelization ldont wanc thannelizahon) and caeacicy of culvert south of Lower Road; The creek may avulse (flood banks) especially where it turns west along the shore, Vegetation and riprap (don t want riprap) should be maintained on beach front slopes of Malcolm Creek; and Drainage works should avoid surface of groundwater erosion of beach front slopes. Intertidal and riparian values. Go to top?? The DPA refers to improving esisting channelication. Any development near the stream will fall within DPA1 and a D.EP report is required. It is unlikely that currently channeled sections of the stream will be returned to natural state, although this is an option for the OEP to consider The DPA refers to improving eaisong channelization. Any development near the stream will fall within DPA1 and a QEP report is required. ito unlikely that turrenhy channeled sections of the stream will be returned to natural state, although this is an option for the QEP to consider Add reference to DPA1 aed the ChEF considering proposed Improvements to thannel in the context of impact an fish habieat In Guideline (d) fiv) Add reference to DPAI and the GEl considering proposed improvements to channel In the context of impact on fish habitat in Guideline (d) (iv) BC OCPC Si UNNAMED CREEKS NEAR POWER LINE Guidelines local bank erosion protection, taking into careful consideration the impacts of hardening on creek and foreshure habitats. Any development near a stream will fall within DFA1 and a QEF report is required. Add reference to OPAl and the QtP considering proposed improvements to channel in the context of impact on fish habitat In Guideline (d) (iv) BC OCPC DPA4 Guidelines Definition of hardening respect to shorelines impervious structure that does not allow or slows shoreline processes, suth as shoreline enrichment and deposition of land and beach materials; evamples are cement pavement, or wooden walls, np rap. Hardening shorelines can result in the loss of habitat, further erosion of unprotected properties ad(arent to the structure, water quality degradation and the interruption of natural shoreline processes including reduced downdrift sediment transport. Hardening is not a term used In DPA4. Given the efforts taken to No change reach community consensus on this DPA, no changes are proposed. 273 BC OCPC CEEP Goal 4; Eapand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities Optimice use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. (with proven lack of impact on sensitive habitats) Eaplore and support opportunities fur small stale energy production from creeks, geothermal, and solar power. Where possible and practical, share utilities among properties. Independent power projects (IFFy) and associated power lines should be developed in a planned and orderly sense and an unnecessary proliferation of hydro line should be avoided. The CEEP goals were taken from adopted plan (Our Coast, Our Climate). Could add reference to protection of sensitive habitat under CEEF. Chapter 12 includes objective linking green power and possible environmental Impact. Policy could be added to eepand upon this Add statement to CEEP Goal 4 and new poiicy to Chapter 12 (policy 12.7) regarding power projects and consideration of impacts on sensitive environments. BC OCPC CEEF Goal 7: Manage Brownfleld Sites Roberts Creek has little industrial and few commercial sites, thus the potential for brownfield renewal is limited. However, there are sites near the Dusty Road Landfill that over the longer term may become available for renewal. Transform appropriate brownfields into complete community assets. Keeping close watch over introduction of invasive species at these sites. Could add reference to appropriate landscaping and control of invasive species Amend Goal 7 as suggested and include statement regarding landscaping/invasive species trlct What can be done to look at different parcel sires fur residential Charlene Penner, Conrad Rd Mt Elphinstone Park is it ltd Transport and Road, rural character is compromised by the Hwy which has not been improved and is accident prune and fatalities have occurred, balance between rural and safety The current subdivision designations are based upon work undertaken when the current OCP was adopted. Designations are based upon soil capacity for septic treatment, potable water and community values (such as need for AIR sites to be larger). There is no proposal to change these other than allowing for increased density in Village Core (subject to a liquid waste management plan). Opportunity etists to consider site specific reconing/ocp amendments thus allowing community input and detailed site studies to be considered. Yes. Policies 3. S and BiG No change No change Page 5 Of 15

144 home access Reality is we are car based Not policy relaced No change Site east Cliff Gilker, present nr futsre recreation, what has the province said Jack Rousseua Protection of clear cut on Crown and PMPL Limited powers co SCRD, zoning only applies in limited No change circumstances, OCP proposes to keep working forests working Hans Penner, Advocacy role of SCRO needs to be enhanced OCP identifies need to work with the province to develop No change Conrad Rd ecologically soand land/resource plan, lobby/work with province/scis, SCRO works with and advocates to the province and federal government as needed Hans Penner, Stronger language needed on Hwy. it is a disaster/danger, need to improee shoalders for cycling ITS sets oat specific objectives such as improvements to the Hwy. Add relevant site specific items from the Ii s into Transportation Conrad Rd there are site specific upgrades that could be included in OP chapter and on relevant schedule (Policy 15.30) Eric T Preserve tree cover on Lower Rd/Hwy. were the policies from current OCP carried forward regarding Policy 15.6 considers the need for maintaining tree/vegetation Amend 15.6 regarding vegetation buffers on hwy and Lower Rd resisting tree removal buffers on road right of ways, could be expanded to refer specifically to hwy and Lower Road as these are the main traffic Cheri, Crow Rd Notice of logging in areas were water licences are held was poor, only: week to respond SCRD does not control notice penod for logging. A memorandum No change, pass comment to staff working on MoU routes of understanding is being developed with province and this issue could be included In the discussion Cheri, Crow Rd Well water, mater from streams, what does OCP say Issue of watershed protection and well-head protection noted in No change Chapter 13, several objectives and policies look to maintain/protect mater sources, including wells. Cheri, Crow Rd No water no houses Provision of water is a key for delivering new oeveiopment, No change subdivision approval and obtaining building permits 274 Allison Protection of beach area DPA designated that balances property rights and protection, Cttee No change established to develop it Allison Water Park designation why keep public, light touch for controls, not supporting docks, iris No change important to protect the shore area as this is the location for habitat that supports salmon and other key wildlife. Park status can help to do thin Betty, Lockyer Rd Why espand the OCP area CNI/AJB land (PMPL), watershed protection, potential sales of No change Crown land, zoning has limited influence but can and is in place if land removed from PMPL/Crown Eric T Access to shore, some trails not useable, some privatised, what can be maintained Subdivision aspect - to shoreline isa requirement in certain No change circumstances This has delivered a good network of access points at the end of road right of ways. However the SCRO does not have the resources to develop all access points. Over time these may be improved. Mark Labelie Hwy Safety, bus and bike still an option for travel Use of Gas Tax $ for improvements such as RC Rd path and Lower No change Rd bike path, new OCP has a strong stance for alternatives to car Hans Penner, Conrad Rd OCP should note that the Hwy mainly serves areas/people outside of PC It also provides access for people of Roberts Creek to the rest of No change use. the Coast and beyond. And into RC Judith Reeve Where is the economic reality to support ecologically sensitive development Care does need to be taken to ensure that the community benefits No change (such as environmental gains( on developers,many of who are local residents, does not make projects unviable. This is a mactar to be discussed on a case by case basis and the scale of the Judith Reeve where Is the wonderfully creative policies that show a change from the 1994 OCP Use of Smart Growth Principles eopressed in polities that enhance No change proposal. the Village Care (Allow for expansion of commercial activity aiong based business and R&6 enhancements(, use of RC Rd - Temporary Use Permits, Angie McCaully, business There is a modest fear of economic development The new OCP proposes modest espansion of commercial area and No change owner in Village enhancements to 6&B, home occupations in areas around the core and along Roberts Creek Rd Page 6 of 15

145 ideal Thus Angie McCaully, business owner In Village Angie McCaulIy, business owner in Village Angle McCaolly, business owner In VlUage Car use on Lower Rd is causing a problem What happens when gas prices go up Affordability and Employment on the Coast, not a lot for young people thus they leave. Need to increase housing density, are subdivision controls too strict? Change from 1 acre to 1/2 acre is not a big leap The OtP points to working with province and community to fino solutions. Policy could be awended to note role of province traffic calming solutions. Hope that alternate modes of transport become more popular and that local needs are met by within local area (such as local food prod uction( The policy to consider greater density in Village Core area and elsewhere (when affordablelspecial needs housing is deiwered) allows for improvement However RC Is limited by lack of community septic such as that found in Gibsons and Secnelt, which can deliver greater density and possibly affordable units. Amend 1526 to reference province No change No change 275 Ecric T Martin P. upper RC Lois Anderson, Milliner Rd Angie Mccauley Stephans Rd Angie McCauley Stephans Rd Angle McCauley Stephans Rd Angie Mccauley Stephann Rd Angle Mccauley Stephans Rd Angle Mccauley Stephans Rd Angie Mccauley Stephans Rd Not progressive with respect to economic and housing development. Why not allow commerdal on the Hwy. it may slow traffic, would not increase problem of lack of parking in the Village What about the site of the former Penn Hotel on Hwy for commercial dev t? Lower Gibsons provides a better model tot commercial dev t, mixed use that includes housing (e.g. town houses Reduce parking requirements, defining parking is not a good idea and led to loss of Village Square in Heart of Creek to parking. 55 sq m to small (aux dweting( for a 3/4 acre site, 75w to loom better Need, more progressive economic development and residential planning for a future less dependent on cars and fossil fuels, this would protect environment, be more progressive, the old suburban paradigm (car based) needs co change What happens when fuel too expensive to drive to Sechelt/Gibsons for groceries and other necessities not available in RC? What about 1ob opportunities for youth Are we going to be a retirement community and if so how will retirees be able to afford to live here? Need local amenities )cosr to travei to outside RC will be high) RC needs to be wore pedestrian friendly (work, shop closer to home), provide higher density around commercial core so there is affordable housing that SCRD is considering issue of splitting premature lots have amend two the houses. As this is a region wide issue, It may be to to OCP sublect they should continue be considered on a a not site want by site basis recreate to rezoning. want protect Do to Upper Gibsons, to rural, low level commercial (home business and B&B( centre allowed as Is agriculture. support Some sites demonstrated allow for garden the type uses. standing There is not significant that the not to reverse long policy greenhouses hwy is to become a commercial area. ALR - for development that Village Core area would allow for mixed use includes residential requirement the SCRD reduced parking there substantially for for Heart of Creek the and Post Office. However not is still a need parking and hoped for requirements square could are be considered delivered as originally envisioned. Parking when significant to allow for this - development proposals come forward during rezoning process. Policy could add reference to considering reducing parking requirements Issue of appropriate size for an auailiary dwelling will be considered as part of review for Bylaw 310 for Areas B to F, The draft OCP is supporting non-car based travel and considering relatively higher density in the village core The draft OCP Is supporting non-car based travel and considering relatively higher density in the village core Main employment in RC will be from home based business, realizing agricuitore potential sand modest expansion of siliage core, main employment on Coast will continue to be in Gibsons and Sechelt or related to resource The Coast s population is higher than average, affordability is skewed by the influa of those coming to the coast to retire and get away from urban centres, policies proposed to consider affordable housing as a community benefit for higher density near village core, Policies proposed to allow for modes expansion of village core. support for recreation and community facilities The RC pathway project and enpansion of Lowvr Rd cycle facility will assist, goal to expand the off-road path above the hwy. Policy direction into do this No change No change No change Amend to note thag parking requirements may be reduced No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change Page 7 of 15

146 lost support the remove 276 Physical Environment - Transportation - bike/walking path along Hwy most certainly should be extended even to Wilson Creek for residents and tourists Land Behind the Hall - park, and trails, Farmers Market space, community garden** Land Behind the Hall - small affordable housing (true economically affordable( Support home based business expansion, providing they are small and local, in DT RC, important for economic sustainahility Yes to art galleries in down town BC any provision for farms/offshore turbines/personal wind windmills Tzaddi Gordon, Emery Rd Will the expanded home based business be allowed on Emery Road, I live kitty corner to health food store so it makes sense lust off RC Rd also be commercialized to some degree Tzaddi Gordon, Emery Rd Support for commercial activity on the highway, sad that a business like the art gallery had to shut down at Dragon & Unicorn Parm, artists who can t operate their own galleries need permanent plates to show work Susa Transportation - Arnanda Resident of Park Ave Hans Penner, Conrad Rd ride sharing SCRD should push to challenge building code to allow minimal housing allow auxiliary sleeping shelters in and outside density zone (a second yes and a no) allow TUP until and if neighbours complain then different actions required yes to more art galleries and businesses that promote creativity/artistic expression and innovation second yes to more art that promote galleries and businesses creativity/artistic expression and innovation, need to support tore artists even allow on highway, not lust Town Square the opportunity square, - for a town ned to the to find a creative way develop area behind the library (where the tables the the gazebo is - picnic so platform area of gazebo is more useable, chessboard out large with benches (pieces could be booked form a local business, more seating to that benches, think of ways direct people to area (e.g. banners( activities in season such as outdoor to readings, speakers corner, acoustic concerts, cal zhi classes, a place sit and chat etc. Policy supports the tlphinstone 8.2 s( Prowncial Park should include the OtT expansion of Mount Park to the full 1500 hectares of protected requested the area originally for lower elevations of the mountain Hether Conn Why not have an electric car or hybrid as a shared community tar, include an electric charging station like the small ones in Granville Market Polity to consider support for mitro-hydro (small household scale), larger facilities will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis with significant public input (policy in place for this) Consider if Emery Road could be expanded 88,8, home occupation area There is opportunity for some modes commercial (home occupation, gag, agriculture/horticulture related. Currently there is no need for retail or relatively larger commercial activity. Issue of Art Gallery should be considered Not an OCP issue, consideration of park and ride locations is included so this could assist Support for proposed polity The list under Policy 8.9 (c( is not intended to be complete, but to give a flavour of some of the uses that could be considered during the public consultation phase. Included in potential uses for the site Support for policy Village tore allows for this as part of existing tommercial area and No change expansion area Although not striztiy an OCP issue, the BC does not prevent smaller No change homes, nor does the OCP or toning bylaw. The limitations are number of dwellings permitted on a site. Tho is linked to provision ofwater (from SCRD and ground water/streams/ett( and wptlc field capacity. Site specific higher density development proposals may be considered in the context of OCP and zoning amendments thus allowing public input and technital tonsiderations. A sleeping shelter Is considered a dwelling, for the purposes of No change zoning and land use, needs to meet BC and there isa zoning limit in the number of dwellings allowed. Site specific higher density alternative housing development proposals may be considered in the tonteut of OCP and zoning amendments thus allowing public input and technical considerations. Polity support alternative housing forms, subject to rezoning if required. Support for polity Village core allows for this as part of existing tommercial area and expansion area Issue of Art Gallery should be considered Village tore allows for this as part of existing zommertial area and expansion area Issue of Art Gallery should be considered The property with the gazebo is owned by the BC Community Association and land use designation is Institutional (as in current OCP( which allows for community facilities (such as the BC HaII(. Parks are allowed in all zones in Bylaw 310 Polity emsts to support the park, notes ned to work with province No change and PNx Provision of a shared car not an DCP issue. However, zoning may need to be amended to allow for tommunal or commercial charge points. A statement could be added to support this in the OCOP and allow for site specific proposals to be consider through a rezoning process No change Needs additional review as other areas could be added. Add poiicy to aliow for consideration of art gaiieries subject to rezoning process. See Policy 7.4 No change No change No change No change No change No change Add policy to aiiow for consideration of art gaiieries subject to rezoning process. See Policy 7.4 Add policy to allow for consideration of art gaiieries subject to rezoning process. See Policy 7.4 No change Amend poiicy regarding support for eiecb it charging stations subject to reouning Page 8 of 15

147 such 277 Hether Conn Take a look at the bike paths in the Whistler/Squamish area, they have done a good lob of separating Advice on how o design paths. them from highway and keeping a forest buffer Nether Conn consider hiring a psychologist to address changing human behavior attitudes and habit, that s at the Not an CC? matter tore of all proposed changes, if you don t understand how to approach and communicate that tour polices, no matter how valid, will fail Hetlser Conn Consider financial incentives for people to make oroposed changes, to motivate people to do things differently 7 Seaview Cemetary should have maioteoaoce contracted out, SCRO has many employees, they should be able to find someone to do the work Support small businesses to use recycled materials for their products, give small grants more bicycle stands such as need outside the Hall Does the OCP present cutting trees within 10 feet of road (is this in current CC?)? Is their provision that if a 3ft tree is cut down then it must be replaced by siu B ones (as in GVRD(?? Hurray for road work in Core, feels much safer to walk, however parking is definitely at a premium now Any plans to bury drainage ditch on Beach and extend parking there (behind the Gumboot) Property downhill /waterside of RC/Beach has a fence really close to road, thus no place for walkers to avoid traffic, can the fence be moved back Park behind Hall - include a walkway off the Hwy 7 encourage, enable and allow interesting place, make initiatives and pro(ects that celebrate unique character of RC - as intersection painting, street pole painting, planting on road rights of way etc 7 allow up to 3 or 4 chickens (no roosters( on lots less than 1/2 acre to improve local food security clear provisions to allow food production, roadside stands/sales on smaller lots generally wore discussion and provisions for local food security, including on smaller lots 7 tonsider Hornby Island style pedestrian and bike trails in road right of ways rather than eupensive highly engineered solutions There are imitations to what a regional distnct can do with respect No change to financial incentives, We have promoteo opportunities provided by other organizations (such as BC Hydro). Not an CC? matter This is an operational matter and not an CC? matter (the use is the No chaoge same no matter how and who maintains the cemetery). Regional government is restricted with respect to grants, difficult if No change not impossible to offer specific grants to businesses. Can promote incentives by others. Not an 00? matter There is a policy supporting provision of bike parking facilities as Refer this to staff working on review of Bylaw 310. part of developments, zoning bylaw needs to be amended to provide standards and requirements for site developments No, the current and draft CC? promotes creating a tree buffer and No change supports delivering this as part of a rezoning. No. This would be very difficult to police in a rural area. No change Support for road improvement OCP does not need to provide No change explicit support extending this work in the village core area, there are policies that suppott pedestrian and bike paths This could form part of future phase of village core pathway improvements. This toulo form part of future phase of village core pathway improvements The policy regarding future use of the sites behind the Hall refers to trails as one option Many of these are not CC? mattett, nor do they specifically require No change any zoning or CC? applications (for example the mandala does not need to be Identified as a permitted use.) CC? supports poultry for all land uses, details will be set out in Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP review of zoning bylaw ALR sites already allow fur this. Many sites allow for horticultural Amend to dearly state that on site sales will he allowed and sales and agriculture. Chech if this is clearly reflected in draft CC?, that criteria may be defined in the zoning bylaw. Pass comments review of Bylaw 310 is looking at this to staff working on 310 review CC? polices support food security, this is being considered as part Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to 00? of Bylaw 310 review Most of the paths are in road right of way. tome opportunities for No change new routes may arise if proposals for significant development as a community benefit legalize secondary suites in enhanced home occupation area evpansion of Villager Core along Lower Rd makes sense (transit accessible) This issue will be considered as part of review of Bylaw 310 The CC? provides a preferred expansion area, there is an opportunity to consider additional commercial along however care needs to be taken not to have commeroal development leapfrog down Lower Road, better to consider a slow eopansion of the core. eupansion of Villager Core north beyond school and daycare does not make sense (no transit, steep This area is only identified for expansion of B&B and home No change terrain) occupation not commerdal area. Pass info to Parks section, No change to OCP No change Pass comment to staff who worked on the carrent project. No change to OCP Pass comment to staff who worked on the current project. No change to 00 No change Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OC? No change Page 9 of 15

148 looks there SCRO We Need what what multi- Wnat ensure before support support the eeening small why 278 RCOCPC Park behind RC Hail Split the property into 2 components and use the land behind the Hail for where children are not allowed) Land behind AC Hall - Vision, Goals, background - tontrol? 7 Resourte - Resource - good daycare to allow parents to socialize (in Hall -there may be events non-intrusive, non-permanent dwellings (affordable housing) enlarge the area of the OCP when it is already uoder Provincial discourage I residential development Resourte - I support a forest Resource Board, but it must have some clout and be integrated with the SCRD 7 Resource - 7 Agriculture - 7 Agriculture - has to be some real (financial) consequences for clear cuts need to protect the ALA need to continue to support food security in RC, including keeping of chickens and other small scale farming (additional two Yes) Agriculture - 7 Agriculture - community gardens, expansion of Farmers Market, additional Hall parking, scope for covered area for all weather activities (e.g. year round Market) RCOCPC Land behind RC Hall - RCOCPC Land behind AC Hail the potential for geothermal for - is Hail RCOCPC Land behind AC Hall - RCOCPC Agriculture - to realistic about what is commercially viable agricultural land about locai tae incentives for local food production (additional Yes) about community gardens (additional two Yes) 7 Agriculture what about chickens and rabbits for individual families own use (additional Yes) Agriculture - Commercial - family dev t can include forms of agriculture and food production does a slight increase in B&R business mean? Infrastructure sound respected local businesses - is in Infrastructure - curbside pick up for recycling is iniciated at least 1 year (2 is better) of eaperiente of the recycling facility in Gibsons is needed to determine how close to SCAt? diversion goals it has achieved Infrastructure - is there support for roadside bluebon (recycling) Roberts Creek in 7 Infrastructure -support for home owners to build and promote alternative water use (such as pelton wheel power and compouting toilets) infrastructure - Infrastructure - the implementation of a car sharing network serving RC core a permit process to allow someone to rent space for an acceptable home based business on another person s property, allows increase income for property owner and brings business to the Creek area could be used for septic field for Hall The policy is not intended to be comprehensive as there needs to No change be community engagement regarding the future use of the land. Evening day care may not require a land use change as this use by children under adult supervision is allowed for a park. This area is potentially sub(ect to development pressure (such as No change the short lived announcement of a new town by previous owner of large area of private managed forest (and estending east from Dusty Road, also there are is sensitive area near Chapman Creek and the area is the source for many streams and water supply for those without access to municipal water Support for policies No change Support for policies No change Support for policies No change The SCRD cannot control Forestry activity, we rat work with the province, property owners, and forestry companiesto ensure best practices are uses. OCP promotes this approacn OCP supports retention of ALR and its use for farming OCP supports poultry for all land uses, details will be set out in review of zoning bylaw This can chanre over time as food, fuel costs alter, OCF intent is to protect the potential for agriculture over the mid to long term Regional districts have little if any influence on taxation. RC Assessment sets the use and rates flow from this, so if being used for agriculture then there may be a reduction in tav rate SCRD is working with SD4B to develop a community garden; OCP allows for this and promotes idea of community garden as a permitted use in any zone. This is allowed, eecept on small lots, DC? supports all lots regardless of size. Bylaw 310 is being rewew and will consider this. OCP supports concept, key will be how to secure farming. This will allow an increase from 2 to 3 bedrooms and possibly an extra staff member SCRD has a noise bylaw Operational issue. Operational Issue Alternative use it supported (can use a composting toilet, but capacity for regular toilet needs to be in place if current or future owner switches), BC Hydro and province have processes for energy and run 01 river, OCF supports small scale and Bylaw 320 review will consider introducing support. There is an issue related to impact on stream and development permit areas. May not need a land use change where surface parking is allowed, consider in the contest of 310 review. OCF supports this in general and with specific reference new higher density development This is an Interesting idea that should be considered within the context of the current review of Bylaw 310 as it sets out the terms for a home business. No change No change Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP No change No change No change Pats comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP No change No change No change Pass comments to Infrastructure staff Pass comments to Infrastructure staff No change, pass comments to staff working on 310 review Pass comments to staff working review, no change to OCP Paw comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP Page 10 of 15

149 what keep anyone higher designate build offer composting; bring Car, Roads Priority Kids The Post increase Malor Roundabouts Traffic yes Safer foot composting 279 encourage people to use euisting recycling Gibsons and piggyback cheir trips with shoppieg etc in Infrastructure -? Infrastructure - public education around consumerism to get people to buy and throw out less, that is the overriding issue beyond recycling cowmunity composting areas where we can set up bear proof composting and share the compost infrastructure - (additional yes)? Housing - Bronia on Largo Rd income housing Housing - Housing - hack toe Spring Clean Up. not eeeryone has trucks to take stuff to the dump does Affordable mean, we need more long term rental stock in RC as well as mixed housing for seniors, disabled close to core or bus routes (additional 2 yes) we know who has tried to build a self standing in-law suite has encountered horrendous building permit issues, Is there a way to encourage multiple units on site if shared septic. A small house does not work for seniors; issue with stairs Housing - density on small properties (e.g. mine is 1/3 acre) for small auxiliary dwellings (600 sq H) off grid, lobby the Health Authority to relax laws that property has to perc for secondary dwellings if the dwelling is off gnd Housing - Code) geographic areas to allow for non-conforming building techniques (relax Building Lower Rd resident Housing - I support affordable housing and housing oensity. not waterfront residents trying to cash in? Housing - and build high end townhouses to make lots of money Transportation - Transpoffation - Transportation - Transportation - Transportation - Transportation - of town centre Transportation - high density areas based upon LED principles with solar panels etc. A rioe-sharing system? (internet-based) A car sharing system please pick-up. 4 a 4 vehicle sharing opportunities. must be shared pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles please. on safe walkways near town center walking to schools, heavy pedestrian traffic in the 2 3 blocks in all directions bridge on Lower Road I bridge? Separated walkway? 3 Transportation - 3 Transportation -Post speed limit at Beach Avenue from store to Marlene kmph Transportation - 3 Transportation - 7 Tramportation - 7 Transportation - 7 Transportation - speed limit at 30 kmph in separate bike paths is the way to go emphasis on bikes/ped paths on roads like Kraus calming ++ Bike Paths for all Not an OCP matter, operational and personal choice Not an DCP matter, this would be a political decision for the Board to take and to find funds for There may be scope to include this in the community garden policy Not an OCP matter, this is operational No change Affordable housing is defined in the policy No change DCP policy with mspect to higher density currently is targeted to No change around the village core, the types of housing can include seniors etc There are limitations to how flesible the building code Is implemented, the issue of secondary suites will be considered as part of Bylaw 310 review. SCRO should not support reducing health standards as there is no guarantee that future property owners will continue to be off grid (non-conventional septic toilets for enample(. Community septic systems may allow for this as part of, rezoning required for higher density. The building code has some flesibility; however the SCRO needs to ensure that any building that is the subject of a building permit is safe. Alternative materials may be allowed, the DCP does not need to set this out as techniques and materials change all the time. Support for policy Higher density development that requires a rezoning can include requirement for LEEDS or other energy related standards as a community benefit (policy supports this) Not an OCP issue, consideration of park and ride locations is incluued so thh could assist Not an OCP issue, consideration of park and ride locations is included so this could assist Not an DCP issue, consideration of park and ride locations is included so this could assist DCP supports this DC? supports thw, the recently completed phase of tne pathways prolect is an esample of this QCP supports improved walk/cycle facilities, phase one of pathways project isa real example Could form part of future nath improvements, however this would be an expensive item, DCP does not need to go into this level of detail Issue of speed limits should be considered outside of DC? Issue of speed limits should be considered outside of DCP Support for policy Support for policy Issue of intersection design outside of DCP, could note need to review local intersections as a future project should the Integrated Transportation Study be reviewed/updated Issue of appropriate locations and design for traffit calming outside of DC?, could note need to review potential as a future prolect should the Integrated Transportation Study be reviewed/updated Support for policy No change No change Add reference in Policy to community composting as part of a community garden. Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP No change No change, pass comments to Building section. No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change Pass info to infrastructure Services liaison on Transport Cttee Pass info to infrastructure Servicea liaison on Transport Cttee No change No change Pass info to infrastructure Services liaison on Transport Cttee Pass info to infrastructure Services liaison on Transport Cttee No change Page 11 of 15

150 Obiectives Beach Beach Beach beach beach need need smaller lack Art how Yes We Offer Separated Change Some Think need perhaps 280 Lower Rd resident Jason Herts Martin Cooke, Blackburn Rd Transportation - Transportation - attitudes and behaviour Transportation - Transportation to separate bike paths (With buffer zone), Lockyer td.. Roberts Creek need more public education to encourage people to change travel habits, an official car-share program hike paths along both the highmay and Lomer Road would go a long way in encouraging active transportation, improving safety, and making toberts Creek more vibrant, attractive and livable. I believe property owners, highways and the SCRO could cooperate to make it happen. TransportatIon -3 way stop at Cedar Grove and Roberts Creek Road would slow traffic. There is an accident or near miss about every 3 weeks (people umping in ditch) Transportation - Transportation - Transportation - Parks - speed on Roberts Creek Road and thru heart to 30 kmph parts of Beach very unsafe regarding cars going fast around blind corners about the idea of tax breaks for road frontage land to turn into bike paths. please add: To create a fund to acquire lands appropriate for use as public parklands or other public tood such as affordable housing initiatives or community uses. Rationale: as Roberts Creek grows and densifies publicly owner green space will 5 e Increasingly needed and more eepensive, therefore the community needs to plan ahead to be able to purchase appropriate land as it becomes available. Also this fund could be combined with ano augment other sources of revenue for the provision/acquisition sf parkland Parks - Accesses The foot of Largo should have a heath access. If there is an opportunity to make that happen e.g. via a subdivision of waterfront property on Lower Rd.,at Largo, or by any other means, that would be great. Parks - follow Provide for ongoing work to provide green corridors between private land. Parks - Housing - Housing - Parks - Commercial - Commercial - Other - Parks - Access Beach access should be signed in an obvious way so paths are easy to find and Access Annual youth grants could be used to update the beach access. of rental space for businesses, what can be done to open this up Housing - tan flevibility be introduced into Building Code, wosld province consider RC as a test for code changes Transportatins - affordable housing esp for our children lots only allow 1 house, ran we allow 2nd size limited house of secondary suites actess of Lower Rd, can we request additional at subdivision time, Galleries supported as a howe based business for wore floating dock access and facilities - public toilets, are there any regulations fiesible is MoTI toad access requirements, tan we ask that 3Oft not seeded Support for policy Not an OCP matter Not an OCP issue, consideration of park und ode locations it No change included so tsis could assist OCP supports off roads, separated along Hwy and patks elsewhere. No change In village core provision of bike path may be a community amenity. Off road, separated on Lower Road would be difficult to achieve given the number of property owners that would have to agree too rights of way to allow for this. OCP does not prevent separated paths. Issue of intersection design outside of OCP scope, could add reference to working with the community and MoTI to review local intersections as a future prolect perhaps as part of the Integrated Transportation Study be reviewed/updated Issue of speed limits should be considered outside of OCP Road safety issue relating to intersection design and speed outside of OCP, SCRO is investigating this, however there are limitations to what a No change regional district can do wrt to taxation. SCRO ran collect funds for some subdivisions (as an alternative to actual park land), there is scope to acquire land/funds as part of community benefit for rezoning. Introducing a tax fdr park funds is best considered outside for OCP Currently Largo Rd does not extend to ocean. There is subdivision potential for a lot below Lower Rd at end of Largo, may be possible to request province require beach access, however it site is close to existing access at RC Pier so the Mm may not require this. Signage to oarks not an OCP issue, operational matter. Identification of new patks mill be considered by Parks and community at rezoning stage. Not an OCP matter OCP supports this Review of Bylaw 310 will consider secondary suites It is possible to request province require beach actess TUP, home based business (enhanced area), possible expansion of commercial area. Opportunities for significant commercial rental spate better placed in Sethelt and Gibsons Policy allows for tao In the core area No change Physical issues (wind direction and lack of shelter, impact on eel No change grass) Not an OCP matter, operational. SCRO can put portables is our No change parks, Henderson Beach rejected in publit process (noise and vandalism): issuen around tout - only part of year Limits to how flexible the BC ran be, policy in place to rarry out further research on this There are some circumstances where road width does not need to be 20 metres )strata roads at 15w), however the Ministry looks long term and where there is potential for future road network then will ensure sufficient road right of way is secured. No change, pass request regarding Lockyer Road to Parks section No change Pass info to Infrastrucssjre Services liaison on Transport Cttee, add policy statement to working with community and Mon to identify problem Intersections, develop solutions, and process to implement them Pass Info to Infrastructure Services liaison on Transport Cttee Pass info to Infrasbucture Services liaison on Transport Cttee No change, pass comments to Parks section Add reference to requesting useahle beach access at time of subdivision No change Pass comments to Area Director for consideration at grants process, no change to OCP No change Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP Add reference to requesting useabie beach access at time of subdivision (Policy 15.31) No change No change No change Page

