amended - eSCRIBE Published Meetings

AMENDED

AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NANAIMO, TO BE HELD IN THE SHAW AUDITORIUM, 80 COMMERCIAL STREET, NANAIMO, BC

ON MONDAY, 2011-SEP-12, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.

1. CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL TO ORDER:

2. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS:

Correct the location in the heading of the Agenda to read “Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street”

Add Item 6 (c) – Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items – Ms. Cathy Davis, regarding the Street Entertainers Bylaw

Add Item 6 (d) – Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items – Mrs. Christina Charlton-Marchand, regarding the Street Entertainers Bylaw

Add Item 6 (e) – Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items – Mr. Fred Taylor, regarding the Designation of Park Land Staff Report

Add Item 7 (a) – Mayor’s Report – Announcement from Mayor Ruttan regarding the Nanaimo Yacht Club Lease

Delete items (1), (3) and (4) from Item 11(o) – “PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704” under Staff Reports

Add Item 11 (q-1) – Staff Reports - Report of the Public Hearing held Thursday, 2011-SEP-08 for Bylaws 6500.016, 4500.001, 4500.002, 4500.003 and 4500.004

Replace pages 167 and 168 - Item 13 (a) – “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.001”

Replace pages 174 and 175 – Item 13 (b) – “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.002”

Replace pages 187 and 188 with new pages 187, 188 and 188.1 – Item 13 (d) “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.004

Add Item 14 (b) – Introduction of Bylaws – “PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137”

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

AGENDA – COUNCIL 2011-SEP-12 PAGE 2

4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Nanaimo

held in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, BC, on Monday, 2011-AUG-08 at 7:00 p.m.

Pg. 11-22

(b) Minutes of the Special Open Meeting of Council held in the City Hall Board Room, Nanaimo, BC, on Monday, 2011-AUG-22 at 4:30 p.m.

Pg. 23-28

5. PRESENTATIONS:

6. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AGENDA ITEMS: (10 MINUTES)

(a) Mr. Serge Vaillancourt, 5320 Kenwill Drive, Nanaimo, BC, (or Ms. Christel Martin on Mr. Vaillancourt’s behalf), to provide information regarding smart meters.

Pg. 29

(b) Mr. Barry Low, 2020 Bowen Road, Nanaimo, BC, regarding proposed “STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109”.

Pg. 30

(c) Ms. Cathy Davis, 306 Pine Street, Nanaimo, BC, regarding proposed “STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109”.

Pg. 30.1

(d) Mrs. Christina Charlton-Marchand, 437 Watfield Avenue, Nanaimo, BC proposed “STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109”.

Pg. 30.2

(e) Mr. Fred Taylor, 204 Emery Way, Nanaimo, BC, regarding the Designation of Park Land Staff Report.

Pg. 30.3

7. MAYOR'S REPORT:

(a) Announcement from Mayor Ruttan regarding a Lease Agreement between the City of Nanaimo and the Nanaimo Yacht Club.

8. PROCLAMATIONS:

(a) That 2011-SEP-15 is “NATIONAL FAMILY DINNER NIGHT” in the City of Nanaimo.

Pg. 31

(b) That 2011-SEP-26 to 2011-SEP-30 is “RIGHT TO KNOW WEEK” in the City of Nanaimo.

Pg. 32-33

(c) That 2011-SEP-26 to 2011-SEP-30 is “NANAIMO COMMUNITY KITCHENS SOCIETY WEEK” in the City of Nanaimo.

Pg. 34


9. COMMISSION REPORTS:

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

(a) Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability – Coastal Invasive Plant Committee (CIPC) Funding Request for Contribution to Invasive Plant Management Program

Committee's Recommendation: That Council approve a grant to the Coastal Invasive Plant Committee (CIPC) in the amount of $2,000 to be put toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011 – 2012.

Pg. 35-38

11. STAFF REPORTS: (blue)

ADMINISTRATION:

(a) Designation of Park Land - Park Dedication Bylaw No. 7137 Staff's Recommendation: That Council receive the report pertaining to “PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137” which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda.

Pg. 39-46

COMMUNITY SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT:

(b) DP632 – 360, 370 and 390 Stewart Avenue Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Permit No. DP632 at 360/370/390 Stewart Avenue with the following variances, subject to lot consolidation prior to issuance of a building permit:

Required Building Height The maximum allowed building height is 14 m (46 ft). The proposed building height is 16.99 m (55.74 ft); a proposed variance of 2.99 m (9.80 ft).

Pg. 47-55

Required Yard Setback Variances for Underground Parking Structure o The required front yard setback is 7.5 m (24.6 ft). The proposed

setback is 0.45 m (1.5 ft), a proposed variance of 7.05 m (23.1 ft).

o The required side yard setback is 3 m (9.8 ft). The proposed southern property line side yard is 2.59 m (8.5 ft), a proposed variance of 0.41 m (1.36 ft).

o The required flanking street setback is 4 m (13.1 ft). The proposed setback is 2.3 m (7.5 ft), a proposed variance of 1.7 m (5.6 ft).


o The required rear yard setback is 10.5 m (34.45 ft). The proposed rear yard setback is 3.86 m (12.66 ft), a proposed variance of 6.64 m (21.78 ft).

(c) DP705 – 340 Bruce Avenue

Staff’s Recommendation: That Council issue Development Permit No. DP705 at 340 Bruce Avenue for a watercourse setback variance of 5 metres (16.4 ft).

Pg. 56-61

(d) DVP163 – 971 Douglas Avenue

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to DVP163.

Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP163 at 971 Douglas Avenue.

Pg. 62-65

(e) DVP166 – 2323 Arbot Road


Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP166 at 2323 Arbot Road.

Pg. 66-81

(f) DVP176 – 325 Hecate Street


Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP176 at 325 Hecate Street.

Pg. 82-85

(g) DVP 177 – 4750 Rutherford Road

Staff’s Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP177 at 4750 Rutherford Road.

Pg. 86-90

(h) DVP178 – 4750 Rutherford Road

Staff's Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP178 at 4750 Rutherford Road.

Pg. 91-95

(i) DVP179 – 400 Duke Point Highway

Staff's Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP179 at 400 Duke Point Highway.

Pg. 96-122


(j) DVP180 – 4771 Hammond Bay Road

Staff's Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP180 at 4771 Hammond Bay Road.

Pg. 123-126

(k) RA280 – 5220 Metral Drive

Staff’s Recommendations: That Council: 1. receive the report pertaining to “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW

2011 NO. 4500.005”, which is presented under the Bylaws Section of the agenda;

AND: 2. direct Staff to amend the existing covenant, prior to adoption of

the bylaw, should Council support the bylaw at third reading.

Pg. 127-134

(l) Disposition of Lease to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. at the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre, 741 Third Street

Staff’s Recommendations: That Council: 1. approve a lease agreement at the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre,

741 Third Street, to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., doing business as Tia Mei’s Café, to operate a food and beverage service;

AND: 2. authorize the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to

execute the lease.

Pg. 135-137

(m) Disposition of Licence to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. at the Nanaimo Ice Centre, 750 Third Street

Staff’s Recommendations: That Council: 1. approve a licence agreement at the Nanaimo Ice Centre,

750 Third Street, to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., doing business as Tia Mei’s Café, to operate a food and beverage service;

AND: 2. authorize the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to

execute the licence.

Pg. 138-141


(n) Proposed Road Exchange at 1064 Old Victoria Road – Bylaw No. 7135 Staff’s Recommendations: That Council: 1. receive the report pertaining to “HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND

DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135”, which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda;

AND: 2. authorize the proposed road exchange to the property owner of

1064 Old Victoria Road, Trustees of the Park Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and direct the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to execute the conditional Contract of Purchase and Sale;

AND: 3. direct Staff to proceed with public notice of the road closure of a

portion of Old Victoria Road and the road dedication of a portion of Old Victoria Road and a portion of Melideo Road.

Pg. 142-145

(o) “PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704” It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to property maintenance at the properties listed below: Staff's Recommendation: That Council, pursuant to “PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704”, direct the owners of the following properties to remove the material as listed below from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owner’s cost: (1) 540 Milton Street (2) 80 Nicol Street - graffiti (3) 600 Wentworth Street (4) 655 Campbell Street (5) 108 Haliburton Street – overgrown blackberry bushes

encroaching onto neighbouring properties (6) 571 Albert Street – garbage, derelict boat, tree clippings, wood,

refuse and miscellaneous debris

Pg. 146-148

(7) 34 Nicol Street – graffiti, garbage in the loading bay and miscellaneous debris

(8) 112 Haliburton Street – garbage, discarded furniture and miscellaneous debris.


(p) Subdivision Approval – Park and Cash-in-Lieu 1763 Extension Road (SUB00912)

Staff’s Recommendations: That Council approve the payment of cash-in-lieu of park for the fee simple subdivision of lands described as Lot 1, Section 16, Range 4, Cranberry District, Plan 44369, except part in Plan VIP75515 and VIP77135 at 1763 Extension Road.

Pg. 149-152

(q) Unresolved Building Deficiencies – Notice on Title (Section 57) It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to unresolved building deficiencies/illegal suites for the properties listed below. Staff's Recommendation: That Council, by resolution, instruct the Manager of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter: (1) 40 Watkins Street – illegal construction / finished basement to

include a secondary suite; (2) 2522 Nadely Crescent – illegal construction / finished basement

to include a secondary suite; (3) 2115 Lang Crescent – illegal construction / finished basement to

include a secondary suite; (4) 5957 Butcher Road – illegal construction / finished basement to

include a secondary suite; (5) 505 Kennedy Street – illegal construction / rear deck.

Pg. 153-157

(q-1) Report of the Public Hearing held Thursday, 2011-SEP-08 for Bylaws 6500.016, 4500.001, 4500.002, 4500.003 and 4500.004

Staff’s Recommendation: That Council receive the report and the minutes of the Public Hearing held Thursday, 2011-SEP-08. NOTE: Due to the volume of material submitted at the Public Hearing individual copies of the submissions have not been provided, however, a copy of this material is attached to the Council Agenda on the web site, a copy is available for viewing in the Legislative Services Department and a copy will be available at the Meeting.

Pg. 157.1-157.20

CORPORATE SERVICES:

(r) Emergency Water Connection Agreement Alternative Approval Process – Results

Staff's Recommendation: That Council receive the report regarding the results of the Emergency Water Connection Alternative Approval Process and “EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131”, which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda.

Pg. 158


(s) Water Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw Alternative

Approval Process – Results

Staff's Recommendation: That Council receive the report regarding the results of the Water Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Alternative Approval Process and “WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127”, which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda.

Pg. 159

(t) Regional District of Nanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 975.56, 2011

Staff's Recommendation: That Council waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of “REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP & HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.56, 2011” and that the Regional District of Nanaimo be notified accordingly.

Pg. 160-166

12. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS:

13. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS: To be Moved by Councillor Pattje

(a) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001” (To rezone the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue [Howard Johnson site] from Gateway (DT12) to Comprehensive Development District Zone 7 (CD7) in order to recognize the development rights within C-11 of the previous “ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000”) pass third reading.

Pg. 167-171

(b) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.002” (To correct various minor text and mapping discrepancies) pass third reading.

Pg. 172-182

(c) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.003” (To rezone the property located at 150 Comox Road [Maffeo Sutton Park] from Comprehensive Development District Zone 3 (CD3) to Parks Recreation and Culture (PRC3) in order to recognize the park use of the property) pass third reading.

Pg. 183-184

(d) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004” (To set maximum allowable height within select Residential zones at the heights generally specified in the Residential zones of the previous “ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000”) pass third reading.

Pg. 185-188.1

(e) (1) That “OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 6500.016” (OCP62 – to redesignate 1985 Island Diesel Way from “Light Industrial” to “Corridor” in order to permit a mixed-use development) pass third reading.

Pg. 189-190


(2) That “OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 6500.016” be adopted.

(f) That “STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109” (To regulate street entertainers) be adopted.

Pg. 191-209

(g) That “WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127” (To authorize the borrowing of 22.5 Million dollars for the construction of a water treatment plant) be adopted.

Pg. 210-212

(h) That “EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131” (To authorize the emergency water connection agreement between the City of Nanaimo and Nanaimo Forest Products) be adopted.

Pg. 213-237

(i) That “HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134” (Road closure bylaw for Louden Walkway) pass third reading.

Pg. 238-240

14. INTRODUCTION OF BYLAWS:

(a) (1) That “HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135” pass first reading.

Pg. 241-243

(2) That “HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135” pass second reading.

(a) (1) That “PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137” (To dedicate land for park purposes) pass first reading.

(NOTE: Requires an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the Members of Council to proceed)

Pg. 243.1-243.12

(2) That “PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137” pass second reading.


(3) That “PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137” pass third reading.



15. INTRODUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BYLAWS: (a) (1) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.005”

(RA280 - To amend the existing site specific Comprehensive Development District Zone 5 (CD5) for property located at 5220 Metral Drive) pass first reading.

Pg. 244-246

(2) That “ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.005” pass second reading.

BYLAW STATUS SHEET

Pg. 247-248

16. CORRESPONDENCE:

(a) Letter dated 2011-AUG-17 from Mr. David Black, President, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union (COPE) Local 378, advising of the Union’s concerns related to retention of jobs for meter readers with respect to the installation of BC Hydro Smart Meters and the Union’s support of a moratorium on Smart Meters until these questions can be answered.

Pg. 249-250

(b) Letter dated 2011-AUG-29 from Nanaimo Addiction Foundation Executive requesting that Council become a partner and sponsor for the National Therapeutic Community Symposium scheduled from 2012-MAR-05 to 2012-MAR-08 and the Vancouver Island Conference Centre.

Pg. 251-256

17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS:

18. NOTICE OF MOTION:

19. OTHER BUSINESS:

(a) Councillor Pattje has requested that Council consider the following motion:

”That Council send a communication to BC Hydro and to the appropriate Ministries, requesting a moratorium on the installation of Smart Meters until further independent investigation of health, safety, as well as privacy concerns, are addressed in a meaningful way and reasonable alternatives are found to accommodate those citizens who do not wish Smart Meters attached to their homes, this at no additional cost to them.”


20. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: (10 MINUTES)

(a) Ms. Marianne Erb, Board Member, Kidsport Nanaimo, to provide

information regarding Kidsport Nanaimo.

Pg. 257

(b) Ms. Serena Pallot, 3678 Dolphin Drive, Nanoose Bay, BC, to provide information regarding the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation CIBC Run for the Cure on 2011-OCT-02 at Beban Park.

Pg. 258

21. QUESTION PERIOD: (Agenda Items Only)

22. ADJOURNMENT:

ACTING MAYOR: COUNCILLOR PATTJE

2011-SEP-05 to 2011-OCT-23

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NANAIMO

HELD IN THE SHAW AUDITORIUM, 80 COMMERCIAL STREET, NANAIMO, BC ON MONDAY, 2011-AUG-08 COMMENCING AT 7:00P.M.

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor J. R. Ruttan, Chair

Members: Councillor W. L. Bestwick Councillor G. E. Greves Councillor W. J. Hold om Councillor D. K. Johnstone Councillor J. F. K. Pattje Councillor L. J. Sherry Councillor M. W. Unger

Absent: Councillor J. A. Kipp

Staff: A. C. Kenning, City Manager D. W. Holmes, Assistant City Manager and General Manager of Corporate Services E. C. Swabey, General Manager of Community Safety and Development B. E. Clemens, Director of Finance A. J. Tucker, Director of Planning R. J. Harding, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture P. Kristensen, Director of Information Technology B. Sims, Manager, Water Resources R. Churchill, Manager, Bylaw, Regulation and Security D. Mousseau, Manager, Engineering and Subdivision C. Scott, E-Government I Communications Officer D. Blackwood, Client Support Specialist J. E. Harrison, Manager of Legislative Services L. Dennis, Recording Secretary

1. CALL THE OPEN MEETING TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m.


(a) Add Agenda Item 6 (b)- Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items- Mr. J. Peterkin regarding the Street Entertainers Bylaw.

(b) Add Agenda Item 6 (c) - Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items - Ms. Sharon Kofoed or other member of the Local Residents of Westwood Lake Neighbourhood, regarding DVP166 for 2323 Arbot Road.

(c) Add Recommendation #3 to Page 3 of Agenda pages- Item 11 (a)- Staff ReportsDevelopment Process Review Committee.

1 1

MINUTES -COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGE2

(d) Delete items (3) 421 Prideaux Street and (6) 51 Prideaux Street from Agenda Item 11 (o)- Staff Reports- "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704".

(e) Replace Pages 172/173 - Item 14 (c)- "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132"- text correction.

(f) Add Agenda Item 20 (c) - Delegations Pertaining to Items not on the Agenda -Mr. Ted Olynyk regarding BC Hydro's smart metering program.

60111 It was moved and seconded that Mr. Tim Lander be added as a late delegation with a five-minute time limit.


60111 It was moved and seconded that the Agenda, as amended, be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

60211 It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Nanaimo held in the Dodd Narrows Room, 80 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, BC on Monday, 2011-JUL-11 at 7:00 p.m. be adopted as circulated. The motion carried unanimously.

60311 It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of the Special Open Meeting of the Council of the City of Nanaimo held in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, BC on Monday, 2011-JUL-25 at 4:30p.m. be adopted as circulated. The motion carried unanimously.

5. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AGENDA ITEMS:

(a) Mr. Marty Steele, Nanaimo, BC, spoke regarding several issues that he feels should be addressed in the Street Entertainers bylaw, including the suitability, location and availability of busking spots, as well as the process of applying for a street entertainer's licence.

(b) Mr. J. Peterkin, Nanaimo, BC, spoke regarding the Street Entertainers bylaw and commented that the bylaw causes conflict amongst the street entertainer community and that this conflict likely results in extra enforcement costs for the City.

(c) Mr. Tim Lander, Nanaimo, BC, spoke regarding the Street Entertainers bylaw and stated that street entertainers are part of the street culture and should be treated with respect. Mr. Lander suggested that perhaps musicians could be permitted to play together so that musicians can learn and improve from each other.

(d) Ms. Sharon Kofoed spoke regarding Development Variance Permit No. 166 for 2323 Arbot Road and invited questions from Council regarding her previous correspondence.

12

MINUTES- COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGE3


(a) Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission - Minutes of the Meeting held 2011-JUN-22

60411 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the Minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission meeting held 2011-JUN-22. The motion carried unanimously.

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

(a) 2011 Grants Advisory Committee Recommendations

60511 It was moved and seconded that Council award a permissive tax exemption to Applicant PTE-09 - Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society. The motion carried unanimously.

60611 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to prepare a report on the process for determining taxable area for the Royal Canadian Legion Branch #256 (Applicant PTE-10), that excludes that part of the premises used to serve/sell alcohol. The motion carried unanimously.

60711 It was moved and seconded that Council:

1. deny cash-in-lieu of permissive tax exemptions to the following Applicants: • Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society (PTE-09) • Royal Canadian Legion Branch #256 (PTE-10); and,

2. deny an Other Grant to the Nanaimo Community Kitchens Society (OG-04).

The motion carried unanimously.

8. STAFF REPORTS:

60811

ADMINISTRATION:

(a)

1.

2.

3.

Development Process Review Committee

It was moved and seconded that Council:

adopt the attached Mandate & Objectives document for a Development Process Review Committee;

appoint Councillors Kipp, Sherry and Unger as the Council representatives on the Committee; and,

direct the Mayor to appoint the representatives of the development community.


13


Mayor Ruttan announced the appointment of the development community representatives that will be serving on the Development Process Review Committee:

• Mr. Bob Wall, Builder • Mr. lan Niamath, Architect • Mr. Rod Smith, Engineer • Ms. Maureen Pilcher, Planning Consultant • Mr. Greg Constable, Developer

60911 It was moved and seconded that Council ratify the appointment of Mr. Bob Wall, Mr. ian Niamath, Mr. Rod Smith, Ms. Maureen Pilcher and Mr. Greg Constable to the Development Process Review Committee. The motion carried unanimously.

(b) Bylaw for Abandonment

61011 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to

61111

abandoning "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2010 NO. 4000.445." The motion carried unanimously.

(c)

1.

2.

3.

Road Closure of a Portion of Lake Road - Bylaw NO. 7134


receive the report pertaining to "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134";

direct the Manager of Legislative Services to execute the conditional Contract of Purchase and Sale for the disposition of the proposed road closure area to Nowell Rushak for $75,000.00; and,

direct Staff to proceed with publishing public notice prescribed in the Community Charter, for the road closure of a portion of "Lake Road."


(d) "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109"

61211 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION. BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109." The motion carried unanimously.

(e) Housing Agreement with Tillicum Lelum Society

61311 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to a Housing Agreement with the Tillicum Lelum Aboriginal Friendship Society in respect of an eight (8) bed youth Safe House. The motion carried unanimously.

14

MINUTES- COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGES

61411

(f)

1.

2.

Proposed Expropriation of Part of 1431 Bowen Road


approve the expropriation of that part of 1431 Bowen Road as shown on Attachment A in the Staff report; and,

approve the advance payment of $9,825.00 to the owner, which sum represents the market value of the subject property.


(g) DP723 - 1450 Waddington Road

61511 It was moved and seconded that Council: issue Development Permit No. DP723 at 1480 Waddington Road with the following variances: • a required front yard variance of 5.68 m (18.64 ft); • a required height variance of 0.44 m (1.44 ft).


(h) DP724 - 1934 Northfield Road

61611 It was moved and seconded that Council issue Development Permit No. DP724 at 1934 Northfield Road with the following variances: • a front yard variance of 5.1 m (16.7 ft); • a Minimum Landscape Treatment Level 1 b reduction of one street tree; • a reduction of one on-site loading bay.


(i) DP731- 3500 Rock City Road

61711 It was moved and seconded that Council issue Development Permit No. DP731 at 3500 Rock City Road with the following variances: • Height Variance:

Phase 2 House A- 1.96 m (6.44 ft) House B - 0.56 m (1.85 ft) House C - 0.84 m (2. 77 ft)

Phase 3 Unit 1 - 1 m (3.28 ft) Unit 2 - 0.6 m (1.96 ft) Unit 3 - 1 m (3.28 ft) Unit 8 - 1.5 m (4.92 ft) Unit 9 - 0.6 m (1.96 ft) Unit 11 - 0.8 m (2.62 ft) Unit 12 - 1.4 m (4.59 ft) Unit 13- 0.3 m (1 ft)

15


• Minimum Landscape Treatment Level 2c The Minimum Landscape Treatment Level 2c is not required on the south property line of Phase 3.


U) DVP163- 971 Douglas Avenue

61811 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP163 at 971 Douglas Avenue. The motion carried unanimously.

(k) DVP166- 2323 Arbot Road

61911 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP166 at 2323 Arbot Road. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillors Greves and Sherry

(I) DVP176- 325 Hecate Street

62011 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP176 at 325 Hecate Street. The motion carried unanimously.

(m) Nuisance Property- 715 Farquhar Street

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to the nuisance property at 715 Farquhar Street.

No one in attendance wished to make a presentation with respect to this matter.

62111 It was moved and seconded that Council declare 715 Farquhar Street a nuisance pursuant to "NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND COST RECOVERY BYLAW 2003 NO. 5645" and authorize Staff to record and charge for municipal services including police required at this property to abate the nuisances. The motion carried unanimously.

(n) Structure Removal Order- 5207 Hammond Bay Road - Illegal Grow Operation

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to the structure removal order at 5207 Hammond Bay Road.


62211 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to Section 73 of the Community Charter, order the owner(s) of 5207 Hammond Bay Road to bring the structure on the property up to standard or to demolish the building within thirty (30) days. The motion carried unanimously.

16


(o) "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704"

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to property maintenance at the properties listed below.


62311 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704", direct the owners of the following properties to remove the material as listed below from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owner's cost:

(1) 230612308 Rosstown Road - derelict station wagon, derelict boat, discarded household materials, discarded furnace parts, and miscellaneous debris

(2) 113 Victoria Road - blackberry bushes and weeds encroaching onto neighbouring properties and the City sidewalk

(3) 125 Campbell Street- graffiti (4) 194 Cliff Street- graffiti (5) 51 Terminal Avenue- graffiti (6) 415 Machleary Street - garbage, building materials, a derelict vehicle, derelict boat,

and miscellaneous debris


(p) Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57) J

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to unresolved building deficiencies for the properties listed below ..


62411 It was moved and seconded that Council, by resolution, instruct the Manager of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter.

(1) 680 Bruce Avenue- illegal construction I partially finished basement and construct new deck

(2) 605 Howard Avenue - illegal construction I finished basement to include a secondary suite

(3) 5455 Bayshore Drive - expired building permit I outstanding deficiencies unresolved prior to final

(4) 2471 Lynburn Crescent - illegal construction I finished basement to include a secondary suite

(5) 5207 Hammond Bay Road - illegal construction with grow operation I reconstructed basement and main floor, deck converted to living space, and sheathing added to attic


17

MINUTES- COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGES

(q) Amendments to the Sprinkler Regulations Contained in the Building Bylaw

62511 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03." The motion carried unanimously.

(r) Subdivision Approval - Park and Cash-in-Lieu - 1543 Extension Road (SUB00905)

62611 It was moved and seconded that Council approve the payment of cash-in-lieu of park for the fee simple subdivision of lands described as Lot 3, Section 18, Range 4, Cranberry District, Plan 7924, Civic address: 1543 Extension Road (SUB00905). The motion carried unanimously.

COMMUNITY SERVICES:

(s) Application to Assign 811 for Call Before You Dig

62711 It was moved and seconded that Council provide a letter of support for sharing the phone number 811 across Canada for public access to both "Non-Emergency Medical Services" and "Call Before You Dig." The motion carried unanimously.

(t) South Fork II Dam Preliminary Engineering

62811 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to issue a Request for Qualifications for preliminary engineering work on the South Fork II Dam. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Bestwick


(a) Report from Mr. P. Rosen, Design Engineer, re: Design for the Storm Sewer Upgrades on Strathmore Street.

(b) Report from Ms. J. Harrison, Manager, Legislative Services, re: 2011 By-Election Financial Disclosure Statements.

10. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS:

(a) "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.445" (to rezone a portion of 6975 Island Highway North from Rural 1 [RU1 D] to Regional Shopping Town Centre Commercial Zone [C-1] in order to facilitate the construction of a commercial development).

62911 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.445" be abandoned. The motion carried unanimously.

18


(b) "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" (To better align with the Official Community Plan [OCP] changes that were adopted in 2008 and to advance the sustainability goals and objectives of the Plan).

62911 It was moved and seconded that " ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

(c) "MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7128" (To provide for the collection and disposal of garbage, food waste, recyclables and other solid waste).

63011 It was moved and seconded that "MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7128" be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

11. INTRODUCTION OF BYLAWS:

(a) "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" (To amend sprinkler regulations).

63111 It was moved and seconded that "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

63211 It was moved and seconded that "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

63311 It was moved and seconded that "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" pass third reading. The motion carried unanimously.

(b) "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109" (To address equity concerns.

63411 It was moved and seconded that "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 71 09" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

63511 It was moved and seconded that "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 71 09" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

63611 It was moved and seconded that "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 71 09" pass third reading. The motion carried unanimously.

(c) "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" (To provide development cost charge relief for the Tillicum Lelum Society affordable housing project).

63711 It was moved and seconded that "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

63811 It was moved and seconded that "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

19


63911 It was moved and seconded that "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" pass third reading. The motion carried unanimously.

(d) "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134" (road closure bylaw for Louden Walkway).

64011 It was moved and seconded that "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

64111 It was moved and seconded that "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

12. OTHER BUSINESS:

(a) Proposed Motion from Councillor Bestwick to Consider an Amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500"

64211 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to bring forward an amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" to rezone the Howard Johnson hotel site (1 Terminal Avenue North) from Downtown Gateway DT-12 to Comprehensive Development Zone Seven CD-7 which is the same as its previous zoning of C-11 under Zoning Bylaw 4000. The motion carried unanimously.

(b) Proposed Motion from Councillor Kipp to Consider an Amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500"

64311 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to bring forward an amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" to rezone 150 Comox Avenue from Comprehensive Development Zone Three CD-3 to Parks Recreation and Culture Three PRC-3. The motion carried unanimously.

(c) Proposed Motion from Councillor Holdom to Consider an Amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500"

64411 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to bring forward an amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" to return the regulations for maximum building height in the R-1 Zone to 8.25 m. The motion carried unanimously.

(d) Proposed Motion from Councillor Pattje to Consider an Amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500"

64511 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to bring forward amendments to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" to address issues raised by the Nanaimo Old City Association. The motion carried unanimously.

20

MINUTES- COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGE 11

64611 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to bring forward an amendment to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" to include such housekeeping amendments as they have identified to date .. The motion carried unanimously.

64711 It was moved and seconded that the Finance/Policy Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for 2011-AUG-22 be changed to a Special Open Council meeting to consider the Zoning Amendment bylaws in a timely manner, in addition to regular Committee items; and, that the Public Hearing originally scheduled for 2011-SEP-01 be rescheduled to 2011-SEP-08. The motion carried unanimously.

13. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:

(a) Ms. Barbara Scott, 5471 Leslie Crescent, Nanaimo, spoke regarding concerns about BC Hydro smart meters and requested that Council write to the Ministry of Health on the dangers of smart meters and request that the Ministry impose a moratorium on mandatory installation of wireless smart meters, and that Council support the motion submitted by the municipality of Colwood at the UBCM meeting in September.

(b) Ms. Christel Martin, 641 Stirling Avenue, Nanaimo, spoke regarding the health effects of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) from wireless devices and encouraged Council to consider ways of limiting the public's exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

(c) Mr. Ted Olynyk, 400 Madsen Road, Nanaimo, spoke regarding BC Hydro's smart metering program, outlined the benefits to using a wireless system and stated that that electromagnetic exposure from smart meters is minimal and well within currently accepted safety levels.

14. QUESTION PERIOD:

• Mr. Fred Taylor, re: 811 telephone numbers, AAP process deadline, DVP166 at 2323 Arbot Road.

• Mr. Doug Routley, MLA, re; BC Hydro smart meters. • Mr. Marty Steele, re: Street Entertainers Bylaw. • Ms. Jeannette Pongratz-Dayle, re: BC Hydro smart meters. • Ms. Sharon Kofoed, re: DVP166. • Ms. Barbara Scott, re: BC Hydro smart meters. • Ms. Christel Martin, re: BC Hydro smart meters. • Mr. Serge Vaillancourt, re: BC Hydro smart meters. • Ms. Robyn Winkler, re: DVP166. • Mr. Gord Fuller, re: Street Entertainers Bylaw.

21

MINUTES- COUNCIL 2011-AUG-08 PAGE 12

15. ADJOURNMENT:

64811 It was moved and seconded at 10:30 p.m. that the meeting terminate. The motion carried unanimously.

MAYOR

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

22

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL OPEN MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NANAIMO

HELD IN THE BOARD ROOM, CITY HALL, ON MONDAY, 2011-AUG-22 COMMENCING AT 4:30P.M.

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor J. R. Ruttan, Chair

Members:

Absent:

Staff:

Councillor W. L. Bestwick Councillor G. E. Greves Councillor W. J. Hold om Councillor D. K. Johnstone Councillor J. A. Kipp Councillor J. F. K. Pattje Councillor M. W. Unger

Councillor L. J. Sherry

A. C. Kenning, City Manager T. L. Hartley, Director of Human Resources and Organizational Planning T. P. Seward, Director of Development A. J. Tucker, Director of Planning I. Howat, Director of Strategic Relationships B. E. Clemens, Director of Finance B. Prokopenko, Acting Senior Manager of Engineering J. Ritchie, Senior Manager of Parks and Civic Facilities T. Kraft, Manager of Engineering Projects J. E. Harrison, Manager of Legislative Services T. Wilkinson, Recording Secretary

1. CALL THE OPEN MEETING TO ORDER:

The Special Open Meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m.


(a) Add Agenda Item 6 (b) - Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items -Mr. Allan Davidson regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw.

(b) Add Agenda Item 6 (c)- Delegations Pertaining to Agenda Items- Mr. Gord Fuller regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw.

(c) Replace Agenda Item 11 (c)- Staff Reports- Council Directed Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500.

(d) Replace Agenda Item 15 (a) - Introduction of Development Bylaws - "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001".

23

MINUTES- SPECIAL OPEN COUNCIL 2011-AUG-22 PAGE2

(e) Add Agenda Item 15 (c) - Introduction of Development Bylaws - "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.003".

(f) Add Agenda Item 15 (d) - Introduction of Development Bylaws - "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004".


64911 It was moved and seconded that the Agenda, as amended, be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

4. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AGENDA ITEMS:

(a) Ms. Lynn Kropinak, 6522 Groveland Drive, Nanaimo, spoke about the proposed building height restriction in the new zoning bylaw and would like to see that the 8.25 metre height limit remains in current subdivisions, and believes that a 9 metre height limit for new subdivisions would be acceptable.

(b) Mr. Allan Davidson, 2730 Elk Street, Nanaimo, objects to the new height allowance in the proposed zoning bylaw.

(c) Mr. Gord Fuller, 604 Nicol Street, Nanaimo, spoke regarding changes in the new zoning bylaw.

5. MAYOR'S REPORT:

(a) Newcastle Island Management Board Councillor Unger replacing Councillor Holdom.

(b) Mayor Ruttan wished safe travels and best wishes to the Nanaimo firefighters competing in the 2011 World Police and Fire Games to be held from August 26th to September 5th in New York.

6. PROCLAMATIONS:

(a) That the month of SEPTEMBER is "PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH" in the City of Nanaimo.

(b) That the month of SEPTEMBER is "BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS MONTH" in the City of Nanaimo.

(c) That the month of SEPTEMBER is "LIBRARY 75th ANNIVERSARY MONTH" in the City of Nanaimo

24



(a) Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission - Recommendation for Appointment to City Advisory Committee

65011 It was moved and seconded that Council approve the appointment of Commissioner Brent Meunier to the Grants Advisory Committee for the remainder of the term of the vacancy created by the resignation of Commissioner Dawn Burnett. The motion carried unanimously.

8. STAFF REPORTS:

COMMUNITY SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT:

(a) DP740- 411 Dunsmuir Street

65111 It was moved and seconded that Council issue Development Permit No. DP740 at 411 Dunsmuir Street with the following variances:

• a height variance of 0.3 m (1 ft); • a front yard variance of 3.64 m (11.84 ft); and, • a side yard variance of 1.8 m (6.0 ft).

The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Kipp

(b) DVP175 -1009 Farquhar Street

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to DVP175 -1009 Farquhar Street.


65211 It was moved and seconded that Council issue Development Variance Permit

65311

No. DVP175 at 1009 Farquhar Street. The motion carried unanimously.

(c)

1.

2.

3.

Council Directed Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500

It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to:

"ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.001" pertaining to the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue (Howard Johnson site);

"ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.003" pertaining to the property located at 150 Comox Road (Maffeo Sutton Park); and,

"ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.004" pertaining to height restrictions within the Single Dwelling Residential (R 1/R 1 a) zones.


25


(d) General Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw No. 4500

65411 It was moved and seconded that Council receive the report pertaining to "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.002". The motion carried unanimously.

(e) Nanaimo Old City Association Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw No.4500

65511 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to meet with the Nanaimo Old City Association (NOCA) to discuss the request for amendments to "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500". The motion carried unanimously.

(f) Nuisance Property - 73 Princess Street

Mayor Ruttan inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak to the report pertaining to the nuisance property at 73 Princess Street.


65611 It was moved and seconded that Council declare 73 Princess Street a nuisance pursuant to "NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND COST RECOVERY BYLAW 2003 NO. 5645" and authorize Staff to record and charge for municipal services including police required at this property to abate the nuisances. The motion carried unanimously.

CORPORATE SERVICES:

(g) Award of Request for Proposal for Benefit Provider

65711 It was moved and seconded that Council award Request for Proposal #1229 regarding the provision of employee benefits to Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. The motion carried unanimously.

COMMUNITY SERVICES:

(h) Partnering Agreement with the Nanaimo Economic Development Corporation

65811 It was moved and seconded that Council enter into the partnering agreement with the Nanaimo Economic Development Corporation to provide economic development services to the City of Nanaimo. The motion carried unanimously.


(a) Report from Mr. R. Harding, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture, re: Municipal Insurance Association Risk Management Grant.

(b) Report from Mr. S. Ricketts, Manager of Engineering Construction, re: DCC R86-Northfield I Boxwood Traffic Signal.

(c) Report from Mr. T. Kraft, Manager of Engineering Projects, re: Boxwood Brownfield Renewal Project (Contaminated Soils and Geotechnical).

26

MINUTES- SPECIAL OPEN COUNCIL 2011-AUG-22 PAGES

(d) Report from Mr. B. Joiner, Energy Manager, Parks, Recreation and Culture, re: Energy Study for Beban Park Recreation Centre.

10. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS:

(a) "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" (To amend sprinkler regulations).

65911 It was moved and seconded that "BUILDING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 5693.03" be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

(b) "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" (To provide development cost charge relief for the Tillicum Lelum Society affordable housing project).

66011 It was moved and seconded that "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7132" be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

11. INTRODUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BYLAWS:

(a) "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001" (To rezone the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue [Howard Johnson site]).

66111 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001" pass first reading. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Ho/dom

66211 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001" pass second reading. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Ho/dom

(b) "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.002" (To make 13 text amendments and 6 mapping changes to clarify the intent and to correct errors that have been identified in the newly adopted Zoning Bylaw No. 4500).

66311 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.002" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

66411 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.002" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

(c) "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.003" (To rezone the property located at 150 Com ox Road [Maffeo Sutton Park]).

66511 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.003" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.


27


(d) "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004" (To amend the height restrictions within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a) zones).