151 9.fl See (d) Transportation - road access could be controlled through incorporation, we set the requirement Lynn Invasive Plants (such as at Henderson beach access( can removal be a condition at rezoning at!)cp amendmenc Lynn Parks - funding and acquisition (key is private land when it is on the market(, fund thru tan and money set aside Lynn Public use of or access to private ians, some sites considered public or used as such, for eaampie could have seniors housing at St Aidens Church Lynn Allow for smaller houses, they are more affordable Susie Who do the bylaws govern, for eaample forestry and mining. private vs public Not an!)cp matter The 5CR!) has limited powers to enforce this. There is corporate support for an initiative to educate about the issue. Policy 5.24 considers establishing a multi-agency program to do control arid :f possible eradicate invasive speties. Reference could be added to securing removal at reconing /!)1P amendment stage 5CR!) can collect funds for some subdivisions (as an alternative to actual park land(, there is scope to acquire land/funds as part of community benefit for rezoning. introducing a tac for park funds is best considered outside for!)cp. Tho would need to be negotiated with property omner either at time of rezoning or through donation of site to 5CR!). community benefit poiicy could open door to this discussion. Any specific prolects could include this in design/community consultation phase (such as the pathways projecr where the 5CR!) secured easements/stacucory RoW for portions of path that crossed private iand( BC and coning allows for smaller homes Provincial legislation limits 5CR!) powers wit power production, forestry, mining, PMFL and Crown land, if non-forestry in PMFI or designation removed then bylaws apply, can also apply for some pnvate use of Crown and. No change Amend 5.24 No change, pass comments to Parks section No change No change No change S Marphy, Gail Road Park - Mt Elphinstone evpansion how would this work 5CR!) need to work with province and First Nations to espand the Amend OCP to note working with FN and province to develop Mt park. Elphinstone Park. See policy (B.1O (f) 281 David Steele Agriculture - Village Core - Residential - who dehnes the AIR, what role does the SCR!) have Lynn What is there to support Age in Community /Piace, such as shared dwellings, tripies/foarplea process is compien (rezone(, can!)cp make it easier Lynn Lynn AAC AAC possible density increase can benefit seniors, affordable housing and miced use lower footprint development for seniors should be supported Add The Crown should work with the community to realize the agricultural potential of any AIR in Crown ownership. it is a wonderful document. AIC established the ALR under provincial legislation, they have control. However the 5CR!) has a key role as it is the first point of contact for applications to subdivide, remove from Alit, non-farm ase of AIR. 5CR!) can decide not to support an application and then not send it to ALC, or can support/nor support, be neutral and send to AIC for their decision. 5CR!) refers applications to its Agrlculturai Advisory Committee and Advisory Planning Commission and can request a public meeting. The!)CP identifies an ama where higher density may be allowed however there is no desire to pre-zone individual properties without community input, needs property owner to take the lead to propose such a development. Policy support for higher density in all!)cp for affordable and special needs housing Policy allows for this General policy to consider increased density for affordable or special needs housing The espanded!)cp area includes some trown owned AIR. Support for!)cp No change No change No change No change Amend relevant policy. No change AAC AAC Mechanism for inclusion of new AIR (section 9.1.4( needs further elaboration. Need to define intensive farming (9.4.5( Note that the inclusion of new AIR should be di=oen in partnership with property owner, AACand AICs Add definition Amend Agriculture policy to note this Amend OCR AAC (b.4.8( No GM!) s polity There was agreement by AAC members with this being a phiiosophy or mission as compared to something than could be enforced. Clarify that this is a pobtital statement and there is little ability to enforce, note that R!) has limited powers to prevent the Amend OCR poiicy Page 13 of 15

152 introduction of GMD5 AAC Suggestion regarding soil removal : say refer to Agricultural Land Commission Add reference to ALC Amend OCP policy AAC Page 9, lines should read pre-empled. not elaked our Amend the wording Amend OCP SCRD Parks Need to amend reference to covenant with respect to Cliff Gilker as there may be other options. SCRD Planning Detailed policy setting out the terms for the DCPC problematic (prevents committee not is a established by the RD tmm developing th&r own rules) end outside of OCP, at best this should be an appendie to the OCP SCRD Planning Parking at school site as means of supplementing parking in Village Core, need to acknowledge that this is 5046 land and there needs to be a discussion between SCRD and 5049 to formalize this. SCRD Planning integrated Transportation Study has identified need for intersection improvement at Lower Rd and Hwy. it also mentions Flume Rd/Hwy intersection as a problem site due to topography SCRD Planning Define green power project SCRD Planning Polity duplicates 15J9 Amend the policy Amend DCP Amend the policy to remove details, move to an appendis Amend OCP Add reference to relevant policy to working with 5046 to formalize use of parking area Could add a new Transportation policy regarding these two intersections, could add reference to identifying other intersections (see comments regarding Timberland and Itraus and Cedar Grove) And a new definiton chat includes reference to inoependent power projects Delete Amend OCP Amend 00 Amend OCP Amend 0CP School District 46 Retain reference to eastern site for possible school, near boundary with Elphintone Add to map Amend Land Use map 282 School District 46 There are infrastructure deficiencies at north end of Timberland Road, alongside the school resulting in satcry concerns, It would help to identify this as an intersection in need of improvement as this would reinforce the need for capital investment by the Ministry of Truosportation and Infrastructure. School DIstrict 46 Regarding Joint Use, there is an esisting agreement with the SCRD, although in recent years not Private Managed Forest Land Council Private Managed Forest Land Council Private Managed Forest Land Council Private Managed Forest Land CouncIl Private Managed Forest Land Council supported by financial support from the SCRD, we remain hopeful that relationship between our organizations can be strengthened and the longstanding tradition of joint use project will resume. Since 1994 significant increase in logging on Cantor lands, in the account of the history may want to add to Managed Forest Land that land formally owned by Cantor Corp has seen significant increase in harvesting and road construction activity, these are subject to the Private Managed Forest Land Act and require reforestation by recognizing private land ownership may want to add working directly with managed forest land owners and the Frivate Managed Forest Land Council 1811 It iv important to acknowledge the Fnvate Managed Forest Land Act before the Assessment Act as this legislation regulates forestry prattite Section 16.3, preventing dwelling/residing on property prevents forest land owners from living on their property and engaging in tree farming in contrast with farm owners who do not have this restriction PMPL regulation enables owner to have a dwelling t8.6 limiting subdivision to 100 hectares would prevent small scale forest farming or woodlots, Managed Forest Land program allows for 25 Ha minimum and this is under review and could be reduced to 10 Ha, subdivision may be done in a way that enables smaller family-size private woodlots, this need not be a conflict with the oblectives of the Resource Zone Issue of intersection design outside of 00 scope, could add reference to working with the community and MoTI to review local intersections as a future project perhaps as part of the Integrated Transportation Study be reviewed/updated Add referente to euluting agreement Could add this mference as background Would help to clarity who should be involved In discussions Adds to information about the relevant legislation The FMFL in RC is mainly owned by commercial operations/businesses not individual families looking to develop a woodlot. Provision of housing in PMFL has caused problems when land removed from PMFL designation and sold for residential development. Quite often n the sites are not accessible by MoTI roads and access is poor at best. Any residential development on these lands needs to be considered and this should be through a DCP amendment and rezoning proteus. The SCRD amended zoning to set the 100 Ha limit as a control on development in areas not well served by roads, water etc. At this time there is no desire to allow for subdivision to 25 or 10 Ha lots as a matter of policy. Owners tan seek to amend the 00 and rezone property and discussion can then take plate regarding if this is In the tommunity Interest and what conditions/uses/minimum lot size is appropriate. The DCF should not be changed to consider 25/10 Ha minimum as this could entourage applications that under current policy direction would Add policy statement to working with community and Molt to Identify problem Intersections, develop solutions, and process to Implement them. Pass info to Infrastructure Services liaison on Transport Cttee Amend OCP 8.13 Amend 0CP Amend DCP Amend 00 No change No change Page 14 of 15

153 Evaluate Ensure does The concern not succeed (creates false expectations) 283 Lower Road VisionS The vision is great but give it teeth, make it concrete for example set target dates for goals and integrate them into SCRO budget and strategic planning for the next 5 years at least Make it real Vision - 7 Vision - Goals Goals RCOCPC Reach the actions taken to implement the vision/goals that new property owners are given a copy of the new 00 by realtors or whoever self determination refer to individuals or to community sovereignty plan is conservative, there are many pressures and changes that we will have to contend with in the next decade and sooner than later. The plan gives us an opportunity if we see/take it to maintain what we have with modest growth (hence conservative) while thinking and working together (creatively, deeply, smartly) for the true fundamental paradigm shift and change we have in the coming years about province re-introducing oyster beds, although no sites in RC are proposed, The introduction of oysters would create a mat of sharp white shells over the existing cobbles, which would negatively impact swimming, wildlife appreciation and other recreational enjoyment of the beaches, while also disrapting ncertidai ecosystems and impacting the naturai character of our coastline. With the support of the OCPC, please include the following statement, or the like, on page 35 (in the Oct 27 draftl as new paragraph under section 8- Parks, Trails and Recreation, or where otherwise appropriate, in addition to any further amendments the SCRO committee believes could have a positive influence: While not officially a part of our parks system, the naturul and diverse beaches that form the southern boundary of Rooerts Creek are an important and highly vaised recreational asset to our community. The variety of cobble, pebble, sandy and rocky beaches thut connect upland areas of Roberts Creek to the waters of Georgia Strait support diverse ecological values and play a key role in defining the unique ruralcoastai character of our community. Recognizing the importance of our coastal landscape to the community, public access to and en)oyment of our beaches are to be preserved and protected, The 00 s contribute to setting the strategic direction of the SCRO which in turn guides the direction the budget takes. Once the plan in adopted then staff will work on a strategy to implement it, for esample what pro)ects can the SCRD initiate, use it to evaluate development proposals, use it to support funding bids and so on, Evaluation will be driven by the experience the SCRD and the community has in responding to development proposals. The 00 will guide action taken by SCR0 (such as working with province and First Nations to realize the Mt Eiphinstone Park Staff will look at developing an outreach process to include realtors especially as the zoning bylaw is reviewed Both, the intention is to ensure that, as far as possible, locai development/resource use etc o influenced if not guided by the local community through robust engagement This is a good general statement that reflects of the OCP as a whole. However it is not clear what the paradigm shift is (perhaps relates to energy costs aed climate change). Amend introduction to Ch B to include the suggested text. No change No change Pass comments to staff working on 310 review, no change to OCP No change No change Amend OCP Page 15 of 15

154 Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641 A bylaw to adopt an Official Community Plan for the Roberts Creek Plan Area within Electoral Area D. WHEREAS Section 876 of the Local Government Act provides that the Sunshine Coast Regional District may, by bylaw, adopt an official community plan; AND WHEREAS The Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District deems it necessary to adopt an official community plan in order to ensure orderly development of the Roberts Creek community; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting, enacts as follows: 1. TITLE This bylaw may be cited as the "Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641, 2011". 2. APPLICATION This bylaw is applicable to all land within the boundaries of the Roberts Creek Plan Area as shown on Maps 1-6 within Appendix A attached to and forming part of this bylaw. 3. ORGANIZATION The Roberts Creek Sound Official Community Plan, contained within Appendix A attached to and forming part of this bylaw, is comprised of: 1. Introduction 2. Vision Statement 3. Goals 4. Civic Community Engagement 5. The Physical Environment, Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Green Infrastructure 6. Village Core 7. Commercial, Tourist Commercial and Industrial 8. Parks, Trails and Recreation 9. Agriculture 10. Liquid Waste Management 11. Solid Waste Management 12. Telecommunications and Green Power 13. Water Service Area and Watersheds 14. Stormwater Management and Drainage Plans 15. Transportation Systems 16. Development Permit and Approval Information Areas 17. Residential and Country Residential 18. Resource Rural and Resource 19. Institutional Appendix A: CEEP Appendix B: RC OCPC Map Schedules: 1 to 7 Map 1 General Land Use Map 1A General Land Use Village Core Map 2 Parks and Trails Map 3 Road Network Map 4 Services Map 5 Development Permit Areas Map 6 Primary Resources Map 7 Traditional Territories N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\ Official Community Plan\2011-Oct-28 Bylaw 641 RC OCP\Bylaw 2nd Reading Jul docx 284

155 4. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this bylaw is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase, as the case may be, shall be severed and the validity of the remaining portions of the bylaw shall not be affected. 5. REPEAL Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 375, 1990 is hereby repealed. 6. ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 27 th DAY of October, 2011 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY & MONTH YEAR CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND THE 10-YEAR WATER PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT This DAY & MONTH YEAR PUBLIC HEARING held this DAY & MONTH YEAR READ A THIRD TIME this DAY & MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY & MONTH YEAR Chair Corporate Officer N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area D\ Official Community Plan\2011-Oct-28 Bylaw 641 RC OCP\Bylaw 2nd Reading Jul docx 285

156 Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review July 19, 2012 Second Reading 286 Page 1 of 129

157 Table of Contents 1) INTRODUCTION...57 A) What is an Official Community Plan...57 B) First Nations...68 C) Arrival of Europeans D) The Roberts Family and Other Pioneers E) Harry Roberts F) Further Development G) Background History of the OCP H) Plan Area I) Review and Amendment of the OCP ) VISION STATEMENT ) GOALS OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN ) CIVIC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Objectives: Policies: ) THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Objectives: Policies ) VILLAGE CORE Objectives Policies ) COMMERCIAL, TOURIST COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL Objectives Policies ) PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION Objectives: Policies: ) AGRICULTURE Objectives ) LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT Objectives: Policies ) SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Objectives: Policies: Page 2 of 129

158 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 12) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND GREEN POWER Objectives: Policies: ) WATER SERVICE AREA and WATERSHEDS Objectives: Policies: ) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE PLANS Objectives Policies ) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Objectives: Policies: ) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS and DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA 7779 Objectives: Policies: Development Permit Area 1: Stream Riparian Assessment Areas Development Permit Area 2: Beach Front And Ravine Slopes Development Permit Area 3: Creek Flooding And Associated Debris Flow And Erosion 8688 Development Permit Area 4: Roberts Creek Shoreline Development Permit Area 5: Multi-Family/Cluster Housing Development, Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area Development Permit Area 7: Agricultural Buffering DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA ) RESIDENTIAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL and RURAL Objectives: Policies: ) RESOURCE and COMMUNITY WATERSHED Objectives: Policies: ) INSTITUTIONAL Objectives: Policies: APPENDIX A: Community Energy and Emissions Plan Goals and Implementing OCP Policies Goal 1: Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices Goal 2: Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles Goal 3: Enhance the Green Building Sector Page 3 of 129

159 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 4: Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities Goal 5: Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource Goal 6: Strengthen the Local Economy Goal 7: Manage Brownfield Sites Goal 8: Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community APPENDIX B: ROBERTS CREEK OFFICAL COMMUNITY PLAN COMMISSION (OCPC) Page 4 of 129

160 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 1) INTRODUCTION A) What is an Official Community Plan An Official Community Plan (OCP) provides the longer term vision for the community. Under the Local Government Act (LGA), an OCP is a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the area covered by the OCP. An Official Community Plan is the most significant expression of the vision for how a community should be developed. However there will be occasions where new opportunities come forward that were not envisioned by the OCP either in the proposed location or the type of or scale of development. Rather than deny the community the opportunity to consider these, the OCP can undergo amendments to incorporate new ideas. The process to change an OCP is the same as adopting it: SCRD Board adopting a bylaw amendment after consultation, public information meeting(s) and public hearing(s). For example the previous Roberts Creek OCP was amended to incorporate enhanced protection of streams and the shoreline in addition to site specific development proposals such as the Roberts Creek Co-Housing development. The OCP is a bylaw of the SCRD and as such requires the SCRD to take its policies into account when carrying out its services. For example, policy documents relating to land use produced by the SCRD need to take account of the OCP and not move in a direction opposite to the policies set out in the OCP. The main method by which the SCRD puts the policies and objectives into action is through the SCRD Zoning Bylaw. The Zoning Bylaw sets out what each property is allowed to be used for (such as residential, commercial or park), lot size for new subdivisions, and some controls (such as building location, height and site cover). Any changes to the Zoning Bylaw must conform to the policies in the OCP. Other OCP policies may await site specific development proposals as a means to implement the policy. The OCP may direct the SCRD to take certain actions, such as develop agreements with outside agencies or develop separate more detailed policy documents for specific topics. The SCRD will attempt to implement such policy directions over the life of the OCP, although the Regional District is not obliged to implement all or any of the policies contained in an OCP. The OCP will provide the Regional District direction for land use bylaw amendments and the provision of community services such as parks. Decisions concerning future bylaw amendments pertaining to changes in density or land-uses, for example, will be related to the objectives and policies of the Plan. Bylaws enacted and works undertaken by the Regional District shall be consistent with the Plan; however, the Plan does not commit or authorize the Regional District to proceed with any project that is specified in the OCP. The goals, objectives and policies are based on the understanding that settlement within the Roberts Creek Plan Area is influenced by physical and environmental constraints. The Plan provides guidelines for various land-uses in the Roberts Creek community over the next 25 years. The goals, objectives and policies reflect the historical settlement pattern of the area and the aspirations and concerns of area residents identified during the different phases of public input for this Plan. Provision is made for a variety of housing opportunities in the established rural and residential areas. 290 Page 5 of 129

161 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan When preparing and adopting an OCP, a local government must include the following statements and map designations: the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least five years; the approximate location, amount and type of present and proposed commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational and public utility land uses; approximate location and area of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for extraction; restrictions on land that is subject to hazardous conditions or is environmentally sensitive; the approximate location and phasing of any major road, sewer and water systems; the approximate location and type of present and proposed public facilities, including schools, parks and waste treatment and disposal sites; matters that may, in respect of any plan, be required or authorized by the Provincial Minister responsible for land use planning; housing policies respecting affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing; and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the plan, and policies and actions of the local government proposed with respect to achieving those targets. A local government may choose to provide certain types of policy statements in an OCP, including: policies relating to social needs, social well-being and social development; policies respecting the maintenance and enhancement of farming on land in a farming area or in an area designated for agricultural use in the community plan; policies relating to the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; and, in cases where a matter is not within the jurisdiction of the local government, the plan may only state the broad objectives unless the minister has required or authorized the local government to state a specific policy. B) First Nations The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan acknowledges and respects the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation and shíshálh Nation in whose territory Roberts Creek sits. The boundary between the two Nations is Roberts Creek with the Skwxwú7mesh territory to the east of the river and the shíshálh Nation territory to the west (see Map 7). The Roberts Creek area was originally occupied by the shíshálh, from which the town of Sechelt took its name. The shíshálh people referred to Roberts Creek as xwésám. The mild climate and abundance of fresh water and natural food (fish, shellfish, salmonberries, huckleberries, blackberries, Oregon grape, fiddlehead ferns, stinging nettle, fireweed, rice root, tiger lily, etc.) 291 Page 6 of 129

162 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan made this area a favourite site, the first food-gathering location up-coast from the shíshálh Nation s southern boundary with the Skwxwú7mesh Nation at Roberts Creek.1 The Skwxwú7mesh Nation has focused most of their attention on portions of their territory that are outside of the Sunshine Coast Regional District jurisdiction. However, the Skwxwú7mesh Nation is looking to develop some of their lands in West Howe Sound and they are working with the SCRD to establish closer working relationships. In 2010, the SCRD and Skwxwú7mesh Squamish Nation held a Community-to-Community Forum to initiate this and work is ongoing to develop protocols regarding heritage and development consultation. It is anticipated that closer relationships will continue to be developed over time. The SCRD engages with the Skwxwú7mesh Squamish Nation regarding any proposals to amend the Official Community Plan and related zoning bylaw within their territory. The SCRD has close working relationships with the shíshálh Nation. The shíshálh Nation are represented on the SCRD Board by a member of Sechelt Indian Government District Council. Elected officials and staff from the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest and both are parties to several memoranda of understanding and agreements. SCRD engages with the shíshálh Nation regarding any proposals to amend the Official Community Plan and related zoning bylaw within their territory. The shíshálh Nation adopted the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation (SLUP), lil xemit tems swiya nelh mes stutula, which provides details of the rich history of the shíshálh people. The shíshálh Nation s SLUP represents their summary of the values found across their territory, and describes how they would like to see intertidal and land resources protected, managed, and utilized now and into the future. The shíshálh Nation has developed the SLUP in order to provide a more comprehensive and integrated view of their territory, so that they can be proactive in determining what happens in the future. As such, the shíshálh Nation expects that other governments, including the SCRD, will work with them to align land decisions with their SLUP. Much of western Roberts Creek is within the Stewardship Area where the SLUP states that: The management intent for this zone is to maintain opportunities for shíshálh cultural use, while allowing for appropriate economic development activities that respect the integrity of the shíshálh Nation territory as whole. A portion of land surrounding ts úkw um stulu (Chapman Creek) is identified as the ts úkw um stulu kw enit sim alap (Lower Chapman Creek Cultural Emphasis Area - CEA). This area extends from around the northern boundary of the Roberts Creek OCP area along Chapman Creek into the Davis Bay area of the District of Sechelt and to the mouth of Chapman Creek. The area: has been primarily established to ensure the integrity of salmon spawning and rearing habitat in ts úkw um stulu (Lower Chapman Creek) and to contribute to the overall ecological integrity of the Chapman Creek watershed. The SLUP notes this is an area of extremely high cultural and spiritual values with high wildlife/biodiversity values. The key management issues are to protect its ecological integrity, 1 Source: Heather Till for BigPacific.com and the Sunshine Coast Museum and Archives, complied by from several sources noted in acknowledgements 292 Page 7 of 129

163 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan repair the loss and degradation of s-chélchálihten (salmon) spawning and rearing habitat and protect shíshálh cultural resources and sites. Management direction includes restricting further land development and establishing a wide riparian reserve zone and management area sufficient to protect high value s-chélchálihten (salmon) spawning and rearing habitat. A portion of Chapman Creek at the north end of the OCP area is identified in the SLUP as part of the ts úkw um stulu lil xemit tems swiya (Tetrahedron Chapman Creek Conservation Area (CA)) where: The area was identified in the shíshálh land use planning process as a candidate for conservation, to protect the cultural and ecological values and water supply and quality in the vicinity of the main shíshálh community at ch átlich (Sechelt). The SLUP notes this is an area of extremely high cultural and spiritual values with high wildlife/biodiversity values, community drinking water supply, high value backcountry recreation area, provincial protection area, old growth forest, and s-chélchálihten (salmon) habitat. The key management issues are logging impact and related road access, recreation and tourist management, and protection of shíshálh cultural harvest resources and sites. Management direction is set out in detail in the SLUP and some aspects include: maintain and where necessary restore the area to largely natural or wilderness condition for the benefit, education, and enjoyment of present and future generations; provide for the continuation of shíshálh cultural, subsistence, and renewable resource harvesting activities; and, preserve and maintain social, ceremonial, and cultural uses by the shíshálh Nation. The SLUP identifies permissible uses in the CA as shíshálh cultural use and low impact tourism and recreation. Prohibited uses are: intensive tourism and recreation; industrial resource development; permanent land dispositions; new road access; and shellfish aquaculture. Additional information about the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation can be found on or by contacting their offices, details on the website. The SCRD strongly encourages any developer to contact the shíshálh Nation or the Skwxwú7mesh Nation early in their development process. C) Arrival of Europeans2 European exploration of the area began in the late 1700s by the Spanish (Captain Galiano and Captain Valdes) and the British (Captain Vancouver). The earliest non-native observation of the Roberts Creek area was recorded by Captain Vancouver, who wrote in his journal of June, 1792: At four o'clock on Saturday morning the 16th, we resumed our course to the northwestward, along the starboard of continental shore of the gulf of Georgia, which from point Gower takes a direction about WNW and affords a more pleasing appearance than the shores of Howe's sound. This part of the coast is of a moderate height for some distance inland, and it frequently jets out into low sandy projecting points. The country in general produces forest trees in abundance, of some variety 2 Source: Heather Till for BigPacific.com and the Sunshine Coast Museum and Archives, complied by from several sources noted in acknowledgements 293 Page 8 of 129

164 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan and magnitude; the pine is the most common, and the woods are little encumbered with bushes or trees of inferior growth. D) The Roberts Family and Other Pioneers Roberts Creek's present name came from the first European settler to this area, Thomas William "Will" Roberts. In 1889, he staked outpre-empted a quarter section of flat land just east of the creek. To earn his crown grant to the claim, he built two cedar shake cabins, a chicken house and stables and cleared three acres for cultivation and fruit trees. Will's mother and father, Thomas & Charlotte Roberts, arrived from England the following year and Will's brother, John Francis "Frank" Roberts, joined the family two years later. Frank built a large log house a quarter mile east of the creek for his parents. There were other pioneers in the Roberts Creek area in the late 1880s. William Campbell staked a long narrow waterfront property to the west of Roberts Creek, mostly for the timber. The northern half of his property is now the Sunshine Coast Golf & Country Club. James Grant claimed the piece to the west of Campbell, and James Ross staked next to him on a property bordering Flume Creek (today Marlene Road forms the eastern boundary of his land). Among the most successful early farmers in the Creek were Albert and Gertrude Reeves. Albert cleared 12 acres of land for truck garden crops and raised pigs, chickens and geese for market. He sold his produce to the Indian residential school, resorts and summer homes in Sechelt. Gertrude Reeves had one of the first cars on the Coast, an electric affair she had shipped from England via Cape Horn. With fully-charged batteries, it could travel about 20 miles. Another colourful early Creeker was Hubert Evans, who left his comfortable position in the Vancouver media business to settle his family on an acre of waterfront at the mouth of Stephens Creek. He wrote stories for children's magazines, quitting each year once sales reached $2500 to cruise the coast with his family in a 28-foot boat. In 1897, Thomas & Charlotte Roberts retired to Vancouver and Frank moved into the log house he had built for them. Frank's married son, Francis Thomas "Tom" Roberts, and his family occupied the cabin built by Will. In 1903, Frank and another son Harry established a shingle bolt camp along the creek. Frank later sold the camp and the surrounding 40 acres east of the creek and took on the job of Roberts Creek's first postmaster. On mail days, he rowed an Indian dugout canoe into the bay to pick up mail from the Union Steamship Company's Comox. E) Harry Roberts Harry Roberts was one of the most influential of the early Creek settlers. Formerly a painter, author and philosopher in England, he brought his visionary spirit to the Sunshine Coast. A multi-talented entrepreneur, he catered to summer travellers and local farmers by building a store near the mouth of the creek (near the current site of the Roberts Creek General Store,). He also built a sawmill which provided lumber for most of the new houses in the area and for the government wharf, and timbers for the 13 bridges necessary to construct Lower Road. He was well-known for his unique house and boat designs - much of the lumber he produced was used in their construction. He also built and furnished small cottages to rent to vacationers and eventually subdivided as the demand for land grew. 294 Page 9 of 129

165 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan In 1923, Harry leased out his mill and store and moved with his family to Merry Island, then to a retirement home on Nelson Island in The house he built here, called Sunray, was a charming cottage with south-facing walls of glass. It still stands in its idyllic cove at Cape Cockburn. It was Harry who originated the term Sunshine Coast. He painted a huge sign, visible from the ocean, on the side of the steamer company's freight shed near his store proclaiming this area as the Sunshine Belt, later modified to the Sunshine Coast. F) Further Development The community of Roberts Creek was highly dependent on water transport for supplies, but developing a ship landing was made difficult by the harsh winter storms. Two floats constructed by the government were washed away, and for many years passengers and freight were rowed out to larger vessels in small boats or towed on barges. In 1914 a government wharf was finally completed. Frank and Dulcie Downes took over the Roberts Creek Store from Harry Roberts. They moved it closer to the wharf, enlarged and renovated it and added electricity, refrigeration and the community's first hand-operated, gravity-flow gasoline pump. Roberts Creek village at this time also boasted a second general store (opposite the present-day library), a small summer resort, a beauty parlour, a shoe repair shop, a barber shop, a bakery, a service station and a cafe. There were also three summer camps nearby: The Kewpie Camp for girls, just east of the creek, the 200-acre Camp Byng for Scouts on Lower Road (still in operation), and Camp Olave, a Girl Guide camp at the foot of Rat Portage Hill (also still in operation). For some years, the closest school for the children living in Roberts Creek was in Gibsons. However, in 1919, two schools were built, one near the present junction of Lockyer Road and Highway 101 and one near Orange Road and Highway 101. Under-aged children were enrolled to fill the quota of six students needed in each school to qualify for government funding. These two small schools were also used by the community for social events, but as the population increased they became inadequate. In 1934, the community cooperated in building the Roberts Creek Community Hall on land donated by John Roberts. All the materials and labour were also donated. The Hall is still in constant use and recently received a facelift and structural reinforcement, again mostly by volunteer labour and donations. In the early 1940s a third general store, the Seaview Market, was built in Roberts Creek beside the present library. After the steamships ceased to run in the early 1950s, the wharf store was no longer profitable and closed a few years later. The former site of Thomas and Charlotte's orchard and later Harry's mill is now the small regional park at the foot of Roberts Creek Road, full of history and a community spirit still strong today. During the 1960s many war resisters from the U.S. settled in Roberts Creek. It is also well known for several Utopian communes formed during this time period. Due to the propensity of the locals to wear knee-high rubber boots for gardening (it's the rainforest after all) Roberts Creek is known as the Gumboot Nation. 295 Page 10 of 129

166 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan G) Background History of the OCP Roberts Creek has been fortunate in that it was the first community on the Sunshine Coast to develop an Official Settlement Plan (OSP) back in It should be noted that while this OSP did not have the technical background required for an Official Community Plan (OCP), it served the community well with only one change in the thirteen years before the first OCP was developed (a change to accommodate an expansion to the existing golf course). The values expressed in the OSP of retaining a treed, rural residential community, were clearly the values that continued to be expressed in the first OCP, adopted in years later, the SCRD Board began a review of the OCP and this commenced with an update of technical background information in A Review Committee of volunteers was struck in June On October 19, 2008 a visioning meeting was held in the Roberts Creek Hall with the purpose of assessing what the community felt about the goals and vision of the OCP. A café format was used with working groups seated around tables. 56 Roberts Creek residents answered 3 questions: What do you love or find special or precious about Roberts Creek? What are the elements of a vibrant, healthy, liveable community? Imagine Roberts Creek years from now and describe it. The answers bore a remarkable resemblance to the values in the existing OCP and the Official Settlement Plan before it. They form the basis of the goals and vision statement of this document. Referral of this Plan to the public, Provincial ministries, First Nations, other agencies and a public hearing are additional stages in the planning process enabling comment from various agencies and the community at large. This plan has been prepared pursuant to Provincial legislation which establishes the basis for and stipulates the content of official community plans. In accordance with the legislation the OCP sets out planning objectives and policies designed to accommodate future residential growth and requirements for parks and recreational opportunities while providing for development of forestry, agriculture, and commercial land-uses. H) Plan Area Contained within Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek), the Roberts Creek Plan Area is located west of Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) and east of the District of Sechelt and covers approximately 8,000 square hectares of land. Its southern boundary is located within the Strait of Georgia paralleling the foreshore approximately 300 metres from the high water mark while its northern boundary is within the Sechelt Provincial Forest. The Plan Area is characterized by residential and rural settlements on parcel sizes predominantly larger than 2,000 square metres. The community has an historic commercial focus in lower Roberts Creek at the junction of Beach Avenue, Lower Road and Roberts Creek Road and a major recreational focus adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway in the form of a Regional and Community park, a golf course, and community hall. Several Provincial park sites are located in the Plan Area. The Plan Area includes resource lands with the potential for forestry and agriculture. Many small scale home-based businesses complement the commercial fabric of Roberts Creek. The Town of Gibsons and the District of Sechelt provide the larger scale regional commercial activities and facilities. 296 Page 11 of 129

167 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan The population of Roberts Creek in 1994 was estimated to be By In 2011 the estimated population iswas This is an increase of residents or 320%. The estimates are based upon census data and average growth between census periods. The figures may be adjusted when the 2011 Census data is available, if in time for the production of the final version of the OCP. Delete the following maps 297 Page 12 of 129

168 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan I) Review and Amendment of the OCP The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan should be regularly reviewed. If it becomes outdated and needs to be refreshed, the Technical Background Report (including population and development forecasts) should be updated and the Plan should be examined in light of new local and regional growth demands and trends. For example, any changes in the economic strategy or wastewater management approach for the area may have significant implications for land-use policies. The review may require Plan amendments to guide development and land-uses. An individual or group wishing to request an amendment to the OCP may do so in accordance with the SCRD s procedure bylaw. Additional information regarding the process can be found on the SCRD website - or by contacting the SCRD s Planning and Development Department. 298 Page 13 of 129

169 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 2) VISION STATEMENT Roberts Creek is a neighbourhood and a community characterized by a strong sense of belonging, of identity and of many shared values. Creekers have come together on many occasions to celebrate and to mourn; to air concerns and solve problems; to build and to create. It is this sense of community, a collective identity which also supports and celebrates individual expression that sets Roberts Creek apart and gives it its distinct flavour. We are committed to self-determination and community based decision-making. We are committed to using a development approach which values the preservation of a rural atmosphere and our strong connection to the natural environment in Roberts Creek. Green spaces, trees, country roads, centralization of commercial activity and adding density in already developed areas are all means to this end. We are committed to a clean and healthy environment and have made provision for ecologically sound transportation systems (including walking, cycling and equestrian paths), parklands, and development constraints in hazardous landscapes. Working in conjunction with the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations, we are committed to the preservation of resources within the OCP area. Of particular interest to the community is protection of the 1500 hectares of land located in the Roberts Creek hillside area. The ecological and recreation values of this area need to be protected. In drafting this OCP the people of Roberts Creek give expression to values that we believe point to solutions to global problems and have articulated our commitment to the lifestyle we have chosen and wish to preserve. We are taking an active role in shaping the future of our community. On the one hand, we recognize the pressures of growth and development. On the other, we have taken clear measures to guide and control that development so that the very qualities which make Roberts Creek an attractive place to live will not be lost. We are committed to a future realised through sustainable development which is to ensure that we meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 299 Page 14 of 129

170 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 3) GOALS OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 1. To actively support a welcoming and friendly atmosphere and reinforce a strong sense of community and neighbourhood. 2. To encourage an active citizenry within a community that enhances selfdetermination and self-reliance. 3. To foster an inclusive and compassionate community which welcomes, respects and meets the needs of a diverse range of individuals. 4. To ensure that land is put to an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally responsible use and ensure ongoing biodiversity through the protection, restoration and enhancement of plant and animal habitats. 5. To maintain the existing rural atmosphere of the overall community. 6. To maintain downtown Roberts Creek as the community core, on a human scale, as a social focus, and as a service centre for the community. 7. To avoid land use that results in suburban sprawl. 8. To protect and preserve riparian areas and watersheds including the water and banks of all creeks, lakes and marine foreshore. 9. To actively minimize pollution in the community for example, visual, air, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, soil, sound and light pollution. 10. To allow for the provision of appropriate community services and gathering places that meet a wide range of needs. 11. To preserve and enhance agricultural land and support sustainable local food production, distribution and sales. 12. To actively foster a walkable, bike-able community culture where people have easy access to their community on foot and by bike, and where pedestrians and cyclists are given priority. 13. To develop a transportation network that encourages various modes of transportation, including cycling, walking and public transit, in order to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to facilitate movement within and between communities. 14. To provide a range of housing alternatives and opportunities which meet the needs of a diverse population while respecting the rural character of the community. 15. To encourage a wide range of cultural and & artistic opportunities. 16. To protect the heritage of Roberts Creek and preserve and enhance historic and archaeological sites. 17. To ensure there is sufficient and universally accessible parkland and recreational opportunities including public access to the natural environment and to the waterfront, wildlife corridors, and the protection of Roberts Creek because of its historical, social and environmental value to the community. 300 Page 15 of 129

171 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 4) CIVIC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Official Community Plan is the key document that sets out the community s vision for the future development, protection and enhancement of the area. As such it is important that there is an on-going discussion between the community, First Nations, the SCRD and developers. This will help to keep the OCP relevant and to ensure it guides development. The SCRD works with community groups both appointed by the SCRD, such as the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission that acts as an initial referral agency on development proposals, and groups that are independent of the SCRD such as the Official Community Plan Committee. In addition, the SCRD engages with local residents regarding development proposals that require changes to zoning or the OCP through public information meetings and public hearings. Objectives: 4a To ensure the right of self determination. 4b To ensure an open and transparent engagement process for development and planning matters so the needs of the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations and Roberts Creek community are met. 4c To ensure that the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) and the Official Community Planning Committee (OCPC) represent the community and have a broad base of support. 4d To ensure community input and involvement in development and planning processes. 4e To ensure that the Official Community Planning Committee has representation at Regional Planning processes 4f To recognize and promote the existence of the various community groups as important voices of the community. Policies: 4.1 An elected Official Community Plan Committee (OCPC) consisting of Roberts Creek residents and property owners should continue to provide on-going monitoring of proposed amendments, advice to the SCRD and implementation of the Plan. Suggested terms of reference and procedures are provided in Appendix B The mission of the OCPC is to preserve the values expressed in the OCP by: Providing the community with a forum to facilitate an open, consultative process that will keep the OCP valid and relevant. Ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the OCP. Reviewing and suggesting improvements to the OCP which express the wishes of the Roberts Creek Community. Providing liaison with the RCCA, SCRD and APC on matters relating to the OCP The duty of the OCPC is to advise the SCRD and the Roberts Creek Community Association (RCCA) on all matters relating to the Roberts Creek OCP. This advice is to be in the form of written recommendations to the SCRD and regular reports to the RCCA. The Area Director shall be the liaison between 301 Page 16 of 129

172 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan the OCP Committee and the SCRD. The Chair of the OCP Committee shall be the liaison with the RCCA. 1. Number of Committee members: 11 people 2. Elections: Elections will be held through the RCCA, and are presided over by the SCRD Director, in order to vote in elections you must reside in Roberts Creek. 3. Quorum: A quorum will be five (5). 4. Vacancies: There shall be no fewer than seven members at any given time. If the numbers go below seven, there will be a bi-election to finish the term. 5. The term is for 2 years; 5 and 6 members are elected in alternate years. 6. Residency: Members must have resided in Roberts Creek for at least one year. If they move, they must forfeit their position. 7. Selection of Chair: The elected members will select their own Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. 8. Meeting Schedule: Meetings will be bi-monthly. Meetings shall be advertised in advance to permit community attendance and involvement. 4.2 That the SCRD establish and continue to support an advisory planning commission (APC) for Roberts Creek, meetings should be advertised in advance and minutes should be posted on the SCRD website. 4.3 Meetings of the Official Community Plan Committee should be advertised by the Official Community Plan Committee in advance to permit community attendance and involvement. Minutes of the meetings shall be posted. 4.4 Public hearings for development applications that are of direct and specific applicability to the Roberts Creek community should be conducted within the community. 4.5 All individuals seeking office, where an alternate is needed, shall be strongly encouraged to name their alternate at the time of declaration. 4.6 The Regional Director or alternate attend APC, OCPC, and Roberts Creek Community Association monthly meetings. 302 Page 17 of 129

173 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 5) THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Protection of the physical environment is crucial to ensuring the values that are important to current residents of Roberts Creek will continue to be available for future generations who want to live in and visit Roberts Creek. Protection from pollution, reducing impacts of human activity on wildlife, protection of historical and cultural sites will all contribute to this. On a broader scale, there are issues that must be addressed in order to reduce the expected impacts of climate change or global warming. The SCRD, in partnership with all local governments on the Coast developed Our Coast, our Climate, the Community Energy and Emissions Plan, and is implementing policies to reduce green house gases. The OCP, as the land use plan for the majority of the populated areas of Roberts Creek, is important in establishing policies and directions to help meet the goals set out in Our Coast, our Climate. The Regional District, in accordance with Bill 27, enacted by the Province in 2008 seeks to reduce the emissions of Green House Gases (GHG) within all Official Community Plan boundaries located in the rural Electoral Areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD). The SCRD supports in principle the aspirational goals of the Provincial Government to reach a 33% reduction of 2007 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction by In support of these goals, the SCRD s approach has been to develop locally applicable targets using a bottom up approach based on local growth projections and scientific actions that are within the SCRD s sphere of influence. Thus, rather than be aspirational, the first goal, based on the technical approach of the SCRD is to achieve a 7% reduction from 2007 levels by In 2007 the estimated population on the Sunshine Coast was 28, 231 and with total emissions being 355,428 tonnes of CO2 per year, this equates to tonnes per capita. If population continues to increase as projected in order to achieve the overall 7% decrease in CO2 emission the tonnes per capita must drop from to 7.82 which in fact is a 38% decrease per person. Therefore a 7% decrease is in fact quite significant, when factoring in anticipated population growth. The local community-based (bottom up) approach to meet this global issue and Provincial mandate involves a focus on the spheres of influence of the Regional District, on areas such as transportation, building, solid waste as well as zoning regulation policies and settlement patterns. As part of the bottom up approach to gauge the emissions by sector, the SCRD utilised the supplemented Provincial Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) and conducted a more detailed Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP). The outcome of the CEEP, entitled Our Coast, our Climate, is that the Regional District, the Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt committed in May 2010 to undertake immediate and future actions to achieve a 7% reduction from the 2007 GHG output level. The 7% target is considered to be a light green target. An additional analysis was conducted to consider a dark green analysis. The dark green analysis, which is more in line with the Provincial goals, sets a target of a 33% reduction below 2007 levels by 2031 which equates to a 48% level below business as usual, compared with the expected increase of 15% over time. The dark green target requires an aggressive behaviour change in our community and remains an aspirational target at this time. 303 Page 18 of 129

174 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan The 7% reduction goals from 2007 levels are over and above mandated or anticipated improvements in technologies as of 2007 (e.g. Transport Canada mandated average fuel economy), and represents approximately a 22% reduction from the 2007 Business as Usual level. While the 7% (22% lower than the Business as Usual) reduction goal falls short of the aspirational Provincial targets of a 33% reduction, it is based on a specific Sunshine Coast analysis and requires significant actions to achieve. The following line chart indicates the Business as Usual increase in GHG emissions by 2031 (15%) and compares it to the 7% SCRD reduction target and the 33% Deep Green reduction target. The numbers on the left vertical y (axis) indicate tonnes of CO2 in the hundreds of thousands that are emitted within the SCRD from all sectors. The three lines demonstrate the various possibilities of GHG emissions in our community through 2031: 450 Business As Usual 15% increase SCRD target 7% reduction Deep Green Target 33% reduction Roberts Creek Role The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan will play a role in contributing toward the SCRD s goal of a 7% reduction from 2007 GHG output level. Building upon the region wide information provided in the CEEP, further analysis has been conducted by the SCRD to provide estimation on the GHG emissions within the Roberts Creek OCP area. These can be found in more detail in Appendix AA. The GHG emission sectors that apply to the Roberts Creek Plan area are: Residential, Commercial, Solid Waste, Transportation and Agriculture/Land Conversion. As is to be expected in a rural environment where the private automobile is the primary method of movement, transportation has the highest sector output. For the Roberts Creek OCP area transportation and the land use pattern are the large emission sectors and thus the biggest reductions can be made in targeting action towards these sectors. GHG reductions can be achieved by following the future Policies and Action under each of the eight goals (set out below under Policy 5.1) from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. There is an opportunity to achieve progress in each of these goal areas. Roberts Creek will continue to be a rural area. However, opportunities and policies exist for relatively higher density residential development close to the Roberts Creek Village with larger parcels away from the centre. Further settlement into the ALR and rural and resource forest landscapes 304 Page 19 of 129

175 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan should also be avoided while promoting more walkable, liveable and efficient settlement patterns, and maintaining the neighbourly qualities. Significant future opportunity for reduction lies within the transportation sector and increased energy efficiency in the residential sector. Increased transit and efficient land use planning go hand in hand in this regard, reducing the number of vehicle trips, particularly single occupancy vehicle trips will lead to a significant reduction in the GHG output. Location of new and efficient housing stock in the transit service area will enable significant GHG reductions. Increasing the efficiency of new housing and retrofitting existing housing will also enable a reduction of the total GHG emissions attributed to residential buildings. Higher density housing can decrease energy use. Efficiency in design and construction of dwellings, and the encouragement of constructing multi-family dwellings which can also reduce residential and transportation sector GHG emissions. Objectives: 5a The Roberts Creek OCP shall establish policies that will help the SCRD meet the targets in Our Coast, our Climate in line with the eight goals it sets out. 5b To improve and maintain the quiet tranquility of the Roberts Creek area. 5c To protect airshed areas and the quality of air. 5d To protect watershed areas and the quality of water. 5e To preserve the natural site characteristics when development occurs. 5f To focus settlement and facilities on terrain most suitable for development so that environmental problems are least likely to occur. 5g To improve and maintain the existing environmental quality of the community by the effective management of development. 5h To encourage the protection and enhancement of buildings and sites of historical and archaeological significance and to protect shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations archaeological and heritage resources. 5i To satisfy the requirements of the provincial Fish Protection Act, in particular the Riparian Areas Regulation, with respect to protecting fish habitat. 5j To consider creative development that respects the OCP Vision, Goals and Objectives. 5k To reduce conflicts and deterioration of habitat at the wildlife human interface. Policies 5.1 The SCRD will consider development proposals against the following goals set out in Our Coast, Our Climate and the OCP will set out polices that support SCRD s goal of a 7% reduction from 2007 GHG output level by 2031: a) Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices: Energy efficient land use practices in the Plan area should include focusing on in-fill development within the existing residential neighbourhoods, focusing development in 305 Page 20 of 129

176 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan walkable areas close to transportation options, such as in the Roberts Creek Village and introducing the possibility of some limited neighbourhood commercial uses, such as home occupations. Energy efficient land-use choices also include avoiding extending suburban residential development into areas beyond the water supply boundary and into the Agricultural Land Reserve. Increased land use efficiency can reduce all emission sectors. 5.2 b) Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles: Create reliable transportation opportunities to move residents efficiently between communities, including frequent transit, bike and walking paths, carpools, and car share programs. Increasing transit ridership through neighbourhood buses and more frequent and convenient trips is a significant means of cutting down on the dependence of single occupant vehicles. c) Enhance the Green Building Sector: Create a healthy, local green building sector that supports energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. The opportunity for reduction in GHG in the building form is also an important consideration. Residential buildings could be retrofit, such as replacing inefficient wood heaters with energy efficient wood stoves, and new dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard in an effort to reduce the GHG output resulting from the residential building sector. d) Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities: Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Explore and support opportunities for small scale energy production from sources such as creeks, geothermal and solar power. Consideration needs to be given to potmitigating potential impact on the natural envirionment. e) Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource: Optimize solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling while working towards zero waste. f) Strengthen the Local Economy: Build a local, energy efficient economy that employs and supplies goods and services to Sunshine Coast residents. g) Manage Brownfield Sites: Transform appropriate brownfield sites (vacant, previously developed sites usually industrial or commercial) in to complete community assets. Roberts Creek does not have any historic industrial sites that are vacant and the commercial areas are in use. However over the OCP period vacant or underused sites may come forward. Any redevelopment should consider opportunities to create higher density or new uses compatible with the OCP that include community opportunities. Removal of invasive species should be a consideration. h) Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community: Create a culture of energy conservation for residents and businesses on the Sunshine Coast. The SCRD should produce a Sustainability Checklist to assist in reviewing development proposals and to assist developers in achieving greener developments. 306 Page 21 of 129

177 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 5.3 When reviewing applications for development, especially when rezoning or OCP amendment applications are required, the SCRD shall consider the potential impacts such as: Impact of noise on neighbours and from neighbouring uses on the subject property; Pollution; and Preservation of the natural environment. 5.4 The Roberts Creek OCP shall establish subdivision parcel size restrictions that are linked to environmental, servicing and physical constraints. 5.5 The Roberts Creek OCP shall identify locations that are potentially hazardous and include these within development permit area designations which set out the issues that need to be addressed and the means to identify and, if possible, mitigate the hazards. 5.6 In light of anticipated ocean level rises, the setback requirements for locating structures from the marine high water (natural boundary) should be increased from 7.5 metres horizontal and 1.5 metres vertical to 15 metres horizontal or 2 metres vertical, whichever is the greater horizontal distance, except where determined under development permit area designations in Section 16,. 5.7 The recommendations set out in the Delcan Stormwater Management Study, or any future updates, should be implemented through amendments to SCRD subdivision Servicing and Development bylaws and in partnership with the Province when resources permit. 5.8 Archaeological sites are to be protected and at least the following steps shall be taken: 5.9 Residents must report the discovery of archaeological evidence to the Skwxwú7mesh Nation or the shíshálh Nation and the Province s Archaeology Branch. When requested, the SCRD will support the completion of an archaeological study to ensure the protection of heritage. Developers will be encouraged to contact the relevant First Nation to determine if archaeological sites may be present, but not identified, on the subject property. Historical sites of value to the community but not requiring protection under the Heritage Conservation Act could be identified in the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register, commemorated with signs and incorporated where feasible into development that is accessible to the public A development permit area designation may be considered for the protection of identified heritage sites, or to preserve and enhance the form and character of identified structures. 307 Page 22 of 129

178 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 5.11 The Province shall be strongly encouraged to liaise with the Regional District on regarding issues affecting watercourse hazards assessment on residential, country residential and rural lands and on other environmental issues including the use of pesticides and herbicides For significant developments requiring rezoning or Official Community Plan amendments, the Regional District shall may require that the Official Community Plan also be amended to designate the subject lands as a development permit area for purposes of protecting the natural environment. The Regional District will assess the proposal with reference to the Habitat Atlas and Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory to identify potentially sensitive sites within tor near the porpoesed development area. In such casesshould such sites be indicated then, an environmental impact assessment shall be required to ensure that impacts from any such development are minimized. The assessment should address issues such as buffer requirements, drainage management and alternatives to synthetic chemical applications to plants and soils. The Regional District shall strongly encourage agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments to undertake similar environmental impact studies for all developments including road development and forestry use The Regional District shall strongly encourage relevant Provincial ministries to protect wildlife habitat at the mouth of all creeks, especially of Roberts Creek The effective enforcement of bylaws regulating noise and prohibiting the storage of junk and derelict vehicles shall continue to be a Regional District priority for the Roberts Creek community Developers, subdividers and the utility companies shall be encouraged to place new hydro and telephone lines underground, and to consolidate any separate utility lines for telephone and hydro on one side of a road Proposals for the release of smoke into the atmosphere that are referred to the Regional District for comment shall be carefully assessed with the objective of maintaining air quality The Regional District shall strongly recommend that requests for permits for the release of industrial and noxious chemicals into the atmosphere be denied Federal and Provincial agencies shall be encouraged to adhere to the Regional District's policy of "no application of pesticides and herbicides" in the use and management of land in Roberts Creek The Regional District shall discourage the use of pesticides and herbicides on private properties for cosmetic purposes The re-alignment and re-plotting of parcel boundaries to eliminate long narrow lots shall be encouraged. 308 Page 23 of 129

179 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 5.21 Applicants shall be encouraged to design residential subdivisions in a manner that maintains and enhances the natural attributes of the site, while maximizing safety, accessibility, and efficient use of land The Regional District should provide guidance on how to reduce light pollution and consider whether light pollution should be controlled through bylaw amendments and enforcement Development should be considered with regard to the impact on wildlife habitats, especially in the interface area between the rural/residential areas and the resource/hinterland areas. This should include developing and implementing a Bear Aware program The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to control and if possible eradicate invasive plant species. Removal o f invasive species could be a community benefit identified when considering an application to amend the ocp or rezone property The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to reduce the potential for fires in the interface area The Regional District, in partnership with all relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to eliminate inhumane trapping The Regional District, in partnership with relevant agencies, the community and First Nations, should develop a program to protect the marine environment with specific consideration of identifying and protecting areas with forage fish spawning potential and offshore eelgrass beds Development near the natural boundary of the ocean should be reviewed regarding potential impact on the marine environment. 309 Page 24 of 129

180 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 6) VILLAGE CORE The Village Core is focussed around the intersection of Roberts Creek Road, Beach Avenue and Lower Road. Immediately around this intersection are the main retail and community facilities that provide a village centre to serve local residents and visitors. This includes shops, offices for professional services, restaurants, post office, library and meeting spaces (both formal and informal). Roberts Creek Road is a strong spine for the community with the Community Hall and fire hall at the north end near the Sunshine Coast Highway, the elementary school near the middle and the Roberts Creek Pier Park at the south end. All are important local facilities. Lower Road provides an alternative route for vehicles and bikes towards Gibsons and an alternative entry point to the village. Beach Avenue, although local in character, provides an alternative route towards Sechelt. The core is served by public transport that links Roberts Creek to Sechelt, Gibsons and the Langdale ferry. This helps to make Roberts Creek a visitor destination. The Village Core is characterized by small scale commercial units that have a rural, natural ambience. Any new development must consider how it would enhance this rural character. Further away but still within easier walking distance of the village core and public transport is a residential area that provides some small scale tourist accommodation and opportunities for home based businesses. As the Village Core is the focal point for residents and visitors there is an opportunity to allow for slightly higher density of home based business activity than would normally be allowed for in more rural areas. This would reinforce the role played by the village core. The wider residential area is generally built up with few opportunities for new development. As the area is well served by facilities and has public transport links there may be opportunities to allow for increased density of development within areas close to the core. Increased density should be accompanied by improved opportunities for amenities to serve the additional development and the wider community. Overall there may be opportunities to strengthen the vvillage ccore and surrounding area by allowing for modest expansion of the commercial area, limited increases in potential for home occupation and bed and breakfast uses and increased development density. Modest art galleries may be considered as an auxiliary use to support local artists by expanding retail opportunities within the village area. The result should be a village core that meets a wider community need, thus reducing the frequency of trips to Gibsons and Sechelt, while protecting the area s rural character. The OCP includes form and character led development permit area designations for commercial development in the village and for multi-family development. Additional site specific development permit areas or alterations to existing DPAs may be required as development proposals come forward. In order to support the potential for increased density, the SCRD should develop a liquid waste management plan for the area. 310 Page 25 of 129

181 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Objectives 6a To support economic activities that enhance the rural atmosphere of the Roberts Creek Village Core. 6b To satisfy some of the community s commercial needs by supporting the existing role of the Roberts Creek Village Core. 6c To provide for some controlled, modest expansion of the existing commercial and community facilities in a way that is compatible with the area s rural character. 6d Home office and home occupation are to continue to play an important economic role in a manner compatible with the character and opportunities of the village core. 6e To provide for community amenities and development opportunities so that increased density close to the village core may be supported. 6f To support a mix of commercial and residential developments that create affordable housing opportunities. Policies 6.1 VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE: The Roberts Creek OCP designates as VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE (see Map 1A) land within and adjacent to the historic commercial focus in Roberts Creek partially developed with small scale uses such as: a) retail outlets; b) personal services; c) medical; d) offices; e) specialized food establishments; f) artisan studios and auxiliary art galleries; and g) education services; and h) with the potential for additional facilities of this scale and nature should be supported. All new non-residential development within the designated area is subject to Development Permit Area 6 (ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA). 311 Page 26 of 129

182 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Proposals to change land designation or rezone a parcel for commercial use shall be considered against at least the following criteria: a) Within area from Timberland to Largo to Beach as shown on (add map reference); b) Adjacent to or near existing commercial development; c) Form and Character subject to Development Permit Area 6; d) Impact on neighbouring properties and rural residential character; e) Level of vacancy in existing commercial property; f) Parking provision; g) Stormwater management; h) Access to public transport. If approved, the boundary of DPA 6 will be amended to include the parcel(s) Mixed use development that includes residential and commercial uses may be supported The Regional District should work with School District 46 to formally realize the potential of parking facilities at the Roberts Creek School to support the Village Core outside of school hours. 6.2 HOME BUSINESS TRANSITION ZONE A specific land-use designation should be applied to a wider village area for properties within the Village Core or fronting Roberts Creek Rd up to Cedar Grove Road, permitting enhanced auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast (up to 3 bedrooms), home office and home occupation (each with an additional employee). Sufficient parking is to be provided on site. Home office and home occupation uses must fit within the residential character of the property and area (see Polices 7.2 and 7.3 for details) As the area is close to the Village Core and public transport, the specific land use designation, while primarily residential, may allow for further enhanced auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast,, auxiliary art galleries and home based business with increased retail space and/or number of employees, subject to rezoning applications Any change in zoning shall be guided by at least the following criteria: a) Maintain rural residential atmosphere; b) Lots greater than 3500 sq metres; c) Limit number of employees to resident family plus 2 non-residents; d) On-site resident to operate the business; 312 Page 27 of 129

183 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan e) Sufficient on-site parking to be provided for staff and customers and hidden from street frontage and from neighbours such as by vegetation buffers; f) Tutoring, such as for music, to be limited to no more than seven students, with a maximum of 10 people, at any one time; TOURIST ACCOMMODATION: Bed and breakfast facilities will continue to offer opportunities for tourist accommodation on a small scale basis. An enhanced bed and breakfast area is identified on Map 1A that may allow for a modest increase in bed and breakfast use, such as an increase to 3 rooms and an additional employee subject to at least the criteria set out in (a) to (e) More intensive forms of tourist accommodation such as sleeping units, lodges, and motels shall be discouraged Short term home rental where the owner or property manager is not present shall be discouraged. COMMUNITY AMENITY BONUSING Within the area identified on (add map reference waterfront to Highway, Blackburn to Marlene) the Regional District may consider development proposals that would provide higher density development Before the Regional District should consider approving increased density a Liquid Waste Management Plan must be completed for the core area In order to achieve community amenities, greater residential densities than would otherwise be allowed may be permitted subject to a rezoning process that includes a public hearing Any application to increase residential density will be considered against at least the following criteria: a) Impact on adjacent properties; b) Impact on environmental values and proximity to environmentally sensitive areas; c) Enhance the protection of biodiversity; d) Minimizing habitat fragmentation; e) Distance from hazardous areas; f) Minimizing impact on road traffic safety and levels; g) Accessibility to services and public transit; h) Reduce dependency on cars by provision for bicycles, walking, and car share facilities; i) Water conservation; 313 Page 28 of 129

184 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan j) Energy efficient design; k) Designed to conserve natural resources and minimize waste; l) Protection of heritage and landscape features; m) Clustering of development to maintain larger portion of site to be undeveloped; and n) Maintain rural residential character. The intention is to reduce possible negative impacts on the local area and encourage development that has a small impact on resource use. The level of detail that developers are expected to provide will be based upon the size and potential impact of the proposed development The following are the range of amenities that may be required and depending upon the scale and location of the site several amenities may be required: a) Provision of affordable and rental housing; b) Heritage conservation; c) Public access and/or use; d) Natural habitat conservation/restoration; e) Protection of biodiversity; f) Park dedication; g) Community facilities; h) Bike lanes and trails; i) Energy efficient building design beyond that required by Provincial Building Regulations; j) Land for community agriculture/community forest; The scale of amenity will depend upon the size and potential impact of the proposed development. 6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING FACILITIES The Regional District shall work with the residents, businesses, First Nations and the Province to improve the pedestrian and cycling facilities within the core area. This could include establishing new paths, reducing speed limits in specific areas and encouraging planting/maintenance of appropriate road side vegetation. 6.6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/CLUSTER HOUSING units at a density of no greater than 2,000 square metres per unit may be permitted on sites in the vicinity of the Roberts Creek commercial core to provide for seniors housing, special needs housing and co-housing opportunities within the Plan Area. Parcels being proposed 314 Page 29 of 129

185 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan to permit this type of housing should be evaluated on criteria that includes but is not necessarily restricted to the following: a. the absence of high constraints and potentially hazardous conditions as depicted on Schedule A1 for the proposed building site; b. the proposed location of the sewage disposal system shall be within soils recommended by Regional District consulting engineers as being appropriate for 2,000 square metre residential parcels, as indicated in the Roberts Creek Plan Area Technical Background Report and the design and engineering of the treatment system and land disposal system shall be subject to SCRD approval and may become a community sewer system owned and operated by the SCRD; c. within a reasonable walking distance of the established Roberts Creek commercial core; d. the availability of public transit to provide access to major commercial facilities such as supermarkets and medical offices in the neighbouring municipalities; e. the potential for site ingress and egress; f. the potential for pedestrian access to the waterfront and to other recreational opportunities; g. the provision of on-site community facilities; and h. the form and character of such a project shall be subject to development permit design guidelines established by the Regional District in consultation with area residents. 315 Page 30 of 129

186 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan The above policies would expand the potential areas for commercial activity in and near the Village Core as follows: Village Amenity/Density Bonus Area development proposals that increased density where a range of community benefits are secured may be supported, this would be subject to community consultation and a rezoning application Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area new commercial (such as retail, professional offices, restaurants) may be supported, subject to community consultation and rezoning applications, enhanced home occupation and enhanced B&B would be permitted Enhanced Home Occupation Area increase in number of non-family member employees, increase in retail area over what is currently allowed in Zoning Bylaw would be permitted (such as 2 staff rather than 1, more than 20% area can be used to retail products made on site) and enhanced B&B would be permitted Enhanced Bed & Breakfast Area increase in the number bedrooms than allowed in Zoning Bylaw (such as an increase from 2 to 3) 316 Page 31 of 129

187 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 7) COMMERCIAL, TOURIST COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL Outside of the village core area, there are possible economic development opportunities across the OCP area. Modest, small-scale commercial activity is supported to provide employment opportunities and economic activity within Roberts Creek. However it is important that these are provided within the context of the rural character of the OCP area. Major developments should be diverted towards those parts of the Sunshine Coast that are better suited to accommodate them, such as the Hillside Industrial Estate in West Howe Sound and the commercial areas of the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt and the Sechelt Indian Government District. Roberts Creek is also home to significant Private Managed Forest Land and some potential gravel extraction locations. While the SCRD has limited power to influence resource extraction as this is managed under a different Provincial Legislative regime, the SCRD can establish limitations on the processing of these resources. Objectives and Polices relating to resource extraction are set out in the Resource Rural and Rural sections below. Large scale industrial activity is not considered appropriate to Roberts Creek. However there is scope to allow for some around the Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road, subject to a public process. Tourism is considered to be of growing importance to supporting the economic viability of the Coast. Development of small scale accommodation and sensitively located campgrounds are important to supporting tourism. Appropriate recreation facilities, such as those identified in the Parks, Trails and Recreation section will also improve the tourism experience in addition to offering facilities for local residents and those from elsewhere on the Coast. Objectives 7.a Development requiring commercial zoning in areas outside the existing village core is not permitted. 7.b Other than home occupation or home office, all commercial and industrial development and small scale commercial and industrial activity along the Sunshine Coast Highway corridor is not permitted. 7.c To recognize the important economic role played by home office and home occupation and to allow for the continuation of these opportunities in a manner compatible with the rural, agricultural, country residential, and residential character of Roberts Creek. 7.d To support enhanced home occupation within and near the village core. 7.e To provide for tourist accommodation facilities compatible with the rural character of the area and consistent with servicing constraints. 7. f To maintain the existing provisions for small scale tourist accommodation facilities. 7.g To support tourist oriented opportunities provided through the Provincial and Regional District parks systems, and non-commercial assembly uses. 7. h To support enhanced bed and breakfast uses in and near the village core. 317 Page 32 of 129

188 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 7.i To prohibit marina facilities and boat launching facilities at the mouth of Roberts Creek and elsewhere along the OCP foreshore. 7.j Tourist facilities will continue to be provided through the Provincial Parks system, regional and community level parks, and the Sunshine Coast Golf and Country Club. 7.k The need for marina and boat launching facilities will continue to be met through opportunities in other communities on the Sunshine Coast. 7.l Future major commercial and service industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate within the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt and Sechelt Indian Government District, which have the supporting infrastructure and land uses for such activities. 7. m To support the existing and future roles of major centres on the Lower Sunshine Coast and the Port Mellon and Hillside industrial areas in providing employment opportunities of a major commercial and industrial nature for the Lower Sunshine Coast. 7.n Except for in the area around the Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road site but outside of the Chapman-Grey Watershed, to prohibit all uses that require an industrial designation within the OCP and to strongly encourage the location of hazardous industrial uses outside the Plan Area. 7.o To support opportunities for small scale commercial and light industrial activity auxiliary to residential use. 7.p The OCP area is designated as a Temporary Use Permit Area. Policies 7.1 Through Roberts Creek the Sunshine Coast Highway is a visually important corridor which embodies and reflects the rural identity of Roberts Creek. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL and auxiliary small scale commercial and industrial activity will be prohibited. A specific land-use zone should be applied to this corridor area, permitting auxiliary uses such as bed and breakfast, home office, home occupation, agricultural activities and garden markets. 7.2 Zoning provisions for home-based businesses in the form of home offices and home occupations shall be maintained throughout the RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL, and RESIDENTIAL areas in order to provide economic opportunities compatible with the rural and residential life-styles of Roberts Creek residents. Suitable parking shall be provided on site. Conditions shall be established in the Regional District s zoning bylaw regarding aspects such as amount of retail floor area, number of employees, signage and so on. 7.3 Home occupation uses should not produce any vibration, noise, heat, glare, odours, air pollution or electrical interference discernable from outside of the building in which the home occupation is located beyond that which is reasonable for residential activity. Guidelines will be established in the Regional District s zoning bylaw. 318 Page 33 of 129

189 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan An auxiliary art gallery, a use for the display and sale of original or limited edition works of art created exclusively by local Sunshine Coast artists which may include a studio workspace may be permitted, via site-specific zoning bylaw amendments within the COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL,and AGRICULTURAL general land-use designations subject to a site specific rezoning where the property is greater than 1 Hectare. Limitation relating to floor area, number of employees, parking requirements and other items as identified through the rezoning process will be placed on the gallery For areas designated AGRICULTURAL an application for non-farm use may be required for certain home-based businesses. Please contact the Agricultural Land Commission and the SCRD for advice Bed and breakfast facilities limited in scale to 2 bedrooms, will continue to offer opportunities for tourist accommodation on a small scale basis Tourist accommodation needs will be met in part through the Provincial Parks system and outdoor non-commercial recreation camps More intensive forms of tourist accommodation such as commercial campgrounds, sleeping units, lodges, and motels shall be discouraged. Campgrounds may be permitted in RURAL areas subeject to limitations such as minimum parcel area of 1.75 hectares and 10 camp sites per hectare A full range of industrial activities, including petroleum product storage, shall be strongly encouraged to locate away from residential areas, and preferably in the Hillside and Port Mellon area, which will have both the supporting infrastructure and land uses for these activities. i. Providing there is no negative impact on the Chapman/Grey Watersheds, the area near the Sechelt Regional Landfill may be suitable for light industrial development subject to rezoning applications which will establish uses permitted; ii. Light industrial uses include: manufacturing, processing, servicing and repair and excludes uses such as log storage, auto wrecking, bulk fuel and chemical storage Zoning provisions for small scale commercial and industrial activity auxiliary to residential use shall be permitted in the RURAL areas in order to provide economic opportunities compatible with the rural lifestyle of Roberts Creek Policies relating to resource extraction are set out elsewhere in the OCP. 319 Page 34 of 129

190 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 8) PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION A park is a protected area, in its natural or semi-natural state, or planted and set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats. Parks can be divided into active and passive recreation. Active recreation is that which requires intensive development and often involves cooperative or team activity, including playgrounds, ball fields, tennis and basketball courts, such as Roberts Creek School playgrounds. They do not necessarily require substantial buildings or structures, however there may be changing facilities to support organized sports. Passive recreation is that which emphasizes the open space aspect of a park and which involves a low level of development, including picnic areas, scenic sights, and trails such as Cliff Gilker Park. Larger, community parks often provide for both passive and active recreation. There are formal recreation facilities in Roberts Creek (RC Hall, Gun Club, Golf Course, Legion Hall, a dojo for judo training, the Community School and a music camp) which are significant facilities that contribute to the liveability of the Creek and to the Coast. Trails, both formal and informal, are an important element in the Creek s recreation mix. They can provide walking, cycling, horse riding and a limited amount of 2/4 wheel motorized recreation opportunities. Most of the proposed network makes use of existing roads, road rights of way and forest service roads to provide access through the built area and into the hinterland. The trail network forms an important resource that supports the use of alternatives to car use. Care needs to be taken to reduce possible conflict between the different types of trail users. Parks in Roberts Creek can be owned and maintained by the SCRD (Cliff Gilker and land behind RC Hall), the Province (Roberts Creek Provincial Park, Provincial Picnic Park and Mt Elphinstone Park in three sections), the School District (RC Elementary School playing field), by non-profit organizations (RC Golf Club and the Gun Club) or by community groups (Gazebo Park at Lower/RC Roads). Our parks range in size from small community parks, such as the Roberts Creek Hall Park (2 hectares) to larger destination parks like Cliff Gilker (60.5 hectares). The golf course, open spaces, community and provincial parkland, undeveloped Crown lands and environmentally sensitive areas are included in the Park designation. Citizens of Roberts Creek have always seen the existence, use, and need of park land and passive recreation as means of fostering an awareness of the natural environment and the desire to preserve green space and environmentally sensitive areas. Beach accesses, green spaces, recreation facilities, and an extensive trail system, particularly on the gentle southern slope of Mount Elphinstone, are a source of pride and focus for residents and are attractive to visitors. Public input and involvement, education, and awareness are key to their stewardship, conservation and restoration. While not officially a part of our parks system, the natural and diverse beaches that form the southern boundary of Roberts Creek are an important and highly valued recreational asset to our community. The variety of cobble, pebble, sandy and rocky beaches that connect upland areas of Roberts Creek to the waters of Georgia Strait support diverse ecological values and 320 Page 35 of 129