66711 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004" pass first reading.

66811 It was moved and seconded that section 2(1) of "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.004" which pertains to section 7.6.1 of Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500 be amended for the R2, R3 and R4 Zones to change the maximum height of the principal building for flat roofs from 7.0 metres to 6.71 metres, and to amend the maximum height of the principal building for sloped roofs from 9.0 metres to 8.25 metres. The motion carried unanimously.

The vote was taken on the main motion, as amended.



12. CORRESPONDENCE:

(a) Petition received 2011-JUL-15 from residents of Stamp Way regarding sanitary sewer service for Departure Bay residents.

13. QUESTION PERIOD:

• Mr. Fred Taylor, heights in the zoning bylaw, parkland.

67011 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to prepare a report regarding heights in all residential zones, and whether Council can distinguish between new and old subdivisions. The motion carried unanimously.

• Mr. Allan Davidson, building heights in the new zoning bylaw.

14. ADJOURNMENT:

67111 It was moved and seconded at 5:46 p.m. that the meeting terminate. The motion carried unanimously.

MAYOR

CERTIFIED CORRECT:


28

Request to Appear as a Delegation

Please complete the application form; required fields are marked with

* Date of Presentation:* [Sep] [12] [2011]

(X) Council -7:00pm in the Shaw Auditorium- 38 Commercial Street

Presenter Name:*

Street Address: *

City:*

Province:*

Postal Code: *

Email:*

Home Phone: * xxx-xxx-xxxx

Business Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Fax: XXX -XXX -XXXX

Name of Applicant if other than above:

Details of Presentation: *

To

serge vaillancourt

5320 kenwill dr

nanaimo

be

v9t5z8

bring forward additional information re smart meters fc: prior to attending AVICC convention.

[Submit} Go to

29

DELEGATION REQUEST

Barry Low has requested an appearance before council. The request is made on behalf of n/a.

The requested date is Sep 12~ 2011.

The requested meeting is: Council

Presenter's information

Address: 2020 Bowen Road City: Nanaimo Province: British Columbia Postal Code: V9S 1H4 Home Phone: Email:

Details of Presentation:

Legislative Service Department

Dear Recording Secretary~

I wish to make a statement in support of "The bylaw to regulate street entertainers in the City of Nanaimo Bylaw 2011 No. 7109" during the September 12~ 2011 council meeting. I am a third year licenced City of Nanaimo busker~ holding permit # SEP00162. I am asking permission to open my brief presentation for Mayor Hutton and Council Members by performing the chorus of Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man" on my acoustic guitar with vocal and harmonica." This piece is popular with the public and I often begin my set with it followed by two other Bob Dylan songs. This work times-out at one minute. I feel strongly that if I can provide a sample of the music that I offer to the good folks who enjoy the beauty of the Nanaimo waterfront it will set the tone for my presentation. The emphasis of my submission will on the importance of this bylaw in maintaining and raising the standards that the public wants and expects from the performing busking community in Nanaimo. I look forward to your reply in respect to my opening musical offering and to my delegation request. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

30

cathy davis has requested an appearance before council.

The requested date is Sep 12J 2011.



Address: 306 Pine Street City: nanaimo Province: BC Postal Code: v9r2b1 Home Phone: Email: Business Phone:


Short speech on bylaw 7109

30.\

Mrs Christina Charlton-Marchand has requested an appearance before council.

The requested date is Sep 12J 2011.



Address: 437 Watfield Ave City: Nanaimo Province: British Columbia Postal Code: V9R-3P6 Home Phone: Email:


Vice President Of the Beat of the Street would like to talk about buskers bylaw 7109 would like present the facts and a slideshow of the 3rd annual Little Woodstock West street festival put on by the beat of the street buskers society

i 09/12/2011

., 08:25 + PAGE 01

CITY OF NANAIMO

/

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

ON 2011 -Sept 12 - ---year month day

COUNCIL (at 7:00 p_m_ in the Shaw Auditorium. 80 Commercial Street)

0 FINANCE I POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (at 4:30p.m, in the City Hc;11/ Board Room, 455 Wallace Street)

NAME OF PERSON MAKING PRESENTATION: FRED TAYLOR Print

ADDRESS: 204 EMERY WAY NANAIMO B-C- V9R - 5Z8 ~treet aaaress City Province Pcst~l cooe

PHONE: (250) 754 - 6917 FAX: {250} 753 - 812!1-heme business

NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE:

DETAILS OF PRESENTATION:

request the opportunity to address the Council in regards ·:

to Staff Report Administration (a) Designation of Park Land

PLEASE NOTE

Electronic presentations must be provided on a CD or by e-mail no later than 9:00 a_m_ the day of the Meeting_

Please submit a written copy of your presentation to the Recording Secretary either at, or prior to. the Meeting.

Multiple speakers on a single issue or topic shall be given 5 minutes each to make their presentations as per Section 18 of the Council Procedure Bylaw.

Legislative Services Department 455 Wallace Street. Nanaimo BC V9R 5J6

30.~

Phone; (250) 755-4405 Fax: (250) 755-41-135

[email protected]

I

I

I

Fondation canadienne des maladies inflammatoires de l'intestin

Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada

July 13, 2011

Mayor John Ruttan 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 5J6

Dear Mayor John Ruttan:

On Thursday, September 15, 2011, M&M Meat Shops, Canada's largest retail chain of specialty frozen foods, is encouraging families coast-to-coast to enjoy a meal together in celebration of the seventh annual National Family Dinner Night.

Family experts and researchers confirm that one of the most valuable gifts parents can give their children is time spent together as a family. Taking this advice, M&M Meat Shops successfully launched National Family Dinner Night six years ago and have encouraged thousands of families to sit down and have dinner together. This annual event has contributed to the more than 21.5 million dollars M&M Meat Shops has raised for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada (CCFC). This year, M&M Meat Shops is hoping to bring even more families across the country together at mealtime.

Last year's program received the support of community leaders from coast-to-coast including the Prime Minister, the Governor General, Premiers and many Mayors of Canada's largest and smallest cities. We would be most honoured if you, as a leader in the community, would provide a letter of support for this community-based initiative and, if possible, formally proclaim September 15, 2011 as National Family Dinner Night. We would truly love to hear your own memories about your family dinners growing up and what getting together for a family meal means to you.

M&M Meat Shops will be asking families to register their participation in National Family Dinner Night on the website: www.nationalfamilydinnerniqht.com as of August 1, 2011. For every person who registers, M&M Meat Shops will donate $1 to the CCFC.

Of course, we also hope that you will enjoy a family dinner on September 15, 2011, and register your participation in National Family Dinner Night at www.nationalfamilydinnernight.com.

We thank you in advance for your consideration. We will follow up with your office in the next few weeks. In the meantime~ if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (416) 366-7735 x247.

Yours truly,

~· Kristi Bejczak Strategic Objectives 184 Front St. E., 4th Floor Toronto, ON Canada M5A 4N3 416.366.7735 X 247 kbejczak@ strategicobjectives.com

31

August 26, 2011

Mayor and Council

OFFICE OF THE JNFORMATION ~PRIVACY

COMMISSIONER --for-British Colutnbia

The week of September 26 to September 30, 2010 is Right to Know Week across Canada. The purpose of Right To Know Week is to promote awareness of the rights of British Columbian citizens to access documents held by public bodies. Information and Privacy Commissioners across Canada and internationally will be holding events to celebrate the week.

We hope that the City of Nanaimo will take a lead role by proclaiming this important event. We are asking various other cities and towns in the Province to make similar proclamations for this week. To increase public awareness, many local newspapers have agreed to publish five opinion pieces, one for each day of Right to Know Week.

British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is often described as being a pioneering piece of legislation. Right to Know Week offers an excellent opportunity for the City of Nanaimo to emphasize this and to affirm the importance of the access rights of its citizens.

I therefore write to ask that the Mayor and Council secure the proclamation of September 26 to September 30, 2010 as "Right To Know Week" in the City of Nanaimo. A draft of such a proclamation is enclosed.

I look forward to hearing from you about this request and would be happy to discuss it with you.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Mots Investigator Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

Mailing Address: PO Box 9038, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria BC V8W 9A4 Location: Third Floor, 756 Fort Street

Telephone: (250) 387-5629 Facsimile: (250) 387-1696 Toll Free enquiries through Enquiry BC at 1-800-663-7867 or (604) 660-2421 (Vancouver)

website: httpSv2vw.oipc.bc.ca

11Right to Know Week" Proclamation

WHEREAS the City of Nanaimo has adopted the principles of open, accountable and transparent

government, and

WHEREAS the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act grants British Columbians a

right of access to information in the custody or under the control of municipalities, and

WHEREAS the access to municipal government information ensures that the City of Nanaimo

citizens have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the democratic process; and

WHEREAS a celebration of the right of British Columbians to access information will promote

citizen participation in the processes of governance, and

NOW, THEREFORE, I ( ___ ), Mayor of the City of Nanaimo, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM that

September 26 to September 30, 2010, inclusive, shall be known as

"RIGHT TO KNOW WEEK"

In the City of Nanaimo

(NAME)

Mayor

33

September 6 1 2011

Mayor John Ruttan City of Nanaimo1

NANAIMO

Community Kitchens SOCIETY

Cooking together to create a healthy community

455 Wallace Street1

Nanaimo1 BC V9R 5J6

Dear Mayor Ruttan:

I am writing to request that you declare the week of September 261 2011 1 as Nanaimo Community Kitchens Society Week.

The Society is celebrating 20 years of teaching people of all ages how to create meals in an economical and nutritious way. They learn how to manage their food dollars wisely and take food the home to their families. It is also an opportunity to have fun and make new friends while learning new skills.

Nanaimo Community Kitchens is celebrating its 20th year of helping the Nanaimo community on October 1st this year. We would be very appreciative if you could declare the week of September 26th as Nanaimo Community Kitchens Week.

Should you have any questions1 please contact me1 Susan Carlson at 250-754-2675.

Respectfully I

Susan Carlson Director ~ Coondl Nanaimo Community Kitchens Society /Q( .

~ n..~mrttee .. __ ~nMeenng Q In-Camera Meeting ~Date: 2Dt \ -=:;e_-P- \2

271 Pine Street, Nanaimo, BC V9R 287 250-753-7470

34

2011-AUG-29

REPORT TO COUNCIL

FROM: CHAIR, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY (ACES)

RE: COASTAL INVASIVE PLANT COMMITTEE (CIPC) FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION TO INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approve a grant to the Coastal Invasive Plant Committee (CIPC) in the amount of $2,000, to be put toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011-2012.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In July, the CIPC sent a letter (Attachment A) to the Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability (ACES) requesting that the City of Nanaimo contribute $2,000 toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011-2012. As a condition to receive funds, Cl PC representatives would meet with City staff and identify specific deliverables within the City of Nanaimo, as well as how the funds would contribute toward a larger regional program.

Parks, Recreation and Culture staff has advised that they will provide the requested funds after meeting with the CIPC to identify deliverables.

Given this information, ACES recommends that Council approve the CIPC's funding request of $2,000, to be put toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011-2012.

BACKGROUND:

Invasive plants are generally regarded as plants that are capable of adversely affecting agricultural and other economic pursuits, or detrimental to ecosystems, plants, animals and human health. Most commonly, they are species that are not part of the natural flora of a region and are often referred to as alien exotic, non-indigenous, or introduced.

The Coastal Invasive Plant Committee (CIPC) is a registered non-profit society that was established to help address the growing concern of invasive plants on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Regional District of Powell River. The society is made up of professional biologists, agrologists and foresters, some of whom represent local, regional and provincial government. Their mandate is to educate community members and land managers about the impacts of invasive plants, to promote cross-jurisdictional coordination and integrated invasive plant management, and to assist land managers with their invasive plant management objectives.

A CIPC representative attended the 2011-APR-11 Council meeting and provided Council with an update on their activities. The update included a review of some of the invasive plant species common to the Nanaimo region and some of the ecological, environmental and economic impacts of these species. A request was also made for the City to consider partnering with the CIPC on the delivery of a coordinated invasive plant management program.

This year, the CIPC has initiated a number of projects up and down Vancouver Island involving the inventory and removal of several invasive plant species along the eastern half of Vancouver Island.

35

)(Coo nell 0 Cemmitt~.:g Open Meeting a In-Camera Meeting ~Date: Zb 1 \ -S8> -\2

Council Report Page 2

Some of these species include Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) which produces a toxic sap which can severely burn skin, and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) which potentially can have a severe impact on the biodiversity of many of our watercourses in Nanaimo. Through a "pooled funding" approach, the CIPC has been helping to provide staff training, public awareness and plant removal teams to a number of participating agencies and local governments. These participating agencies and local governments include the Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, BC Hydro, Fortis BC, Cowichan Tribes and the Cities of Saanich and Courtenay.

The CIPC is looking for new opportunities to work with local governments for the remainder of 2011 and into 2012. The CIPC offers expertise and resources by:

• delivering education programs and materials to raise awareness of invasive plant issues; • working with local government staff to provide training in invasive plant identification and

management strategies; • providing expertise in conducting mapping surveys for the presence of priority invasive plants; • the use of CIPC crews to respond to and treat Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)

and Japanese Knotweed (Fal/opia japonica) sites on public lands; • coordinating land manager and community stakeholder meetings to prioritize and coordinate

management efforts; and • providing assistance and input into the development of a community invasive plant

management strategy.

In July, the CIPC sent a letter to ACES (Attachment A) requesting that the City of Nanaimo contribute $2,000 toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011-2012. As a condition to receive funds, the CIPC representatives would meet with City staff and identify specific deliverables within the City of Nanaimo, as well as how the funds would contribute toward a larger regional program.

Parks, Recreation and Culture staff has advised that they will provide the requested funds after meeting with the CIPC to identify deliverables.

Given this information, ACES recommends that Council approve the CIPC's request for $2,000, to be put toward a coordinated invasive plant management program for 2011-2012.

Respectfully su~mitted,

tL· l~

RUrt g:\commplan\admin\2011\ACES CIPC Funding Request.doc Council Date: 2011-SEP-12

36

ATTACHMENT A

Coastal Invasive Plant Committee

Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability c/o City ofNanaimo 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, B.C. V9R5J6

July 12, 2011

Re: Coordinated Invasive Plant Management in Nanaimo

P.O. Box 48114, 3575 Douglas Street Victoria, BC V8Z 7H5

250-857-24 72 [email protected]

www. co~stalinvasiveplants.com

Dear Chair and Members of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability:

Thank you for providing the opportunity to have the Coastal Invasive Plant Committee (CIPC) present to the City of Nanaimo on invasive plant issues, options for management and partnering in strategic management initiatives on April 11, 2011. We hope that the information provided was helpful in learning about local invasive plants, and understanding their impacts on both our natural areas and natural resource industries. The issues being faced by land stakeholders around invasive plants are becoming increasingly apparent, as these plant populations continue to expand. Left unmanaged, the costs associated with management will continue to increase, while opportunities for success in eradicating or controlling these species, and protecting our natural areas, will become less likely. It is commonly believed by organizations working on invasive plant management that through cooperative commitments to management efforts now, land managers can expect to see reduced impacts to their natural areas and resources, as well as reductions in long term management costs.

This 2011 field season, the CIPC is planning to coordinate targeted inventories, treatments and removals on Vancouver Island, the Gulflslands and Sunshine Coast, including areas located in the Nanaimo and surrounding areas. Through a 'pooled funding' approach, which has proven to be successful in other regions, management activities will be conducted on the lands of all participating agencies. Our partners in this area currently include: the Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, BC Hydro and Fortis BC, as well as local governments from other regions of the CIPC. Additional seed funding has been provided by the Province for the delivery of coordinated management programs in the within the CIPC operating area. We are currently seeking new partnerships with local governments and organizations in these activities, in order to increase our program's overall capacity and effectiveness

We would like to ask the City ofNanaimo to consider making a contribution of$2,000 towards our coordinated invasive plant management program in 2011-2012. The proceeds of these funds would be put towards management activities on City ofNanaimo lands. Some of the priority management objectives have been discussed with City of Nanaimo staff, and can be further looked at and incorporated into the work plan to ensure that the goals of the City of Nanaimo are met. Listed below are some potential management activities in 2011-2012:

Delivery of education programs and materials to within the City ofNanaimo, to raise awareness of invasive plant issues

• Parks staff training- invasive plant identification and management strategies. Training could be delivered either through 2-3 1-hour tailgate sessions or as one half-day field tour of sites located on City ofNanaimo lands. Survey City ofNanaimo natural areas (parks and trails) for the presence of priority invasive plants:

37

Respond to I treat giant new and existing known hogweed sites found on City ofNanaimo lands (i.e. Englishman River) Fall treatment ofknotweed infestations on lands located within the City ofNanaimo Coordinate land manager I stakeholder meetings within the City ofNanaimo, to prioritize and coordinate management efforts Assist in the development of a management strategy for the City ofNanaimo

A report outlining the activities conducted, with future recommendations, can be provided to the City ofNanaimo at the end of the season. We thank you for your interest in this matter, and look forward to discussing the possibility for coordinated invasive plant management in the Naiiaimo area. If you have questions about our program and additional services that can be provided, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Melissa Noel, Coordinator

cc. Rob Lawrance, City ofNanaimo

38

2011-AUG-25

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: A. C. KENNING, CITY MANAGER

FROM: R.J. HARDING, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION AND CULTURE, J.E. HARRISON, MANAGER OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, AND

B. CORSAN, MANAGER OF REAL ESTATE

RE: DESIGNATION OF PARK LAND- PARK DEDICATION BYLAW NO. 7137

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive the report pertaining to "PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137" which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the Regular Finance I Policy Committee of the Whole Meeting held on 2011-Jan-17 Council adopted the following motion:

"It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to prepare a detailed report on the advantages and disadvantages of the dedication of park land and other options that may be available to ensure the protection of park land. The motion carried unanimously."

Staff prepared the detailed report and presented it to Council at a Lunch and Learn held on 20 11-J UL Y -14. Staff advised Council the different ways park land can be protected and how city owned park land is acquired and held. Council was asked how and if they further wished to protect park land given this information.

At the In Camera meeting held on 2011-AUG-08 Council adopted the following motion:

"It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to draft a bylaw for consideration by Council at an open meeting, to dedicate as park those fee simple lands that are identified as items 1-161 in the Attachment to the Staff Report. The motion carried unanimously."

After the motion was passed it was corrected that the identified items are to include items 1 to 137 as items 138 to 161 have already been dedicated by bylaw.

Upon Council's adoption of the "PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137" which is presented under the Bylaw section of the agenda, Staff will prepare the legal notation which will be registered against the title to all park land identified as fee simple, fee simple park land with conditions, and park land acquired with the assistance of development cost charges through cash-in-lieu payments as part of the subdivision process. The park lands to be dedicated are identified in Attachment A

39

;![cooncil 0 Csmmittee.·-·--··

;e(_Open Meeting tJ In-Camera Meeting MetmgDate: 2Dl ~-Sf.P- '2

Staff Report Page2

BACKGROUND:

How Park Land Can Be Protected

There are a number of ways in which park land can be protected. The following provides a discussion of the various tools available to Council.