191 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan play a key role in defining the unique rural-coastal character of our community. Recognizing the importance of our coastal landscape to the community, public access to and enjoyment of our beaches are to be preserved and protected. The community is dedicated to complimenting the road network and having access to the Crown Lands with bicycle paths and interconnecting greenways (pedestrian/equestrian trails). Although Mount Elphinstone Provincial Park has been established, there is no management plan in place for its three separate pieces that have no interconnection, and that needs to be addressed. The OCP supports the expansion of Mount Elphinstone Park to the full 1500 hectares of Protected Area originally requested for the lower elevations of the mountain declared a Protected Area and to protect its many diverse habitats (tailed frog and mushrooms, particularly). As the region's population grows there will be increased demands for parkland and leisure services. As well, public consultation identified park acquisition as a priority for the strategic plan. There is a range of ways that the SCRD can acquire open space such as: interagency partnerships, securing the use of UREPs, public/private partnerships, rezoning to encourage parkland dedication, requiring land to be dedicated for parks upon subdivision, and through donation of land. The Official Community Plan identifies park acquisition priorities. Objectives: 8a 8b 8c 8d 8e 8f 8g To participate in the provision of park and recreational opportunities, such as wilderness experiences, playgrounds, and playing fields, at the neighbourhood, community, regional and Provincial levels to fulfill the recreational needs of all members of the community, where practicable. To protect and support the recreational opportunities provided by provincial parks and lands that protect habitat, enhance ecological diversity and conserve resources. To coordinate future park and recreational development with facilities of School District #46 (Sunshine Coast) and any other agency so as to minimize public expenditure, to provide an enhanced neighbourhood focus, and maximize the use of the services and facilities provided by all agencies, where practicable. To ensure public rights of way are provided for public use and recreation, access to and from the waterfront and development of interconnecting trails between neighbourhoods and parks. To protect foreshore areas, and where appropriate acquire additional upland areas and foreshore lease areas for enhanced public recreational use of the foreshore. To protect major watercourse areas as they are a valuable recreation resource which should be preserved for appropriate public use while ensuring minimal impact to the environment. To protect and support the outdoor recreational opportunities provided by the private sector, including those provided by non-profit agencies and community groups. 321 Page 36 of 129

192 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 8h 8i 8j 8k 8l 8m To encourage and facilitate the development of additional recreational opportunities by non-profit agencies and community groups in appropriate locations. To support the development and operation of the Dakota Ridge Winter Recreation Site under the supervision of the SCRD. To pursue a Coast Wide Trail Strategy for Crown Lands under the umbrella of the SCRD which, through extensive public consultation, will include development of a Trail Users Code of Conduct and strategies which resolve conflicts between trail users as well as ensuring minimal impact to the environment. To obtain use of the provincial Lands for the Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP) as Community Parks. Support the development of the Roberts Creek section of the Suncoaster Trail that will run from ferry to ferry, subject to a public consultation process. To encourage a broad range of recreational activities with an emphasis on those that do not consume resources, that benefit the safety and health of residents, and that preserve the rural character. 322 Page 37 of 129

193 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Delete the following map: Policies: 8.1 The SCRD should adopt a Parks and Trails Master Plan that includes statements about the purpose of each park and trail network. Maintenance Plans should also be developed for each park and trail network. 8.2 Schedule AAMap 2 designate as PARK and FUTURE PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USE those areas of land and water currently set aside for recreational activities to serve existing and future residents. These designated areas include: 1) Cliff Gilker Park: 55 Ha (136 acres) The OCP supports the existing Management Plan (see Appendix AA) and the SCRD attempt to identify a third party to oversee an SCRD Board approved covenant to 323 Page 38 of 129

194 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan protect the park from further development and to ensure that the management plan is followed. Cliff Gilker Park now has 2 wheel chair accessible, barrier free trails from the playground to the top and the bottom of the waterfall. The existing road right of way through the Park should not be developed as a road and if possible should be undesignated and incorporated into the Park. See Policy 8.8b 2) Roberts Creek Pier Park: 0.8 HA (2 acres) at the bottom of Roberts Creek Rd Waterfront park with a large jetty/pier and natural driftwood bench seats overlooking Georgia Strait, sandbar at low tide. Mandala area recently acquired. In consultation with the community, decisions need to be made about whether to block off the Mandala area with a gate and whether to make adjustments to the parking area to ensure best use. Public toilets (one is wheelchair accessible). Pursue any possibilities for obtaining additional park space (or trail) at estuary and beside creek to Lower Rd. See policy 8.8d. 3) Roberts Creek Hall Park: 1.6 Ha (3.9 acres) of undeveloped park land located behind the RC Hall The property, owned by the SCRD is a hooked parcel with a road allowance bisecting it into 2 pieces. The septic field for the RC Hall is located on this property. See policy 8.8c. 4) Land above the power line below lot 1505: 6 Ha (14.8 acres) This east to west strip of land was acquired by the SCRD when Weyerhaeuser sold the land where the power line sits, below lot 1505 to the golf club. The purpose was to provide a trail for walkers and equestrians to be able to access the back country from the Lockyer Rd area and B & K Rd; 2 creeks (Clack and Roberts) need to be crossed, which require a bridge. The trail and bridges should be built. 5) Provincial Park: 3 separate blocks of land on Mt. Elphinstone-approx 140 Ha (346 acres) total SCRD should work with the Skwxwú7mesh Nation to acquire or protect the horseshoe patch in largest block for inclusion in the Mt Elphinstone Park. Build or protect trails to link the 3 blocks. SCRD should pursue management and ownership of existing trails i.e. Wagon Trail 6) Provincial Lots Designated for Use and Recreational Enjoyment of the Public (UREP): Consists of six lots each around 2.4 Ha (5 acres) for a total of 12 Ha (30 acres) between Crowe Rd. and Malcolm Creek Rd. Apply to Province for development as parkland. Possible amenities include barrier free, accessible trails, a meditation site, and a memorial site. SCRD should approach the Province to acquire the right of way on Lehman Road between Malcolm Creek Road and Neilson Road to incorporate into the park and provide a connector to Cliff Gilder Park. 7) Flume Creek: approx 0.75 Ha (1.8 acres) 324 Page 39 of 129

195 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Undeveloped green space on creek corridor with no or poor public access, an isolated park that serves only property owners whose property borders it. Additional park land should be acquired to follow Flume Creek from Margaret Rd. to the highway, providing trail to bus stop, protection of riparian area and additional parkland. 8) Crystal Crescent Park: 1 Ha (2.5 acres) Access by foot path from Crystal Crescent. Beavers have built a dam which has left the park swamp-like, particularly in the winter, but it may dry out in the summer. Potential uses need to be investigated. The SCRD should investigate the potential to acquire Randall Lake if the opportunity arises and develop a trail around it subject to ecological protection. 9.) Co-housing park and trail : 1.67 Ha (4.1 acres) This is a piece of land on the east side of the creek (between Clack and Roberts above the confluence). Need to acquire adjacent land when lots on Largo are developed. Possibly build a bridge to create access to other potential park land on other side of the creek. There is a trail on the west side of the Roberts Creek running from the bottom of the co-housing property up to the highway opposite Cliff Gilker Park. 10) RC Legion Trail: 0.14 Ha (0.35 acres) A narrow strip running up from Lower Rd between the Legion property and Roberts Creek. This piece reaches up to the confluence of Clack and Roberts Creeks. Should be connected to the Co-housing trail and the Co-housing Park. 11) Blackburn below Hwy 101: approx Ha (40 sq m) This tiny triangle of land provides habitat and leads from the bridge for the Blackburn Trail. 12) Joe Rd: approx. 0.1 Ha (0.25 acres) Access from Joe Rd. Potential uses include off leash dog park, community garden, or fitness circuit. These options should be investigated with community input. 13) Roberts Creek Provincial Park 40 Ha. In three portions split by the hwy, north portion not developed, south portion is developed as campground (21 spaces) and a small ocean side park off Flume Beach and Flume Provincial Park approx 0.8 Ha used as picnic area Province adopted a Management Plan in ) Beach and Henderson 470 sq m. (0.1 acres) Provides parking and access to the beach. 15) Community Association sites Lower Road (Gazebo) 2 parcels total of approx 0.28 Ha (0.7 acres), owned and maintained by the Roberts Creek Community Association. 16) Roberts Ck Elementary School Play Ground and undeveloped land Approximately 0.9 Ha (2.2 acres) of formal play area on Roberts Creek Road and 2.4 Ha (5.9 acres) of treed area east and north of school. Owned by School District Page 40 of 129

196 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 17) Camp Byng (Scout Property) approx 86 Ha (212 acres), The site is split by Lower Road and there is no public access. 18) Seaview Cemetery approx 2.3 Ha (5.7 acres). The main cemetery for the Sunshine Coast 19) Golf Club approx 58 Ha (143 acres). 18 hole golf course with club house facilities 20) RC Creekside Ha (0.37 acres), stream side area. 21) Camp Douglas 3.6 Ha (8.9 acres) - owned and operated by the United Church. 22) The entire foreshore area extending 300 metres offshore into the Strait of Georgia The SCRD should work with the Province and First Nations to protect the foreshore with the objective of maintaining and improving the natural environment to assist in the recovery of salmon that spawn in the many streams in Roberts Creek. Initial efforts should be spent on identifying key locations, such as the mouth of Roberts Creek. Recreational use of the foreshore should be considered with regard to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, such as eelgrass beds. Although shíshálh Nation members previously gathered resources throughout the territory, access to many foreshore areas has been lost because of the sale of public land, residential and industrial development, and pollution. In heavily developed areas, almost the entire foreshore is now inaccessible for gathering or other activities because of residential lots and the issuance of foreshore leases. The construction of private docks and moorages creates further problems, as it effectively contaminates areas up to 125 meters on each side, limiting opportunities for gathering of beach and intertidal resources.. Moorage buoys may be a permitted use within this area providing they serve only the upland parcels (land directly connected to or closest to the facility). 8.3 The SCRD should encourage the Crown and owners of Private Managed Forest Land to consider land swaps with the objective of creating additional parks in the community interface. The parks should be leased to or owned by the SCRD and a process should be developed to work with the Crown and First Nations to identify lands that are suitable for park use. 8.4 Should all or parts of Camp Douglas or Camp Byng cease to be needed by the operators the SCRD should seek to acquire the land for park use. If acquired, they should be used for public recreation use in perpetuity. 8.5 Schedule AAMap 2 designate an INTEGRATED WALKING, BICYCLING, and EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM where road rights-of-ways, utility corridor and parks are to be developed as walking, bicycling and equestrian routes. The SCRD should consider establishing a Trails Committee to assist the SCRD in developing and maintaining the Trail System. The SCRD should consider provision of additional or alternative trails negotiated through subdivisions and rezoning applications. 326 Page 41 of 129

197 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 8.6 Schedule AAMap 2 designates as PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL RECREATION land areas currently zoned and partially developed by private non-profit organizations as recreational camps, equestrian facilities, gun club and for golf course purposes, and may include public uses such as trails. Such uses are important to making Roberts Creek a liveable community and land use designations should be maintained. Additional opportunities should be identified and supported, subject to a rezoning process. 8.7 Provision of off-leash areas should also be considered as there are limited dedicated facilities in Roberts Creek. They should be provided subject to neighbourhood consultation, provision of parking, maintaining separation from schools/playing fields; ensuring nearby sensitive ecological areas are protected; area is fenced and gated. 8.8 NEIGHBOURHOOD-LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES a. A standard of 10,000 square metres (1.0 hectare) per 500 population and a 0.5 kilometre service radius should be utilized as a guideline for planning accessible neighborhood level parks of 10,000 square metres and greater in size. The neighbourhood level parks should be developed for recreation opportunities such as junior sized playing fields, children's play equipment and tennis courts. These parks will contribute to maintaining a healthy population and offer recreation opportunities, especially for youth. The creation of smaller parks shall be pursued to provide supplementary neighborhood level facilities in areas where there will be insufficient population to warrant a full sized neighborhood park, and where access to such a park is impeded by features such as creek ravines and major arterial roads. These parks need to have value for recreation or environmental protection. b. Detailed site development plans should be prepared with the participation of residents to establish the specific types and siting of neighbourhood level opportunities to be developed in existing and any future parks. c. When land for park purposes is to be dedicated by subdivision plan, the acquisition of the future NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITES shall be priorities. d. The following neighbourhood level park areas and nature park areas depicted on Schedule AAMap 2 should be established: FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE(S) 1 a minimum area of 1.7 hectares and up to 3 hectares should become new park(s) within the general vicinity of Joe Road and between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road. The neighbourhood open space in this area could consist of either one or two sites of 1 to 2 hectares in size or one site at least 3 hectares in size. FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE(S) 2 a minimum area of 2.8 hectares should become new park(s) within the general vicinity of Roberts Creek park corridor and Roberts Creek Elementary School Site 327 Page 42 of 129

198 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan to serve the area between Blackburn Road to Marlene Road and between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Beach Avenue/Lower Road (Central Roberts Creek Neighbourhood). The neighbourhood open space in this area could consist of one or two sites of 1 to 2 hectares in size or one site of at least 3 hectares in size. FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE 3 a minimum area of 1.3 hectares should become new park off Flume Road and preferably in proximity to Flume Creek located south of the Sunshine Coast Highway between Marlene Road and Henderson Road (Flume-Henderson Neighbourhood). FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK SITE 4 a minimum area of 0.5 to 1 hectare should become new park off Henderson Road to serve the Henderson Road to Camp Olave area (Flume-Henderson Neighbourhood). 8.9 COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL-LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES a. A standard of 10,000 square metres (1.0 hectare) per 500 population and a service radius of 2 kilometres should be utilized as a guideline for planning community level parks of approximately 10 hectares in size. This type of park accommodates activities such as senior playing fields, jogging tracks, and specialized play equipment such as an adventure playground. b. Cliff Gilker Park (approximately 53 hectares) partially provides regional park opportunities and playing field activities that serve the Roberts Creek community as well as other Sunshine Coast communities. Cliff Gilker Park will continue to be used for a variety of community and regional level activities, with provision for higher intensity use west of the Clack Creek. The layout of the park in this area should accommodate a variety of organized activities such as baseball and soccer. The SCRD adopted the Cliff Gilker Park Management Plan in It states Cliff Gilker Park is one of the jewels of the Sunshine Coast. This management plan for Cliff Gilker is a major step in the development of the final plan which will guide park management for the next decade or so, and will form the basis for a three-party conservation covenant. Cliff Gilker Park is valued most highly for its natural qualities combined with a diversity of recreation, all in close proximity to populated areas. The management plan uses these values to determine management actions. The forest will, of course, evolve over time into a different forest as part of natural succession. Management must work with this natural process while maintaining the same natural experience for its users: biodiversity, recreation, sanctuary, refuge, beauty. The Plan shall be used to guide the future of Cliff Gilker Park and the SCRD should consider implementing the it through a 3rd Party/not-for-profit community group. The terms of the Plan should could be secured in a covenant registered on Title 328 Page 43 of 129

199 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan c d which details the roles and responsibilities of the SCRD and the 3 rd Party or by some other means. The recreation faciliesfacilities in the park shall not be extended beyond that identified in the management plan. Roberts Creek Hall Park The site behind the Roberts Creek Hall has the potential to serve various functions. The area immediately behind the Hall could be used to provide open space that supports the Hall, such as area for the Farmers Market, formal play area, trails, and informal space. The road right way can contribute additional parking for the Hall. The area below the road right of way could be developed as additional park space or contribute to delivering innovative affordable multi-generational housing. The options need to be fully considered by the community and lead to a park plan being developed to guide the future use of this important space. Any uses not normally associated with park use will be the subject of a rezoning process with community engagement as a key. Roberts Creek Pier Park This park is a significant space for residents of Roberts Creek and the entire Coast. It is also a tourist destination. The site holds a special cultural and recreational place for Roberts Creek. The area is environmentally sensitive as it is adjacent to the mouth of Roberts Creek. It is also the location for several important community events, such as Roberts Creek Earth Day and the Roberts Creek Mandala Festival and Creek Daze. A park plan needs to be developed that considers the needs of the various user groups and the role the site plays in the community. The plan should address parking, where vehicles should be allowed and protection of the creek mouth PROVINCIAL LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES a. Roberts Creek Provincial Park sites will provide for Provincial level opportunities in the Plan Area. b. The SCRD considers that there are opportunities to make better use of existing Provincial Parks and to expand the number of these within Roberts Creek. c. The SCRD considers that sites designated by the Province for the Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP) should become either Provincial Parks or parks under SCRD ownership or lease. d. There is a long held desire that a larger portion of Mount Elphinstone be granted park status and that the three existing sections Mount Elphinstone be linked by formal managed trails. e. A first step could be to fill in the horseshoe shaped section by dedicated Crown land for addition to the Mt Elphinstone Park. 329 Page 44 of 129

200 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan f The SCRD should continue to work towards dedicating the full 1500 hectares area identified for the complete Mt Elphinstone Park. The Regional District should work with the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations, and the province to realize this. WATER RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES The foreshore area fronting the park at the mouth of Roberts Creek and foreshore and land at the foot of Henderson Road are secured by the Regional District through lease. The leases should be renewed when required and the SCRD should acquire ownership of the land. The SCRD should acquire leases for undeveloped road rights of way that provide access to the beach or to ocean views, shown on Schedule AAMap 2. Where there is sufficient land dedicated parking areas should be identified. Beach accesses and viewpoints should be considered in the Regional District s Parks and Trails Master Plan(s) WALKING, BICYCLING AND EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITIES a. Implementation of the INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLING-EQUESTRIAN SYSTEM depicted on Schedule AAMap 2 as extending throughout the whole community should be subject to assessments of construction details and associated costs, including consideration of any alternatives that may also be acceptable to the community and that are cost effective. The INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLINGEQUESTRIAN SYSTEM would be partially implemented as part of a Region-wide Bicycle Concept Plan. The preferred phasing of various elements of the system are to be confirmed through detailed assessments as follows: b. i. work has started on paving a 1.5 to 2 metre wide strip on top of the natural gas pipeline right-of-way down Roberts Creek Road and along Lower Road to the cemetery and it should be completed. ii. pave the shoulder on one side of the Sunshine Coast Highway in conjunction with improvements to this road, or independently, whichever comes first. The aim is to extend the separated bicyclepedestrian path both towards Sechelt, to the commercial, civic and industrial area at Field Road, and towards Elphinstone and eventually link to the Town of Gibsons. iii. Until such time as a separate bicycle-pedestrian trail is available, pave both shoulders of the Sunshine Coast Highway in conjunction with improvements to these roads, or independently, whichever come first. iv. Until such time as a separate bicycle-pedestrian trail is available, pave both shoulders of the Lower Road in conjunction with improvements to these roads, or independently, whichever come first. Biking and walking paths should be developed with clearly marked lines separating these two types of activities from each other and from the vehicular traffic, and with routes being clearly sign posted. 330 Page 45 of 129

201 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan c. Existing logging roads and forest recreational trails should continue to provide horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking and other types of backcountry nonmotorized activities, supplementing those that will be made available through the INTEGRATED WALKING-BICYCLING-EQUESTRIAN SYSTEM. d. Heritage sites and trails, including old logging roads and homestead sites should be identified and integrated with other opportunities for backcountry activities. e. Schedule AAMap 2 identifies the general location for the Suncoaster Trail. This is a significant regional trail that will eventually establish a ferry terminal to ferry terminal route, subject to a public consultation process. The SCRD should identify and develop links from the Suncoaster to and from the Roberts Creek Village, existing parks and trail network and the residential areas. There should be a public process to determine the route through Area D so that the SCRD will be positioned to access grants as soon as they become available. The Trail should be developed in an ecologically sensitive way, such as hand built as opposed to use of heavy machinery. f. Schedule AAMap 2 designates as a FUTURE BACKCOUNTRY RECREATIONAL SITE 1 land which is located in the vicinity of Largo Road (B & K logging road) and the BC Hydro right-of-way that is currently used as a regional and international mountain bike circuit. This area should be restored by removing illegal dump sites and preserved and maintained for this specialized activity. Facilities such as an outhouse and garbage bins should be provided, especially for events. A Trail Plan should be developed to ensure that trails are developed sensitively along with a code of use to ensure the site is cleaned up after events. g. The opening up and development of the foreshore access points depicted on Schedule AAMap 2 should be pursued to provide enhanced recreational activities and public access. These access points and recreational sites should be clearly identified with appropriate sign posting. h Subject to community consultation sites suitable for motorized trails could be identified as part of a Parks and Trails Master Plan providing that they are separated from trails for non-motorized users The Regional District should maintain and develop the existinga joint use agreement between School District No. 46 and the Regional District for maximizing the community use of school facilities, including playing fields Existing areas with a UREP status (Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public) in areas designated by Schedule AAMap 2 as PUBLIC RECREATION USE should be secured in Regional District ownership or some other form of tenure, to provide for a variety of community and regional level opportunities. The acquisition of these sites would be subject to confirmation by the Province of the need for these sites for community purposes. 331 Page 46 of 129

202 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 8.15 Assembly Uses provide important facilities that encourage and support greater connections to the area and a more complete community. a) Existing Assembly Uses that provide for meeting places that support cultural, spiritual, religious, educational, entertainment and other community activities, such a local farmers markets, are supported and zoning should be established that allows for these to be permitted uses. b) Existing Assembly Uses should be protected and any rezoning that removes such a use should not be supported. c) New Assembly Uses that provide community facilities should be supported subject to a rezoning process. d) Overnight accommodation as part of an Assembly Use is not normally permitted, however site specific designations may allow for this subject to a rezoning process. 332 Page 47 of 129

203 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 9) AGRICULTURE According to local historians, Betty C. Keller and Rosella M. Leslie, (Bright Seas, Pioneer Spirits: The Sunshine Coast) prior to World War II Roberts Creek, in addition to being a logging community and a steamship tourist destination, was a farming community. In the early 1900 s Albert and Gertrude Reeves cleared 12 acres of land for truck garden crops and raised pigs, chickens and geese for market; Mrs. Hanbury and sons planted an orchard and raised pigs; and Joseph Smith, on his waterfront property, made his living growing artichokes for the Vancouver market. In the years after World War II, competition from the large scale farms of the Fraser Valley and produce imported from the United States gradually made it more difficult for Roberts Creek farmers to find markets. Much of the farm land was allowed to lie fallow while some of it was subdivided for homes. In the 1960 s the Creek was rediscovered by the hippie generation and many of these new Creekers settled on old farms. While many of these new Creekers may have drifted away by the end of the 1970 s those who stayed on have had a powerful influence on the philosophy of the community and have led the fight to preserve its rural character. As citizens of Roberts Creek, we embrace our past, and like our predecessors, affirm that farming is integral to our rural lifestyle and economy. We recognize the importance of agriculture as a food source, an environmental resource, and a contributor to the local economy. We are committed to protecting and increasing where possible the supply of agriculture lands and ensuring the viability of farm operations. The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan area contains approximately 500 hectares of land that is designated as Agricultural Land Reserve by the Agricultural Land Commission. The SCRD zoning bylaw allows for a broad range of farming activity on ALR parcels. The SCRD zoning bylaw also permits agricultural and the keeping of livestock on most rural land. Keeping of livestock and/or the keeping of poultry and rabbits is permitted in some residential zones, subject to limitations. In addition, the zoning bylaw allows horticulture and silviculture on all parcels. Objectives 9.a Preserve and protect land for agriculture use. 9.b Support and promote small-scale farming as a social, cultural and economic priority and an ecologically responsible land use in Roberts Creek. 9.c Facilitate the sale of agricultural products produced in Roberts Creek both on site and at farmers markets. 9.d Support a strategy for diversifying and enhancing farm income by creating opportunities for value added activities related to local agriculture without adverse impacts on farmland capabilities. 9.e Minimize conflict between agricultural activity and other uses on adjacent properties regarding the environment. 333 Page 48 of 129

204 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 9.f Encourage the creation and implementation of a regional agriculture plan that leads to sustainable regional food self-sufficiency. 9.g Encourage best practices of water management and conservation to minimize the impact on the Regional District s water and local aquifers, while considering the needs sufficient for agriculture use. Delete the following map Policies 9.1 Agricultural Land Reserve The Agricultural Land Commission established the ALR between 1974 to 1976 through cooperative efforts with regional districts and member municipalities. Local input on an ALR plan was gained through a public hearing process. These policies suggest the types of applications to the Agricultural Land Commission which could be supported by the Regional District. Applications for non-farm use, exclusion and inclusion are submitted to the Regional District for review. The Regional District can refuse the application or it can forward it to the ALC for final decision (either with or without comments from the SCRD). The final decision regarding approval for such applications rests with the Commission. 334 Page 49 of 129

205 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Agricultural Land Use Schedule AAMap 1 shows land that is designated as Agricultural. a) The designation shall include all land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and may include other land. b) The minimum parcel area for strata subdivision purposes shall be 1.75 hectares. c) The SCRD should continue to support an Agricultural Advisory Committee to provide local expert advice on agricultural issues and to assist with information programs; c)d) The Regional District should work with the province, First Nations and the community to realize the agricultural potential of any ALR in Crown ownership; d)e) All applications for exclusion, inclusion and non-farm use of ALR must be reviewed by the following: (i) (ii) (iii) SCRD Planning Department; Area Director; Area D APC; (iv) Area D OCPC; and (v) Regional District Agricultural Advisory Committee prior to consideration by the SCRD Board as to whether to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission Exclusion of property from ALR a) The Regional District continues to strongly support the preservation and maintenance of the agricultural land base and applications for exclusion of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve will not usually be considered. b) The Regional District may consider an application that would result in inclusion of an equivalent area of existing non-alr farmland into the ALR subject to relative farming capacity of the land under consideration. c) Exclusion may be supported for essential community services, if the location of the service is limited by engineering constraints, or by strategic considerations, and that the proponent has demonstrated that there is no suitable alternate, non-alr property Non-farm Use of ALR The Regional District could support applications to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use within the Agricultural Land Reserve, in some situations, where local farming or the greater community would benefit. Support for such applications should only be considered if the application falls into one of the following categories: 335 Page 50 of 129

206 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan a) the proposed non-farm use would allow an active farm to diversify and broaden its income, but not decrease the farming capacity of the property. b) in the instance of a proposed exclusion, the Regional District may consider an application that would result in inclusion of existing non-alr farmland into the ALR. c) for essential community services, if the location of the service is limited by engineering constraints, or by strategic considerations, and that the proponent has demonstrated that there is no suitable alternate, non-alr property. Note: The removal of soil and placement of fill is a non-farm use, however there are exceptions set out in the ALC s legislation. Please contact the ALC for advice Inclusion of new ALR To offset the impacts of the non-farm use or the removal of lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve under this policy, the Regional District will encourage the inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve of other lands, in the planning area, that are at least as suitable for agriculture. The Regional District will work with property owners, the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Agricultural Land Commission to designate additional ALR Second Dwelling on ALR The Regional District may consider permanent second dwellings within the ALR in accordance with policies established in the Zoning bylaw, providing the second permanent dwelling s location would not adversely affect farming ability of the land or of the environment. Unless refused by the Regional District, all applications for permanent second dwellings shall be referred to the ALC Strata Subdivision of ALR Lands Agricultural activities are strongly encouraged for ALR lands. Strata subdivision of ALR will not normally be supported unless a proposed subdivision clearly improves farming capability or commercial production of the site in a way that would not be possible without a strata subdivision. The following criteria should be taken into consideration when making an application for strata subdivision: a) average parcel size of 1.75 hectares shall be considered; b) the parcels, dwellings and other structures are located to minimize harm to the agricultural ability of the proposed parcels and minimize the adverse effects on the environment; c) the proposed subdivision would allow an active farm to diversify and broaden its income, but not decrease the farming capacity of the property; d) A lower average parcel size may be considered if: (i) a limit is placed on the total footprint of all residential structures; 336 Page 51 of 129

207 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (ii) a covenant will be registered to identify a common area that is set aside for agriculture equal to 10% of whole parcel to be available for use by the wider community (i.e. beyond those living in the development); the covenant will set out who the managing agency will be and other terms as negotiated with the applicant and the SCRD. 337 Page 52 of 129

208 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 9.2 Non ALR Farm Land Identification of Sites with Farming Potential The Regional District should undertake or support initiatives to identify properties not currently in the ALR but which have agricultural potential and are primarily used for farming, so that these properties may be protected for future agriculture Community Farm Land Community Farm Land is to be used by the wider community to provide farming opportunities. Community Farm Land may be secured as an amenity bonus. Support should be given for rezoning applications that would allow various forms of community farming activities iincluding farm product processing or storage facilities for produce from off site. A community farm is a multi-functional farm where the land is held in trust for community rather than owned privately. A community group or co-operative governs the land use agreements, and agricultural uses of the land are shared by a community of farmers. The primary focus of a community farm is local food production using sustainable agricultural practices. Land holders, land managers, and farmers work together by mutual agreement. Farmers are housed on or near the land Communal Farm Land As an amenity bonus, the Regional District should consider rezoning applications to allow higher density where land will be farmed communally. Such sites are not available to the wider community but to a members of a specific group or organisation and secured through covenant. 9.3 Reducing Development Impact on Farms Roads through agricultural land The Regional District shall work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to support the planning of new and modifications to existing roads that avoid disruption and fragmentation of existing and potential agricultural land Borders and Buffering and Zoning When considering rezoning applications for land that borders or drains onto agricultural land, the Regional district will ensure that such zoning changes do not negatively impact farming. (See Water Policies) Utility Corridors and Telecommunications Development The Regional District shall work with utility and telecommunications providers to reduce the impact of utility and communication corridors on existing and potential agricultural lots. 338 Page 53 of 129

209 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 9.4 Support for Farming Any parcel may be used for agricultural purposes. The sale of produce should be allowed subject to the following criteria: a) the produce is grown on the same property, b) availability of sufficient on-site parking, c) any seperate produce stand is able to be easily moved and d) limited retail floor area is subject to the same limitations as for home ccupation as set out in the zoning bylaw. Limitations for criteria b-d will be established in the relevant SCRD Zoning Bylaw The keeping of livestock, such as sheep, goats, cattle, horses and bees, may be permitted as set out under the Regional District s zoning bylaw which shall establish minimum parcel size and setbacks from parcel lines for features such as feeding troughs, manure piles and so on. Keeping of poultry and rabbits are considered in Policy Agricultural Advisory Committee and Agricultural Area Plan a) b) c) Food Security a) b) The Regional District shall continue its support of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) to consider and advise the Regional District on agricultural matters. Encourage the SCRD with assistance from the AAC to prepare an Agricultural Area Plan. Encourage the AAC to develop programs to promote the education of farming activity The Regional District should consider impacts on local food security when making land use decisions. The Regional District should ensure a healthy, sustainable and stable food supply by working with Coastal Health, Agricultural Advisory Committee, food producers, and other stakeholders to develop a long-term plan for improving local and regional food security. Intensive Farming The Regional District should develop appropriate regulations and guidelines for intensive farming in consultation with farmers and other stakeholders to minimize the impact of such activities on rural and residential neighbours. (ADD DEFINITION) Environmental Values The Regional District should encourage healthy and environmentally sound agricultural practices (e.g. promote the BC Environmental Farm Program) Water The Regional District should 339 Page 54 of 129

210 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan a) develop a water management plan for the region that considers agricultural water needs. b) Promote on-going education of farmers and public about farm specific water conservation and encourage storage of surplus water on farms and in general. c) develop an education program to improve the management of farm waste, leachate collection, soil and water conservation, and water-nutrient balance. d) when it considers rezoning applications that are not related to farming, ensure that the proposal will not reduce the quality and quantity of water for farming No Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) a) While there is limited powers to prevent the introduction of GMOs Tthe Regional District is encouraged to designate Roberts Creek and the Sunshine Coast as a genetically engineered crop free zone. b) The Regional District is encouraged to support the control and eradication of non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms. Note: Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. Item 6 of the Earth Charter states a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive. b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm Residential Agriculture The Regional District should: a) Strengthen local sustainable agriculture by supporting backyard gardening and community garden initiatives, such as allowing for horticultural sales. b) In order to share food resources and to protect wildlife, support gleaning of crops and fruit. c) Encourage new development to include contiguous space intended for food production and garden space for residents. d) Permit community gardens, including community composting facilities, in any zone Support the Farming of Poultry and Rabbits The Regional District, in consultation with the AAC, APC, OCPC and the community, should: a) implement land use policies that allows for the keeping of hens only and rabbits in all residentially zoned parcels; 340 Page 55 of 129