Ownership by the City

As the City being the owner and in accordance with the rules of the Community Charter, disposition of City-owned property is highly transparent and regulated. Council is required in an open meeting to approve all dispositions, dispose of the property at fair market value and publish notice of the proposed disposition in the local newspaper.

Designation in Official Community Plan

The OCP provides a broad strategic direction to which lands within the City are to be protected for park and open space use. The designation applies to lands across the City that is titled as park land or otherwise serves as parks, plazas, open spaces, or recreation. Golf courses, open space areas, regional and provincial park land, undeveloped Crown lands and environmentally sensitive lands are also included in the designation, as well as lands used or reserved for public utilities and services.

While the OCP provides the broad definition of parks and open space, it does not identify specific fee simple parcels, rather it shows the City's intent within the general area.

Zoning of Park Land

Through the Zoning Bylaw, the City is able to specifically zone parcels of land for park purposes. On 2009-JUN-29 Bylaw 2007 No. 4000.426 was adopted which created three new park zones which were applied to the entire parks inventory. The zones are:

1. Parks, Recreation and Culture Zone One (PRC-1 ): The primary intent of this zone is to provide for the conservation of natural spaces within city parks. Where possible, the zone will allow for recreational and educational use when compatible with the preservation of natural features within the park.-'

2. Parks, Recreation and Culture Zone Two (PRC-2): This zone will provide park areas which allow for organized and unorganized outdoor recreational activities. Parks within this zone shall include playgrounds, sports fields, and undeveloped parks with limited ecological value.

3. Parks, Recreation and Culture Zone Three (PRC·3): This zone recognizes the wide variety of uses which exist within the city's developed parks. The primary intent of this zone is to provide opportunities for organized recreational and cultural activities.

Once a parcel of land is zoned park, the land uses within the park must conform to the zoning. This provides a significant level of regulation as any use not contemplated under the zoning bylaw would require a rezoning process and a formal public hearing.

40

Staff Report Page 3

Under the new zoning bylaw, lands that have been added to the inventory since July 2009 will be zoned accordingly to ensure the entire inventory is identified through zoning.

Dedication of Park Land by Bylaw

Council can, by bylaw adopted by affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all members of Council, dedicate real property (in this case, fee simple parcels of land) as park. Upon adoption of the bylaw, a legal notation is placed on title. A bylaw to remove a dedication may only be adopted with the approval of the electors. Approval of the electors may be obtained either by alternate approval process or through referendum.

Park land dedication only applies to those lands that are held in fee simple by the City. It does not apply to park land that is leased from other bodies, is dedicated road right of way or has already been dedicated through subdivision.

Protection by Covenant

On occasion, a property is gifted to the City and the owner places a specific covenant on title to ensure the lands are used for a specific purpose. The covenant generally has a 'reverter' clause which returns the land to the original owner if it is not used for the intended purpose.

Protection by Trust

In some communities, land is gifted to the City through an estate and the land is protected through Trust. The property must be used for the purposes outlined in the gifting agreement and the City cannot alter use of the land without the estate of the family agreeing to the changes. Beacon Hill Park in Victoria is an example of a park land in trust.

How City Owned Park Land Is Acquired and Held

In total, there are 1763.32 acres of park land within the City of Nanaimo. The park land is held under one of seven main categories, summarized in the table below.

Nature of Holding Number Total Size of Properties (acres)

Fee Simple 108 360.4 Acquired through DCCs or Cash-in-lieu 8 258.0 Fee Simple with Conditions 21 367.22 Dedicated Park by Bylaw 24 134.62 Dedicated Park by Subdivision 205 419.04 Dedicated Land or Road Used as Park 40 4.7 Not City Owned Managed by PRCC or 20 219.34 Leased/Licensed Total 426 1763.32

41

Staff Report Page4

Fee Simple Ownership

360.4 acres of the City's park inventory is held in fee simple ownership. These parks may have been acquired through acquisition, Crown granting, public gifting or tax sales. There are no legal restrictions on land or future uses; however there are usually strong moral arguments to be made for the parcel to be continued as park use (i.e. Beban Park and Joan Point Park).

Fee Simple Acquired Through DCCs & Cash-in-lieu

This is a subset of Fee Simple Ownership. The City has acquired 258 acres of land by using funds from Development Cost Charges and Cash-in-lieu contributions through the subdivision process.

Fee Simple Park with Conditions

Around 367 acres of the City's park land is held as fee simple with conditions. These properties have a legal notation on the title restricting the property to a specific park use. A restriction may include that the land be used for recreation or park purposes only (i.e. May Richard Bennett's Park and parts of Westwood Lake).

Dedicated Park by Bylaw

Past Councils have dedicated 24 fee simple parcels through bylaw. Once the bylaw is adopted a legal notation with the bylaw number is registered on the property's title. Bylaw examples include Bylaw No.'s 735, 2255, 2671 and 2803 (i.e. Colliery Dam Park and Departure Bay Centennial).

Dedicated Park by Subdivision

Most new park acquisition is the result of developers being required to dedicate 5% of land for park and trail system use through the subdivision process. There is no formal "title" to these lands (i.e. Beach Estates Park and Beaufort Park). This accounts for 419.04 acres of the City's park inventory.

Dedicated Land or Road (Utilized as Park)

Some road rights of way within the City are developed as parks. These "parks" are neither designated nor dedicated parks (i.e. Charlaine boat launch and beach/park access walkways located in road rights of ways). It is not possible to dedicate these lands as park by bylaw. Around 4. 7 acres of park land is dedicated road.

Not City Owned Property, Managed by PRCC - Licensed or Leased Park Land

A portion of the City's park land is not under City ownership, but held in long-term leases or licenses with agencies such as the Provincial Government and Nanaimo Port Authority. These lease and license agreements indicate the use of the land for park purposes, but there is no official park designation on title (i.e. portions of Westwood Lake Park and a portion of Maffeo Sutton Park)

42

Staff Report Page 5

Upon adoption of "PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137" all park land identified as fee simple, fee simple park land with conditions and park land acquired with the assistance of development cost charges through cash-in-lieu payments as part of the subdivision process, as identified in Attachment A, will be dedicated as park land through this bylaw.

Respectfully submitted,

~~\~ _,. Ri a d Hardmg Director, Parks, Recreation and Culture

Jo€)H~ - . Manager, Legislative Services

~n~ Manager of Real Estate

BC/np Council: 2011-SEPT-12 Prospero: CIL00309

AI Kenning ' ' City Manager

43

ATIACHMENT "A"

DESIGNATION OF PARKLAND

Number Park Name I Address#

1 Barney Moriez Playground 450

2 Beban Park 2300

3 Brechin Boat 1890

4 Chase River Park 845

5 Chase River Watercourse 708

6 Douglas & 8th Park 303

7 Duke & Robins Park 62

8 Harry Wipper Park 5050

9 Joan Point Park 1080

10 Jordan/Nova Park 827

11 Kinette Evergreen Park 451

12 Knowles Park 68

13 Knowles Park 76

14 Loudon Park 4295

15 Maffeo Sutton Park 2

16 McGirr Park 6175

17 Mcgregor Park 126

18 Nanaimo Aquatic Center 741

19 Nanaimo Ice Center 750

20 Bowen Park West (Parcel X) 400

21 Northfield Nature Park 2667

22 Oliver Road Park 6000

23 Park Avenue Park 724

24 Pipers Lagoon Park 3600

25 Railway Park 730

26 Railway Park 699

27 Rosamond Park 1

28 Serauxman Fields at Third Street Park 850

29 Sugarloaf Mtn Park 3160

30 Valley Oak Park (Buttertubs Marsh West) 1900

31 Wardropper Park 2957

32 Westwood Lake Park 150

33 Chase River Estuary Park 1160

34 Kiwanis Park/Pioneer Cemetary 10

35 Bastion Square Park 94

36 Belford Avenue Park 1060

37 Bruce Avenue Park 329

38 Bruce Park 330




42 Chesterlea Park 343

43 Con naught Avenue Park 705

44 Connaught Avenue Park 709

45 Conn aught Avenue Park 713

Council Report: 2011-SEP-12 1 of 3

44

Street Name

Poplar Street

Bowen Road

Zorkin Road

Park Avenue

Bruce Avenue

Eighth Street

Duke Street

Hammond Bay Road

Phoenix Way

Jordon Avenue

Ninth Street

Rainer Street

Rainer Street

Victoria Avenue

Cliff Street

McGirr Road

Front Street

Third Street

Third Street

McKay Avenue

Starlight Trail

Oliver Road

Park Avenue

Place Road

Connaught Avenue

Railway Avenue

Rosamond Park

Third Street

Marion Way

Jingle Pot Road

Departure Bay Road

Dogwood Road

Island HighwayS.

Wallace Street

Front Street

Belford Avenue

Bruce Avenue

Bruce Avenue

Park Avenue

Seventh Street

Park Avenue

Chesterlea Avenue

Con naught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Con naught Avenue

File: CIL00309

Number

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

ATIACHMENT "A"


,Park Name ,Address#

Connaught Avenue Park 717


ConnauQht Avenue Park 725






Con naught Avenue Park 749






Connaught Avenue Park 773 Connaught Avenue Park 777

Duke Street Park 59

Duke Street Park 61

Duke Street Park 63

Douglas Park 320

Durham Park 423

Haliday Cres Park 2930

Harewood Centennial Park 739

Harewood Centennial Park 730

Kerry Lane Park 5790

Molly's Marsh Park 3742

Mountain Vista Drive Park 2141 Nova Park 536

Park Avenue Park 772













Ranchview Park 165

Rutherford Park 5317

Sixth Street Park 60

Sixth Street Park 62

Council Report: 2011-SEP-12 2 of3

45

Street Name

ConnaughtAvenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Con naught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Con naught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Connaught Avenue

Duke Street

Duke Street

Duke Street

Eighth Street

Pine Street

Haliday Crescent

Howard Avenue

Howard Avenue

Kerry Lane

Cavendish Place

Mountain Vista Drive

Nova Street

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Park Avenue

Ranchview Drive

Rutherford Road

Sixth Street

Sixth Street

File: CIL00309

Number

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136 137

ATIACHMENT "A"


I Park Name Address#

Sealand Park 6100

Smugglers Park 116

Smugglers Park 120

Smugglers Park 124

Smugglers Park 128

SouthhamptonRd Park 6544

Stirling/Deering Park 840 Sunrise Place Park 3675

Taylor Place Park 273

Williamson Park 5250

Lions Square 280

View Street Park 26

View Street Park 38

View Street Park 48

Fifth Street Park (Trailway) 81

Park Area Adjacent Karam Park 1606

Robson Road Park 2930 The Anchor at Anchor Way 20 Third Street Park 1651 Westwood Lake Park 2 385 Westwood Lake Park 2 389 Neck Point Park 4050 Neck Point Park 1055 East Wellington Road Park 2191 Linley Valley (Cottle Lake) Park 3669 Neck Point Park 4000

Millstone Park II 680

Caledonia Park 110

Cathers Lake Park 2213

Gallows Point Light 208

John Weeks Park 1407

Mansfield Park 800

May Richards Bennett Park 6700

Northfield Rotary Lookout Park 2450

Ravine Park Access 2669

St. George Ravine Park 980

Westwood Lake Park 1655








Westwood Ravine Park 2245

Westwood Ravine Park 284 Bowen Park 500

Council Report: 2011-SEP-12 3 of3

46

Street Name

Sealand Road

Capt Morgans Boulevard




Southampton Road

Stirling Avenue

Sunrise Place

Wakesiah Avenue

Williamson Road

Wallace Street

View Street

View Street

View Street

Fifth Street

Townsite Road

Robson Road

Anchor Way

Jingle Pot Road Westwood Road Westwood Road Morningside Drive Morningside Drive East Wellington Road Rock City Road Shores Drive

Riverside Drive

Wall Street

Michigan Way

Colvilleton Trail

Island Highway S

St Andrews Street

Dover Road

Northfield Road

Labieux Road

Terminal Avenue

College Drive

College Drive

Kilpatrick Road

Kilpatrick Road

Kilpatrick Road

Westwood Road

Westwood Road

Westwood Road

Arbot Road

Westwood Road

Bowen Road

File: CIL00309

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

FROM: B. CORSAN, MANAGER OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

RE: DP632 - 360/370/390 STEWART AVENUE


2011-AUG-26

That Council issue Development Permit No. DP632 at 360/370/390 Stewart Avenue with the following variances, subject to lot consolidation prior to issuance of a building permit:

• Required Building Height The maximum allowed building height is 14 m (46ft). The proposed building height is 16.99 m (55.74 ft); a proposed variance of 2.99 m (9.80 ft).

• Required Yard Setback Variances for Underground Parking Structure o The required front yard setback is 7.5 m (24.6 ft). The proposed setback is 0.45 m

(1.5 ft), a proposed variance of 7.05 m (23.1 ft).

o The required side yard setback is 3 m (9.8 ft). The proposed southern property line side yard is 2.59 m (8.5 ft), a proposed variance of 0.41 m (1.36 ft).

o The required flanking street setback is 4 m (13.1 ft). The proposed setback is 2.3 m (7.5 ft), a proposed variance of 1.7 m (5.6 ft).

o The required rear yard setback is 10.5 m (34.45 ft). The proposed rear yard setback is 3.86 m (12.66 ft), a proposed variance of 6.64 m (21.78 ft).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development permit application was received from DYSarchitecture, on behalf of Jackley Wong and Gloria Thao Ngoc Bich Nguyen, to permit the construction of a 33 unit multi-family building.

Staff and the Design Advisory Panel (DAP) support the proposed development plan, including the proposed variance. Staff recommends that Council approve the development permit subject to lot consolidation being completed prior to the issuance of a building permit.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property, which was created through the recent purchase of three separate lots, has a total area of 2,428 m2 (26, 135.6 ff). Currently, the site is occupied by one older singlefamily dwelling and one dwelling, recently damaged by fire, which has been replaced with a new

/f(council 0 Cemmittee ............... . }a-open Meeting Cl In-Camera Meeting MNtiM fht~>· '2 o \\.-S£..P- I 7_

47

-Page 2-

bungalow. This new building will be used as a presentation venue for the multi-family development. When construction starts, this building will be moved off site.

Normally, lot consolidation is required before a development permit is forwarded to Council. In this case; however, lot consolidation will be a requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit, as financing cannot be finalized until a development permit has been issued.

Subject Property The subject property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R8).

According to Map 1 of the Official Community Plan (OCP), the subject property is designated Corridor, which supports multi-family and mixed-use development at densities of 50 to 150 units per hectare in two- to six-storey buildings along major arteries. According to Map 3 of the OCP, the subject property is within Development Permit Area No. 9 (Form and Character) and, as such, a development permit is required before a building permit can be issued.

Proposed Development The proposed development is a four-storey multi-family building with parking provided within an underground parking structure. The building is sited towards the Rosehill Street I Stewart Avenue Corridor to minimize the impact on views and create a wider side yard on the south side of the building. An existing eight-storey, mid-rise multi-family building stands to the east of the site between the subject property and Newcastle Channel. An existing four-storey multi-family building stands to the west of the subject property across Stewart Avenue.

The first floor fronting Stewart Avenue and Rosehill Street has a strong street presence with units having individual entrances at grade. The main entrance to the remainder of the building is emphasized by an arbour detail. The building massing is well articulated and every effort has been made to reduce the overall scale of the building through architectural detailing. The streetscape is well landscaped along the Stewart Avenue and the Rosehill Street edge. The concept landscape plan emphasizes the direct entry to the ground floor units.

The top of the parking structure podium is made accessible to the owners as open space with an extensive landscape plan, which includes a view point (glimpses of the harbour).

Required Variances

Required Building Height The maximum allowed building height is 14 m (46 ft). The proposed building height is 16.99 m (55.74 ft), a proposed variance of 2.99 m (9.8 ft).

The property has a significant slope of approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) from Stewart Avenue to the rear property line. The project architect has designed the building to work with the grade by incorporating the lower floor units on Rosehill Street and the parking structure into the slope; however, the substantial grade could not be totally mitigated so the applicant is proposing a height variance of 2.99 m (9.8 ft). Approximately half of the roof mass requires a variance of 2.99 m (9.8 ft), whereas the remaining half of the roof mass requires a lesser variance of

48

-Page 3-

1. 77 m (5.8 ft) above the allowed roof height. As previously noted, the building has been oriented on the site to minimize impact on views. The side yard setback for the building along the south edge of the property is significantly more than required in order to allow a view corridor for upland properties.

Required Yard Setback Variances for the Parking Structure

Required Front Yard Setback (Stewart Avenue- Provincial Highway) The required front yard setback is 7.5 m (24.6 ft). The proposed setback is 0.45 m (1.5 ft), a proposed variance of 7.05 m (23.1 ft).

Required Side Yard Setback The required side yard setback is 3m (9.8 ft). The proposed southern property line side yard is 2.59 m (8.5 ft), a proposed variance of 0.41 m (1.36 ft).

Required Flanking Street Setback The required flanking street setback is 4 m (13.1 ft). The proposed setback is 2.3 m (7.5 ft), a proposed variance of 1. 7 m (5.6 ft).

Required Rear Yard Setback The required rear yard setback is 10.5 m (34.45 ft). The proposed rear yard setback is 3.86 m (12.66 ft), a proposed variance of 6.64 m (21.78 ft).

The required setbacks are to the foundation of the underground parking structure. The building itself has setbacks of 4.57 m (15ft) from Stewart Avenue and 2.3 m (7.55 ft) along the flanking street (Rosehill Street). These setbacks give the building a good street presence for direct entry into the units and work well to animate the development from both streets. Although a rear yard variance is required for the underground parking structure, the building itself has a rear yard of 13.41 m (44ft) over top of the parking structure. As described previously, the rear yard over the parking structure is extensively landscaped and provides quality amenity space for the development. The south property edge has a generous setback of 7.69 m (25.5 ft), which concentrates the building massing on the northwest section of the site and provides for a view corridor.

Newcastle Neighbourhood Association The application was presented to the Newcastle Neighbourhood Association on 2010-JAN-10. The Association provided a letter of support for the proposed development.

DAP Recommendation DAP, at its meeting held on 2009-NOV-12, accepted DP632 as presented, supporting the requested variances, and made the following recommendations:

• enhance front main entrance; • consider a metal standing seam roof.

The applicant has reviewed DAP's recommendations and has upgraded the entrance with an arbour detail. The applicant has advised that they are not able to consider a metal standing seam roof as this project cannot afford this additional expense.

Staff concurs with DAP's support for the proposed development and recommends that Council issue the development permit.

49

-Page 4-

Respectfully Submitted,

0-~ 'iOV' · Manager, Current Planning Director of Planning

COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

GN/hd

COUNCIL: 2010-SEP-12 Prospero Attachment: DP000632

50

Development Permit No. DP000632 360/370/390 Stewart Avenue

Schedule A

Location Plan ~. __ ......._......._..........._...,

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP000632

LOCATION PLAN Civic: 360, 370 and 390 Stewart Avenue

Lot 30, 31 and 32, Block 4, Newcastle Townsite, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 584

51

~Subject ~ Property

CJ1 N

Development Permit No. DP000632 360/370/390 Stewart Avenue

Schedule B

Site Plan/Concept Landscape Plan

· . PtAN'l' UST 'TJPf ..... ~ 0~~V.TIHQ11;:1/l'dl.l ~T ..

''DmJIH kJrp.!w ~~

·O.-;.Tirt _. """"~ 'Chfr.t . ~ .. o;o~ . -'Lqi!NI __ ~~U.,:d/i . C=;C~~~!I.!t! r:!p:l -~~~~~ ~ llfd

...... w .&.uu_,;.n~.· . ~lbmoxl tl!"(

\Q ,...,_,_~ \lf'\1~ Ill!!!~ ;'h ll.lMIIia~IITft\ll.:ldll:l!riq~ !!!flip:(

:\nl r~.~ :~ Uto~~Jd ····tmGrm CCI"¢~~ .F..t.rRie:HI.u a~~nr.(

;Ot!Gm ~W.I:ill -~~ ·1~/:lll.fd ,01!1(1,.. ~~/Wh' Eod6oonb:<lli<•u' ~~~,.. .o.,~ ~~~m;~ l•h•;~rl~V.. 1~e-p:~

Lsi~ ~b'l•rhru'..U t-1 ,Q::

..... "" :r~u.t. :_bo.a.~ . ....... ...... ·J&:tm.~~.

'o~Sl=t.!:.

$a,c.. -" "'"'" ...

.. ~.\illll'll.~ ... ,

~ NORTH

0 5' 20' 'l.n . .n.. ·

.

' CO!.UMNARTI!EE PI"''"~'"

-lAAGE.SHRUB

MEDIUM .SHRUB

SMI>,tlSHRUD

CJ'1 w

A~o9!t':L1!1.fi.M' M.DIHS 1-f!illll

Schedule C

dy1archltecture

I., I 1- ··-----------

BOARDWALK """" ,_,, _ _._ASK 3.01 URBAN LUX 380 STEWART, NANAIMO SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS ::,-;.:;:;

c.n -'='"

Development Permit No. DP000632 Schedule D 360/370/390 Stewart Avenue

East (Rear) & North {Roseh\\\ Street) Building E\evations .. ,,.'

• _ _ __ . d c c- .---- ·:- ~ --------

b-""J ~~-' · H'J 1 . . I " . '"I ." ' . ' .. I · .. ·· · .. ..

I ·,i ' ! •··· •... · --- f"'- ·\ , -, c~:: -- - -- 1 -----~~::--!~:.< •

M

~

~

A

(';;:\

---·7 ·--dya;m;httecture

c.n c.n

----- -,-~ ~ S!WLCAA

"

I I

~~------------------------------------------- _"!!!£1'!<..."'.!!:9'~"'--------I I I I

I I I I I

-,__..r-------, I"" : i-------,_ --

(""""""'"""' r------., I I I ~-------., I I

.u_.J l21 ):.o ) :1q I I I I

~I=

1..-----

' & I.U----..1" I --I' -----,

' --" '" '

-

1 I I> I• l

--r-, I 1•"'\]:~i'ffi""JCL__§l ~

'BICYCLE o

I r :11rH~~+LLF~-,r= I ~ :11 ill ill ill

" ,.

"' "' I I I I I I I

111

1~: . +~ i !

I I I I

r-----J EXIT I~

"'

JL

PARKING --

I I I I

r---i : 41 "i ji" I"' ~---rl;'--..: '"

~- L-=---=---=l-1- -T-- -I--- r---

'

•• 8a dysarchitecture ,. 60~ 669 1110 f 250 753 355l!/ wWVt.dysar~hl!nclun~o~::t~m

1

THE BOARDWALK """'""' '"""'""'"''0 """'""'" A2 01 1~1>\JOI:(ll(l f\EWi>I,\\';':.\OU·fiECUCt:O\Jil\lS :•I ~10\Y ~011 r,um::REV!SIOIJS 04"111111 •

URBANLUX DEVELOPMENT Nanaimo PARKING LEVEL ;:~;;;~;··

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: A TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT


RE: DP705 - 340 BRUCE AVENUE

2011-SEP-01


That Council issue Development Permit No. DP705 at 340 Bruce Avenue for a watercourse setback variance of 5 m (16.4 ft).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development permit application was received from Jorgensen Osmond Ltd., on behalf of Siegfried Fredrich, to permit the construction of a single family dwelling in close proximity to the Cat Stream.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property is within the Single Dwelling Residential Zone (R1) and has a total lot area of 1,116 m2 (12,013ft\

According to Map 1 of the Official Community Plan (OCP), the subject property is designated Neighbourhood. According to Map 3 of the OCP, the subject property is within Development Permit Area No. 1 (Watercourse) and, as such, a development permit is required before a building permit can be issued.

Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to build a two-storey single family home on this site. The proposed building footprint is 119.3 m2 (1 ,284 ft\ or 10.7% lot coverage. The total square footage of the two-storey house is 217.4 m2 (2,340 fe).

The Cat Stream cuts across the lot to the north and continues to the north-east corner of the site. The siting for the building is constrained by the north-east setback from top of bank of the Cat Stream. If the required 15 m (49.2 ft) setback was not reduced to 10 m (32.8 ft), there would be no building site.

56

~Council ~ Cemmittee ... --··~ Open Meeting (J In-Camera MeetingS f. iMeetillg Date: 2Dil- ~ -.-l_ __

-Page 2-

The subject property is adjacent to a 25m (82 ft) length of riparian habitat on the Cat Stream. The proposed 10 m (32.8 ft) Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) overlaps the north-east half of the subject property. The Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) required a restrictive covenant be registered over the SPEA to protect its habitat. The only activity permitted in the SPEA will be the removal of the dangerous trees. The edge of the SPEA will be marked by temporary fencing during construction. After the construction, the edge of the SPEA will be marked with a permanent environmental fence.

The QEP will perform the following onsite environmental monitoring: • Initial site visit prior to development to confirm SPEA boundary has been flagged and

that the contractors are aware of the responsibilities. • The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) requires that a post development report be

prepared by a QEP to certify that the conditions set out in the assessment reports have been properly implemented.

The (SPEA) has been covenanted (Schedule C).

Bruce Avenue is a major collector and road dedication has been taken.

Required Variances

Watercourse Setback Variance The required aquatic setback from the Cat Stream is 15 m (49.2 ft). The Ministry of Environment has agreed to a 10m (32.8 ft) setback, a proposed variance of 5 m (16.4 ft)


n,~ ~ ' Manager, Current Planning Section

COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

GN/hd

COUNCIL: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera Attachment: DP000705

Director of Planning COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

57

335

345

355

371

SCHEDULE A

Third St

(/) :::r 0)

"0 :::r ([) -; a. )> < ([)

OJ """'C c n C'D )> <

B C'D

329

342

Foster St

354 355

1 364 365

374 375

350

360

370

358 r---__.n :::r co r-----1(/) rT

r-----JCD 365

:::!.. C1)

r-----im

375 )>

~ 385

380 384 Durham St

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP000705

LOCATION PLAN Civic: 340 Bruce Avenue

Lot 17, Block 1, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 14 76

58

~Subject ~ Property

Development Permit No. DP000705 340 Bruce Avenue

~ 1"""\0~::.n ... ;IUJr-\ ·1 1-'-1

SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS

TEL: 250 -·758-4631 FAX: 250-758 • 4560 NAliiAIMO-IIICTORIA-PARKSVIllE

Schedule 8

Site Plan

Rle: 87017 Civic: 340 Bruce Avenue, Nonoimo .. B.C.

Legal: Lot 17, Block 1. Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 1476.

Dimensions ore in m.etres end ore derived from Pion 1476.

This sketch does not constitute a redefinition of the lege! boundaries hereon described end is not to be used in any matter whi<:;h would assume some.

· This sketch plan has been prepared in accordance with the Manuel of Standard Practice and is certified correct this 14th dey of~ 2011.

c B.C.LS.

This document is not valid unless originally signed and sealed

10 Copyright 2011 J.E. Anderson & Associates. All rights reserved. No person may copy, reproduce, transmit or alter this document in whole or in port without the consent of the signatory.

The signatory accepts no responsibTiity or liability for any damages that may be suffered by a third porty N as 0 result of any decision made, or actions. taken bosed on this document. t Subject to charges, legal notations. end interests shown on: Title No. CA1517606 (P.I.D. 004-892-879)

Scale 1:250

0 2.5 5 10 15

Datum for elevations, in metres, is geodetic. HWM denotes High Water Mark TOB denotes Tap Of Bank

706#1 Bev.•47.9m

HVIM61 Elev.-45.4m \ \ \ \ \ H'!IM;f2 ~oV.•45.2m

', '-, HVM;I3

'--£_ev.•45.3m

..;-

~ 10.0m SE1BACK FROM HIGH WATER MARK

" ' ' ' '

20 25

F- denotes finished grade as per buTiding plans .E- denotes existing grade

Average existing grade= 48.49 Average finished grade = 48.80 Maximum peak of roof= 56.74 Max. driveway rise = 2.04 Mme. driveway drop = 1.85

19

36.58

Proposed garage slob = 49.60 Proposed main floor = 49.70 Proposed upper floor= 52.42 Proposed peck of roof= 56.67

w :::::> z w

..... , ', F- 48.50 E- 48.36

~ w () :::::> 0:: ro

I

)

I I

---t lIz IQ ~~ lo..;-1-"' d3ti 10

-lo I<( IO 10::: I I I

UilUTY POLE WITH TRANSFORMER

ro ' ' <'i ', "--,

--r--.,....,.--~ , ev.=47.7 4.48 ~~ ...... ~

F- 49.50 E- 49.30

~~ ............ i'" ;;,;;-"" ''< F- 48.00

:;,.. '-,E- 47.93 "" .....

PROPOSED HOUSE

..... '-.....( 18.13 '-... , 1 O.Om SETBACK FROM

/',~~HJWAiER MARK

8 ...... I ' .; TREE RO~ '\.

PROiECTJON , AREA

9_45 F- 48.50 ' ....., ___ ,...::::"'----:3""4,-,.0:-::5:-' E- 48.36

59

I ~

16

706#10 EJev.-47.1m

---------------------·--------------·- ----· ·--------------------------

w z <( -I

Development Permit No. DP000705 340 Bruce ;ll.venue

Schedule C

SPEA Covenanted Area

REFERENCE PLAN OF PART OF LOT 17, BLOCK 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1476, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN EPP14840. FOR COVENANT PURPOSES. Pursuant to Section 99(1)(e) of the Land Title Act. BCGS 92G.011

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

The intended plot size of this plan is 280mm in width by 216mm in height, 8 size, when plotted o\ a scale of 1:200.

LEGEND Grid bearings are derived from Plan EPP14840.

8 denotes Standard Iron Post found. 0 denotes Standard Iron Post placed.

Integrated Survey Area No. 20, Nonoimo, NADB3 (CSRS)

This plan shows horizontal ground-level distances, in metres, except where otherwise noted.

en 0

+ w ::J z w ~ w

~

2.500 7.639 90'

~ 0

0~ 0

""' -1

co [Q

""' .... &;.,~ w 0~ REM.

18

40'

() z ::J :5 a..

d

SECTION--'?

J.E. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES B.C. Land Surveyors - Consulting Engineers

Victoria - Nanaimo - Parksville, B.C. File: 87017

~ [Q

I I

90'

2.5oO 41'

26.777

16

BOOK OF REFERENCE AREA A 221.6m2 AREA B 24.4m2

This pion lies within \he Regional District of Nanaimo

24.795

AREA A

(0

"'"' """ ~

z :5 a..

PLAN EPP14841

52" I ~ 0

t w z 0 ::s

1;..

52" -5.987

The field survey represented by this plan wos completed by D.G. Wolloce, B.C.L.S., on the 25th doy of August, 2.011.

0) ......

U5/10/ID

OS/18/10

05/211/lD

OJ/O~f'D

11/l0/10

01/12/tl

_,.,.., ISSlJEIITC.1CU~TREV.tW/CONC(.ptuAI.

ISSUED TOR CU£HT lll V.£'11' / CotiCD>T114l l l ISSU[OTOf!DOoiJ«<OFYARII.NctSIJaiJJSSIOII

ISSUtO TOII PMl0711Difl'tlllllTPAIXESS

ISSU[It,OOCUlNTREY.Elr'/CONCV''Jt/AL il

R[ls:sv£0F~IlE\'£la'll[l\fPERIIITP!!OQSS

"'

Development Permit No. DP000705 340 Bruce Avenue

RIDGE~

ScheduleD

Building Elevations

-~-~P~~~n~-~~~---------SOUTH

•t~· - 1'-0'

Fredrich ResidenceO JORGENSEN/g~,. De, lgn I Mana~:emcnt I On1f1in~

llo~ ~93, 200-117 Wold 51. p.,,~ ov'llo, OC V!IP 2(06

,.(.loo->AI .. IJ$)1-lZif

·~~··· ·==-r~~i,~~~~

MATERIALS LEGEND

~ ASPHAIILT S~NGLES fDl 5• Al,UM. CUllrR ON ~ 2."t0 FINISHtD FIISCIA

w HORIZ. ~VlNYLSIOING

[EJ 4" ViNYL TRII.l

[[] l"a\0" MUD SILL

"''"' """"' C[W FLASHINC

[£] 5/6" COMPOSilE ClfiOOINO (PAINT ANISH)

@] 2"x4"RAILS C/W 2"xz•sPINOLE!i (PAINT flNISH)

PFtOPDS£0 FI!USHEO CRAD( EXIS11NG IIIINRAL GRADE

• 11117 FORMAT - 1/1 SCALE' SHDWII

<..;j""-,. QJ'.::ti.U

cs;~;~v

Fredrich Residence '-""-"' - .. ~~ ,~.. j··-" .• . .... P. ... Olhl/10 ~ '\"'•til ~ -·-'""'

~Jii1 D311 I A2/2 ~~~

~:~{

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP163- 971 DOUGLAS AVENUE

2011-AUG-24


That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP163 at 971 Douglas Avenue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Jeff Wagner, on behalf of Kuk & Cho Enterprises Ltd., to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "MOBILE HOME PARKS BYLAW 1984 NO. 2704" in order to remove the RV storage requirement and to legalize two mobile home lots in this space.

Council, at its regular meeting of 2011-AUG-08, directed Staff to proceed with the statutory notification process for DVP163 at 971 Douglas Avenue. The notification process is now complete and, as such, this application is returning for Council's consideration.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property (Schedule B) is zoned RM-8 Mobile Home Park Subdivision and has a total lot area of 4.05 hectares. The existing mobile home park has 74 mobile home lots.

Two mobile homes have been sited in the area originally set aside for RV storage. The RV storage area would have accommodated 20 RV spaces. As part of the development variance permit process, the applicant has surveyed the two lots and provided the necessary yard setback information to ensure the lots and siting conform to the Mobile Home Bylaw.

It is the applicant's opinion that this old bylaw does not reflect the needs of the current and future residents. The residents of Park Lane have traditionally not owned RV's and, at this time, there are only three RV's in the park, two of which are for sale.

62

~ooncil ~~m~:n9-·-·-a In-Camera Meeting Metmg Date: 2ou -~.ll

-Page 2-

The applicant has polled the Park Lane Mobile Home Park residents and has signed support from 30 residents ( 40% ).

Required Variances Mobile Home Park Bylaw, Division 12 - Storage, states: "For every five mobile home lots, one parking space shall be provided for the purpose of accommodating recreational vehicles".

The proposed variance is to remove the RV requirement to authorize the use of two mobile home lots.

Staff Recommendation Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council issue the development variance permit.


f'.@?~ 'W 1

Manager, Current Planning Director of Planning COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

GN/hd Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospero attachment: DVP00163 a ey, anager

Qmr:aubli"ty Safety & Development

63

;,)!

* 910

P2

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00163 971 Douglas Avenue

Schedule A

Location Plan

85t

PRC1

~ r------,1 (lj

940

RS1

Ninth St

982

Ninth St

D 0 0 0 DO

0 ooo~o 0

oo o o

·DEVELOPMENT VAFUANCE PERMIT NO. DVP001:63

LOCATION PLAN B] Subject Property Civic: 971 Dougtas Avenue

Sectlon 10 and 11, Range 12 of Section 1, Nanai·mo District, Plan 630

64

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00163 Schedule B 971 Douglas Avenue

Site Plan Showing Area Affected by Proposed Variance

23737

0')

c.n

3.0m LANDSCAPE AREA

:::I~

tiili.J <:·(0. "I< Q: 01

EXIST MOBILE..---+!,.l_ HOME (TYP)

,I SECrJON II -.--· ----·-· . ··--· ·---~ ----·----···-SECTION 19

8 STALLS

n "'\ \,·

I \....J: ... ; // -r ""' /6oom2

REr.REAT:GNAL AREA

SECTION 9 --------·7 . /.

35 36 S·

-CEDAR. RA'IL FENCE •MOWED LAWN -SOME' EXIST TREES AND FOLiAGE NEAR PROPERTY LINE

, FOR 20.0m LONG MOBILE HOMES PORTION OF 3.0m LANDSCAPED AREA TO BE tJSED AS BACKYARD

39 s

40 s

41 s

., ........ i

"'"'-·-~">.,.

o U D 0 0

}

'"' J<: I~

4-l "-.....,

\,, c:y ~-~-- Sfc .• '~N 12

- LEFT IN NATURA~ STATE WITH LARGE TREES' AND EXIST VEGETATION ~'/.-. ~

~

~

AVE.)

'~

'J\;\'fl I I I I I · • · . - "~e": \eJ "'I :1:~:::~ I I I I J -Jt 1 ! j-~(l.?i0.:. \)tA(IU'_V\~~CTION _u __ SECTION 10

I··----!«-~ --~-------------------. 138m

. nP L0!.? .... /..::.!1 .30m U\NDSCAPEO AREA . . r::::-.. ----:- ......... 1 .

<1 j

(/) 1 ,<( . 1-' ~ I _(.!)

. I '::> ;a

- CEDAR RAIL FENCING -MOWED LAWN • ASSORTED SHRUBBERY, INCLUC

~1 r0

~ · ··=----~~;1ST. EDGE ~--- -~ .... .... ~ ........ ~ .............

2011-AUG-26

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP166 - 2323 ARBOT ROAD


That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP166 at 2323 Arbot Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Anderson Greenplan Ltd., on behalf of Matterhorn Village Developments Inc., to vary the west and east side yard setbacks of the existing recreational vehicle (RV) park (Resort on the Lake). The applicant seeks the following variances:

• relaxation of the west side yard setback distance from 7.5 m (24.3 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) for permitted additions, decks and sheds; and

• relaxation of the east side yard setback distance from 7.5 m (24.6 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) for permitted additions and decks and to 4.5 (14.8 ft) for permitted sheds.