211 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan b) implement land use policies that allow keeping of poultry (including roosters and other fowl that are used for food production) and rabbits in all other zones; c) allow commercial sale of rabbits, poultry and eggs produced on that lot, in any land use zone; d) take action to reduce possible nuisance such as noise, smell, vermin and predators: (i) (ii) (iii) establish reasonable setbacks for all structures, such as feed stations, and associated material, such as manure piles, must conform to provincial standards; establish a reasonable limit on the number of rabbits and poultry allowed in residentially zoned lots; develop best practices guidelines for the keeping of poultry and rabbits Soil Removal and Fill Practices The Regional District should: a) prohibit the removal of soil suitable for agricultural purposes from land designated as agricultural b) support the placement of fill to protect the natural environment and where possible to preserve, maintain, and enhance soil for agricultural purposes c) develop regulations regarding soil removal or enhancement d) work with the AAC and ALC to develop policies regarding soil removal and fill c)e) refer any application for soil removal and fill to the AAC and ALC Agri-tourism The SCRD should support Agri-tourism as a means to strengthen local agriculture and expand knowledge and experience of agricultural activities throughout the wider community. a) The Regional District should develop appropriate regulations and guidelines for Agri-tourism activities in consultation with farmers and other stakeholders to minimize the impact of such activities on neighbouring properties. b) Land use zoning policies should permit Agri-tourist accommodation as the equivalent of bed and breakfast accommodation. c) The Regional District may consider applications for rezoning or temporary use permit that would permit agri-tourist accommodation providing for more than 3 units, provided that: (i) (ii) the use is accessory to working farm operations; the use is on agriculturally designated land that is in the ALR; the application is consistent with ALC policies; 341 Page 56 of 129

212 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (iii) the working farm will continue in operation and will not be adversely affected; (iv) potable water of sufficient quantity for both farming and non-farming use is available; (v) sewage disposal facilities are suitable; (vi) on-site parking is adequate; (vii) the impact of increased traffic on adjacent roadways is considered; (viii) the environmental impact of the proposal is considered; (ix) and the impact on adjacent properties is addressed Farm Gate Sales The Regional District shall allow sale of farm products, including livestock, poultry and rabbits, produced on the same lot by allowing small produce stands near the road lot line subject to considerations of parking and road safety Processing, Marketing, Education and Research Within the OCP area, the Regional District shall consider rezoning applications or temporary use permits to allow facilities for: (i) farm marketing (ii) farmers markets; (iii) small scale processing facilities of locally grown products; (iv) agricultural education; (v) agricultural research. Criteria to consider such uses includes: (i) potential support of farming in Roberts Creek; (ii) adequate parking; (iii) minimizing impact on neighbouring lots such as from noise and smell; (iv) environmental impact The SCRD shall require a 10 metre landscape buffer be established on any parcel adjacent to ALR prior to amending its Land Use Designation to facilitate an increase in development potential or density or additions of new uses. The landscape buffer shall conform to the Guidance set out in Development Permit Area The Regional District should provide guidance for how to reduce the potential for attracting bears to farm sites with the objective of protecting residents, farm produce and bears. 342 Page 57 of 129

213 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 10) LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT In the SCRD, liquid waste management is primarily handled by individual site owners as there is no comprehensive regional or electoral area system. Nor are there plans to develop one in the foreseeable future. However to ensure consistency of maintenance and operation, the SCRD has a policy to take over community systems (those that serve several lots) for residential and larger commercial developments providing they meet SCRD standards. As such, the SCRD has taken ownership and operation of some systems to date such as the Co-Housing site. The cost of operating these systems is met by the property owners and not subsidised by the general public. Site specific conditions influence the development capacity because soil structure limits ability to meet provincial requirements. The Province no longer issues permits for individual lots and relies on qualified installers to register the plans with the Province. Technology is changing as package plants can respond to needs of sites that in the past were difficult to develop. Community Sewage Systems means a common sewer or system of sewerage or sewage disposal which serves two or more parcels. Ocean outfalls are not supported. Objectives: 10a To adopt an efficient liquid waste management approach that minimizes the potential for pollution of the land or aquatic ecosystems. 10b To adopt policies that reduces the possible impacts of treatment facilities that serve multi-parcels or large developments. 10c To not support sewage management systems that rely upon ocean outfalls Policies 10.1 On-site sewage treatment and disposal systems and established individual parcel sewage treatment shall continue to be the preferred method of effluent disposal in the Plan Area and shall be subject to Provincial requirements Minimum parcel sizes to be permitted by subdivision shall reflect the suitability of soil types for ground disposal and treatment of effluent as specified in Schedule AA and by Ministry of Health subdivision standards At the time of subdivision or rezoning, MULTIPLE PARCEL or NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS with land disposal or ocean outfalls shall be discouraged unless unanticipated environmental problems or health hazards relating to sewage disposal need to be urgently addressed or where such facilities are required to provide for special housing needs Sewage treatment facilities required to address environmental problems, health hazards or to provide for affordable or special housing needs shall be designed and developed to Regional District standards and to Provincial requirements and subject to public consultation with local residents. 343 Page 58 of 129

214 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 10.5 Absorption field design should be based on Provincial septic tank criteria for large flow systems regardless of treatment quality Proposals for sewage treatment systems that rely on ocean outfalls are not supported Community sewage treatment systems, including common septic fields serving more than one parcel, are to be designed and developed to Regional District requirements Where a sewage treatment facility meets requirements of the Regional District s subdivision servicing bylaw, it should be owned and operated by the Sunshine Coast Regional District The Regional District, in consultation with the Province and the local community, shall develop a liquid waste management plan initially for the village core and then the rest of the OCP area to confirm and specify provisions for local community sewer systems (LCSS) that will provide a comprehensive approach to managing liquid waste reduction, treatment, utilization and disposal, that would include policies: (i) Allowing LCSS for smaller-sized lot subdivisions and commercial uses regulated under Ministry of Health regulations (up to 22,700 litres per day). (ii) Allowing LCSS for smaller-sized lot subdivisions or commercial uses regulated under Ministry of Environment regulations (over 22,700 litres per day). (iii) Adopting an On-Site Sewer System Operation & Maintenance Bylaw to ensure maintenance and inspection of septic systems on existing smaller residential lots. (iv) Regarding examination of existing subdivisions where there are existing or potential environmental health problems related to on-site septic disposal to determine if LCSS are needed to serve these areas. (v) Allowing consideration of innovative solutions such as composting toilets. (vi) Providing support for new technologies, such as smaller engineered systems, that meet Provincial and SCRD standards Technologies that reduce water use, such as grey water systems are encouraged. 344 Page 59 of 129

215 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 11) SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Located within the Roberts Creek OCP area, the Sechelt Regional Landfill on Dusty Road handled 11,600 tonnes in 2009 and is the largest landfill on the Coast and provides regional services for all areas with the exception of Egmont/Pender Harbour. The SCRD is altering its services in Egmont/Pender Harbour with the closure of landfill operations in The Sechelt Regional Landfill will become the only SCRD site for landfill on the Coast. Including the waste transferred from Egmont/Pender Harbour, the site has approximately 18 years remaining at current disposal rates. The Landfill site is a lease from the Crown. Solid waste management is provided in accordance with the approved Solid Waste Management Plan, which is currently underwas reviewed and adopted in Septermber Provincial requirements change over time and the SCRD has responded by amending its operating plans and standards as necessary. Over time disposal has moved from burying all non toxic waste to separation at the site to encourage re-use and recycling. The SCRD is implementing energy recovery of methane gas at the Landfill. Neighbourhood recycling centres are a significant method of collecting recyclable material in the SCRD and are supplemented with recycling programs at the landfills. The SCRD encourages waste to be separated prior to drop off at the Landfill for example with differentiated charges for sorted and un-sorted material. The Landfill is organized such that there are different locations for recyclables, garden wastes, wood, construction material and other types of material. The Landfill also includes a share shed to allow reuse of items. As part of the Solid Waste Management Plan review, the SCRD is investigating the potential for curb side recycle pickup, including a public consultation process, as part of the SWMP review. Composting of garden waste at a central facility is an issue that is also being considered. There are two privately operated composting sites in the vicinity of the Landfill. Objectives: 11a To provide for the management of municipal solid waste in a manner that meets the waste management and reduction requirements of the Regional District and Provincial Government as set out in the approved Solid Waste Management Plan. 11b To support the Zero Waste goal of the SCRD s Solid Waste Management Plan. 11c To support policies and programs that reduce, re-use and recycle and thereby promote the wise use of the earth's resources. 11d To provide for the disposal of residuals at the existing landfill at Dusty Road. 11e To dispose of household hazardous waste in a safe and considerate manner. 11f To ensure that the disposal of solid waste does not negatively impact on wildlife and the environment. Policies: 11.1 The Regional District will continue to provide a garbage pick-up service within the OCP area. While not all properties currently are served for various reasons, such as 345 Page 60 of 129

216 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan lack of access, the RD shall regularly review operational capability and local conditions to determine if service can be extended The Regional District shall provide solid waste management services for the Plan Area that meet the requirements of the Provincial Government and continue to strive to reduce solid waste deposited at the Sechelt Regional Landfill site on Dusty Road in Electoral Area D The Regional District's disposal site on Dusty Road will continue to be the main disposal site for residual refuse from the Plan Area The Regional District shall continue to support recycling as a means of reducing solid waste and if necessary provide collection facilities in appropriate locations subject to community consultation. Provision of curbside recycling should form part of consideration when reviewing the Regional District s Solid Waste Management Plan 11.5 The Regional District shall investigate and if possible implement alternatives to landfill such as green waste composting facilities The Regional District shall investigate and if possible implement energy recovery facilities at the Sechelt Regional Landfill in Roberts Creek Residents will be encouraged to reduce, recycle and re-use materials in order to maximize the life span of the existing solid waste disposal site The Regional District shall prepare and regularly update a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. 346 Page 61 of 129

217 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 12) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND GREEN POWER There is growing support for green energy solutions, however there is also concern regarding the scale and number of projects that may be industrializing the back country. Government policy and agency regulation processes change over time. It is likely that the regulatory hoops for micro electric plans will be reduced for individual property owners and for smaller plants of less than 15 MW. Currently there are no independent power projects developed in the Roberts Creek OCP area that require provincial or SCRD approvals and meet the requirements of BC Hydro s Calls for Power (over 15 MW generating capacity) or Standing Offer Program (from 0.05 MW to 15 MW generating capacity). These are generally run-of-river but can include wind or other types of technology. Small scale green power projects that serve individual houses can make use of a variety of technologies, such as solar panels, geothermal or wind, to generate power for on-site use and sale to BC Hydro. Currently BC Hydro reviews projects that generate less than 0.05 MW, under their Net Metering Program. BC Hydro policies change over time in response to Provincial legislation and initiatives and changes in technology. The SCRD shall continue to review these changes to determine if OCP or other SCRD policies need to be amended. Energy conservation efforts are an important component in meeting future energy needs. New development should be built to minimize energy use. Existing development should be upgraded to reduce energy use. BC Hydro, as part of their energy planning relies on conservation as the main means to close the potential gap between generation capacity and demand. As a society we are becoming more reliant on and comfortable with rapidly changing telecommunications and computer technology. High speed internet and reliable cover for cell phones and other equipment can contribute towards increased local employment opportunities and life style choices. It is likely that technology and regulation will continue to change at a high pace. While local governments have limited control over the location of facilities and limited influence over Provincial and agency policies, it is useful to set out what the Roberts Creek community views are. Objectives: 12a The Regional District should support improvement to telecommunications facilities that are shared, well located and do not negatively impact on local residents. 12b Small scale household level green power projects (less than 0.05 MW generation capacity) should be encouraged. 12c Larger green power projects should receive full review that includes significant public consultation. 12d That the benefits offered by all green power projects do not neglect possible impacts on the local community and the environment. 12e Community energy systems should be supported. 347 Page 62 of 129

218 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Policies: 12.1 The SCRD will work with regulatory agencies and providers to ensure that local input is considered in the location of telecommunications facilities such as communications towers The SCRD supports the provision of high speed internet connection facilities provided local input is included in the decision making process and potential environmental impacts are mitigated and minimized The SCRD will continue to request and participate in provincial or and federal working groups established to review proposals for green power projects in the OCP area For small scale, household level green power projects (less than 0.05 MW generation capacity), the SCRD shall consider reducing the fee for development variance permits or development permits that are subject to Development Permit Area (Stream Habitat), and restrictions of structure/building height could be relaxed The SCRD will investigate the potential for community led green power projects in the OCP area Under no circumstances does the community approve of the use of herbicide or pesticide on public utility rights of way The potential impact of green power project on sensitive environments needs to be considered with the objectivie of mitigating any potential harm. 348 Page 63 of 129

219 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 13) WATER SERVICE AREA and WATERSHEDS Currently there is a split in provision of potable water. Most properties below Highway 101 (Sunshine Coast Highway) are served by the SCRD water system and treatment plant on Chapman Creek. Most properties above the Highway draw water from wells or streams as the SCRD system is currently not capable of servicing this area. In September 2003, a Watershed Accord was signed between the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation, for the purpose of protecting community water drinking resources in the ts úkw um stulu (Chapman Creek) and Grey Creek watersheds. This agreement commits both parties to sharing responsibility and the decision-making processes in respect of the shared management of the watersheds and for the sharing of the costs, expenses, and liabilities from the shared management of the watersheds. All applications for industrial, commercial, recreational, or other activities within the watershed will be referred to the shíshálh Nation for their comment. The SCRD and the shíshálh Nation will continue to work together to protect the watershed from any development which will impact the drinking water supply. In October 2005, a further Joint Watershed Management Agreement was established to comanage these watersheds. This Agreement created a Joint Water Management Advisory Committee, which includes equal representation from the SCRD and the shíshálh Nation. This Agreement was renewed in January 2011 to acknowledge the mutual interests in improving and maintaining the safety and quality of the potable water supply. The Chapman Watershed above the water intake for the treatment plant is identified as ts úkw um stulu lil xemit tems swiya (Tetrahedron Chapman Creek Conservation Area (CA)) in the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation. The SCRD regularly updates its 10-Year Water Master Plan which identifies works that need to take place to maintain the existing system and sets out expansion and improvements needed to serve the Coast. Development approvals should be based upon water capacity. SCRD s main water treatment facility for the Coast is in the Roberts Creek area as is the intake on Chapman Creek. There is a longstanding SCRD and community commitment to protect the integrity and water quality of Chapman/Grey Watershed. The SCRD does not have the power to issue licences to draw water from lakes or streams, this is a provincial responsibility. However the SCRD will continue to be sent referral notices from the province for new lease/licenses. Protection of aquifers that provide groundwater is an important consideration when reviewing any development or resource extraction proposals in Roberts Creek. Water conservation programs, such as the low flow toilets replacement program, and improvements to existing infrastructure (such as waterman replacements, looping of water lines) are the primary focus of the SCRD as a means of improving service and controlling demand placed on the system. However in the longer term, increased treatment capacity and water storage will be needed. As preparation for meeting longer term needs a communitydriven watershed study should take place. 349 Page 64 of 129

220 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Objectives: 13a To protect watershed areas and the quality of water. 13b To supply sufficient quality and quantity of Regional District water for domestic consumption, agriculture and fire protection purposes. 13c Water conservation programs and development of related infrastructure are supported. 13d To protect surface and groundwater which are necessary for ecosystem health, independent supply to individual lots and Regional District community water systems. 13e To avoid zoning changes that result in the depletion of existing wells or springs or water bodies used as water supplies. 13f To avoid the creation of new flooding hazards or the aggravating of existing flood hazards that could result from changes to storm water drainage patterns. 13g To encourage the Regional District to undertake aquifer mapping. 13h To support a community-driven watershed study. Policies: 13.1 The Regional District will develop and maintain RESERVOIRS, WATER MAINS and any other storage capacity, supply mains, or other transmission facilities required to provide water to that part of the Plan Area depicted by Schedule Map 4 AA as SCRD WATER SERVICE AREA (DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE BOUNDARY) When the SCRD s 10-Year Water Master Plan is updated then the OCP objectives and policies will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated subject to public consultation and environmental review The costs of distributing water from the supply WATER MAINS to new parcels and of providing hydrants for fire protection purposes for new development shall continue to be the responsibility of those creating new parcels The costs of extending and expanding Regional District water mains to serve new developments shall be the responsibility of those undertaking the development If as a result of new development the Regional District community water mains are extended beyond the current Water Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw area, the developer shall be responsible to make application to extend the DCC Bylaw area and/or other arrangements acceptable to the Regional District to off-set or accommodate future capital and operating costs imposed on the Regional District In order to minimize future needs and demands for community water supplied by the Regional District, average parcel sizes of at least 1.0 ha. (2.5 acres) shall be maintained in those parts of the Plan Area that are not served by the Regional District community water service that be provided with on-site water sources meeting Provincial Government s environmental and health legislation and policies. 350 Page 65 of 129

221 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 13.7 The use of private and Crown lands should be conducted in a matter that does not jeopardize existing and future domestic public and private water quality, flow and supply Deforestation is a significant concern and any forestry activity should take into account possible impacts on water quality and supply Community-driven watershed studies to identify "Well-Head Protection Areas" and provide recommendations for management of development within such areas should be undertaken to ensure that the water quality of recharge areas for ground water wells is maintained. i. The studies should consider the impact of forestry activity on both Crown and private land with regard to water quality, supply and flow. ii. iii. The studies should facilitate an innovative community-driven watershed study to examine horizontal rather than vertical movement of water using slowingdown devices, such as gabions and swales, to recharge the aquifer as one means of maintaining supply for wells. This will be a non-traditional watershed study to make Roberts Creek an exemplary community watershed/forest harvesting area ( i.e. not recommending larger culverts as the solution to controlling flow) The Regional District should, as part of developing its next 10-year Regional Water Master Plan, include studies and policies regarding ground water protection, recharging aquifers and potentially developing alternate water supplies Rezoning applications must consider the impacts on existing wells, springs, or other water supplies. If development is expected to need more water than the uses already allowed on the property, then evidence shall be provided that wells or other water supplies in the neighbourhood would not be negatively impacted. Information will also be required regarding whether water use would affect agricultural activities or negatively impact any springs necessary to maintain fish habitat. Should a zoning change be proposed where groundwater supplies are not adequate, the applicant would be required to find other means of supplying water, such as rainwater catchment water storage or a water conservation program. Provision of information and solutions options must be provided by a qualified expert (such as engineers with expertise in hydrology and biologists that have expertise in the role of groundwater on area ecosystems (i.e. wetlands fed from aquifers) and the SCRD will consult with the Province to ensure that relevant legislation and regulations are met The provision of a community water service to all parcels on the south side of the Sunshine Coast Highway shall be a Regional District priority due to the potential for 351 Page 66 of 129

222 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan contamination of surface water supplies by run-off from the Sunshine Coast Highway The Regional District shall take all opportunities in the planning and development approval process to implement the Regional District s Universal Water Metering Master Plan Land that is presently designated and zoned for watershed protection should remain in such a zone and not have development potential All users are encouraged to conserve water by methods such as: a. grey water reuse b. introduction of low flow toilets and showerheads; c. on site water collection and storage; d. planting of drought tolerant, low water demand native species (xeriscaping or xerogardening); and e. automated irrigation systems The Regional District shall take appropriate actions, such as public education programs and sprinkler regulation during periods of low precipitation, to ensure that sufficient water supply is available The SCRD will consider provision of water for fire fighting in reviewing proposals, especially where there is no access to Regional District water services. Appropriate facilities will be required. 352 Page 67 of 129

223 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 14) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE PLANS Management of drainage and stormwater in the SCRD has traditionally been overseen by the Province through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, although their mandate is targeted at protecting the road system against flooding and damage. The guiding principle is to not increase flow from the site and to return to a natural situation. Thus the infrastructure should not just funnel water into streams especially where there are geotechnical issues. Capturing run-off on site, such as using on-site retention, so that it can then be returned in the ground is a means of recharging the aquifer. In 2006, the SCRD commissioned consultants, Delcan, to carry out a study of stormwater issues in eastern Roberts Creek, Elphinstone and West Howe Sound. This study was co-funded by the SCRD and the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure. The results of the study will inform the SCRD s emerging policies related to development and subdivision reviews. It is used in discussions relating to allocating Provincial resources to address current road related drainage issues. The reports making up the Integrated Stormwater Management Plan were provided in two phases, the first received in 2006 and the second in Soft solutions are preferred to hard engineered solutions (such as planted swales over hard pipes). There is a limit to what can be accounted for such as 1-in-10 year event as opposed to 1-in-100 year events. Over time as climate change has a greater impact, there is a potential for increased precipitation events of greater intensity along with longer hot/dry periods. Thus heavier impact events may become more regular. It is important to consider downstream or downhill impacts of additional lots (subdivision) and new development on existing lots. Roadside ditches are generally required by the province as means to protect the road system. Care needs to be taken when tying individual lots into such facilities and the property owner and SCRD should work with the province to ensure that the existing road ditch systems do not fail. Building Permit controls such as perimeter drains are designed to protect the building and not to specifically protect adjacent lots. The SCRD is working with the province to ensure that adequate systems are implemented at the time of subdivision and rezoning. Objectives 14a To maintain the existing natural watersheds flow characteristics to the greatest extent possible by taking into account the cumulative impacts of each development on watersheds. 14b To minimize each development s contribution to the sedimentation and pollution of watercourses. 14c To limit the percentage of total impervious area (TIA) surfaces in each watershed to not more than the existing TIA or to a maximum target level set out by an Integrated Stormwater Management Plan. 14d To minimize the impacts of stormwater and drainage at subdivision stage. 353 Page 68 of 129

224 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Policies 14.1 The Regional District should amend its current zoning bylaw to include provisions limiting the percentage of impervious paving and building areas on a parcel to reduce surface runoff. Allowances could be made where hard surfacing is incorporated into water collection and storage that reduces use of community water systems The Regional District should amend its current subdivision servicing bylaw, in cooperation with the Province, to discourage the use of curb and gutters on local residential roads and to require the construction of swales or shallow pervious ditches where road side drainage is required The Regional District should establish a protocol with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding requirements for site specific drainage plans to minimizing the impact of stormwater at subdivision both within the site and to properties downstream Any drainage plans to be formulated for the Plan Area shall be cognizant of water quality and quantity standards for independent water supply sources such as wells In addition to within development permits areas, native trees and vegetation should be maintained to reduce the effect of rainfall on stormwater flows where possible, at the time of approval of rezoning and other discretionary development applications Where retention of native vegetation is not possible, re-vegetation using the Naturescape BC guidelines should be undertaken to reduce the effect of rainfall on stormwater flows where possible, at the time of approval of rezoning and other discretionary development applications The Regional District should undertake stormwater planning at the watershed level and at the individual development level that takes into account the full spectrum of rainfall events in order to maintain or replicate to the greatest extent possible natural systems, thereby protecting stormwater as a resource for: (i) Groundwater recharge to maintain base flows in streams; (ii) Fish, other aquatic species and wildlife; (iii) Potable water supplies; and (iv) Aesthetic and recreational use The Regional District s Subdivision Servicing Bylaw should be amended to ensure that development requiring building permit or subdivision applications meet on-site and off-site stormwater management criteria that support the above stormwater objectives for the following types of development: (i) A dwelling unit, duplex, multi-family unit development, expansion or development of a mobile home park; 354 Page 69 of 129

225 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (ii) (iii) Auxiliary buildings with a floor area exceeding 200 sq. m. (2152 sq.ft.); A commercial, industrial or institutional building; and (iv) Subdivisions that would result in a net increase in three or more parcels for any type of land use. The infrastructure required should relate to the size of the development and its potential impact on the area Development should not result in the pollution of surface or groundwater supplies. Particular care should be taken to ensure that there are no detrimental impacts on agricultural land, to wells or to streams because of water pollution. 355 Page 70 of 129

226 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 15) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The road network has a significant impact on the character of the area. It can define whether an area is rural, suburban or urban in character. A well designed road network may reduce trip lengths, improve safety and encourage walking and cycling. The road network in the rural areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional District is the responsibility of the Province to maintain, develop and improve. The SCRD does not have jurisdiction over roads. However, it is important the Sunshine Coast Regional District works with the Province to ensure that any proposed changes are the subject of consultation with local residents at a scale related to the proposal. Not all roads are developed to Provincial standards and there are significant areas that are accessed via road right of ways that are not maintained by the Province. There are significant forest service roads in Roberts Creek that provide access to recreation areas and are sometimes used to access residential properties. The Sunshine Coast Highway is the only road link to Gibsons, Sechelt and beyond. It is moderately busy and generally able to handle local traffic. However there are significant pulses of traffic tied to the BC Ferry schedule that can cause local congestion, hazardous conditions and make it very difficult to turn left onto or from the Highway; this is especially pronounced in the summer. The traffic light installed at Roberts Creek Road should assist in improving access into and out of the main residential areas below and above the Highway. Lower Road and Beach Avenue provide a local alternative below the Highway, although this route also experiences an increase during the Ferry pulse. It is not unusual to find vehicles travelling well over the 50 km/hr speed limit to try to catch the ferry as monitored by Speed Watch, a local residents group established. The Public Transit services were initiated in 1982, and have been expanded over the years to include a conventional transit service. The service operates from Halfmoon Bay to Langdale and offers accessible service to 18,400 residents, based on an estimate of 2006 population within 400 meters of a transit route. The Sunshine Coast Transit System (SCTS) is fully accessible for passengers with disabilities, and Handydart services are also available. Bicycle racks are available on all SCTS buses. In Roberts Creek, the Sechelt to Langdale Ferry Route alternates between travelling along the Highway and going along Lower Rd/Beach Ave/Flume Rd. Objectives: 15a To plan for an adequate road system that complements and supports the existing rural wooded character of Roberts Creek. 15b In cooperation with the Province, the SCRD should ensure that any proposed changes to the road network are the subject of consultation with local residents at a scale related to the proposal. 15c To provide for public transit and encourage road layouts and pedestrian links that facilitate transit use. 356 Page 71 of 129

227 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 15c To provide for a well maintained walking, bicycling, and equestrian system interlinking residential neighborhoods with recreational areas and community facilities. 15d To provide for off-street parking, including bicycle parking that will adequately serve the various land uses., 15e To strongly oppose the off-loading of barges at road rights-of-way providing beach access. 15f Policies: To provide for park and ride facilities for cars and bikes. 15g To ensure that the road network and other transportation infrastructure are developed to minimize impact on the rural residential character, environmentally sensitive areas and the ALR. 15h Subject to future public consultation, to implement the relevant improvements identified in the Integrated Transportation Study (SCRD, 2011) The TRANSPORT NETWORK depicted by Schedule XXMap 3 and formulated by the Regional District should form the future PRIMARY HIGHWAY, MAJOR RURAL ROAD, MAIN RESIDENTIAL\RURAL ROAD and SCENIC HERITAGE ROAD system for the Plan Area As it is unlikely that a major alternative to the Sunshine Coast Highway will be built within the life of this Roberts Creek OCP, Schedule XXMap 3 has not identified a possible route. However, in the event that an alternate to the Highway is required through the Roberts Creek OCP area, the location and the transportation modes should only be decided following a meaningful public process that includes local residents The Integrated Transportation Study identifies a potential bypass route being developed around the Davis Bay community in the District of Sechelt. If Field Road is not deemed to be appropriate as the permanent or long term access around Davis Bay, then an alternative access in the vicinity of Jack Road should be considered. As part of this bypass, the continuation of the separated cycling and walking path to Field Road should be included in the development of this alternative route. In addition the specific proposal should be subject to a meaningful public consultation process that includes residents of Roberts Creek. Regarding where the alternate route through the Town of Gibsons and Elphinstone Electoral Area intersects on the eastern side of Roberts Creek, there are a range of potential options and as such a separate public consultation process that includes residents of Roberts Creek should be conducted The SCRD shall establish a relationship between the Roberts Creek community, the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nations, the Regional District, and the Province which enables public participation in the decision making process where 357 Page 72 of 129

228 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan new roads and highways are being planned or developed or where existing roads are being substantially changed To provide opportunity for property owners adjacent to or substantially affected by new road and highway development to be notified sufficiently in advance of construction so as to have meaningful opportunity for comment on said development 15.6 As not all of a road right of way is required for the actual developed road surface, shoulders and drainage, the SCRD shall work with the Province to ensure that adequate vegetation/tree lined buffers are maintained within the road right of way that screen adjacent lots, subject to road, bike and pedestrian safety, such that the rural character of the area is maintained. The Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road are the major road routes into and through Roberts Creek and should be the focus for developing buffers The development of roads as designated by Schedule XXMap 3 should continue to take place on an incremental basis as warranted, through the dedication of necessary rights-of-ways as land is subdivided along the designated routes The SCRD should develop a screening bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act for all roads in Roberts Creek The Province shall be strongly encouraged to make safety improvements to Highway 101, including Rat Portage Hill, and access lanes into major facilities such as the Sunshine Coast Golf and Country Club and Cliff Gilker Park, subject to Provincial funding priorities should follow those set out in the Integrated Transportation Strategy (SCRD, 2011) The SCRD shall work with the Province, the shíshálh Nation, property owners the District of Sechelt, and the Town of Gibsons to extend the separated pedestrian and bike path along part of the Highway into the District of Sechelt, at least as far as Field Road industrial and commercial area, and towards the Elphinstone boundary and ultimately into the Town of Gibsons. The Regional District may require provision of separated pat as consideration of a community benefit during consideration of rezoning applications The designations for larger COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL parcels adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway and associated land-use designations as shown on the Schedule XX will help to maintain the rural, wooded atmosphere while minimizing the need for access points The Transportation Network route shown on the Schedule XXMap 3 map should facilitate the provision of public transit Potential subdividers and developers should be required to plan rural road layouts and pedestrian links that provide controlled access to the Major Road Network and facilitate access to public transit services. 358 Page 73 of 129

229 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan The parking requirements of commercial, home occupation and community facilities shall have a minimal impact on the visual and pedestrian and cycling environment in those areas. The Regional District may consider proposals to reduce minimum parking requirements through a development variance permit or rezoning application, subject to community, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastrucutre and RCMP input Undeveloped road rights-of-way, where appropriate, shall be used as pedestrian and bike routes with clearly marked signs, and developed in a manner enabling their integration with future road development within the rights-of-way Where an undeveloped road right of way is to be developed to facilitate subdivision for other development activity, the Province is encouraged to work with the SCRD and local residents to protect or replace exiting trails or to provide new trails for pedestrian and bike use The Province should provide sufficient shoulder width, at least 2 metres, for bikes and pedestrians in their design of Major Road Network routes. Bike routes need to be well maintained and kept free of debris The lease at the foot of Henderson Road should be renewed for recreation use and prohibit the barging of houses Park and ride facilities should be encouraged. Their location should be evaluated on criteria that includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following: a. the potential for park and ride to be integrated with other forms of development, thereby making more efficient use of parking areas; b. a location that facilitates transit use Vehicle access at Timberland Road and the Sunshine Coast Highway should be permanently closed. The Timberland Road right-of-way should be limited to pedestrian and bicycle access Any new road accesses onto the Sunshine Coast Highway should be discouraged for safety reasons Schedule XXMap 3 designates Beach Avenue and Lower Road and all beach access road-ends as a SCENIC HERITAGE ROUTE to recognize the unique and significant scenic heritage value of these roads. Improvements to provide safer pedestrian and cycling use should be made. This could include provision of walking/cycling paths adjacent to the roads, reducing speed limits in specific locations and reducing the impact on roadside vegetation on pedestrians/cyclists. Appropriate signage to the route should be provided While they are alternative routes towards the District of Sechelt and the Town of Gibsons for local residents and an alternative when the Highway is blocked, Lower Road and Beach Avenue are local roads and any improvements need to take maintaining a local character into account. 359 Page 74 of 129

230 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan All issues relating to road layout or development shall be referred to the Roberts Creek community at large and relevant community groups The SCRD shall work with the local community, developers, the Province and BC Transit to expand public transportation services that includes, but is not limited to: greater frequency, specialist services such as Handy Dart, increased bike storage at stops, bus stop shelters, expansion of service to properties north of the Highway and smaller community buses Traffic calming measures should be investigated and implemented if appropriate, initially for Lower Road with other aroads to be considered as identified, in consultation with local residents and the Ministry of Transportaiton and Infrastructure implemented if appropriate Support for non-greenhouse HGas emitting vehicles, such as limited speed electric scooters and Net Zero Emissions Vehicles should be investigated, including community engagement, and if appropriate implemented. This could include traffic speed reductions, dedicated lanes or roads, additional controlled intersections across the Highway and electric charging facilities. Charging facilities should be the subject of a rezoning application Park and ride facilities should be encouraged. In consultation with the community, their location should be evaluated on criteria that includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following: a. the potential for such a facility to be integrated with other forms of development, thereby making more efficient use of parking areas; b. a location that facilitates transit use The Regional District should work with property owners and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to balance the desire for roadside vegetation that enhances rural character with the need to provide for safe, useable roadside pedestrian and bicycle paths The following intersections, shown on Map 3, are identified for improvement: a) Integrated Transportation Study - i) Lower Road and Sunshine Coast Highway ii) Flume Road and Sunshine Coast Highway b) School District 46 and Ministry of Transportaiton and Infrastrucutre - iii) Roberts Creek Road and Timberland Road The Regional District shall consider any applications to amend the OCP or rezone properties near these intersections with respect to potential to achieve the improvements or to ensure that the proposed development does not hinder future improvements As there may be other intersections that are in need of improvement, the Regional District should work with the community and the Ministry of Transportation to identify these and if needed amend map 3 and Policy Page 75 of 129

231 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan When reviewing subdisivion applications the Regional Dostrict should identify opportunities for providing new, useable beach access. 361 Page 76 of 129

232 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 16) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS and DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA Development Permit Areas are designated to identify sensitive locations and protect them from the negative impacts of development and to protect development from hazards. This could include fish habitat in streams, steep slopes, shoreline and design guidelines for commercial areas. The DPA designation does not stop development outright. Any development needs to be supported by detailed reports from qualified professional that identify where development can and can t take place on a particular property or detailed design statements to respond to design guidelines. There may be site specific information needed by the SCRD and the shíshálh and Skwxwú7mesh Nations to assist in reviewing any proposals that require an amendment to the OCP or a rezoning application. Objectives: 16a To protect development from hazardous conditions. 16b To protect the natural environment. 16c To ensure that the form and character of commercial and multi-family residential development reflect the wooded, rural community atmosphere that now prevails. 16d To protect Agricultural Lands from possible impacts of subdivision of adjacent properties. 16e The Regional District may require development approval information to support permit, OCP amendment and rezoning applications. 16f To protect archaeological and heritage resources. Policies: 16.1 Development Permits shall be required in areas designated as DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS by Schedule AAMap 5 under the following categories as defined by Section 919.1(1) of the Local Government Act: "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity related to the control of silting or erosion or protection of stream banks or foreshore or the protection of fisheries resources requiring an environmental study for approval of subdivisions, alteration of the land, or for the issuance of building permits within Development Permit Area No 1; "b" protection of development from hazardous conditions requiring development precautions and a geotechnical study indicating that such development precautions are necessary to use the land safely for its intended use under the present zoning for approval of subdivisions, alteration of the land, or for the issuance of building permits within Development Permit Area Nos 2 and 3.; "e" establishment of objectives for the form and character of intensive residential development; "f" establishment of objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential development. 362 Page 77 of 129

233 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 16.2 The policies in this plan are consistent with the requirements of the provincial government s Riparian Areas Regulations Development permits shall be required prior to the subdivision of land; commencement of the construction of, addition to or alteration of a building or other structure; or alteration of land within a designated development permit area by Schedule AAMap 5, except where the following exemption provisions apply: (i) to the proposed construction involves a structural change, addition or renovation to an existing lawfully conforming and constructed building or structures provided that the footprint of the building or structure is not expanded and provided that it does not involve any alteration of land; (ii) to the removal of existing vegetation to allow for replanting or the planting of native trees, shrubs, or groundcovers for the purpose of enhancing the habitat values and/or soil stability within the development permit area; (iii) to a subdivision, where an existing covenant or proposed covenant secured by a solicitor s undertaking at the time of rezoning or subdivision, meets the development permit guidelines and protects the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity to the satisfaction of the Regional District; (iv) to the alteration of land that involves removing dead or damaged trees as determined by a qualified person (new definition to be lifted from Bylaw 350 Tree Cut Permits) providing that: any damage resulted from non-human causes, such as a storm or landslip; such trees pose an immediate hazard to life, living accommodation or other lawfully constructed structures; and the removal is accomplished through the use of standard forestry practices and techniques (v) for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only, to the removal of up to three trees per parcel in a calendar year and must be reported to the Regional District (Note: the root balls must not be removed without approval from the Regional District); (vi) for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only, to the removal or alteration of vegetation, in an area of up to 10 sq metres once per calendar year per parcel and must be reported to the Regional District (NOTE: the land is not to be hard surfaced), 363 Page 78 of 129

234 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (vii) to independent power projects that were subject to Ministry of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans approval and a save harmless covenant or agreement with the Regional District; (viii) to emergency procedures to prevent, control or reduce erosion, or other immediate threats to life and property provided they are undertaken in accordance with the provincial Water and Wildlife Acts and the Federal Fisheries Act, and must be reported to the Regional District; (ix) where a development has been approved but not yet built (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only); (x) where the lands are subject to the Forest Act or Private Managed Forest Land Act; (xi) where the lands are to be used for farm operation as defined by the Farm Practices Protection Act (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only); (xii) for park or parkland ancillary uses not related to commercial, residential or industrial activities (for "a" protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity only). (xiii) within DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE, existing legal non-conforming buildings under Section 911 of the Local Government Act, and other existing buildings and impervious surfaces described within Policy 3.18 (2)(c) and (d) may be repaired within their existing 3-dimensional envelope without a Development Permit. (xiv) within DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE, existing shoreline protection works or beach access steps within Policy 3.18 (2)(a) and (b) may be repaired without a Development Permit if they are within their original 3-dimensional envelope and are above the current grade and are above and landward of the current natural boundary of the ocean. (xv) Exemptions set out in DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 6: ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA 16.4 Some sites/parcels are within two or more development permit areas and all relevant guidelines should be met The Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) indicates where sites of environmental interest may be found on the Coast. Any applications for permits or rezoning should refer to the SEI and the Regional District may require an environmental study to identify specific locations worthy of protection The Regional District should use the SEI as the basis for a detailed study to identify specific locations to be designated as new Development Permit Areas for the protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity. 364 Page 79 of 129

235 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 1: Stream Riparian Assessment Areas DPA 1 as shown on Schedule AAMap 5, and including any mapped or unmapped stream tributaries that may provide fish habitat. Research and analysis for wetland areas appears in the report by Taara Environmental titled The Confirmation of Effective Ecological Boundary of Wetlands in West Howe Sound and Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Areas. They consist of the areas so designated by Schedule AAMap 5, and the following areas in the Plan Area, within and adjacent to all streams, which by definition includes wetlands and lakes: (a) (b) (c) for a stream, a 30 metre strip on both sides of the stream, measured from the natural boundary; for a ravine less than 60 metres wide, a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the high water mark to a point that is 30 metres beyond the top of the ravine bank; and for a ravine 60 metres wide or greater, a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the natural boundary to a point that is 10 metres beyond the top of the ravine bank. The Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation establishes the Stream Riparian Assessment Areas as described above. CATEGORY: (a) "protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity". JUSTIFICATION: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 1: STREAM RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT AREAS include the following types of riparian areas that either provides fish habitat or flows to a waterbody that provides habitat. This consists of areas as illustrated on Schedule AAMap 5, and includes the following areas within and adjacent to all streams: (a) (b) (c) The following watercourses known to have fish present: East Wilson Creek (resident and sea-run cutthroat trout): Flume Creek (cutthroat trout); Clack Creek (resident cutthroat trout, dolly varden); Roberts Creek (coho, chum, steelhead, resident cutthroat, dolly varden), Stephens Creek (coho and chum); Malcolm Creek (coho and chum, steelhead, sea-run and resident cutthroat), Robinson Creek (resident cutthroat), Clough Creek (possibly resident cutthroat) and Molyneux Creek (resident cutthroat). All streams in the Plan Area, whether mapped or unmapped, are also designated as Development Permit Area 1 as fish and/or fish habitat may be present or they may flow into a waterbody that provides fish habitat. Randall Lake, which supports resident cutthroat. 365 Page 80 of 129

236 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan GUIDELINES: (a) (b) (c) (d) An environmental assessment report prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with Riparian Areas Regulation is required in support of a development permit application and for Regional District issuance of a development permit. The report must identify the width of the streamside protection and enhancement area to be protected, and measures necessary to protect the integrity of the streamside protection and enhancement area. The qualified environmental professional must: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) certify he or she is qualified to conduct the assessment; certify he or she has followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation; provide an opinion that no natural features, functions or conditions that support fish life processes in the assessment area will be harmfully altered, disrupted or destroyed; or in the event that there will be a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions, and conditions that support fish life processes in the stream riparian assessment area (i.e. a HADD), obtain authorization from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada or authorization under a regulation under the Fisheries Act (Canada). Proposed developments and timing of construction should: (i) (ii) (iii) minimize any damaging impact on the natural features, functions and conditions of the streamside protection and enhancement areas; minimize the area of encroachment into the streamside protection and enhancement areas. take into consideration fish passage and spawning times Development Permits issued may require that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) areas of land, specified in the permit, must remain free of development, except in accordance with any conditions contained in the permit; specified natural features or areas be preserved, protected, restored or enhanced in accordance with the permit; natural watercourses be dedicated; works, including improvements to channelized areas, be constructed to preserve, protect, restore or enhance watercourses or other specified natural features of the environment; protection measures, including that vegetation or trees be planted or retained in order to preserve, protect, restore or enhance fish habitat or riparian areas; control drainage, or control erosion or protect banks; 366 Page 81 of 129

237 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (vi) IMPLEMENTATION: an explanatory plan or reference plan prepared by a BC Land Surveyor delineate the identified streamside protection and enhancement area; and (vii) development comply with Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, published by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, May, Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution unless delegated to the Manager of Planning and Development or their alternate; Regional District issuance of a development permit is subject to notification from the Ministry of Environment and/or Fisheries and Oceans Canada that they have been notified of the proposed development, and provided a copy of the assessment report with the proper certifications and have provided the proper authorizations. Environmental assessment report requirements; Section 219 Covenants, Land Title Act. 367 Page 82 of 129

238 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 2: Beach Front And Ravine Slopes CATEGORY: "b" Natural Hazardous Conditions JUSTIFICATION: Research and analysis supporting the identification of these areas as "Natural Hazardous Conditions" appears in the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Technical Background Reports (1994 and 2008) and in the report by Thurber Engineering titled Reconnaissance Study of Geotechnical Hazards Roberts Creek Official Community Plan. The following areas are included in Development Permit Area 2, as shown on Schedule AAMap 5: 2A) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, EAST OF BEEMAN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO EAST OF EDMONDS ROAD delineates an area subject to erosion by ocean wave attack, soil landslides and groundwater seepage. The area within this designation extends 15 metres back from the crest of beach front slopes east of Beeman Road and east of Edmonds Road as mapped between Service Road off Marlene Road through an area of no mapped topographic detail and along Beach Avenue right-of-way to Edmonds Road area. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to erosion by wave attack. Small soil landslides are possible. Local groundwater seepage has been noted. 2B) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, BAYVIEW TO CLOUGH ROAD AREAS are characterized with soil over bedrock with soil subject to storm wave erosion, small soil landslides, and localized groundwater seepage. The area within this designation extends 15 metres from the crest of beach front slopes and slope crests along watercourses. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to storm wave erosion. Small soil landslides are possible. Local groundwater seepage may contribute to the landslide potential. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider high energy stream flood hazard along Clough Creek. 2C) BEACH FRONT SLOPES, JOE ROAD TO GEDDES ROAD AREA has the potential for erosion from wave attack, small soil landslides, and local rock fall hazard. The area within this designation extends 15 metres landward from the crest of beach front slope and 15 metres back from ravine or erosional slope along Joe Smith Creek south of Lower Road. In this area beach front slopes have soil over bedrock with soil subject to erosion by wave attack. Small soil landslides and local rock fall are possible. There is groundwater discharge on steep soil slopes west of Geddes Road. Flood hazard requires consideration of stream control. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider: 368 Page 83 of 129

239 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan hazards from wave erosion on west beach front; local flood proofing or other protection of area buildings below Lower Road; and Heavy groundwater discharge in Geddes Road area may be temporary and should be monitored by residents. Changes in groundwater conditions should be reported to the Regional District 2D) EAST OF GULF ROAD has the potential for wave erosion and small landslides. The area within this designation extends 15 metres back from the crest of beach front and ravine slopes, and 20 metres back from highest beach front and ravine slopes. Relatively low beach front slopes just east of Gulf Road have soil over bedrock with soil subject to wave erosion and possible small landslides. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider: toe erosion in gullies and high beach front slopes; and Culvert outlet and eroded creek below require maintenance and reclamation. GUIDELINES: Development Permits issued in these areas for "Natural Hazardous Conditions" shall be in accordance with the following: (i) Subdivision, building permits for dwellings and other structures, and the altering of land shall, in most cases, require a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical professional preferably also with experience in hydraulic engineering. (ii) The qualified geotechnical professional s report should also include the following types of analysis and information and consider: Field Definition of land located within the areas noted above in the Justification section; Appropriate land-use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, including building drains, filling and excavation and septic field location(s); Erosion by ocean waves and possible slope instability caused by groundwater seepage; Vegetation should be maintained on and above slopes to minimize erosion; Drainage works should avoid surface or groundwater erosion of beach front slopes. (iii) The report, which the Regional District Board will use to determine the conditions and requirements of the development permit, should certify 369 Page 84 of 129

240 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan that the land may be used safely for the use intended and that the Regional District s policy related to meeting risk thresholds is satisfied. (iv) Sewage disposal fields should be setback a minimum of 15 horizontal metres from the crest of all ravine eroded slopes unless other criteria such as a 30 horizontal metre setback from watercourses apply. (v) The sequence and timing of any construction that may be required (for purposes such as pathways and utilities) should be managed to take place at low flows and to minimize the potential for erosion and degradation of the streamside habitats. In particular, the preferred in-stream work period is July 15th to September 1st of any year. IMPLEMENTATION: Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution unless delegated to the Manager of Planning and Development or their alternate; Liaison with Ministry of Health and with other relevant Provincial and Federal ministries; Geotechnical report requirements; Section 219 Covenants, Land Title Act. 370 Page 85 of 129

241 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 3: Creek Flooding And Associated Debris Flow And Erosion CATEGORY: "b" Natural Hazardous Conditions JUSTIFICATION: Research and analysis supporting the identification of DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 3 as "Natural Hazardous Conditions" appears in the report by Thurber Engineering titled Reconnaissance Study of Geotechnical Hazards Roberts Creek Official Community Plan and the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Technical Background Reports (1994 and 2008). The following areas are included in Development Permit Area 3, as shown on Schedule AAMap 5: 3A LOWER MOSCROP CREEK Has the potential for flooding with associated downstream erosion. The area within this designation extends 15 metres horizontal from each side of the creek high water (limit of 1:200 year flood as defined by Provincial records or the natural boundary as determined in the field) or the crest of an eroded slope. The limit is also no lower than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary. The creek may have been diverted from a former more direct course down slope and parallel to Park Road. Its course is highly controlled with culverts. Excess drainage contributions may cause breaching of channels (avulsion) and increased downstream erosion. As such, landowners should pay attention to changes in discharge that may indicate an imminent flood event. 3B LOWER FLUME CREEK Has the potential for flooding and debris flooding (a water flood which mobilizes a large amount of sand, gravel and organic debris). The area within this designation extends 15 metres horizontal from each side of the creek high water (limit of 1:200 year flood as defined by Provincial records or the natural boundary as determined in the field) or the crest of an eroded slope. The limit is also no lower than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary. Flume Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species. Flume is a relatively large creek with no gauge data. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following: Improved channelization and capacity of Margaret Road and Beach Avenue; and An assessment of sediment loading causing turbidity and any other water quality or quantity concern which may affect domestic surface water users. 3C ROBERTS CREEK SYSTEM Delineates areas with potential for water flooding, flood deposition and erosion, and instability along certain ravine slope crests. South of Lower Road the area within this designation extends 15 metres from ravine slopes east of Roberts Creek 371 Page 86 of 129

242 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan and as mapped on the west side of the creek. North of Lower Road the area within this designation extends 15 metres from the top of forested ravine and canyon slopes including all of Roberts Creek but only a portion of Clack Creek north of the Sunshine Coast Highway. Map definition is highly representational north of the Sunshine Coast Highway. Roberts Creek is the largest stream in the area and there is significant flood potential south of Lower Road. A very narrow neck of land separates the canyon of Clack Creek and the ravine of Roberts Creek between the Sunshine Coast Highway and Lower Road. This ground should be protected from erosion which might result in local stream capture (one stream overtaken by another). Roberts Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following: Potential for creek flooding, erosion and deposition as well as channel conditions upstream of gauge site; Tides may complicate flood effects below Lower Road. The bridge at Lower Road is vulnerable to flood damage; Use caution with design of surface drainage works to avoid local and downstream erosion especially north of the Sunshine Coast Highway; and Very narrow erosional remnant between Clack and Roberts Creek south of the Sunshine Coast Highway requires careful attention. 3D ROBINSON AND CLOUGH CREEKS NEAR POWER LINE Represents a relatively narrow neck of gravelly land which is subject to potential erosion and possible eventual stream capture of either Robinson or Clough Creek. The area within this designation extends 15 horizontal metres from ravine crest slopes. Robinson Creek supports a species of resident fish. Gravel extraction should be avoided in area of narrow neck between creeks. 3E CLOUGH CREEK Delineates an area 15 metres from ravine slope crests each side of Clough Creek from the Plan Area boundary to the marine shoreline. A destructive debris flow originated in a clear cut during heavy rain in November This flow ran out below Orange Road and caused severe property damage. Lower Road was washed out by the flood event. The source area of this event has been mapped as having high potential instability and high to very high potential for erosion. There is much coarse sediment mobilized in the upper creek bed beyond the limits of the plan area. The area south of Highway requires special consideration of high energy flood activity. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following: Flood proofing or other protection of residences below Orange Road; local bank erosion protection that may be required between Orange Road and Sunshine Coast Highway to ensure the creek does not avulse (flood); 372 Page 87 of 129

243 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan The engineer should observe conditions on upper creek and evaluate future potential for debris flow; and High energy flood activity is possible south of the Sunshine Coast Highway. 3F STEPHENS CREEK IN STEPHENS ROAD AREA Has the potential for water flooding along the lower creek. The area within this designation extends 15 horizontal metres from each side of the creek's high water mark (natural boundary as determined in the field) or from the top of ravine slope crests or any canyon. Stephens Creek is relatively large and originates on the west shoulder of Mount Elphinstone. The creek may avulse (flood) especially where it turns west along the shore. There is a recent debris flow high on the creek beyond the Plan Area. A flood hazard affects properties along the lower creek. The lowest creek is confined in a channel which parallels the ocean shore. There is a bedrock canyon between Lower Road and the Sunshine Coast Highway. Stephens Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for sea-run fish species. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider improved channelization and capacity of culverts south of Lower Road. 3G LOWER MALCOLM CREEK AREA Has the potential for water flooding. The area within this designation extends 15 metres from the top of beach front slopes west of Malcolm Creek outlet and as indicated by mapping. Malcolm Creek is relatively large and originates on the west shoulder of Mount Elphinstone. A flood hazard affects properties along the lower creek. The lowest creek area is confined in a channel which parallels the ocean shore. Low beach front slopes west of the creek have wave-eroded exposures of dense gravel and sand. This area has been protected by shoreline riprap. Malcolm Creek supports valuable streamside habitat for resident and sea-run fish species. Malcolm Creek is a relatively large creek with no gauge data. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should consider the following: Improved channelization and capacity of culverts south of Lower Road; The creek may avulse (flood banks) especially where it turns west along the shore; Vegetation and riprap should be maintained on beach front slopes of Malcolm Creek; and Drainage works should avoid surface of groundwater erosion of beach front slopes. 3H NORTH OF THE SUNSHINE COAST HIGHWAY AND WEST OF CONRAD ROAD Has the potential for water and related debris flooding. The area within this designation is below the incised portion of the creek. This is low ground subject to potential minor water and related debris flooding. Slater Creek (informal name) has 373 Page 88 of 129

244 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan no gauge data, the designated potential flood area shown on Schedule AAMap 5 is the creek's alluvial fan. 3J UNNAMED CREEKS NEAR POWER LINE Have the potential for debris flooding. Thurber (1992) has mapped the extent of this area designation to include all ravine slopes, forested ravines and canyons. The area is shown on Schedule AAMap 5. These creeks may be subject to relatively small debris floods. Slopes above are steeper than 30% and join comparable area just east in Electoral Area E - Elphinstone. The qualified geotechnical professional s report should evaluate upstream conditions of creeks to refine estimate of debris flow or debris flood hazards GUIDELINES: Development Permits issued in this area for "Natural Hazardous Conditions" shall be in accordance with the following: a. Subdivision, building permits for dwellings and other structures, and in most cases the altering of land shall require a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical professional preferably also with experience in hydraulic engineering. b In addition to matters set out in the Justification section above, the qualified geotechnical professional s report should also include the following types of analysis and information: Field Definition of land located within the areas noted above in the Justification section Land Use Appropriate land-use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, including building drains, filling and excavation and septic field location(s). An assessment of shallow groundwater conditions and the anticipated effects of septic systems, footing drains, etc. on the natural environment; potential for creek flooding, erosion and deposition as well as channel conditions; local flood proofing or other protection of area buildings; local culvert size and capacity, where present; use of available gauge data for any hydrologic study; local bank erosion protection. c. The report, which the Regional District Board will use to determine the conditions and requirements of the development permit, should certify that the land may be used safely for the use intended and that the Regional District s policy related to meeting risk thresholds is satisfied.. Sewage disposal fields should be setback a minimum of Page 89 of 129

245 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan horizontal metres from the crest of all ravine eroded slopes unless other criteria such as a 30 horizontal metre setback from watercourses apply. d. The sequence and timing of any construction that may be required (for purposes such as pathways and utilities) should be managed to take place at low flows and to minimize the potential for erosion and degradation of the streamside habitats. In particular, the preferred in-stream work period is July 15th to September 1st of any year. e. If deemed necessary by the Ministry of Environment, vegetation should be retained and replanted in order to control erosion and to protect banks and the streamside habitat IMPLEMENTATION: Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution unless delegated to the Manager of Planning and Development or their alternate; Sunshine Coast Regional District Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw No. 350, 1991; Liaison with Ministry of Health and with other relevant Provincial and Federal ministries; Geotechnical report requirements. Section 219 Covenant, Land Title Act. 375 Page 90 of 129

246 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 4: Roberts Creek Shoreline DPA4 is shown on Schedule AAMap 5 CATEGORY: "a" Protection of the Natural Environment, its Ecosystems and Biological Diversity; and JUSTIFICATION: "b" Natural Hazardous Conditions. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE extends 15 metres landward of the natural boundary of the ocean and extends for any works seaward of the natural boundary. Research and analysis supporting the identification of DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 4: ROBERTS CREEK SHORELINE as "Protection of the Natural Environment" and "Natural Hazardous Conditions" is provided in the report entitled Green Shores Case Study: Roberts Creek Overview of Key Shore Management Issues and Green Shores Opportunities (2007). Residential development and shoreline protection works may threaten the integrity of the foreshore and upland parcels. The objective of this designation is to provide long-term protection of the existing shoreline, and adjacent foreshore and upland for their ecological values and to guard against erosion and damage to existing and future buildings and structures. To address the above, a development permit shall be required to ensure development will neither contribute to nor be unduly subject to natural shoreline hazards nor damage the shoreline and marine environments. GUIDELINES: Development Permits issued shall be in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. An assessment prepared by qualified coastal professional(s) addressing any natural hazards and the marine environment shall be required for specified development activities within this development permit area which extends 15 metres landward from the natural boundary of the ocean and includes any works below the natural boundary. 2. Within this development permit area, the following types of development shall be confirmed, via a report(s) prepared by a qualified coastal professional(s), to not be subject to or cause erosion, flooding, landslip or damage to the marine environment, and be in accordance with Provincial and Federal legislation. Such specified development, requiring certification, shall include: a. Shoreline protection works; b. Beach access steps requiring footings on the natural boundary; c. Dwellings; and 376 Page 91 of 129

247 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan d. Other buildings or impervious surfaces with more than 10 sq. m. (108 sq. ft.) floor area or parcel coverage. 3. The required assessment prepared by the qualified coastal professional(s) shall, as a minimum, address the following as applicable to the proposed development activities: a. Existing shoreline processes, including erosion and deposition of land and beach materials; b. Existing and anticipated shoreline processes, including erosion and deposition of land and beach materials, given projected environmental trends including climate change and sea-level rise; c. The impacts of the proposed development activities, including shoreline protection works, on the shoreline abutting and within the vicinity of the subject parcel; d. The impacts of the proposed development activities, including shoreline protection works, on the foreshore ecology abutting and within the vicinity of the subject parcel; and e. The long-term safety of the existing and proposed shoreline protection works, dwellings and other buildings on the subject parcel from natural hazards including shoreline erosion, landslip and flooding. 377 Page 92 of 129

248 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 5: Multi-Family/Cluster Housing Development, DPA5 is shown on Schedule AAMap 5. CATEGORY: "e" Form and character of intensive residential development. JUSTIFICATION: "f" Form and character of multi-family / cluster housing development. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 5: MULTI-FAMILY/CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT describes the area of a co-housing development near the Community Commercial core of Roberts Creek. This area comprises Lot 3, District Lots 809, 810 and 1506, Group 1, Westminster District, Plan BCP916, which extends from the end of Emery Road north to Highway 101. The objective of this designation is to preserve and enhance the established rural character of Roberts Creek, to ensure building and site design that encourages and supports sustainable community living, multi-family specialized housing, and to complement the commercial core of Roberts Creek nearby. GUIDELINES: A development permit is required for the construction or addition of a building involving either: (a) (b) a floor area exceeding 25 square metres located on land designated pursuant to the Land Title Act as "strata"; or a floor area over 100 square metres located on land designated pursuant to the Land Title Act as "common property". A development permit is not required for the construction or addition of a greenhouse, irrespective of its floor area. All developments shall be in accordance with the following guidelines, irrespective of whether a development permit is required: General Form and Character of Development (a) Preservation of the established rural character of Roberts Creek will be achieved through: (i) (ii) creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural or natural-like materials, and which is compatible with the scale and character of its surroundings; preservation of existing mature coniferous trees; and (iii) siting of buildings and structures in a manner that gives priority to pedestrians over automobiles. Form, Exterior, Design and Finish of Buildings 378 Page 93 of 129

249 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (b) (c) (d) Building form that is of a consistent style and character throughout the site, and which ensures design diversity and rhythm by varying and alternating building mass, siting and various major and minor design elements. Buildings should incorporate elements that add vertical definition, including sloped roofs and façade treatments such as porches, balconies and verandas. While meeting Building Code requirements for building separation, building walls should be well articulated through the placement of windows and other design elements, and by varying exterior cladding materials, finishes and colours. Parking and Landscaping (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Lighting and Signs (k) IMPLEMENTATION: The retention of natural vegetation, including large mature conifers, is required as a landscaping element. Parking should not visually dominate the co-housing development. The amount of surface parking on-site may be determined by considering the overall number of co-housing residents and visitors potentially utilizing the site. While separating parking from residential buildings, parking areas should be integrated with the overall development, with wellestablished links between parking areas and buildings. Where possible, parking areas should be broken up by landscaping elements, and visually screened from adjacent properties and public areas. Where possible, parking areas and other hard surfaces should be constructed of permeable or semi-permeable materials. Support service facilities and structures such as refuse containers, composters, recycling facilities, storage areas and utilities should be located and screened to minimize visibility from adjacent properties and public areas. The majority of lighting and signs on-site should be oriented towards pedestrians. Carved or painted wood signs will incorporate limited front lighting, and shall be coordinated with the overall building design. Light fixtures shall incorporate a high cut-off to minimize surrounding glare. (l) Vehicular oriented signs on-site are restricted to maximum height of 1.8 metres. Issuance of development permits, as required, prior to issuance of building permits. 379 Page 94 of 129

250 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area DPA6 is shown on Schedule AAMap 5. CATEGORY: "e" Form and character of commercial development. JUSTIFICATION: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 6: ROBERTS CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA describes the commercial core of Roberts Creek. This area is located in the vicinity of the junction of Lower Road and Roberts Creek Road, from Largo Road to Timberlands Road. The objective of this designation is to support economic activities and development that enhances the established rural atmosphere and environmental stewardship of downtown Roberts Creek and encourages innovative design. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES: Development permits are required to regulate the form and character of development prior to the construction, addition or exterior alteration of commercial or mixed use buildings containing commercial uses or land alteration within Development Permit Area No. 6. Development permits are not required where the construction or site development is consistent with these guidelines and where: 1. either a new building or an addition to an existing building has a floor area of less than 10 sq. m. (108 sq. ft.); or 2. the value of the alteration to an existing building is less than $20,000 (2008 value to be increased on January 1st of each subsequent year by Statistics Canada s Vancouver CPI increase for the previous year); or 3. site landscaping that covers less than 100 m² (1080 sq. ft.) or 4. greenhouses in general and, where artificial lighting for plant growth is provided, greenhouses must be shielded to prevent light pollution. For items 1 to 3 this is a one-time only exemption to be indicated through a covenant registered on title. Development permits issued in this area shall be in accordance with the following: A) Green Building Materials and Energy Efficiency a. The Regional District may consider relaxation of the following guidelines where the applicant demonstrates to the RD s satisfaction that green building materials and/or energy efficiency beyond that required by Building Regulations will be applied. 380 Page 95 of 129

251 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan B) General Form and Character of Development a. Preservation of the established rural character and environmental stewardship of downtown Roberts Creek will be encouraged by: (i) (ii) (iii) (ii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural materials and respects the scale of existing development; varying building heights or shifting rooflines on buildings with long street or road way frontages; shaping larger buildings to give the building the appearance of being composed of a number of smaller sections or blocks; siting of buildings in a manner that gives priority to pedestrians over the automobile; promoting significant landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-ways and integrated within sites; where possible, new buildings should be positioned to maintain sun exposure to sidewalks, pedestrian areas and adjacent residential buildings; providing walkways or paths to allow for continuous unobstructed links with adjacent parcels; walkways and pedestrian paths must be universally accessible; supporting use of green/energy efficient design and materials. b. "Roadway commercial strip" character should be avoided by: i) siting buildings near the front or exterior side parcel lines fronting roadways; ii) iii) iv) creating landscaped open spaces within developments of various scales from outdoor patios in smaller developments to commons and squares in larger developments; locating surface parking at the rear or interior side setbacks of buildings instead of within the front setback; and planting significant landscaping adjacent to roadways that is integrated with landscaping within the site. 381 Page 96 of 129

252 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan C) Form and Design of Buildings a. Building form that compliments existing buildings will be required. b. Single story buildings should incorporate elements that add vertical definition such as sloped roofs or facade treatments such as facia, awnings and/or verandas; c. Covered walkways, designed for accessibility, should be provided to provide weather protection for shoppers; d. Blank walls and large expanses of any one material, especially on street oriented facades are unacceptable unless measures are taken to minimize visual impact by adding facade treatments such as facia, pilasters or other such elements; e. The ground levels of commercial buildings should be emphasized through careful arrangement and proportioning of windows and entrances; f. Modification of standardized corporate franchise building designs or features shall be required in the event of conflict with these design guidelines. D) Exterior Finishing In general, a variety of cladding and trim materials is permitted, provided that the materials have a natural or traditional appearance and are complimentary to existing development. E) Site Planning: Landscaping a. The retention of trees and natural vegetation as a landscaping element is strongly encouraged; b. Where trees and natural vegetation cannot be maintained, landscaping should include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plants and/or trees which are suitable for the local climate (such as from the BC Naturescape plant list); c. Provision and retention of edible landscaping is supported; d. All other site areas not covered by buildings, parking areas, or retained natural vegetation and pedestrian areas and walkways shall be landscaped; e. Provision of xeriscaping or landscaping which requires minimal watering is encouraged; f. Provision should be made to conserve and supply adequate water to all planted areas, such as use of drip irrigation and/or rainwater barrels, and to maintain landscaping as approved. 382 Page 97 of 129

253 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan F) Site Planning: Parking and Support Services a. Parking should not visually dominate a development. Where possible, parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a commercial building; b. Parking areas should be integrated into the overall development by means such as incorporating significant landscaping, coordination of outdoor elements and linking of buildings with parking by distinctively paved walkways; c. Handicapped accessible parking spaces must be provided close to building entries and the number of such spaces shall depend on the scale of the development; d. Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at least in equal number to parking spaces; e. The drive aisles in parking areas shall be predominantly covered in permeable materials, although asphalt, concrete, or pavers may be used subject to (f) below; f. The areas used for parking spaces shall be covered with permeable pavers or in gravel where the gravel is contained within a system design to keep the gravel in place; g. Subject to soil suitability, at least one-half of a parking area should be water permeable and designed to allow for stormwater infiltration to assist with a stormwater management plan developed in accord with Stormwater Management policies; h. Landscaped areas within the parking lot are required when more than 10 vehicles are to be accommodated, with a row containing no more than 5 parking stalls being permitted without a landscape feature; i. Driveway entries to parking lots should be defined by landscaped nodes that may include low-ground cover and entry features that ensures visibility and safety; j. Parking areas that abut a roadway shall be buffered by a minimum 3.5 metre (11.5 ft.) wide landscaped strip that includes a sidewalk or path; k. Support service facilities and structures such as loading bays, refuse containers, storage areas and utility services should be located preferably to the rear or side of buildings and be screened to minimize visibility from public areas. Screening should be constructed of natural materials compatible with the main buildings; l. Underground hydro servicing should be provided. 383 Page 98 of 129

254 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan G) Signage The intention is to prevent proliferation of signage and encourage quality design that is coordinated within the development as a whole. H) a. All signs should be architecturally coordinated with the overall design of buildings and landscaping; b. Painted canopy or painted awning signs are acceptable, but shall occupy an area not exceeding 15% of the area of the canopy c. A limited number of free standing signs shall be restricted to a maximum height of 2.0 metres above the grade and limited to a combined surface area on all sides of 3 sq m (32.3 sq ft.) and mounted upon a base made of stone, brick, wood or other natural-appearing material d. Roof signs; interior lit or back lit signs; revolving, flashing, or moving signs; as well as use of reflective or dayglo paint, permanent banners and advertizing flags are prohibited; e. Notwithstanding (d) above,non-flashing interior lit Open signs, less than sq metres (200 square inches), shall be allowed for each unit in the development; f. Multi-unit buildings should have unit number and/or address number signs of compatible size, arrangement and character; g. Other than a limited number of directional signs, all signage must be for units/activities within the development, 3rd Party signage is not allowed. Site Lighting a. The starting point in designing a lighting scheme should be to provide responsible lighting that has minimal negative impact upon people, the environment and property. This should provide a safe and welcoming development while eliminating light pollution which is any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste; b. Site lighting shall be directed downward to avoid light spill and designed following the Regional District s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines; c. Site lighting should be neutral in colour. High-pressure Sodium (orange) and Mercury Vapour lights are not permitted. 384 Page 99 of 129