The existing 7.5 m (24.6 ft) setback applies to structures (additions, decks and sheds), but not to the RV's or park model trailers themselves, because they are considered mobile and do not require a building permit for siting. The required setback applies only to lots abutting the perimeter of the park and not to internal lots. The proposed reduced setback requirements for the RV park are consistent with the existing setback requirements for mobile home parks.

The RV tenants are required to bring their existing additions, decks and sheds into substantial compliance with the BC Building Code and City bylaw requirements as a condition of strata subdivision of the RV park. The proposed variances will allow the majority of the existing additions and decks to remain in their current location provided the tenants make any necessary upgrades to substantially comply with the Building Code. The proposed setbacks will require some sheds to be relocated (identified on Schedule B).

Council, at its regular meeting of 2011-AUG-08, directed Staff to proceed with the statutory notification process for DVP166 at 2323 Arbot Road. The notification process is now complete and, as such, this application is returning for Council's consideration.

66

);:(coo neil 0 Cemmittee ... -

_)i. Open Meeting D In-Camera Meeting ~

0 Meeting Date: <Xbl \.-S-u- '=G.---

-Page 2-

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property (Schedule A) is zoned RV-1 Recreational Vehicle Park and has 149 RV lots on site. The proposed site layout is noted on Schedule B.

The owner is currently undertaking a subdivision application to create a bare land strata to allow for ownership of individual RV lots. As part of the subdivision process, the required side yard setback of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) needs to be reduced to recognize the fact that historically RV lot boundaries were ill defined and as a result, there are a variety of setback encroachments.

On 2011-FEB-28 Council denied the issuance of a development variance permit at 2323 Arbot Road. The applicant requested a reduction of the side yard setbacks on the west side of the property from 7.5 m to 3m and on the east side yard from 7.5 m to 6 m for additions and decks and 4.5 m for permitted sheds. Council also expressed concerns about the configuration of the park dedication. The neighbourhood was concerned about the impacts of a proposed trail connection from Arbot Road through the subject property to the Westwood Lake Trail.

Since that meeting date, the applicant has defined the park dedication area (Schedule C) and removed the proposed trail from the plan of subdivision. The applicant has applied a standard 3 m side yard setback for the east and west property lines to remove confusion over the variance request. (Schedule B). '

Thirty-four of the 149 RV lots are impacted by the 7.5 m (24.6 ft) required yard setback (Schedule 8). Twenty-four of the 34 lots impacted by setbacks currently include additions, decks or sheds, which project into the 7.5 m (24.6 ft) setback (Schedules C- 1).

Required Variances The applicant is requesting that the east and west required yards be reduced to allow for the existing additions, decks and sheds to largely remain. The applicant's supporting rationale is included as Attachment A.

West Property Line The required side yard setback is 7.5 m (24.6 ft). The proposed side yard is 3 m (9.8 ft); a proposed variance of 4.5 m (14.8 ft).

East Property Line The required side yard setback is 7.5 m (24.6 ft). The proposed side yards are 3 m (9.8 ft); a proposed variance of 4.5 m (14.8 ft).

The proposed variances will accommodate the vast majority of existing additions and decks and will allow for the relocation and reasonable siting of sheds. The setback area includes a 1.8 m (5.9 ft) landscape buffer.

The requested variances have limited impact on the abutting properties due to a large hedge that runs down both the east and west property lines within the landscape buffer area. The proposed setbacks generally reflect the existing condition.

Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council issue the development variance permit.

67

-Page 3-


(\ -~ 'itrif · Manager, Current Planning

~=-----, Director of Planning


GN/hd Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera attachment: DVP00166

68

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00166 2323 Arbot Road

PRC2

Westwood lake

$cheduleA

Location Plan

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. DVP00166

LOCATION PLAN Civic: 2323 Arbot Road

Lot c, Section10, Range 6, Moun:tatn District, Plan 2977, Except that Part vn Plan 146 RW

69

Leighton

Subject Property

Figure 1

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00166 2323 Arbot Road

Schedule B

Site Plan

. -------- .._. . ...- -· . ._ --·~

Arbot Road

Clubhouse 151

70

Site Plan

Existin setback line

LEGEND

RESORT POOPOOY Ul£

!rnW7o LOT UHE

------ Mm SEllWlK SIJlll£( Tl>AUR

st/R'.E'liD IOOIIlOH

SIJR'.E\'EI)SI-!El)

()R1;IW. RV PIO or REVISED \'b ~ENT

ORQoW.. SHEO/JOOfll)N or REVISE!) '~irS' l!ii£ASUREUENT

SERVIC£ 10051(

14 CIJRRSHT LOT NUII9EI!

St. f!i PROPOSa) S't'RJilA lDT ~

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanalmo, BC, V9X 11.4 (250) 722-3456 [email protected]

July 25, 2011

ATTACHMENT A

ANDERSON GREENPtAN

RLANN!NG,DESfGN,&· PROJECTDEVELOPNENT

Mayor and Council January 27, 2011 City of Nanaimo

Re: Development Variance Permit Application Resort on the Lake

2323 Arbot Road, Nanaimo, BC

Dear Mayor and Council;

Please accept the attached documents and the accompanying rationale below as justification for a variance on the above noted property. This request in intended to resolve outstanding issues related to the provisions of zoning designation RV-1 {Recreational Vehicle Park Zone) within City of Nanaimo Bylaw 4000, specifically as it relates to property setbacks for the overall property and to the perimeter located individual recreational vehicle lots.

Background

The circumstances of this variance request are relatively complex to which I provide the following background information and reference site plan, (figure 1 attached). Within the subject property there are 149 Recreational Vehicle lots that are under separate application to become Strata Lots. The setbacks for structures within the RV lot boundaries are a 0 setback pursuant to clause 7.13.6.3. Setback to the perimeter of the property is 7.5 m to all property boundaries pursuant to clause 7.13.6.1. The rear lot line of the perimeter located recreational lots are 3m from the east property boundary and 2.5 meters from the west property boundary and thus overlap and extend into the 7.5 m exterior setbacks requirements which means the setback challenge and bylaw infractions only apply to the perimeter lots. The owners of the trailers in the individual recreational lots have utilized the full area of their limited recreational lots and their park model trailers extend into the 7.5m setback by necessity however these are not considered Bylaw violations as the trailers are classified as temporary structures due to their mobility status and thus are exempt of meeting the perimeter setback requirements. The challenge is that the additions to these same trailers as permitted under 7.13.2.5 and 7.13.2.6 {decks and enclosed spaces respectfully) are not classified as temporary from a building code interpretation perspective and must meet the perimeter setbacks. As the additions tie directly to where exit doors exist on the trailers it is extremely challenging to site the allowed additions so as not to be located in the perimeter setback of 7.5m A further complication is that the Bylaw permits a small accessory building of 4.5 sq m (48 sq ft) which is also classified as a structure and must meet the 7.5m setback. As most trailer owners welcome putting their small accessory building to the rear of the trailer on their RV lot and not taking up parking or permitted deck space, this too has created numerous bylaw setback violations. An additional concern is that as a function of the Strata application, a park dedication for trail access from Arbot Road to Westwood Lake Park is planned along the east property boundary necessitating greater setback distances on this boundary. It should also be noted that the City is holding in pending, awaiting resolution of this setback variance request, 12 Building Permit applications as prepared by Greenplan for individual trailer additions that are seeking to legalize their structures to meet Building Code and zoning Bylaw provisions.

Discussions with City Planning Department and Building Inspection staff have resulted in an effort to resolve the setback challenge by way of a DVP application. Thus we seek the following variances:

1. Relaxation of the west side yard setback distance from 7.5m to 3.0m for permitted additions, decks and sheds.

2. Relaxation of the east side yard setback distance of 7.5m to 6.0 m for permitted additions and decks and to 4.5m for permitted sheds,

71

To assist Council and staff to understand the circumstances of this unique situation I have attached several illustrations and a number of photographs for reference throughout the following text. The photos are organized per page in common themes however are randomly noted within the following discussion.

Rationale for Variances

1. West side yard setback relaxation for permitted additions, decks and sheds

Resort on the Lake offers a unique living arrangement for distinct demographic within our community where they are living in much higher densities for financial or other reasons, (see figure 1 and photo 7). The average RV lot is 10m x 20m or about 2150 square feet, (figure 2 and photo 12). Their whole RV lot likely has less area than most average homes in this city and the uses within this footprint must include their home, outdoor recreation area, storage and parking for their vehicle(s) and/or visitors. The park model trailers or equivalent are located to the rear of their RV lot in order to provide the necessary parking area off the fronting street, (see photos 8 & 9). Generally each of these trailers has 2 doors, on the same side where one is located near the front serving as front door to the home and the second one is located to the rear, and offers among other things, safe access from rear bedrooms in the case of a fire, (photo 10). In most cases these rear doors are within the 7.5m side yard setback to the subject property and thus any addition that links to this rear door is by definition a bylaw infraction under the current setback. Figure 2, a typical set of several adjacent homes within their RV lots, illustrate that any addition (which by code is structurally freestanding) is best at a 12' maximum width to allow reasonable circulation within the RV lot and has the front face of the permitted addition not extending beyond that of the front of the trailer, (photos 8 & 18). Figure 2 also illustrates the extent of bylaw infraction this setback has created within these limited footprint RV lots, (hatched areas). Homeowners welcome the additional square footage of covered deck & enclosed space to expand their living area and thus to maximize the allowed 350 sq ft it means their 29 feet of length, (350 sq ft divided by typical 12' width) extends the allowed footprint area significantly into the 7.5m setback distance. A relaxation from 7.5m to 3.0m will allow the trailer owners to legally take advantage of the additional living space provisions of the bylaw and ensure both doors to the trailers have safe exiting decks and stairways to grade. Figures 2, 3 and 4 also illustrate the sheds that extend into the 3m setback that will be moved to a min 3m from the property boundary to confirm to the requested 3m setback line.

2. East side yard setback relaxation for additions decks and sheds.

The east property line, unlike the west side, has the additional concern of providing setback space to an intended park walkway as a function of the Strata application and thus the rationale above applies for this side with the proviso that the distance requested is greater to ensure no crowding of the trail. The park dedication will be 3m wide and thus we have added this 3m distance to the setback request equivalent to the west side making the setback to the perimeter lot line 6.0m for additions and decks. The City has precedent to support relaxed setbacks for small sheds as Section 5.5.6 of the General Regulations of Bylaw 4000 permit sheds of less than 1Om2 and less than 3m in height to be 1.5m from a rear lot line. It would thus seem reasonable to support these even smaller sheds (4.5 m2) as limited by the bylaw to up to the 1.5m from the new park boundary and thus 4.5 m from the east side property lines. Figure 5, 6, 7· and 8 illustrates the east perimeter RV lots and hatched lines again illustrate those sheds that will require relocation to meet this requested 4.5m setback. It is also noted that any negative implications on the neighbouring properties east, west or north of the Resort on the Lake are insignificant due to the existing extensive vegetative hedge buffer around the property, (see photos 1 to 6 and 1 0 & 11 ).

72

/ \

In summary, all stakeholders at Resort on the Lake welcome the support of Council to allow the requested variances in the interests of providing reasonable opportunity for the development of the perimeter RV lots. This will also allow the Building Inspection Department to formally release Building Permits for a number of RV Lot owners that are prepared to upgrade and make changes to their home additions to comply with current Building Code standards for health and safety and to resolve Bylaw infractions. This will also determine appropriate standards for all setbacks within the resort such that all Bylaw infractions throughout the Resort can be clearly identified and park administrators can advise owners of their need to make adjustments, (move sheds, etc) so that everything is in conformance to City Bylaws. A date to resolve these infractions can be set as a condition of the concurrent Strata Lot application.

I trust staff and Council find this application to be both comprehensive and clear and that if anyone has any questions regarding the specifics of this Development Variance Permit application that they will contact me for further clarification.

. \\ Respectfully submitted

.\.·-,, Jack Anderso·n

' ' \ t }"--L .. /\.. . ./'·· ·-·· .

. \t'\....... {

~-Anderson Greenplan Ltd. 1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1 L4 250 722-3456 www.greenplan .ca

73

Figure 2

West

3 m. re uested 1

setback line for additions, decks and sheds

Shed to be relocated ----;......_ ·

Non-conforming structures that --+--1 would be legalized with 3m. setback variance approval

Existin 7.5 m. setback lme

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1 L4 (250) 722-3456 [email protected]

Figure 3

West p.l. =:............_

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanalmo, BC, V9X 1 L4 (250) 722-3456 [email protected]

25,2011

75

Figure 4

West

Sheds to be relocated --~

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1 L4 {250) 722-3456 [email protected]

J 25, 2011

Addition to be relocated

Figure 5

East .1.

SL 81 uested ~~----~--~~

se ac 1ne for

I 9j I 7 I

I I :.1 I . I I

77

additions, decks and sheds

Shed to be relocated

m.

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1 L4

(250} 722-3456 [email protected]

78

3 m . re uested se ac me for additions, decks and sheds


Figure 6

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1 L4


25, 2011

79

Figure 7


East .1.

3 m. re uested setback line for additions, decks and sheds

Existin 7.5 m. setback line

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1l4

(250) 722-3456 [email protected]

July 25, 2011

50

80

Figure 8

East .I.

3 m. re uested setback line. for additions, decks and sheds

m.

Anderson Greenplan

1655 Cedar Road Nanaimo, BC, V9X 1L4


July 25, 2011

(X) ..... a •'C 0 0::

g 0:: ·~

Development Van"ance Permit No. DVP00166 2323 Arbot Road

Schedule C

Proposed Park Dedication i;~.,_lii_A.RY TAIJI..L

"111,:;>11<i

~itJw.n ...... "': .. _ .. _:-':'". ---:;----------------------------------------..J -~~-........ ,._;.,,;llft1 AW~W..f ... - ... ,~.l>t\ .J:~ w.(ll!J~-..11-0nt

I.WitffiWTtC:·fiC!ij}J!i\.'t!i' Ml'f~·-··""''"''·j,Qrn N;l"tW.t.,,.,,,~,\,~m {:!.-lw.'<l,r.i .. ,\j],l)m·

H ('.IJ. .1 f;l·t. f. N

l>(:)lQJt'S•J:~fflt:!\1: fiAitC~'L

Dtngn:s·oE.lJC.llt:tfJJAA.I(

. otmtt; .AIIl)llriii!EJ,

''i( .l jf~. 4 ~ "Q.t'1

il9iOJ~ .(';(. ·~f'S~T.

· t:-5:ltOlts:nt1~ll'IO. "W"'.L .

j~ :~::·[i~ j£~1:~-: jj]~~- ~1:]-i~:;_ ±~t:~~~- .Ji.t~::·~~.'. -~.;:...- ..... 1 J!.a u·. Jl,v.· •. ·'!.l ·m ·n! Jl,. -•t ·:;~1· tl0''1 tt<)· ·Itt -~~ .m .. -.~ii"~---~··.".lli'~ 'li7'; :);)'- ~--$t[1:;~··· ~-~J~ ..... :·.~t"i'." "';;- ~~t _".f'l'i"l"';?t~ ... ~.;~.-- "'~·:/:q;;·l2;'t :I~: :1:~(; ::~[~ -~·~~ :.EJ)iC ·.ICI:I~ J.'t[.~-~_: JE;.~~'§.: :P:~~:.:1~: .'";w·. ~';,;r·

~-u-. -{fi·· ~~~~~~-· ~-~-+~;}- -::_. --~-·- -!~·-r~ .. -~~;-.. r·~iii~ ··*"!· .. ~.,.. -:j> ··- ···'iit'· .... ii':+··'ilt' --~·T··;;;,~ .. ~-~t~ 1 -·Ni" .... Hrt~m- 'iitr~,.,- ·u;·: :~··

pr;,.. no1.0 lliotlo1:51rio·b .. n tllmln•IO<J, lh>ltlllfOth•,. .,. 141i'lolaln lotOI.Jor Uot pro)lol.

PARK DEDICATION

~:OTES;

l1 ~t·I.W-' M'CAIW..'QO/J toultl(;!): fi!CU Ul5nt.IO u.~sMiS·

~~;;m~.,if~~G tW'"·f~ll\1;1(l).CO<iLli(Q!\'i;.9!;·;~--~

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP176- 325 HECATE STREET


2011-AUG-26

That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP176 at 325 Hecate Street.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Oak Tree Manor Ltd. Inc. No. BC0761960 to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "DEVELOPMENT PARKING REGULATIONS BYLAW NO. 7013" in order to permit a reduction in the parking requirement for multi-family dwellings within Area 1 of the Downtown Off-Street Parking Area.

The subject property is included within the Old City Medium Density Multiple Family Residential Zone (RM-1 0) and was developed as a seniors care facility which requires a parking ratio of 0.3 parking spaces for every dwelling unit. The building, completed in 2009, has a total of 66 dwelling units for which 21 parking spaces are provided within a below-grade parking garage on site, as shown on Schedule B. Due to market conditions subsequent to completion of the project, the building has been operating at a plus/minus 30% capacity. As a strategy to occupy the building, and make the project more economically viable, the applicant would like to allocate 20 of the 66 units for multi-family to allow for student housing. Multi-family dwellings within Area 1 require a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Of the 20 dwelling units currently occupied by seniors, only two of the 21 parking spaces provided are being used.

Council, at its regular meeting of 2011-AUG-08, directed Staff to proceed with the statutory notification process for DVP176 at 325 Hecate Street. The notification process is now complete and, as such, this application is returning for Council's consideration.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The property is located on Nob Hill and was as constructed a senior's care facility in 2009 in accordance with Development Permit No. DP530. The neighbourhood has been undergoing a number of improvements over the past several years and there is a vibrant mix of single and multiple family dwellings which elegantly wrap around a well used community park. The property affords expansive views of the downtown and harbour and is close to all downtown

1{coondl a Cemmittee , _.. if Open Meeting

.__, .,

82 / Q ln.{amera Meeting

MteOOg Date:LP l l-Si£-\~

-Page 2-

amenities and transportation networks. The site is adjacent to §;tairs that lead from Hecate Street to Cavan Street and the bottom landing is equidistant to major bus routes on Victoria Road and Albert Street, the latter of which connects the site to the Vancouver Island University via the Fairview Bus route.

Proposed Development Of the 66 seniors' dwelling units within the building, only 20 are currently occupied and very few of these existing tenants own cars. Of the 21 spaces available, only two spaces are being used actively by residents. The applicant wishes to allocate 20 of the 46 vacant dwelling units to student housing with the intent to focus marketing to academic International students, most of whom don't own cars or possess BC drivers licenses. The "DEVELOPMENT PARKING REGULATIONS BYLAW NO. 7013" requires 0.3 parking spaces for every unit allocated for seniors and 0.5 parking spaces for every multi-family dwelling unit with one or fewer bedrooms. As such, the total parking required for the site to operate with this mixed ratio is 23. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2 parking spaces for the site.