255 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan IMPLEMENTATION: I) Fencing and Commercial/Residential Interface a. Commercial buildings should be sited to afford maximum privacy to adjacent residential properties and minimize the impacts of noise, glare and shadows; b. Boundaries abutting residential zoned parcels shall be fenced and/or landscaped with dense shrubbery or a hedge with a minimum width of one metre to create an effective buffer; c. Fencing adjacent to residential zoned parcels should be solid, unless combined with landscaping, and clad in wood; J) Large Scale Development a. A design context statement is to be provided by the developer that indicates how the proposal meets the guidelines and OCP objectives. b. Further site-specific design guidelines may be created for any large-scale development on parcels exceeding 4000 sq m (0.98 acres) when a parcel within the Comprehensive Development zone is developed. c. No individual building that is used for retail sales as a principal use shall have a maximum footprint of 300 square metres (3230 sq ft) and a maximum floor area larger than 500 square metres (5380 sq ft). Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution prior to issuance of a building permit; Review of development permit applications by local residents, the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission and Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee; Liaison with the Province and other relevant authorities. 385 Page 100 of 129

256 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Development Permit Area 7: Agricultural Buffering DPA7 is shown on Schedule AAMap 5 The designation is established for the purposes of the protection of agriculture land reserve designated parcels which are adjacent to parcels that have subdivision potential. Justification Protection of Farming Description: Development Permit Area 7 is applicable to all land shown on Map X that is within the Roberts Creek Plan area. Land designated as Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) requires protection for long term agricultural use. The subdivision of lands adjoining or reasonably adjacent to farm lands may facilitate development that might compromise the agricultural use of the ALR lands. As a result of this, land use conflicts may develop. In order to reduce potential conflicts a 10 metre landscape buffer should established and protected. Research and analysis supporting the identification of Development Permit Area XX: Agricultural Buffering appears in the publication by the Agricultural Land Commission titled Landscaped Buffer Specifications. Guidelines: A development permit is required for the following activities: 1. Subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act ; Those lands identified within Development Permit Area 7 that have the potential for subdivision. A minimum 10 metre wide landscaped buffered area should be maintained and/or established on land to be developed if it is adjoining an ALR boundary. The intent of the buffering is to enable uses within proximity to large ALR properties, without hindering present and future use of these ALR lands. All buffer areas shall be landscaped using native vegetation in accordance with Schedule C of the BC Agricultural Land Commission's publication entitled Landscaped Buffer Specifications published in 1993; The buffering shall take place prior to the proposed subdivision; Security in the form of a cash bond for 50% of the value of the buffering shall be submitted to the SCRD and held for a minimum of one year to enable some further planting in the event that some of the planted native species need to be refurbished; No new buildings and structures, except for fencing, shall be situated within the 10 metre vegetation buffer area unless the zoning is varied under a development permit issued under this section or development variance permit issue by the Board; and 386 Page 101 of 129

257 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan A Section 219 covenant for the vegetation buffer area may be required which restricts the removal of vegetation and the construction of any buildings or structures other than fencing within the buffer area. Exemptions: The following is exempt from requiring a development permit: where an existing covenant or proposed covenant secured by a solicitor s undertaking at the time of rezoning or subdivision, meets the development permit guidelines a structural change, addition or renovation to an existing lawfully conforming and constructed building or structures provided that the footprint of the building or structure is not expanded and provided that it does not involve any alteration of land. Where there is a road right of way, either developed or not, between the ALR and subdividing parcels. 387 Page 102 of 129

258 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INFORMATION AREA The entire Plan Area is a Development Approval Information Area. The Regional District may require development approval information for development permit and rezoning applications. These types of proposals shall be evaluated, at a minimum, on: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) The impact of the proposed development on the natural environment such as adjacent aquatic areas, vegetation, soils and erosion, geotechnical characteristics, topographical features, ecosystems and biological diversity, fish and wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive features, and rare or endangered plant or animal species. The impact of the proposed development on groundwater quantity and quality, surface water generated by the proposed development, and the options for collection, storage, reuse and dispersal of such drainage. The aesthetic values of the proposed development such as visual character, integration with public areas and the natural environment, lighting, noise, and odour; The impact of the proposed development on traffic volumes and roads including the ability to provide safe and effective access to both the development as a whole and to individual dwellings/buildings within development; How the proposed development impacts and buffers adjacent uses; and The ability of the proposed development to provide on-site water and sewage disposal or to connect to community services, if available. When requested by a First Nation, an archaeological study will be conducted to ensure the protection of First Nations interests 388 Page 103 of 129

259 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 17) RESIDENTIAL, COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL and RURAL The Roberts Creek Technical Background Report provides an estimated growth potential for additional dwellings and new parcels in Roberts Creek. Based on a conservative estimate that 30% of eligible parcels may eventually build an auxiliary dwelling, an additional 239 secondary residential dwellings are possible. The total build-out, including second dwellings, is estimated at 2,259 units. That build-out scenario provides for 540 additional parcels and 921 additional residential units. The build-out population, based on 2006 average household size, is approximately 4,800 people. The estimated population in 2011 iswas Thus there is an untapped potential for a further increase of 1276 residents or 396% growth. Outside of the significant Crown and Private Managed Forest Lands in the northern area of the OCP, the majority of land is used for residential purposes. For the most part this is in single parcels that may allow for up to two dwellings. Provision should be made for a range of house types to serve the whole community. This includes affordable housing, transition housing and special needs housing. The lack of affordable rental and home ownership housing in Roberts Creek has become an increasingly important social and economic issue due to the rise in real estate values and only modest increases in income levels in recent years. Affordable housing issues affect all sectors of our community (economic, social and cultural), all age ranges and all types of residents from individuals to families to seniors. Senior government assistance for low income rental and non market home ownership has all but disappeared in the past ten years. Some funding has been restored in support of developments involving partnerships of private housing developers, non profit societies and local governments. There are many approaches to providing affordable rental and home ownership housing and Official Community Plans can play a significant role in the areas of density bonusing, community amenity contributions and multifamily residential zoning (see glossary for definition of terms). Using these tools the Roberts Creek OCP can support the creation of affordable housing rental and home ownership. Development proposals that include the creation of Affordable Housing can also enhance the goals set out in the Regional District s response to climate change - Our Coast, Our Climate initiative. The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan encourages local private housing developers, nonprofit housing providers, local governments, the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee, the Roberts Creek Community Association and the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission to work with the Sunshine Coast Housing Committee to support the creation of affordable housing in Roberts Creek. Special needs housing provides accommodation for specific users that require various levels of assistance either from staff living on site or in attendance during normal working hours. There may be auxiliary facilities, such as medical rooms, small administration office space or a communal dining room. Such facilities are often subject to Provincial regulations and oversight. There may also be financial assistance from Provincial or Federal programs. For example there are seniors housing developments around the Coast that fall within this type of housing. The facility is normally the primary (only) or long term home for residents. Such developments may 389 Page 104 of 129

260 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan be specifically designed and consist of apartments or dwellings with limited features, such as no individual kitchens. Transition housing may provide temporary homes for people needing short term residences due to personal situations. There is often an element of care provided and there may be direct Provincial oversight. Normally these facilities are provided within a dwelling where facilities are shared. An example is a transition home for women and children leaving abusive situations. A greater level of Provincial oversight is provided the larger the facility. Quite often the facility appears as a regular dwelling with no visual clues that it is anything other than a regular house. Innovative design and construction, especially where green materials are used and low energy use is realized, are encouraged. Smaller dwellings, especially those that make use of alternative building materials and techniques, for example straw bale, may also provide a source of affordable housing. In some cases the BC Building Code may not support such alternatives and code compliance alternatives would need to be researched. In Roberts Creek significant portions of the Sunshine Coast Highway are next to residential land. The OCP supports maintaining larger lot sizes next to the Highway. This will help to provide a green, forested area next to the Highway and is a visual barrier and sound buffer between the Highway and higher density residential areas towards the ocean. Objectives: 17a To provide for future growth, while recognizing there is a limit on the amount of residential, country residential and rural properties which can be supplied due to servicing availability and the land base required for other activities. 17b To provide for a variety of housing types and parcel sizes. 17c To minimize residential conflicts by establishing appropriate buffer zones to resource activities and areas of natural hazard and environmental concern. 17d To encourage subdivision design and development which provides a variety of parcel sizes, minimizes land clearing, and promotes a natural landscape buffer to all roads. 17e To encourage dwelling design and siting which takes advantage of opportunities for energy efficient homes including passive solar heating and geothermal. 17f To provide a range of housing opportunities to address affordable housing. 17g To encourage the use of natural building materials in keeping with the treed, rural character of Roberts Creek. 17h To promote house design and style which reflects the rural wooded atmosphere of Roberts Creek. 17i To promote alternative residential development. 17j To encourage and reinforce the country residential, non-commercial and nonindustrial character along the Sunshine Coast Highway. 17k To establish and maintain a buffer of natural treed vegetation along the Sunshine Coast Highway. 390 Page 105 of 129

261 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 17l Policies: To discourage access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway from country residential properties Schedule AAMap 1 designates as RESIDENTIAL A, RESIDENTIAL B, RESIDENTIAL C and RESIDENTIAL D parcels for which the principal use shall be single family detached housing and duplexes and for which the parcel size requirements for subdivision purposes shall be as follows: RESIDENTIAL A In general, soil types and terrain characteristics for on-site sewage disposal may support a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 2,000 square metres (0.494 acres), subject to Provincial ministry approvals. This minimum parcel size requirement will also support the community's goal of maintaining larger sizes of residential parcels in residential neighbourhoods. RESIDENTIAL B Due to a lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 3,500 square metres (0.864 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals. RESIDENTIAL C Due to a lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal combined with the presence of near surface bedrock a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes of 5,000 square metres (1.235 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals. RESIDENTIAL D Due to sloping terrain characteristics or shallowness to bedrock and lack of soil depth for adequate on-site sewage disposal a minimum parcel size requirement of 10,000 square metres (2.47 acres) may be supported, subject to Provincial ministry approvals Schedule AAMap 5 designates as COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL land adjacent and in proximity to the Sunshine Coast Highway where parcels of approximately one hectare and larger are to be maintained and where land-uses and forms of development that maintain the rural atmosphere of this important visual corridor will be encouraged. Examples of preferred land-uses and forms of development include rural acreage with limited access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway, and activities such as agriculture and small scale home occupations Land use activities of a commercial or industrial nature shall not be permitted in the area designated as COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL The screening of land uses from the Sunshine Coast Highway in the COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL designation shall be required wherever feasible in order to maintain and enhance the visual quality of this area and to minimize the impact of noise and pollution 391 Page 106 of 129

262 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan of vehicular traffic. A natural treed vegetation buffer shall be encouraged as a screening method To restrict access onto the Sunshine Coast Highway particularly for new development within the COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL designation Schedule AAMap 1 designates as MOBILE HOME PARK land where existing zoning recognizes established mobile home parks as providing alternative and affordable housing opportunities The Regional District, through the review process for subdivision and building permit applications should encourage applicants to organize their projects to capitalize on available opportunities for passive solar heating and to encourage subdivision design which provides a variety of parcel sizes and shapes Opportunities for affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing in residential and country residential zones shall be made available through zoning providing for auxiliary dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes, transition homes, and full size second dwellings in most parts of the Plan Area subject to parcel size and other requirements i. Proposals to increase residential development density beyond that established in the OCP may be supported where the additional development capacity is to provide: a Affordable housing; and/or b Special needs housing subject to consultation with local residents through an OCP and rezoning amendment application process with public information meeting(s). Specific design criteria may be established and if so the site should be included within a development permit area for Form and Character, such as DPA 5. Cluster housing will be encouraged to minimize land use. Affordable Housing is where the cost either is subsidized or held at below market value. There is a range of types such as: 1 Affordable Rental Housing: Housing where the total monthly shelter cost (gross monthly rent including utilities heat, hydro and hot water) is at or below one times the average rent in the region and costs less than 30% of total before tax household income. 2 Affordable Market Homeownership: Housing produced by the private sector and rented or sold at a price that is affordable to a broad segment of the local population. Housing that is affordable in perpetuity and subject to a selling agreement (covenant registered on the title) between the developer and the region s housing authority 3 Affordable Non Market Homeownership: Housing produced with a purchase price that is affordable to households of low and moderate income, which are households within the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for the 392 Page 107 of 129

263 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan region as determined by Statistics Canada. Housing where the total monthly costs (mortgage and utilities) cost less than 30% of total before tax household income. These are permanently affordable 4 Life Lease Housing A legal agreement that permits seniors to purchase and occupy a home for life (or until they are no longer capable of living there) in exchange for a lump sum payment and subsequent monthly payments to cover the ongoing project management fees and maintenance and operating expenses (and in some cases rent, depending on the size of the initial payment). The major difference between a life lease and a condominium is that the title to life lease units remains with the sponsoring organization, not with the occupant. The sponsoring org is usually a non-profit housing organization. 5 Minimal or Alternative Housing use of alternative building materials and small size may result in relatively affordable housing. There are potential issues with respect to meeting BC Building Code requirements however this may prove to be a useful source of market housing. Additional research should take place to determine what if any changes in Regional District or Provincial policy and regulation should be supported ii. The SCRD shall require a housing agreement or covenant to ensure that the housing is permanently affordable Zoning provisions for auxiliary dwellings on parcels over 2,000 square metres and second dwellings on parcels over 3500 square metres shall be supported. However, these provisions shall not be used as an entitlement for increasing density through a rezoning application to facilitate subdivision To further provide affordable housing, innovative forms of housing will be considered, such as units with shared facilities, use of alternative building materials and smaller units. This should be subject to rezoning and located where servicing requirements can be met Schedule AAMap 1 designates land as RURAL. This includes land located outside the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land areas where land-use zoning will permit: i. residential, ii. limited forest related activities, iii. other compatible rural activities such as agriculture, small scale, value added manufacturing of local forest products, and iv. limited forms of assembly. This land serves as a buffer to the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land and provides community diversity and a rural-lifestyle alternative. Some areas are also characterized by terrain less conducive to residential settlement Minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes for RURAL shall be 1.75 hectares (4.3 acres) to provide a buffer of larger parcels to adjacent resource lands, to 393 Page 108 of 129

264 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan provide for community diversity and a rural-lifestyle alternative, and in part to satisfy soil constraints for on-site sewage disposal purposes. 394 Page 109 of 129

265 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 18) RESOURCE and COMMUNITY WATERSHED Since time immemorial the shíshálh Nation and the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation have used the Roberts Creek area for economic, food, spiritual, medicinal, ceremonial, and cultural purposes. When the settlers arrived in the late 1880 s, they settled mainly along the shoreline, but logged in the uplands. For decades, there were sawmills and shingle mills run by local entrepreneurs. These were eventually replaced by corporations such as Port Mellon Pulp and Paper and the Howe Sound Log Sort. Over the years residents of Roberts Creek have worked in the forest industry. Harvesting has been on-going in the forested uplands, and a small number of forest-based enterprises still endure. Almost every residential property has evidence of a stump with spring-board scars reminiscent of the Forest Pioneers. Through the 1980 s and early 1990 s, the Community was very active in Forest Watch and Forest Walkers, and challenged many forest harvesting practices. The 1994 OCP reflected this commitment, and proposed ecological (holistic) harvesting of forests and more sustainable and planned forest management. While the community embraces their logging history, mounting evidence confirms the Roberts Creek Uplands as a valuable ecological forest resource at a time when world forest resources continue to shrink. In addition to the critical importance of maintaining healthy, ecologically vibrant forests, the Uplands also have a commensurate economic value as recreational land. The OCP takes this history into account and also considers some critical changes that have taken place since the first OCP was adopted in 1994, such as: Water: increasingly a key issue and frequently associated with climate change. The upland forested areas within the OCP proposed boundary contain much of the Chapman and Grey watersheds as well as with many major creeks and subsidiary streams that require protection and maintenance to allow safe movement of water through residential areas. There is concern that Roberts Creek will need their own source of water in the future.3 The Technical Report which guides the OCP has suggested that Roberts Creek have a back-up water supply anticipating the effects of climate change and drought. It is also noted that 30% of RCRoberts Creek residences use well water4 and changes in upland forest harvesting and clearing for residential dwellings affect the movement of water and the aquifers that support the wells. The shíshálh Nation Strategic Land Use Plan (2007) identifies water as the greatest overall concern5. Territorial Land Claims: At some point in the future, the shíshálh Nation and the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation will settle their territorial land claims with the Provincial Government. The Roberts Creek OCP area is included in these claims. Climate Change: an expressed goal of citizens of Roberts Creek6 as well as a commitment of the SCRD7, the Province of British Columbia8, and the Canadian 3 Technical Review p. 5 Technical Review p.45 5 A Strategic Land Use Plan for shíshálh Nation Approved Draft Creek Café October/Nov 2008? 7 Carbon Charter Commitment 8 BC Government signed up with California on GHG commitments Page 110 of 129

266 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Government9 is to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate climate change. Forests sequester carbon, and are a major part of the GHG strategy. Smart Growth has also been accepted as a GHG strategy, with plans for densification in the core of Roberts Creek and reducing urban sprawl. Although none are currently proposed for Roberts Creek, there is also an initiative to trade carbon credits in the marketplace, with those polluting (such as companies mining the tar sands) being obligated to buy carbon credits, while those sequestering carbon can sell carbon credits. Environmental Services: Forest cover on sloped land provides significant services such as erosion control, stream maintenance, water quality and aquifer protection. These services protect the increasingly high-value Roberts Creek waterfront and dense residential areas in the central core as well as public infrastructures. In the past Roberts Creek has experienced log jams creating debris floods, washout of roads and increased water flow as a result of upland changes. Tenure: Since the last 1994 OCP, the Province has undergone dramatic change in tenure arrangements, with a blend of corporatization, privatization and decentralization. Much of the Roberts Creek forested uplands is now held in Crown Land with BC Timber Sales (BCTS) as the main harvesting lease arrangement as well as an emergence of privately managed forest lands (PMFL). In 2010, the Ministry of Forests announced critical cutbacks in forest protection(fire), compliance, reforestation, planning and management. In addition, the District of Sechelt established a Community Forest part of which is within the Roberts Creek OCP area. Land formally owned by Canfor Corp has seen significant increase in harvesting and road construction activity, these are subject to the Private Managed Forest Land Act and require reforestation Population: Since the 1994 OCP, the Roberts Creek population has increased by an estimated 230% (from 2700 to ). There are projections of an increased population in Vancouver, which is likely to result in a spill over to the Sunshine Coast. Considering these projections, there is a need to identify future park and recreational areas while also considering water and environmental services and the needs of the logging industry. There has also been an increase in trail use in the uplands, with conflicts between the various trail users and with resource extraction. Given the expressed long-term commitments for GHG reductions at all levels, the concerns about water and healthy watersheds, the need for environmental services, the changes in forest tenure, the shíshálh Nation and Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nation territorial land claims, the historic land parcel designation, and the future need for recreational parks and trails, the forested uplands within the OCP Boundaries of Roberts Creek will be preserved as much as possible. This can be done using current and new policy instruments (by-laws and zoning) and clearly stated and achievable OCP objectives and activities. The following objectives and policies for RESOURCE designated lands in this section of the community plan recognize the value of forestry to the community - not only economically, but also for its potential contribution to ecosystem (environmental) resources, wilderness areas, 9 Canada also signed the REDD++ with the UN (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Page 111 of 129

267 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan old growth attributes (where identified), watershed reserves, and recreational resources. The objectives and policies recognize that the mandated responsibility of the Province is one of integrated resource management. The objectives and policies also reflect the community's desire that the Ministry of Forests, when permitted under its enabling legislation, adopt both a holistic and community-oriented approach to forestry management. Holistic, sustainable forestry recognizes that the forest is a diverse, interconnected web which sustains all life forms. One part is not more important than another and retention and protection of all the "parts" is crucial not only to the continuation of the forest ecosystem, but also to ensuring long term sustainability and economic value. This approach would result in balanced uses of this resource and therefore represent sound stewardship. Sustainable forestry works best when there is a closed system where resources are extracted in a responsible way that allows for growth to replace the forest to allow for perpetual resource extraction. Thus there is no extensive land clearing then long re-growth period where resources are not available for many years. This would be reinforced by local small scale manufacturing to create value added products for the local or wider market. Partnerships between the local community, the SCRD, land owners (especially the Province and forestry companies) are needed to give sustainable forestry the chance to succeed. Map 6 shows the current resources within and immediately adjacent to the plan area (gravel and forestry). The following objectives which stem from the foregoing principles should also extend outside the community plan area, as the forest functions as an ecosystem and not in terms of artificially imposed boundaries. Objectives: 18a To keep as much forest as possible in the watershed area and uplands of the OCP area and beyond for the provision of: a) environmental services such as: a steady quality and quantity of water, carbon sequestering (GHG) benefits, erosion control, flood mitigation and wildlife sanctuaries; b) economic benefits in a sustainable working forest and viable recreational areas, and; c) social, cultural, spiritual, and generational resilience. 18b To ensure the protection and maintenance of the biological diversity and sustainability of the forest. 18c To ensure that forest uses are ecologically, economically and socially responsible and balanced. 18d To encourage the effective involvement of the local community in Forest Management planning by way of meaningful consultation and cooperation with the Province, First Nations and forestry companies in forest lands stewardship. 18e To support the development within the community of value added manufacturing of local forest products. 397 Page 112 of 129

268 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 18f To allow Crown Provincial Forest lands to be used for public education in integrated resource management and holistic, sustainable forestry and to demonstrate the associated economic aspects of forestry. 18g Within Crown Provincial Forest lands to allow for uses, such as outdoor recreation, that are compatible with integrated resource management and holistic forest practices. 18h Residential uses will not be permitted in RESOURCE designated lands; 18i 18j To discourage the alienation of Crown Provincial Forest Lands and Private Managed Forest Lands for uses other than Forestry and compatible resource orientated activities. To provide for agricultural activities, including the opportunity for marketing locally produced agricultural products. 18k To provide for appropriate forestry related uses of both Managed Forest and Crown Provincial Forest lands, such as sorting and storage of timber harvested on the same parcel and wood processing in the form of sawmills, shake mills and wood chippers of timber harvested on the same parcel. 18l Policies: To provide for auxiliary small scale commercial and industrial activity in appropriate areas away from residential and rural areas. 18m The interface of RESOURCE and those areas which are rural or residential should be considered within the context of interface fire potential, emergency planning and as well as potential impacts on residential uses A Roberts Creek Forest Resources Board, with a broad base of community representation, should be established to: i. initially monitor for ecologically, economically and socially sound forest management practices; ii. iii. promote public forestry education; work with similar community organizations in the region to seek and maintain consultation and cooperation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, managed forest land owners and the Private Managed Forest Land Council in managing the forest lands Schedule AAMap 1 designates land as RESOURCE. This includes land within the Crown Provincial Forest and Private Managed Forest Land, designated under the Private Managed Forest Land Act and identified under the Assessment Act, where the potential exists for resource activities such as the establishment, management, and harvesting of the forest cover for timber and other forest products and values, as well as educational opportunities in holistic forestry and ecology. Areas with identified gravel resources are identified. 398 Page 113 of 129

269 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 18.3 Residential uses are not compatible with such activity and will not be a permitted use Temporary work camps required to support resource activities may be a permitted use Protection of the Community Watershed is a primary concern of the SCRD and is a key part of the Strategic Land Use Plan for the shíshálh Nation (SLUP), and any activities near the Community Watershed boundary must take this into account. The SLUP sets out the shíshálh Nation s objectives to protect the Chapman and Gray Creek watersheds and notes the Joint Water Management Agreement signed by the shíshálh Nation and the SCRD The Regional District adopted a Source and Assessment Response Plan (2012)for the Chapman Creek watershed any land use aspects are supported, subject to rezoning process which shall include public engagement With the exception of lands located immediately adjacent to Highway 101, minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision purposes shall be 100 hectares in order to minimize the alienation of land which may contribute to the establishment of land-uses that conflict with forestry related activities The RESOURCE designated area located immediately adjacent to the Sunshine Coast Highway near Pell Rd, currently owned by the Crown, may be considered for COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses or for expansion of the adjacent Provincial Park Any proposed rezoning to COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL uses and density will be subject to confirmation of effective, safe access and other required servicing infrastructure, as well as any environmental issues being addressed Schedule AAMap 1 designates land as COMMUNITY WATERSHED, this is land within the boundary of the Chapman Creek Watershed and is the location for the main water collection and treatment facility that serves the majority of residents on the Sunshine Coast. No resource, commercial or industrial activities shall be permitted within this area. Recreational and environmental based activities that have no negative impact upon the watershed shall be permitted. Restricted watershed use areas may be designated and protected. Residential development is not permitted in this area Portions of the RESOURCE designated lands may have good potential for sand and gravel resources. Should these resources be proposed for development in the future, the Province requires that the development meet the requirements of the legislation and regulations for mining. The SCRD will work with the Province to ensure that appropriate safeguards and reclamation are set out as conditions within any mining permits Sand, gravel and mineral extraction shall strongly be discouraged in the Plan Area Processing of minerals, including sand and gravel, shall not be permitted other than that required to remove the mineral from the site. 399 Page 114 of 129

270 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Proposals that support sustainable forestry are supported although they may be subject to rezoning or OCP amendments. 400 Page 115 of 129

271 Second Reading, July , Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan 19) INSTITUTIONAL The provision of institutional uses such as schools, libraries, community halls, and local government facilities is an important aspect of creating a self-sufficient community. These community resources help to attract a broad range of people from all age groups to create a balanced community. They offer local employment and leisure opportunities. Establishing and retaining such facilities reduces the need to travel to other parts of the Coast in order to meet most needs. Thus there is a reduction in green house gas created through transport and allows for trips that serve more than one purpose. Objectives: 19a To protect established institutional uses, such as schools. 19b To provide for additional institutional uses that can be appropriately located in the OCP Area to serve existing and future residents. 19c Policies: To encourage future institutional property and structures to be of a multi-use nature. 19d To encourage community use of school facilities Schedule AAMap 1 designates as: INSTITUTIONAL This is land set aside for public and community uses such as Roberts Creek Community Elementary School, the Roberts Creek Community Hall, churches, fire hall, the cemetery, the Roberts Creek Library and other important community uses. Changes from this designation are not supported The Regional District should discourage the location within the Plan Area of major institutional uses such as government offices, colleges, and Courts of Law which have a service area that extends over a major part of the coastal community. Such facilities should be located in neighbouring municipal areas Additional parking for the Roberts Creek Community Hall should be acquired To encourage community use of school facilities. 401 Page 116 of 129

272 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan APPENDIX A: Community Energy and Emissions Plan Goals and Implementing OCP Policies 8. Foster Culture of Conservation 1. Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices 7. Manage Bronwfiled Sites 6. Strengthen Local Economy 5. Reduce & Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource Energy & Emissions Reduction Goals 4. Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities Reduce Dependance on single Occupant Vehicles 3. Enhance the Green Building Sector Page 117 of 129

273 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan In the following Section, each CEEP Goal, has general supporting OCP Policies and specific Community Actions identified that can be achieved through the implementation of the OCP. Goal 1: Support Energy Efficient Land Use Practices Energy efficient land use practices in the OCP area include focusing on infill development within the existing residential neighbourhoods, in walkable areas close to village core. Small-scale neighbourhood commercial uses will be concentrated in in the Village core, Energy efficient land use choices also include not supporting increases in residential development potential into areas beyond the community water supply boundary and into the Agricultural Land Reserve. Increased land use efficiency reduces energy demand and GHG emissions in all sectors with compounding effects over the long term, while generating savings for public and private sectors, both in terms of operating and capital expenditures. OCP policie s Community & Development Actions CEEP goal Increase efficiency of settlement patterns Focus growth within existing developed areas with support for increased density near the Village Core Preserve ALR and outlying rural residential areas following OCP land-use policies Enhance connectivity, with special consideration for alternative nonvehicular transportation paths in new and existing developments Support small scale home businesses Review zoning by-laws to allow expanded homebased small business. Review taxation for functions and fee for services that reflect real costs for servicing low density to higher density areas (e.g. varied DCC charges and water user fees) Encourage higher density mixed use in Village core Review off street parking requirements and enhance walking and biking amenities instead 403 Page 118 of 129

274 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 2: Reduce Dependence on Single Occupant Vehicles Create reliable transportation alternatives to move residents efficiently between communities, including frequent transit, bike and walking paths, carpools, and car share programs. Increasing transit ridership through neighbourhood buses and more frequent and convenient trips is a significant means of cutting down on single occupant vehicles dependence. Bicycle and walking pathways throughout the OCP area, particularly from the Langdale Ferry Terminal to the Town of Gibsons should be developed as identified in the OCP, with the Marine Drive corridor being the priority. This is a particularly important as additional transportation route for cyclists and pedestrians, serving as a gateway to the Sunshine Coast and providing sustainable transportation options to downtown Gibsons. Community & Development Actions CEEP goal Provide alternative transportation infrastructure and options OCP policies Enhance opportunities for nonmotorized transportation alternatives Plan for connectivity and transit oriented development Support increased density near Village core Support improvements to trial, paths for pedestrian and cycling Plan for fine grain mixed use development interconnected by pedestrian (and wheelchair accessible, where possible) and bicycling shortcuts, taking into consideration local topography, as discussed in the other CEEP Goals New residential developments should prioritize nonmotorized travel and be within walking distance to major roads and existing/ proposed public transit corridors Provide non-interrupted cycling and walking path through the Plan area All new higher density developments and renovations should include facilities such as bike racks and lockers Significantly reduce off street parking requirements and front setbacks for mixed use nodes and instead enhance walking and biking amenities Established neighbourhood shortcuts or their reasonable replacement should be legally protected (Rights-of Way) at the time of rezoning and subdivision On existing roads, where ROW is not sufficient for separate bicycle path and sidewalk, establish shared space 404 Page 119 of 129

275 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 3: Enhance the Green Building Sector Create a healthy, local, green building sector that supports energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. The opportunity for reduction in GHG in the building form is also an important consideration. Residential buildings could be retrofitted, new dwellings should be constructed to a higher standard under the new building code, and volunteer home owner initiatives can all contribute to reduce the 14 per cent of GHG output resulting from the residential building sector. Community & Development Actions CEEP goal Increase efficiency of buildings OCP policies Consider amendments to the Building Bylaw to increase energy efficiency requirements and include low-impact development standards OR: Require all new developments to be constructed to high standard of efficiency - Energuide85 or higher, where rezoning are required particularly for multifamily buildings in the Comprehensive Development Areas Promote both innovative approach and time tested solutions in the new constructions and renovations (LEED or PassiveHaus, Green Building concepts) 405 Familiarize SCRD staff and the community in the use of Sustainability Checklist for all applications. Phase the Checklist tool, to make it mandatory in future to achieve a certain level for the applications discretionary approval Require minimum Energuide95 for all new municipal buildings Amend Building and subdivision Servicing by-laws to incorporate on-site stormwater management, solar orientation, invasive species management Establish equipment and appliance efficiency standards for new buildings; replacement procedures and recycling for old equipment Require all new residential buildings to include prewiring for future energy efficient retrofit, similar to solar readiness (needs only adjustments in the project, to include sufficient space) Explore opportunities, grants, and Local Improvement Charges to retrofit existing homes to increase the level of efficiency (such as, for example, recent SCRD Bylaw No amendment, to provide for discounts to encourage energy conservation) Regularly update and make the funding information available for home owners and builders Consider density bonuses for high efficiency developments in the growth areas Page 120 of 129

276 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 4: Expand Local Renewable Energy Opportunities Optimize use of local and regional renewable and alternative energy sources. Explore and support opportunities for small scale energy production from creeks and solar power. Where possible and practical, share utilities among properties. Independent power projects (IPPs) and associated power lines should be developed in a planned and orderly sense and an unnecessary proliferation of hydro line should be avoided. Impact on sensitive ecosystems neds to be considered. Community & Development Actions OCP policies CEEP goal Share and re-use energy systems Adjust zoning bylaw to support low impact localised renewable energy projects, IPPs (including micro IPPs: water, wind, geothermal, solar), for internal use, in rural and residential areas Locate energy producers close to energy consumers by requiring mixed use in development nodes (example use recovered heat from restaurant/ laundromat/ etc, to heat adjacent premises) Encourage and promote solar readiness of new and renovated f single family buildings in conjunction with CEEP Goal 3 above Require new multi-family and, where density allows, single family developments, to share energy resources Engage existing property owners to retrofit for energy efficiency, provide information about available funding and grants Support energy recovery project at Dusty Road Landfill Explore potential for shared community scale geothermal &small scale wind power systems in rural and residential areas Explore potential for shared community scale IPPs from local creeks in rural and residential areas 406 Page 121 of 129