Staff Comments The proposed intergenerational and culturally diverse building will be a unique addition to Nanaimo. The units allocated for student housing are distributed throughout the building rather than on a single floor as an effort to create interactional space within the building. This intergenerational mix can create a cohesive community whereby each group has the opportunity to contribute knowledge, communication skills, and shared experiences in a quiet environment conducive to study and cultural exchange. The building has a dining hall which will function as a common space and students will have the opportunity to be involved in the downtown community as the building is in close proximity to all major amenities.

Required Variances The applicant is requesting a reduction in the parking required for a mixed ratio building of 46 seniors dwelling units and 20 multi-family dwellings within Area 1 of the City of Nanaimo "DEVELOPMENT PARKING REGULATIONS BYLAW NO. 7013" from 23 parking spaces to 21 parking spaces. This represents a parking variance of two spaces.

Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council issue the development variance permit.


~-= (!~~~ ~- Manager, Current Planning

~ A. Tucker Director of Planning

COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAF TY & DEVELOPMENT

DP/hd Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospero attachment: DVP00176

83

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00176 325 Hecate Street

Schedule A

Location Plan


LOCATION PLAN B Subject Property

Civic: 325 Hecate Street

84

IMTERIOR WALL TYPES

0 . {~?.:~~~~g~:;;!·~::: ... 0 :•n::::i'!;: .. ":.~·:) .•• 1P@j!~

0 ~:~-~:~~~:·~;~;.~:.:': " ''"$''""

<> ~~~l::t01~{A1~~~ ~~~~~-~ ~"

-0 :~~:i~;-~:~~:1.): .:~{ .. :.·~~-ssr~·.,_··.; "I ·~

0 ~;~~l~f:;~;:·{~;:.[;iJi(~~~:~~ ,",",!/ll'l, ......

(> ~~l~f-~~:rmttllclti

0 f~;~~1;,xg;~~0··:::: iJ!,,".~'r",' ·," }"

0 ~~~:,;.~~;·~;;;:~,F;.·;~~ ~~ v·

0 g;:,;!;:~~;~. 17' ,":'"1~:., .• "'

0 : .. ,·.~·.r :,r,·.~~=-"~·'!·r;; i;iAt:} ~~{t;\.2i1:~-#~~

i? 1:~~:f.::1~t1~~',,'r:' 0 )':l: •. ;~:~~~~~I I' >t'

<&> ;:t ;~::;'·'=~· •'•(• 0 ;~~. ~ii~:.::~~~~ : ~

ElcrERIOR WALL1YPES·

j.·0 :·tr-:·:u;;\:(.'·:::~::;:'::';:~· I•

;,.· • I '· ~ ''"''

-·" <I A

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00176 325 Hecate Street

1.t6o•;_g•

~I I~ -~-

~

LAA\1&

,J'\ !§}

Schedule B

Below Grade Plan

(};)

I~ rlH·~

lk--l-1.·· ...

~ 1~ I

PAbf'ERTYLlNE

®

I~J ill

~ j

Qj NORTH

-~ Jj~!l : 4 B'-3fi!'

I <.8 ~ ·~

j .I ~ , '"" .,, ~ . . ~- ~

~1.. --

IB,

4;} - I ~ .,_ '- -EJ- 0--- -b

11'·0' 17'··0' 2~'~6'

·"'"M""'" r;;-, )... r· ~ ·~.· ~ .. :'ift uEAtoFon. 1 ~-0 ___ _!':_0~~~~~-~~-

- ~ {~:521 ~11=

COLUMN'TYPES

\) i~~"t,..c'~'i::"t : ;~;f~- ·-'"'" lo ~-:- , ~·.~.:~;:-},•,):.,::~· ~:';.:"! 1~ VI •I

~-.·.·I 'II"AI "'.f)\ •:: ..

0 f,;-,•~lS;/k~,~~t•· @ OMSEMENTIP!>.RKING r:;;J

~-. DOC ......... ,.. ,. ,;,.,.... .... ., .. NANAIMonlsrRicr L_""'sASE

ROBERT B. OYLE .. '"""'"""' .. ' '" '' . . . . ' . OAK TREE """' "'""'' l""' 'I I . " "' MANOR HOUSING . ffi\ ""*·'"'"' . .. · DEVELOPMENTSOCIETY · "''" . • •JIIH;.I\:, ~'" ·1\G·, ,._ •. ,,.. .

•''" "'' .,.. JAN 12 _,. 2611 ~~~~I~ I til rEr:r.1 ~ :~:~ ~~:::; ,:::~~:~; . · ·

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP177 - 4750 RUTHERFORD ROAD


2011-AUG-31

That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP177 at 4750 Rutherford Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Shape Properties (Nanaimo) Corp., on behalf of 1854 Holdings Ltd., to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850" in order to increase the maximum allowable number of free-standing signs permitted per site from three (3) to four (4) and to allow two (2) signs on the Oliver Road frontage at Nanaimo North Town Centre.

Notification must take place prior to Council's consideration of the approval of the variance. Staff supports the variance and recommends Council direct Staff to proceed with notification.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property is the Nanaimo North Town Centre, located at 4750 Rutherford Road (Schedule A). The Nanaimo North Town Centre has undergone major exterior and interior renovations including the construction of London Drugs, Best Buy, Fairway Market and a development permit application recently received for further expansion.

Currently, there are three (3) existing free-standing signs on site. The existing free-standing sign on the Island Highway at Oliver Road is located entirely on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) right-of-way. MOTI is aware that the sign is on their right-of-way and have advised the applicant that if the sign is ever required to be removed, it will be entirely at the applicant's expense. At the time this sign was installed by the previous property owner, the owner was advised the sign was not sited on their property and MOTI may require the sign to be moved.

Proposed Development The applicant proposes to install a double-sided freestanding sign (Schedule B) at the south corner of Oliver Road and Uplands Drive (Schedule C) to include tenant signage. The overall height of the sign is 7.8 m (25.5 ft) and area is 13.51 m2 (145.42 tt\ which are both less than the maximum allowable height of 13.7 m (45ft) and maximum area of 30m2 (323 fe) allowed for

)31oono1 a Committee. __

8 6 ~Open Meeting [J In-Camera Meeting MMiM nAtP" Qo \\ -~.P J..J

-Page 2-

a shopping centre having a gross floor area exceeding 2,000 m2 (21 ,500 ff) within "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850".

Applicants Rationale The applicant states that the requested variance to allow additional signage is deemed necessary as the Nanaimo North Town Centre has significant grade change across the 60 acre site which results in two main but "disconnected" frontages. It is their position that an additional free-standing pylon sign at this location would:

• provide a more connected entrance for customers travelling along Uplands Drive; • promote the ongoing revitalization of the mall for the tenants and customers; and • not appear "out of place" as there is currently no pylon signage along this frontage.

The applicant has also stated that this entrance will function as the second largest entrance and no sign currently exists there to direct public traffic into Nanaimo North Town Centre as prior to the mall expansion this entrance was underutilized.

Required Variances Section (5) (B) (i) of "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850" states, "Not more than one free-standing sign shall be permitted adjacent to each highway frontage of a site, and in no case shall more than three free-standing signs be permitted per site or shopping centre. Each sign shall be located adjacent to the allowing highway frontage".

The requested variance would increase the maximum allowable number of free-standing signs from three (3) to four (4) and increase the number of allowable signs on the Oliver Road frontage from one (1) to two (2).

Please note that the applicant previously applied to Council with a Development Variance Permit for an additional freestanding sign of the same size and in the same location. At their meeting held 2008-JUN-09 Council approved the application. The sign was never constructed and the permit has expired. As such, this new application is required in order to permit the sign to be constructed.

Staff Comment Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council consider this application.


~ /l'"w~ ~ ~ - Manager, Current Planning

~------~ Director of Planning


DP/hd Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera attachment: DVP00177

87

R8

R1

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00177 4750 Rutherford Road

Schedule A

Location Plan


LOCATION PLAN - Subject Property

Civic: 4750 Rutherford Road Lot A of Section 14, and District Lots 14 and 17 and

Section 4, Range 4, Wellington District, Plan VIP66202

88


12'·2" 9'..4.v

3'-3"

Schedule B

Sign Elevations & Data

&"decorative "I" b1~~- --- _ _._. ,. -: •n- Ornamental roof Ia support roof I I ,_,. _

t. KNIGHT SIGNS. ,\l•ioN,.,"JI\I"Ji'llr••f;•.,,,rl•··

)4Uf10pt>IWI1, Oo\U,JC,V~~ \U

Ul<.o.l IO~·UU•UII Tod lt .. U1·1U•CIU

Th\1 Qf\JIIu.l "rawln( b U.. prop•t'Y or K:ll'hl JIJIII In~. I"Oiill\onol,•tlll<!lr<~OrnpJ

•ndlo,..,l..,hroprod~<o~orln&nulo<\Uro~lnl'<toolo•fln

plliWIIhoUt Wllil•n ••rmbllon ol KniJhl 111"' lo~. CopiTIIN:Q:UliO

TENANT

Scole:l/4 Seconadary Pylon The design shown Is to incorporate matcrla/5 and new look of Nanaimo Commons entrance

Colours of pylon should reflecl tho materials used and nnd to be supplied by contractor or cudomer b11fore going to produdion.

14"

12"

~ '~ TENANT lllillllllll olcr~li~ i,-•• ~1 ,;;;;r llillllllll Ill S H A P E

TENANT

TENANT

TENANT

TENANT

l&l l.i:=l

121.0u

Ti'NANT

TENANT

1 otal Gopy Area: 14o.4L s.r.

3'-2" X 6'-10" illuminaled plaslicwilhf3}1unanl panels

Project Name: ~rt Department Revisions NANAIMO NORTH 4750 Rutherford St. NAnaimo BC

Account M•n•a•r: Kerrie Stafford/ Tory Webb

Date: Jan 05, 2007 I Sc•l•: 1/4"=1'·0"

Client's Approval Date

~'.()"

I I

lnot finalized until confirmeJ by survey, ):lermlts and shop drawings

·P.R 0 'P·E;R.:T IE S~ .-, ,f

ALUMINUM PLAQUE FOR EACH SIDE OF ENTRANCE PYLONS

6" X B" X 3/~" WITH 1/4" RAISED COPY AND LOGO

PAINTED GRAPHICS AS SHOWN WILL SIT ON FLAT SURFACE CONCRETE

Colours shown are strictly representational

Q.uote Number: 1611-06-06-RUTDGREVS

Job Number: * Drowing Number: DWG • 1

Account Manager Approval Date

-----

Siin Number: .

1 s.1

Quantity 1

CT.I 00

Ill


....,

Schedule C

Proposed Sign Location

SRW Plan JQJD4

ISLAND HIGHWAY ====:!

0 en

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP178- 4750 RUTHERFORD ROAD

2011-SEP-02


That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP178 at 4750 Rutherford Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Shape Properties (Nanaimo) Corp., on behalf of 1854 Holdings Ltd., to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850" to permit an increased sign area on the existing pylon sign.

The subject property is the Nanaimo North Town Centre. The mall has been undergoing a number of improvements over the past few years, the most recent being the addition of Fairway Market and Target and there is an active permit application for a Tim Horton's in an individual pad building to be located on site. The increased development and number of anchor tenants has led the developer to request an increase to existing signage to accommodate the expansion.

The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum size of a freestanding sign from the current 36.37 m2 (391.5 ff) to 39.29 m2 (423ft\


BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property, currently the location of the Nanaimo North Town Centre, has been undergoing significant development over the past few years with significant additions to the building to accommodate new anchor tenants. The property currently fronts on four roads and is separated from the Island Highway frontage by a wetland and steep slope feature that acts as a green buffer between the mall and highway. Along this corridor, the mall currently has a main freestanding sign at the corner of Island Highway North and Mostar Road and another freestanding sign on the corner of Island Highway North and Oliver Road (Schedule B). This latter sign has been constructed entirely on Highway right-of-way. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) is aware of the location of the sign and have advised that the property owner will have to remove the sign if it conflicts with future development of the right-of-way. ;S{ooncil

0 Cernmittee ............... . 91 s.Dpen Meeting

[J In-Camera Meeting &4 ... .......:--r'\_ ... _ ~-'' L"l""l"'l _ _..,

-Page 2-

There is an agreement in place to remove the sign in the event the Ministry requires changes to the dedicated road area.

Proposed Development The sign currently located at the corner of Island Highway North and Oliver Road, has a total sign area of 36.37 m2 (391.5 ft\ With the expansion to the mall and increase in number of anchor tenants the applicant wishes to add two panel sections to the bottom of the existing sign (Schedule C) thereby increasing the total sign area to 39.29 m2 (423 ff). The maximum size permitted for a freestanding sign is 30 m2 (323 ft\ The height and width of the existing sign is to remain as it is. The additional two panels are the same dimensions as the upper panels and will be added below.

Required Variances The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum size of an existing freestanding sign from 36.37 m2 (391.5 ff) to 39.29 m2 (423 ff). This represents a total freestanding sign variance of 2.92 m2 (31.5 ft\

Staff Comment The overall impact of the proposed sign is not considered significant and it is not anticipated that the scale of the sign will cause traffic issues nor add to the visual pollution of the Island Highway North corridor.

Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council consider this application.


$(2_} ~ ·, B. Corsan

Manager, Current Planning A. Tucker Director of Planning


DP/hd/pm Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera attachment: DVP00178

92

R1

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00178 4750 Rutherfo ad

Schedule A

_ocation Plan

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. DVP00178 LOCATION PLAN ~ Subject

~Property Civic: 4750 Rutherford Road

Lot A of Section 14, and District Lots 14 and 17 and Section 4, Range 4, Wellington District, Plan VIP66202

93

---------- I Development Variance Permit No. DVP00178 Schedule B 4750 Rutherford Road

Site Plan

ISLAND HIGHWAY •

SHAPE PROPERTieS\

'~ ~_,__._._. _____ ·~----------------·-----------~

<'·"··~· "' ' ..... ,. •.. '·'"''"'"' ... ''"'' '""

ed ,, .,

i ;1

,, .~ ..

:;

10'] \1

TENANT TENANT SCALE 3/16",1'·0~

Proposed addition to existing sign

Current total copy area: 391.50 s.f. Total copy area with proposed addition: 423 s.f.


Schedule C

Proposed Sign

~

'~ SHAPE

PROPERTIES~

1.0 m

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP179- 400 DUKE POINT HIGHWAY

2011-SEP-02


That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP179 at 400 Duke Point Highway.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from stantec Architecture, on behalf of BC Transportation Financing Authority, to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850" in order to permit an LED sign.

The subject property is the BC Ferry terminal located at the terminus of the Duke Point Highway. The applicant is proposing a LED sign on the site to provide information and has proposed three different options. Of the three options presented, Option 1 is recommended. This would require a variance to permit an LED sign with a total sign area of 28.8 m2

•

With the exception of size, the application is consistent with Council's "Guidelines/Operational Requirements to be Considered as part of the Development Variance Permit Application Process" when evaluating LED sign variances.


BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The site has been operating as a BC Ferry terminal for several years. The long and narrow property has a total length of over 900 m and an average width of 140 m. It is flanked on the west side by Jack Point Park which extends to the northern most extent of the peninsula. The site poses some challenges to communicating information to cars waiting in the holding area. The site has a large linear holding area 280 m in length for cars awaiting sailings. To date, BC Ferry Corporation has been relying on public announcement systems to communicate information, but this is a problematic system for patrons waiting inside cars and for those with hearing impairments. This method of communication is also subject to weather conditions as ocean noise and direction of wind can affect sound waves. 'PJI

~Council [J Cemmittee ... -.-~ B Open Meeting

9 6 , [J In-Camera Meeting Metmg Date: -;{Di\ -Sf£- \j4_

-Page 2-

Comprehensive Analysis The applicant has performed a comprehensive analysis of the site which is provided as Schedule E to this report. The analysis illustrates the three options to mitigate the above noted problems of the site. In each scenario, site lines were carefully considered from all locations and elevations onsite to try to eliminate the possibility for dead zones. Visual acuity from specified distances is a major factor in the placement of the signs.

In the first, and in Staff's opinion the most appropriate, option (Schedule B), the applicant is proposing, just south of the terminal building, a freestanding sign structure that will have a total height of 13.6 m. The LED sign portion of this sign is proposed to have an area of 28.8 m2

.

While this is a large sign, it is designed to be visible from as far as 300 m away, which is the furthest distance to the end of the last parking aisle. The height of the sign ensures that it is visible from all places in the parking compound and above vehicles of varying height.

In the second option (Schedule C), the applicant considered two LED signs, each having a sign area of 9 m2

. One of the signs would be placed at the north end of the parking compound and the second sign would be to the right and nearer the middle portion of the compound to be more visible to travelers in the rear of the lot. Again, sight lines were considered from all possible locations, but it was determined that the sign in the middle is less esthetically pleasing given that it interrupts the view corridor and natural beauty of the North Shore mountains, Gabriela Island and views into Northumberland Strait.

The third option (Schedule D), and least effective, is for a single freestanding LED sign with an area of 9 m2 at the north end of the parking compound. It is illustrated within the analysis that this sign is not of sufficient size to be seen from travelers closer to the rear of the site.

Staff Comments Given the nature of the site and the difficulties with communicating information to travelers, Staff feels that the most appropriate solution is Option 1. While this sign is the largest proposed within the three scenarios, it is sited in the most practical location and has the least impact on surrounding views. As well, it is of a sufficient size that most viewers within the parking compound will be able to see the information provided. As Nanaimo is a tourist destination and Duke Point terminal experiencing increasing numbers of travelers from many different countries, the addition of visual information will help to eliminate language barriers. Visual prompts such as these are used extensively in airports and most other travel terminals. BC Ferries is still using auditory messaging as a principal means of communicating travel information. In this circumstance, the addition of LED signage is a natural fit.

At its meeting of 2011-FEB-14, Council adopted "Guidelines/Operational Requirements to be Considered as Part of the Development Variance Permit Application Process" (Attachment A). The application meets all the relevant guideline criteria.

Required Variances Staff supports the requested variance to allow for an LED sign with a total sign area of 28.8 m, and recommends that Council consider this application.

97

-Page 3-


r~ ~ .~ Manager, Current Planning Director of Planning



98

ATTACHMENT A

NAN AIM® THE HARBOUR CITY ~ /' v

LED I ANIMATED SIGNS

Guidelines I Operational Requirements to be Considered as Part of the

Development Variance Permit Application Process

The following are to be considered by applicants and used by staff and Council when evaluating DVP applications for LED I animated signs:

1. LED I animated signs that are only visible inside a building do not require a permit.

2. The maximum size of the LED I animated sign is 9.29m2 (1 00ft2) and no more than one LED I animated sign shall be permitted per lot.

3. Window LED I animated signs are permitted up to 50 percent of the window area in which it is situated.

4. No LED I animated sign shall be permitted unless it can be demonstrated not to be a nuisance that distracts or impairs safe vehicle operation.