277 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 5: Reduce and Reuse Solid Waste as a Resource Optimize solid waste reduction, reuse, and recycling, and use residual materials as an energy resource while working towards zero waste. Community & Development Actions CEEP goal Reduce waste shipped to landfills or illegally dumped OCP policies Collaborate with other communities, consider Regional waste-to-energy projects Support neighbourhood green waste & compost drop off facilities Encourage the re-use of building materials Adjust zoning bylaws to accommodate small scale, clean recycling facilities outside of industrial zones Support reuse of products and materials, especially building materials, as a diversion strategy Increase proportion of recyclables and organic materials collection Facilitate location of collection bins in commercial/ public areas for recycling companies such as Gibsons Recycling (only clean recyclables, such as paper, electronic equipment, batteries), Require onsite organic materials management, especially on ALR and rural lots (and for urban lots over certain size); restaurants, preschools and schools. Regularly engage in public awareness campaign (target youth, schools, businesses) 407 Page 122 of 129

278 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 6: Strengthen the Local Economy Build a local, energy efficient economy that employs and supplies goods and services to the OCP area and the Sunshine Coast residents. Encourage and support the retrofitting of existing houses, possibly through the means of government incentives in the form of Local Improvement Charges. Consider expanding the provisions of home occupations and agricultural use. Community & Development Actions CEEP goal Encourage economical growth in a local rural setting OCP policies Establish incentives for mixed use developments within Settlement Containment Boundary Support farming and agricultural uses, agricultural product and marketing Put more jobs closer to residential areas, encourage home-based business Review zoning by-law to accommodate more home-based businesses within both rural and residential areas (including small scale production, artisan workshops, food retail, etc), especially close to and within Village core Clearly permit the range of businesses within ALR and other rural zones, as allowed by Agricultural Land Commission document Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, Part 2: Permitted Uses Adjust zoning by-law and increase the size of signage for better visibility for home-based businesses Provide alternative transportation options; bike path and ferry to ferry trail will provide benefits the economy of the OCP area while reducing GHG's across various sectors 408 Page 123 of 129

279 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 7: Manage Brownfield Sites Roberts Creek has little industrial and few commercial sites, thus the potential for brownfield renewal is limited. However, there are sites near the Dusty Road Landfill that over the longer term may become available for renewal. Transform appropriate brownfields into complete community assets. Community & Development Actions OCP policies CEEP goal Redevelop brownfields into community assets Any such proposal would need to be considered on its merits with public engagement Removal of invasive species should be part of consideration Work with the land owner and the community to establish a development potential that meets community needs 409 Page 124 of 129

280 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Goal 8: Foster a Culture of Conservation in the Community Create a culture of energy conservation for residents and businesses within the OCP area and on the Sunshine Coast. Community & Development actions CEEP goal Move beyond regulation into culture of conservation OCP policie s Encourage outreach and education within the SCRD and community to promote a transition to a more sustainable community Regularly engage in public awareness campaign (target youth, schools, businesses) Familiarize SCRD staff and the community in the use of Sustainability Checklist for all applications. Phase the Checklist tool, to make it mandatory in future to achieve a certain level for the applications discretionary approval Amend Building and subdivision Servicing by-laws to incorporate on-site stormwater management, solar orientation, invasive species management Prepare accompanying brochures and make relevant information available (online, possibly workshops) Create community awareness around climate change and energy efficiency through outreach, dialogue, and community events, partner with other municipalities 410 Page 125 of 129

281 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Strategy Energy conservation and Greenhouse Gas reductions can be achieved by following the above policies and actions under each of the eight goals from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan. There is an opportunity to achieve progress in each of these goal areas. Applying integrated community energy solutions in all sectors gives best long term results. Roberts Creek will continue to be primarily a rural area, however, there is potential to increase density within and near the Village core, while maintaining rural acreages outside of these settlement areas. Settlement nodes are more easily serviced by infrastructure and neighbourhood buses and present opportunities for some neighbourhood commercial uses. Further settlement and densification of the ALR and rural and resource forest landscapes should also be discouraged in order to promote more walkable, livable, and efficient settlement patterns in core areas and within established, easy to service, transportation corridors, while maintaining the existing community qualities. Significant future opportunity for reduction lies within the transportation sector and increased efficiency in the residential sector. Increased transit and efficient land use planning go hand in hand in this regard, reducing the number of vehicle trips, particularly single occupancy vehicle trips will lead to a significant reduction in the GHG output. Location of new and efficient housing stock near the transit service will enable significant GHG reductions. Increasing the efficiency of new housing and retrofitting existing housing will also enable a reduction of the total GHG emissions attributed to residential buildings. The following is a summary of the Energuide housing efficiency ratings: Typical Energy Efficiency Ratings Type of House Rating New House build to building code standards New house with some energy-efficiency improvements Energy-efficient new house House requiring little or no purchased energy Note: For a brand new house, a rating of 80 or higher is excellent and areas of high density residential should have dwellings that exceed an Energuide rating of 85. The following chart, figure 7 from the CEEP, indicates the difference in efficiency between a single family dwelling and other types of multifamily dwellings: Annual Energy Use [KWh/yr] Lights and Appliances Domestic Hot Water Space Heat Single Family Row Low Rise High Rise 411 Page 126 of 129

282 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan APPENDIX B: ROBERTS CREEK OFFICAL COMMUNITY PLAN COMMISSION (OCPC) While the OCPC should establish its own terms of reference, and procedures the Regional District suggests that the following: The mission of the OCPC is to preserve the values expressed in the OCP by: Providing the community with a forum to facilitate an open, consultative process that will keep the OCP valid and relevant. Ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the OCP. Reviewing and suggesting improvements to the OCP which express the wishes of the Roberts Creek Community. Providing liaison with the RCCA, SCRD and APC on matters relating to the OCP The duty of the OCPC is to advise the SCRD and the Roberts Creek Community Association (RCCA) on all matters relating to the Roberts Creek OCP. This advice is to be in the form of written recommendations to the SCRD and regular reports to the RCCA. The Area Director shall be the liaison between the OCP Committee and the SCRD. The Chair of the OCP Committee shall be the liaison with the RCCA. 9. Number of Committee members: 11 people 10. Elections: Elections will be held through the RCCA, and are presided over by the SCRD Director, in order to vote in elections you must reside in Roberts Creek. 11. Quorum: A quorum will be five (5). 12. Vacancies: There shall be no fewer than seven members at any given time. If the numbers go below seven, there will be a bi-election to finish the term. 13. The term is for 2 years; 5 and 6 members are elected in alternate years. 14. Residency: Members must have resided in Roberts Creek for at least one year. If they move, they must forfeit their position. 15. Selection of Chair: The elected members will select their own Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. 16. Meeting Schedule: Meetings will be bi-monthly. Meetings shall be advertised in advance to permit community attendance and involvement. 412 Page 127 of 129

283 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Chapter Review The area covered by the draft OCP is expanded to include the Crown and Private Managed Forest Land located north of the 1994 OCP area, up to and including the Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road. This represents an increase in area of approximately 5150 hectares (from about 2650 hectares to about 7800 hectares). Introduction Provides background information regarding the purpose of an OCP, how it is produced and that it is a living document that can be amended with community support through a formal process. There is also a section of the area s history with an emphasis on First Nations. Vision Statement Building upon the strong community character of Roberts Creek, the vision is to enhance self sufficiency in terms of decision making (such as greater involvement in the planning process) and creating local solutions to shape the future of the area. Protection of the rural and environmental values, working with First Nations and adopting sustainable principles for future development are expressed in the Vision. Goals The OCP sets out 17 Goals that guide the objectives and policies. Emphasis is placed upon maintaining the rural character, strengthening the Village Core, improving non-car based transport, widening cultural and artistic opportunities, protecting watersheds and parkland Civic Community Engagement High regard given to community engagement and support for the role of First nations in shaping development. Continuing support for community consultation bodies in planning process. The Physical Environment, Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Green Infrastructure Sets policies and objectives to protect airsheds, watersheds and environmental quality Village Core Establishes objectives and policies that encourage responsible density, mixed use development within a secondary commercial centre on the Coast. This will assist in reduce the need to travel outside of the community, by car, to meet day to day needs. Commercial, Tourist Commercial and Industrial Support for small scale commercial development limited to home based businesses and modest tourist accommodation (bed and breakfasts). Contributes to the ability to work from home and reduce the need to travel to other commercial centres for employment Parks Trails and Recreation Strong emphasis on protecting the green, nature in and around Roberts Creek to provide opportunities to recreate locally, protect forest and retain natural environment. Agriculture Greater emphasis on local food production (horticulture, livestock, and poultry), including farm gate and local food market. The intention is to increase local food security, employment and reduce travel distance to other centres for basic needs. Liquid Waste Management 413 Page 128 of 129

284 Second Reading, July 19, 2012 Draft New Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Aim is to reduce risk of ground pollution. Role of multi-parcel treatment plants may need to be considered within the context of allowing for increased density as current policy supports individual, on-site treatment. Village Core policy supports creation of a Liquid Waste Management Plan prior to increasing density. Completion of this is likely to lead to amending some OCP policies. Solid Waste Management Support offered for reduce and recycle with Zero Waste as the ultimate target. Support for the role that the existing Sechelt Regional Landfill at Dusty Road is noted. Telecommunications and Green Power Support for shared telecommunications facilities. Support offered for small scale, household green power projects with full community consultation for larger projects. Recommends that the Regional District should investigate potential for community green power project. Water Service Area and Watersheds With significant sections of Roberts Creek relying on well or surface water, protection of aquifers is an important consideration. Conservation is supported, such as on site retention and storage (especially for agriculture). Need to balance residential, commercial and agricultural demand. Stormwater Management and Drainage Plans While the Regional District does not provide a drainage service, there is greater awareness of the need to develop such that drainage patterns match the pre-existing condition through methods such as on site retention to allow for slow aquifer recharge rather than just directing flow into drainage ditches utlimately to the ocean. Transportation System Support for non-car based transport, especially bike and walk. Links to the SCRD Integrated Transport Plan. Development Permit Areas and Development Approval Information Area Protection offered to environmentally sensitive areas (streams) and from geotechnically sensitive areas. Two specific form and character areas are identified (Village Core commercial area and the Multi-family/Cluster Housing). New DPA to buffer ALR from increased residential density at subdivision and rezoning. Residential, Country Residential and Rural Resource Range of parcel sizes related to site characteristics. Support for affordable and special needs housing linked to possible density increases. Recognizes the traditional role of forestry in the community. However there is a need for activity to be environmentally sensitive as it can have an impact on watersheds and recreation opportunities. Small scale processing of onsite timber may be supported. Residential uses in Resource areas not supported. Institutional Support for retaining existing and providing new facilities that are of community scale (not large government offices for example). Shared and multi-use facilities desired and promoted. 414 Page 129 of 129

285 ,000 Meters 2,000 Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review Map 1 General Land Use 5HJLRQDO 'LVWULFW 6XQVKLQH &RDVW Industrial Village Commercial Core Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area Village Amenity / Density Bonus Area Enhanced B&B Area Enhanced Home Occupation Area Recreation or Public Use Future Recreation or Public Use Institutional Multi-Family Residential/Cluster Housing Residential D Residential C Residential B Residential A Mobile Home Park Country Residential Watershed Protection Parks Agricultural Rural Resource Landuse Land Parcels Plan Area Boundary /HJHQG

286 Meters Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review Map 1a General Land Use Village Core 5HJLRQDO 'LVWULFW 6XQVKLQH &RDVW Village Commercial Core Village Core Potential Commercial Growth Area Village Amenity / Density Bonus Area Enhanced B&B Area Enhanced Home Occupation Area Recreation or Public Use Future Recreation or Public Use Institutional Multi-Family Residential/Cluster Housing Residential D Residential C Residential B Residential A Mobile Home Park Country Residential Parks Landuse Land Parcels Plan Area Boundary /HJHQG

287 Crystal Rd Crow Rd Byng Rd Ranch Rd Conrad Rd Leek Rd Plan Area Boundary Dusty Rd Existing Trail Paved Bike Path Proposed Bike Path Road ROW Trail Suncoaster Trail (Route TBD) Local Roads Forest Service Roads Beach Access ilson F SR Future Neighbourhood Park E W Cemetery Pier Provincial Park Regional Park Grauman Rd Hanbury Rd Linwood Rd Gibb Rd Pell Rd 417 School Day Rd UREP Lockyer Rd Proposed Mt Elphinstone Park Hansen Rd 4 Land Parcels Flume Rd 3 Largo Rd SpruceRd Golf Course Roberts Kraus Rd C reek Rd Beach Ave Pixton Rd Firburn Rd Orange Rd 2 Porter Rd 1 Joe Rd Lower Rd Sunshine Coast Hwy Lower Rd Meters ,000 2,000 Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 2 Parks and Trails

288 Crystal Rd Crow Rd Byng Rd Ranch Rd Conrad Rd Leek Rd Plan Area Boundary Dusty Rd Land Parcels Existing Main Residential/Rural Existing Major Rural Scenic Heritage Sunshine Coast Hwy Local Roads Intersection Improvements ilson F SR E W Grauman Rd Hanbury Rd Pell Rd Linwood Rd Gibb Rd 418 Day Rd Lockyer Rd Hansen Rd Largo Rd Flume SpruceRd Roberts Cr eek Kraus Rd Beach Ave Pixton Rd Firburn Rd Orange Rd Porter Rd Joe Rd Lower Rd Sunshine Coast Hwy Lower Rd Meters ,000 2,000 Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 3 Road Network

289 Plan Area Boundary Solid Waste Disposal Boundary Water Reservoir Fire Protection Area WaterMains SCRD Water Service Boundary Development Cost Charge Boundary Individual Treatment Plant Pump Station SCRD Water Intake Meters ,000 2,000 Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 4 Services 419

290 Gibb Rd Pell Rd 500 Be a Kraus Rd d er lum Spru ce R d ve 1,000 Meters ee kr d 2,000 Day Rd Grauman Rd Hansen Rd Rd Linwood Rd Hanbury Rd Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review F kye r Loc Crysta l Rd Rd go La r R E W ilson F S Orange Rd Lo Joe Rd D us ty Rd we r Rd Firburn Rd Porter R d hin ec o as Lower Rd Su ns Ranch Rd Pix ton Rd Conrad Rd A ch Leek Rd 420 R o berts C r By ng Rd Crow Rd th wy Map 5 DPA's 5HJLRQDO 'LVWULFW 6XQVKLQH &RDVW DPA #7 - Agricultural Buffering DPA #6 - Commercial Core DPA #5 Multi-Family/Cluster Housing DPA #4 - Shoreline DPA #3I - Unnamed Creeks DPA #3H - Slater Creek Area DPA #3G - Lower Malcolm Creek Area DPA #3F - Lower Stephens Creek DPA #3E - Clough Creek DPA #3D - Robinson and Clough Creeks DPA #3C - Roberts Creek System DPA #3B - Lower Flume Creek DPA #3A - Lower Moscrop Creek DPA #2D - Beach Front Ravine Slopes DPA #2C - Beach Front Slopes DPA #2B - Beach Front Slopes DPA #2A - Beach Front Slopes Stream Riparian Assessment Areas Stream Local Roads Land Parcels Plan Area Boundary /HJHQG

291 Gibb Rd Pell Rd 500 Be a Kraus Rd d er lum Spru ce R d ve 1,000 Meters ee kr d 2,000 Day Rd Grauman Rd Hansen Rd Rd Linwood Rd Hanbury Rd Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review F kye r Loc Crysta l Rd Rd go La r R E W ilson F S Orange Rd Lo Joe Rd D us ty Rd we r Rd Firburn Rd Porter R d hin ec o as Lower Rd Su ns Ranch Rd Pix ton Rd Conrad Rd A ch Leek Rd 421 R o berts C r By ng Rd Crow Rd th wy Map 6 Primary Resources 5HJLRQDO 'LVWULFW 6XQVKLQH &RDVW Local Roads Land Parcels Gravel Deposits Private Managed Forest Land Sechelt Aggregates Land Sunshine Coast Community Forest Plan Area Boundary Land Parcels selection 2 /HJHQG

292 Crystal Rd Crow Rd Byng Rd Ranch Rd Conrad Rd Leek Rd Plan Area Boundary Dusty Rd Land Parcels Sunshine Coast Hwy Local Roads Statement of Intent Squamish Nation shíshálh First Nation ilson F SR E W Grauman Rd Hanbury Rd Pell Rd Linwood Rd Gibb Rd 422 Day Rd Lockyer Rd Hansen Rd Largo Rd Flume Rd SpruceRd Roberts Kraus Rd C reek Rd Beach Ave Pixton Rd Firburn Rd Orange Rd Porter Rd Joe Rd Lower Rd Sunshine Coast Hwy Lower Rd Meters ,000 2,000 Area D - Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Review 2011 Map 7 Statement of Intent

293

294 ANNEX X SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12, 2012 TO: Planning & Development Committee (PDC) July 19, 2012 FROM: Gregory Gebka, Planner RE: Development Permit Application No. A-11 / Variance (Goodman) RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report entitled Development Permit Application No. A-11 / Variance (Goodman) be received; AND THAT Development Permit No. A-11 (Goodman) to permit a single family dwelling (cabin), as constructed, on Block B, District Lot 3251, Plan 3976, be recommended to the Board for approval with a variance to Section 516(1)(c) of Zoning Bylaw No. 337 in order to relax the minimum required building setback to Sakinaw Lake from 20 metres to 6.3 metres, subject to the applicant registering a covenant on title to ensure that there is no disturbance within the established 15-metre SPEA, and that surface water is directed into the ground outside of the SPEA. BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 12th, the Regional District Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation: Recommendation No. 2 Development Permit A-11 with a Variance THAT the staff report titled Development Permit Application No. A-11 / Variance (Goodman) dated November 25, 2011, be received; AND THAT the applicant be requested to consult with representatives of the Sechelt Indian Band to address Sechelt Indian Band concerns; AND THAT Development Permit Application No. A-11 be held in abeyance until the results of the applicant s discussion with the Sechelt Indian Band are brought back to the Planning and Development Committee; AND FURTHER THAT the staff report, including the Egmont/Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Commission recommendation of November 30, 2011 regarding this application, be forwarded to the Sechelt Indian Band. Following the January Board meeting, the applicant arranged to meet with the shíshálh Nation to resolve its original concerns with development on Sakinaw Lake. As a result of the meeting N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-11\Report to PDC Jul doc 423

295 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee July 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Development Permit / Variance Application No. A-11 (Goodman) held in May, the shíshálh Nation issued a letter expressing no objections to Development Permit No. A-11, including a variance to the minimum setback to Sakinaw Lake, in order to permit an existing deck (see Attachment A ). DISCUSSION The Development Permit application was made several years ago following a bylaw compliance matter, in order to legalize an existing cabin with attached deck. Construction of the cabin had begun in the 1980s. The applicant has satisfied most requirements including undertaking a riparian area assessment by a qualified environmental professional (QEP), as well as ensuring the existing waste water treatment system meets current standards, and to ensuring the shíshálh Nation s concerns are addressed. Adjacent property owners were also notified last fall of the requested variance, with no objections expressed. The only remaining matter is to register a covenant related to the environmental protection area established under a streamside protection and enhancement area (SPEA), and to ensuring that all surface drainage is directed into the ground away from the SPEA. The covenant can be registered as a prior to issuance condition of the Development Permit. CONCLUSION All requirements for this long-outstanding development permit / variance application have been met and the permit may be considered for approval, on the condition that prior to issuance an environmental covenant be registered on title, as outlined above. Gregory Gebka, Planner Planning & Development Division gregory.gebka@scrd.ca (ext. 3) GG/ Attachments N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\ DP Area A\A-11\Report to PDC Jul doc 424

296 425 Attachment 'A' disclosed to third pail/es without the prior approval of the shlshálh Nat on. information includes sensitive cultural and heritage information which must he treated as confidential. It must not be The informalion that is being provided in this letter is being provided for the purposes of consultation only. ThIs CouncifJbdan ucilor Ashley Joe Chief Garry Councilor Keith Julius Signed on behalf of the shishálh Nation: The shishálh Nation has aboriginal title to and aboriginal rights throughout its territory, which includes protected, we are not opposed to this Development Variance Permit on Sakinaw Lake. application does not impact the title and rights of the shishãlh Nation and all cultural sites are as our ancestors did Our cultural resources have rntrinsc value to our commuruty Provided that the aboriginal rights include rights to fish, hunt, gather, and engage in spiritual practices and ceremonies the application area. Our aboriginal title extends to the lands and waters in our territory. Our Territory, whether in relation to the specific lands and resources at issue, or generally. shishálti Nation of Regional jurisdiction over, or ownership of, lands and resources within shishálh shall not be interpreted or relied on as an admission, agreement, or acknowledgement by the Any engagement of the shishálh Nation with the Regional Government concerning this application We are writing regarding David Goodman s application for a Development Variance Permit on Sakinaw Lake, within shishálh Nation territory shishálh Nation file SNRII , SCRD file DPV#A Lake within shishalk Nation Territory. Re: Application by David Goodman for a Development Variance Permit for a Cabin on Sakinaw Fax: Sechelt, BC, VON 3A1 Planner The Sunshine Coast Regional District Gregory Gebka 1975 Field Road SNRII149.O1 June 25, 2012 SECUELT INDIAN BAND

297 DRAFT SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No. A-11 TO: ADDRESS: David Goodman 7324 Braeside Drive Burnaby, BC V5G 1G1 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 applies to those lands within the Sunshine Coast Regional District described below: Legal Description: Block B, District Lot, 3251, Plan 3976 P.I.D.: 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. 377 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. This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions: Prior to Issuance: Register a covenant on title to formally establish a no disturbance SPEA, and specific mitigating measures, as prepared by FSCI Consultants in its riparian area assessment report dated May 26 th, General Conditions: (1) Adhere to site survey prepared by Peter M. Gordon land Surveying Inc., dated August 20 th, 2008, and building elevations attached and forming part of this Permit as Appendix A ; 426

298 Draft Development Permit No. A-11 (2) Adhere to the guidelines and recommendations in the riparian area assessment report prepared by FSCI Biological Consultants, dated May 26 th, 2009, attached and forming part of this Permit as Appendix B (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) Post a waterproof copy of the Development Permit (8.5" x 11" minimum) on the development site for the duration of construction. (5) The development is to be completed within four (4) years from issuance of the date of this Permit. (6) If the Permittee does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within two (2) years of the date of this permit, this permit shall lapse. This Permit is not a building permit. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION No. XXX/XX PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS XX DAY OF XXX, XXXX. ISSUED THIS XX DAY OF XXX, XXXX. THIS PERMIT EXPIRES ON DAY OF Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT H:\PLN\ Development_Permits\Area A\A-11\Draft DP Jan doc 427

299 - ;;: g c. Land Surveyor s Building Locaiori Certificate Block C, D.L , P/an 3676 Sco1e 1: 250,, Ill disfancas are In metres a,icl dec$ nas thereof, O4ETRS This plcn g6 within the Sunahine Coast Regional District. 428 ad m 2 >< Block C D.L plo.? Cert!iled crrec this 2ih day of 4uguçt, 2OQ9. B.C. Land Sur 6yor. -- PETER i : GLIRDDN LAND J RVEYING INC. Pr, anx VON JAO 2329 SECIJEL T B.C. This plan was prepeired icr b,iidg pe, rnfl purpcses oid I fir the exdusive use of DOYW Goodman. This document shows the relative iocailosj Of the surveyed shcures end fecturea P/ti resr;ec to the boundofles of the 1a& This th cumef t shall net be iae Ic define property bies or property cornea s.. We accept o resposiblity for unauthorized ae J286 F AY This docin6nt Is not.oild uaiese orfg,1auy signed and e.aie

300 July 15, 2009 Our File No.: FSCI Dr. David Goodman C/O Simon Fraser University 8888 University Way Burnaby, BC Sent Via Re: Riparian Area Assessment on Sakinaw Lake Property PID Dear Dr. Goodman: As requested we have completed a Riparian Area Assessment of your Sakinaw Lake property. The document is attached and is strictly for your reference and filing with the SCRD. The riparian assessment is intended to help protect fisheries habitats during development of properties bordering stream, lakes and wetlands. In this case there is no plan to further develop the property. It is my understanding the report was requested by the SCRD to support your plans to gain approval from the SCRD for the existing structure. With the lack of planned development the Riparian Assessment Report cannot be submitted to the Provincial and Federal Regulatory agencies therefore we have also omitted the professional opinion page, as it too is irrelevant under these circumstances. I trust this will help move forward the approval process for your Sakinaw Lake property. If you or the SCRD have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely Dave Bates, PhD, CCEP, RPBio Habitat Biologist /db Attach Dogwood Drive, Halfmoon Bay, BC, Canada, V0N 1Y fsci@telus.net 429 Attachment 'B'

301 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Riparian Areas Regulation: Assessment Report I. Primary QEP Information Date May 26, 2009 First Name Dave Middle Name Last Name Bates Designation RPBio Company FSCI Biological Consultants Registration # 405 fsci@telus.net Address 8092 Dogwood Drive City Halfmoon Bay Postal/Zip V0N 1Y1 Phone # Prov/state V0N 1Y1 Country Canada II. Secondary QEP Information (use Form 2 for other QEPs) First Name Middle Name Last Name Designation Company Registration # Address City Postal/Zip Phone # Prov/state Country III. Developer Information First Name David Middle Name Last Name Goodman Company Department of Kinesiology, SFU Phone # Address 8888 University Way City Burnaby Postal/Zip Prov/state BC Country Canada IV. Development Information Development Type Recreational Area of Development (ha) Riparian Length (m) 20 Lot Area (ha) Nature of Development Re-develop Proposed Start Date na Proposed End Date n/a V. Location of Proposed Development Street Address (or nearest town) Pender Harbour Local Government SCRD City Sechelt Stream Name Sakinaw Lake Legal Description (PID) Region 2 Stream/River Type Lake DFO Area 16 Watershed Code Latitude Longitude Form 1 Page 1 of Attachment 'B'

302 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 1. Description of Fisheries Resources Values and a Description of the Development proposal This Sakinaw Lake property is used for recreation and has a small cabin located near the rocky shoreline. Sakinaw Lake has high fish value supporting populations of sockeye and coho salmon, kokanee and cutthroat trout. In addition to salmonids the lake supports a significant population of peamouth chub, a regionally unique species. Foreshore habitat(s) providing spawning substrates and up-welling groundwater flows are critical in Sakinaw Lake with the majority of sockeye spawning at depths between 5 and 20 metres. These critical habitats have been identified within the lake basin and are monitored by DFO. The foreshore fronting this subject property is not an area identified as sockeye salmon spawning habitat. The current cabin is established and grandfathered under the Riparian Area Regulations. The existing cabin does fall within the SPEA and the current footprint would not ber permitted to expand beyond the grandfathered area. Any new development on the property would have to occur outside the SPEA. Form 1 Page 2 of Attachment 'B'

303 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 2. Results of Riparian Assessment (SPEA width) Description of Water bodies involved (number, type) Stream Wetland Lake X Ditch Number of reaches Reach # Date: May 20, 2009 Lake Channel width and slope and Channel Type (use only if water body is a stream or a ditch, and only provide widths if a ditch) Channel Width(m) Gradient (%) starting point upstream downstream Total: minus high /low mean Channel Type R/P C/P S/P Site Potential Vegetation Type (SPVT) I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation. Yes No SPVT Polygons X Tick yes only if multiple polygons, if No then fill in one set of SPVT data boxes I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation. Polygon No: Method employed if other than TR LC SH TR SPVT Type X Polygon No: SPVT Type LC SH TR Method employed if other than TR Polygon No: Method employed if other than TR Form 1 Page 3 of Attachment 'B'

304 SPVT Type FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Zone of Sensitivity (ZOS) and resultant SPEA Segment No: 1 If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water bodies multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons LWD, Bank and Channel 15 Stability ZOS (m) Litter fall and insect drop 15 ZOS (m) Shade ZOS (m) max 30 South bank Yes No X Ditch Justification description for classifying as a ditch (manmade, no significant headwaters or springs, seasonal flow) Ditch Fish Bearing Yes No If non-fish bearing insert no fish bearing status report SPEA maximum 15 (For ditch use table3-7) Segment No: If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water bodies multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons LWD, Bank and Channel Stability ZOS (m) Litter fall and insect drop ZOS (m) Shade ZOS (m) max South bank Yes No SPEA maximum (For ditch use table3-7) Segment No: If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water bodies multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons LWD, Bank and Channel Stability ZOS (m) Litter fall and insect drop ZOS (m) Shade ZOS (m) max South bank Yes No SPEA maximum (For ditch use table3-7) I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation. Comments This property currently has a recreational cabin that falls within the SPEA. The cabin is grandfathered under the Riparian Area Regulations. It should be noted that no improvements to the cabin that results in an increase in footprint and/or removal of surrounding vegetation (within the identified SPEA) is acceptable under the regulation. Un-authorized increase in footprint and/or removal of streamside vegetation may be viewed as the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act. Form 1 Page 4 of Attachment 'B'

305 Section 3. Site Plan See attached FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Form 1 Page 5 of Attachment 'B'

306 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 4. Measures to Protect and Maintain the SPEA 1. Danger Trees The proposed re-development can not result in any removal of trees from the SPEA. There were no observed and/or obvious Danger trees in or adjacent to the SPEA on the subject property. If any tree becomes a possible danger during the construction and it is located adjacent to or in the SPEA the proponent must consult with the QEP prior to dealing with the tree. Any removal of trees within the SPEA is considered an impact on fish and fish habitat. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: e) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; f) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; g) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation 2. Windthrow There will be no clearing of the property for any development. As a result windthrow risk to the SPEA from this development is considered low. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation d. Slope Stability The proposed area with the existing cabin is small and the structure built on bedrock resulting in slope stability. The exposed slope between the existing cabin and lake is vegetated and does not show any signs of instability. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman ; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation e. Protection of Trees There is no need to remove or impact standing timber within the SPEA. The SPEA must be delineated prior to any construction adjacent to the SPEA with trees and vegetation along the fringe clearly identified prior to work commencing. Methods must be implemented to protect the root mass of standing trees adjacent to the SPEA. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation d. Encroachment There can be no encroachment of the SPEA. Future building sites should be well outside the proposed SPEA. The SPEA should be clearly identified and all contractors Form 1 Page 6 of Attachment 'B'

307 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report clear on its location, role and importance. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation e. Sediment and Erosion Control The property owner is referred to the Best Management Practices for Urban and Rural Land Development and should be aware that some preventative measures may be required in the event heavy seasonal rains occur during excavation. In this case a QEP should be consulted and measures taken to protect the SPEA and aquatic habitat adjacent to the SPEA I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer (David Goodman; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation d. Stormwater Management The current application for the renovation will require a building permit and appropriate roof collection system installed for the renovation. All runoff from the cabin should be directed away from the lakeshore and SPEA and where possible infiltrated into the ground through rock infiltration pits or gardens. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer David Goodman; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation e. Floodplain Concerns (highly This re-development is along a lakeshore and flood plain mobile channel) concerns are not applicable in this case. I, D. Bates, hereby certify that: f. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; g. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer (David Goodman ; h. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation Form 1 Page 7 of Attachment 'B'

308 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 5. Environmental Monitoring There are no plans to develop this lot further. As a result the proponent will not require monitoring. A QEP must visit the site prior to any new alteration and/or construction to ensure the SPEA boundary is clearly marked in the field. A QEP will discuss on site with the proponent and/or proponents contractor the environmental precautions including requires measures to protect the SPEA listed in this document. Any deviation of the original plans must be communicated immediately to the QEP and work halted until an assessment is conducted on potential for impact on the SPEA. There is a requirement under the Riparian Area Regulations for the filing of a final site inspection report. This will be prepared once the renovation is complete and will be prepared by the QEP. The costs associated with the preparation and filing of this final report is the responsibility of the developer (owner). It is the responsibility of the proponent to contact a QEP for the final site visit once the renovation is completed. Form 1 Page 8 of Attachment 'B'

309 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 6. Photos Photo 1: View of Goodman Cabin form the lake. The cabin was built 20-yrs a go. Photo 2: View of Goodman Cabin looking toward the lake. Form 1 Page 9 of Attachment 'B'

310 FORM 1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report Section 7. Professional Opinion Assessment Report Professional Opinion on the Development Proposal s riparian area. Date 1.I/We hereby certify that: a) I am/we are qualified environmental professional(s), as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act; b) I am/we are qualified to carry out the assessment of the proposal made by the developer David Goodman, which proposal is described in section 3 of this Assessment Report (the development proposal ), c) I have/we have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my/our assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my/our assessment of the development proposal, I have/we have followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation; AND 2. As qualified environmental professional(s), I/we hereby provide my/our professional opinion that: a) if the development is implemented as proposed by the development proposal there will be no harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes in the riparian assessment area in which the development is proposed, OR (Note: include local government flex letter, DFO Letter of Advice, or description of how DFO local variance protocol is being addressed) b) if the streamside protection and enhancement areas identified in this Assessment Report are protected from the development proposed by the development proposal and the measures identified in this Assessment Report as necessary to protect the integrity of those areas from the effects of the development are implemented by the developer, there will be no harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes in the riparian assessment area in which the development is proposed. Form 1 Page 10 of Attachment 'B'

311 Legend Lot Boundary Lake Edge - HWM Riparian Assessment Area Woody Debris Zone of Sensitivity Litter Drop Zone of Sensitivity Shade Zone of Sensitivity 440 Title: Goodman - Sakinaw Lake Property Project File No.: FSCI Author: Date: DJB May 25, 2009 Rev. No. Page: 1 of 2 Attachment 'B'

312 Legend Lot Boundary Footprint Lake shore-hwm Assessment Area SPEA 441 Title: Project File No.: Author: Rev. No. Goodman - Sakinaw Lake Property SPEA DJB FSCI Date: May 25, 2009 Page: 2 of 2 Attachment 'B'