5. No LED I animated signs shall be permitted on properties fronting or adjacent to the Nanaimo Parkway.

6. Sign copy is limited to static images only which must be displayed for a minimum display period of six seconds per image. The use of animation effects to transition from one static image to the next will be permitted. Maximum transition time is three seconds. Continuous video, flashing or scrolling type signs are not permitted.

7. All LED I animated signs must include automatic dimming so that light intensity levels are automatically adjusted based on current weather conditions and the time of day.

8. The brightness level of all LED I animated signs shall not be more than 0.3 foot candles over ambient levels, as measured using a foot candle meter at a distance of 30m (98.42ft) from the face of the sign.

9. Where a residential dwelling is located within 30m (98.42ft) of the sign face, and for all LED I animated signs on lands zoned Institutional, the sign must be turned off between the hours of 1 Opm and 6am. Where the business is open past 1 Opm, the LED sign may remain functional until the close of business hours. An application should provide evidence to demonstrate no conflict will occur with any adjacent residential development.

10. Third-party advertising, except not-for-profit organizations or events, is not permitted except on LED I animated signs located on City-owned property. Third-party advertising for malls is permitted for tenants advertising on the subject property only.

G:Devplan!Files!Legis!ZA1-47/Signage/Guidelines and Operating Requirementsi2011Feb14 DVP Guidelines- Operational Requirements. Adopted.

99

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00179 400 Duke Point Highway

PRC1

Schedule A

Location Plan

W1

... /\.\

·.

·. ·· ..

:,. ..

··•······· ...

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. DVP00179 LOCATION PLAN . - Subject

Property Civic: 400 Duke Point Highway

District Lot 2013, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP75218

100

OPTION 1


Relative to the 10 Guidelines/ Operational i"equlreme.nts to be conSidered a·s part of the Development Variance Permit Application process, this option:

COMPLIES WITH:

Schedule 8

Option 1

4 SAFE AND.NOT A NUISANCE TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN COPY IS LIMITED TO STATIC IMAGES NORTHUMBERLAND CHANNEL 7 AUTOMATIC DIMMING .INCLUDED B BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0.3 FOOT CANDLES AT 30M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING

NOT APPLICABLE: 1 LED SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSIDE A BUILDmG 3 50% OF WINDOW AREA OCCUPIED· BY SIGN 5 NO LED FRONTING OR ADJACENT TO NANAiMO PARKWAY 9 LIMITS DUE TO RESIDENT DWELLINGS WITHIN 30M.

NON•COMPLIANT WITH: ----··· 2 MAXIMUM SIZE OF 9.29 SQ.M. >

~~~~s~F CONTENT LIMITE;>·FROM ~HE "ii"iiAR-~; THE LoT. . ~,..·

PROPOSED SIGN .... --

.....

... ·" ..-·r'~''·~··

\ .. ,_ ... --

... ....... .... ---#·. --

.- ..... ~-

TOU PLAZA

\

I

~~:-_r•'' LJ\ SITE PLAN 100 'JL) ~------------~50 0 10

;::::::;SCFerries DUJ<E POINT FERRY TERMINAL ProposedWayfinding Signage I OPTION.l Single Sign 6.4m x 4.Sm Stan tee

..-0 ..-


OPTION .2 Rclntlvc to the 10 Guidelines I Operational requ irements to be ·cons·ldered as part of the Development Va rla·nce Permit Application process, this option :

COMPLIE'S WITH : 4 SAFE AND NOT A NUISANCE TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN COPY -IS liM !lED TO· STATI C .IMAG-ES· 7 AUTOMATIC OIMMJN G INCWDEO 8 BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0.3 FbOT CANDLES AT 3ti M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING

NOT APPLICABLE: 1 LED SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSIDE A B:UILOING 3 SO Y, OF· WINDOW A·REA OCCUPIED BY s·IG" 5 NO leD FRONTING OR ADJACENT TO NAN AIMO I 9 LIMITS DUE TO RES.IDENT DWELLINGS WITHH

NON·COMPLIANT WITH: 2 ONE PER LOT

NOTES : /,, .• ----·- ... VIEW OF TEXriMPROVEQ.>BY DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNS THI• SIGNS ANGLED TO f'(tJNI;";IIZE VIEW FROM GABRIALO

_..! ...

LOCATION . 1:

'C'.'o':,,·,:~:--: ·~-<;i''''.-·. : cc'.-'·.'c:o'.".'('\~ \\r=-~~ ----.:.:.d~;~ :::

, _. .. ,.--·· __ ....

-----~:~;~~~:_:;:::;_;:i;~·X~:~--

/

LOCAT PROPOS 3.6M l

11.6M TOT

. ~ .... --

Schedule C

Option 2

NORTHUMBERLAND CHANNEL

. ~- .. -- -

___ _.,-·

~--

\

., __

" :'~:tl~~f2 \ZA: .::b~~~:~~ :_

·: -~~:-~:: ... -- _:><:;~;;0~~~~,;.;,

,:;·

LJ\ SITE PLAN 100 \JL) 0 1~0~-----------550

~CFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINA.L Proposed Wayfinding Sign age I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m Stantec

N 0 ..-

OPTION 3


Relative to the 10 Guidelines/ Operational requirements· to be considered as part' of the Deve·lopm~nt Variance Permit Application process,·thls oPtion:

COMPLIES WITH: 2 MAXIMUM SIZE OF 9.29. SQ.M. AND ONE PER LOT 4 SAFE AN·D.NOT A N'UiSANCE.TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN COPY IS LIMITED TO STATIC IMAGES

ScheduleD

Option 3

7 AUTOMATIC DIMMING INCLUDED B BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0.3 FOOT CANDLES AT 30 M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING


NOT APPLICABLE: 1 LED SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSIDE A BUILDING 3 SO% OF WINDOW AREA OCCUPIED BY SIGN 5 NO LED FRONTING OR ADJACENT TO NANAIMO PARKWAY 9 LIMITS DUE TO RESIDENT DWELLINGS WITHIN 30M.

NON-COMPLIANT WITH:

/" ; .... ~·

~~~~F CONTENT LIMIT§,D-'F'dR THE .. MAJORITY OF THE LOT.INCLUDING MIDDLE AND REAR.

//..-~

... .-···

PROPOSED SIGN 3.6M X 2,SM ll.GM TO TO . ,.. . .. ...... /_:.o.F)..I ~f;. )~·::~.:L:~:~ ·· -~-·-·-·

/f"'. ,;~"ft .. XIS"I\tNf;,.HI~H:'; .......... .

·. ?;;;; \ ~- ~~~~,~~p \ ~~ ,.:·.:''-\ \ '~ -~.:.,-, \\r9;~DJj(9\' \ \\ ··<~-~---//,1;·1/', I \\ \(S:ll .................... -

.--;:::::;;:~:~~;..:;;~iii':.:.·:.

- .. ~~-

' Y'I;//;.:IJ,. ' ,, ... .... ..... -·· _ .... \ \' ..... ~: .- ..... --· ... \ "\ ';: . . ... .

} \l_t;;~,~~':"w;>«'":;~c,~;o;;,"'" .. ,,.:,:"""."''c;~:o'•~.:Co"'"'~\~:·: ···

11:) ....

---·. '·

..... ~~.

'• \ '· \

TOU PLAZA

?

··., ..

·.;-,

--~~ ·- ···:·:~~-"t_::-~~:' :·.

~N ffi SITE PL r •uu '=].) r-. so 0 10

;:::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m Stantec

('I')

0 ...-


Schedule E

Wayfinding Singage Report

OPTION 1 Relative to the 10 Gulde'llncs I Operatlona.l reqUirements to be considered a·s part of the Development Varlan·ce Permit Application process, this option:

COMPLIES WITfl:

4 SAFE AND .NOT A NUISANCE TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN COPY IS LIMITED TO STATIC IMAGES 7 AUTOMATIC DIMMING INCLUDED 8 BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0.3 FOOT CANDLES AT.30 M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING

NOT APPLICABLE: .l LED'SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSIDE A BUILD'ING 3 50% OF WINDOW AREA OCCUPIED BY SIGN 5 NO LED·FRONTING OR ADJACENT TO NANAIMO PARKWAY 9 LIMITS DUE TO RESIDENT DWElliNGS WITHIN 30M.

NON•COMPLIANT WITH: 2 MAXIMUM SIZE OF 9,29 SQ,M. /

NOTES: .~--·· --· ............. -/ 'VIEW OF CONTENT LIMITE)l·F"ROM THE REAR OF THE LOT.

···"'"

PROPOSED SIGN •. -·····

. ......

6.4M X 4.5M

: :, 7F ,-1(~·~:¥;:·:~f~f}f!~::_. \ v:/11!1. ~!A \.. '> .. · \. .. . :::· .· \

V~ Mw~!({f;r,y' .. . ..... \ • -. . \·a:Ol l..i7Y;,;\ c · · -- -,\ ;.·.-:·.:. ---: ...

\

''\1), ;'1'fN c;i: \ , \ ,.~ .. - ...

v .;/j,-'l;/ '\ \ l!///;.'J,}l \ \' .. \ ............ --'· ') ..... .

··--····-· .. //

~ .. ---·· -------·-· ... ···~~:~. -·~··· ·-··· .. ~- -~-~--= -~·-·-

NORTHUM BERLAND CHANNEL

\

TOU PLAZA

'I

''l)'f:/Z?!XZ?!i -~···~·- .... ,. ···~· ········ ..

-·. :~.;,:::;~.:~·?~: ~· Ej) SITE PLAN

0 1~0~------------~5~0------- ~00

;:::::::SCFerries DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL ProposedWayfinding Signage I OPTION'! Single Sign 6.4m x 4.Sm Stantec

o:::t 0 T"""'

OPTION 2 Relative to the 10 G.uldcllnes I Operiltfonal requirements to be considered as part of the Development Varta·nce Permit Application process, this option:-

COMPLIES WITH: 4 SAFE AND NOT A NUISANCE TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN COPY IS LIMITED TO STATt'C )MAGES 7 AUTOMATIC DIMMING INCLUDED B BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0,3 FOOT CANDLES AT 30M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING

NOT APPliCABLE: 1 LED SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSIDE. A BUILDING 3 SO% OF- WINDOW AREA OCCUPIED BY SIGN 5 NO LED FRONTING DR ADJACENT TO NANAIMO PARKWAY 9 LIMITS DUE TO RESIDENT DWELLINGS WITHIN 30-M

NON-COMPLIANT WITH: 2 ONE PER LOT

~~~~S~F TEXT IMPROVED·BY·;,~~~-;-~U;I~N OF SIGNS THROUGH THE LOT. SIGNS ANGLED TO MINIMIZE VIEW FROM GABRIALD COTTAGES,

_,_.,/'

LO-CATION 1: PROPOSED SIGN 3.6M X 2.5M

~-·

-.... ~ .,., o•< : .. :,("' .-. ' >'•(\~•\

1\l•"' ----~.J~~ J'

-~ .·

.. -·

lOCATION 2: PROPOSED SIGN

... -~--·· __..-··· ·--~-- ~--... -·


\. \~ ~

,..~~-

.~-- ..

_. ...... --· -· -···

\\ '• \.,

·--~ ..

',, #.T~, .. ---1 -·1

>J -i

::.·::i

-----~::;~;a

................

TOLL PLAZA

'}_

-,

LJ\ SITE PLAN 100 '1/ r---k-------------50 0 10

;:::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m Stantec

L{)

0 .-

OPTION 3 Relative to the 10 Guidelines I Operational requirements to be cn.nsldered as part of the Development Variance Permit Application process,·thls option:

COMPLIES WITii: 2 MAXIMUM SIZE OF 9.29 SQ.M. AND ONE PER LOT 4 SAFE AND NOT A NUiSANCE .TO VEHICLE MOVEMENT 6 SIGN CO~Y IS LIMITED TO STATIC IMAGES 7 AUTOMATIC DIMMING INCLUDED B BRIGHTNESS NOT TO EXCEED 0.3 FOOT CANDLES AT 30M. 10 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISING

NOT APPLICABLE: 1 LED SIGNS ONLY VISIBLE INSID!O A BUILDING 3 SO% ·oF WINDOW AREA OCCUPIED BY SIGN 5 NO LED FRONTING OR ADJACENT TO NANA.IMO PARKWAY 9 LIMITS DUE TO RESIDENT DWELLINGS WITHIN 30M •

NON•COMPLIANT WITH: .. -~-·

........ --~·

~~~~F CONTENT LIMIT_5.D··FOR THE MAJORITY DF THE LOT INCLUDING MIDDLE AND REAR.

.r----·

/ /

/

_,

PROPOSED SIGN 3.6M x 2.5M

··.r.··•-o,·~~:•;·:-._::·::;;·::"!::·!:'::!.:::':·

j I

./

-··· ...

.- ...

NORTHUMBERLAND CHANNEL . ----~

I

/

/ . ·····- ~--·· "''

TOLL

c~>::: ·- -- ::·:::::~ ""\

·:::::/ .<(\

-- --··. I ' Y1i'~i/j;/) ------. ------·- .. : (1;'1/;//1- . --... ~~§~

··)'''

,.![-•

. :·;$.:

, .. -······

\N .r:_--8)s~ 0 lu

I .:IV lQQ

;::::::::SCFerrieS DUI<E POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m Stantec

(!)

0 ,.....

II ~~

1,61.4 ~ l.!iM SIGNAGr. Iii! LOCA110N I

~I

II ·--- _s.:::_::.:lL_:F--r>i;ccc"'.c~:~;~'"- '-::-'~"' ~ r -- ~ :•;;·-~;::..:o~.;;~.::--::;.-;>:;,; ·::,.:. :::--.:;······~::..:.-· ···-:..- .:·.::-·.::: ·: •. :_- · •. -:-:::::..: ··.-:.::.::..-:: :::: ..... ___ _

-----~~=~--~--:~·,:~=_:;~~:.=:t"-:~ ·.o;·:::~~~::"_c_rl~=·c:::::cc::.:=.,r-t--. . .. AMIHITYIUILDINO I J I i

[:;~;~fl.i:~t~ ":·~~:::;~::: .::';''': . . ... ·· .... :.·.::.::. .. • ,.,;;; · .. -• .• .• ! .... .. . 'c'.ti• . .

OPTION T

.... ·"'" ,. ..... II LOCATIOtl 1 ,

I

J,6M ~ 2.SM SIGNA.GE lOCATIOtll

~--:-_:)'!~~~-~-.

I .......... .) i i i ! I I · t

'! I I

I! " 81

II ;! P.j

--~-J~~2~~c-T:~;f-:~ ~··C~r-~--OPTION 2

I

---~~, =rff-=-~~-~::f=-~~~:t=~-~~~~]1: -c--;Tr----

~!

------'·....,.. _li_ _____ }·~r~~~~~:~~~::r~-~~~~~~~"-:c~.·~r AMENITY DUILDIHO > _.''~': • -k "'"' , .... : -.,.,;;· ' --. I''>'·'> ...... .

..... ---::-!::: .. OPTION l

l

;::::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage J OPTIONS 1&2&3

l ' 2

a' gl

,~~-.,......,~~- ........ ... "'~-~"'=:-f=;---=-...:.:.:..._· .. .::-.-r------i . I I i ! , __ , -- .I I

. I SCHEMATIC SECTiON !

I

0 10 so 100

Stantec

r-0 ,....

PROPOSED)) ~ r!J

• (~); <

... __ .. ·

~·

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-View From Lot

~CFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Propose!) Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 1 Single Sign 6.4m x 4.Sm

EXISTING SITE-View From Lot

.. ~-:~·

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

CX)

0 ,....

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-VIew From Lot

p~gcATION 2, POSED SIGN

~pc~;~~N'I~'.\/N . f~-:} (.) ~: "-___/: '

.. _ , ... •

.:::::::8CFerrieS DUI<E POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m

.. :.-~~·····

I<EY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

m 0 ,...

PRO.P OSED))· • Q, r.l

~-·' .

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAG.E-VIew From Lot

~CFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m

.~· .... :·---

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

0 .-.--

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE· View From Lot

PROPOSED SIGN

0: ~'

;::::::SCFerrieS DUJ<E POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Sign age I OPTION 1 Single Sign 6.4m x 4.5m

EXISTIN'G SITE·View From Lot

-1· ---~--

I<EY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

.,.... ,....

.......

LOCATION 1: PROPOSED SIGN

0 : '---

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-View Hom Lot

~CFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m



-o;~-.:---

··.·.~····'

I<EY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

N ,... ,...

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-View From Lot

PROPOSED S!GN

Q, ----·

;::::::BCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign .3.6m x 2.5m


.)~-.>;;.;...

~~ ..

, ..... ····~-· KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

(I') ......-

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-View From Tower

PROPOSED SIGNAG~

Q, ~·

;::::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Sfgnage J OPTION 1 Single Sign 6.4m x 4.5m

EXISTING SITE-View From Tower

~·

' ··~

'·

~a,~ ~

I<EY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

""" ,... ,...


LOCATION 1: PROPOSED SIGN .o Q, ~-


;::::::BCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m


~~ .

. _·.,.., ~ - .

.. -

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

1.() ....-

PROPOSED SfGN

.Q, __;_.,-,


,t:::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage J OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m


- ~ . ~r,;J-~

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

c.o ,.... ,....

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE-VIew From lot

PROPOSED SIGN

Q, ~·

~CFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage J OPTION 1 Single Sign 6.4m x 4.5m

EXISTING SITE-VIew From lot

lm .. :--~->·.--~-·

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

r-..-

LOCAciON l: PROPOSED SIGN

Q, ~~

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE·View From lot

;::::::SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m

EXISTING SITE·View From lot


_.cr;m .. :__-.

.. ~--I<EY PlAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

CIO ..-


PROPOSED SIGN

Q, ~-

. ;:::::::BCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed WaVfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m


7-G .. :.----

-~········

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

CD ......-

PROPOSED )• SIGN

Q,' . t;'J

--PROPOSED WAYFINDING·SIGNAGE·VIew From Lot

;:::::::BCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 1 Single Sign 6.4m x 4.5m


.. ,

>---,~··

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

0 N ,....

LOCATION 2 •

PRUO~SIGN

·n: ~.·.-· . ~--_/. /I'll

..----··


:;::::::;SCFerrieS DUKE POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 2 Two Signs 3.6m x 2.5m

EXISTING SITE-VIew From Lot

·.,.: .. ----· .. ~··

KEY PLAN .

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

,.... N ,....

PROPOSED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE·View From Lot

PnOPClSED > () . ~

~··

;::::::BCFerrieS DUJ<E POINT FERRY TERMINAL Proposed Wayfinding Signage I OPTION 3 Single Sign 3.6m x 2.5m

EXISTING SITE-VIew From Lot

. '·

. ;.._.--.

·····~~

KEY PLAN

PHOTO MONTAGE

Stantec

N N ,.....

STAFF REPORT



RE: DVP180- 4771 HAMMOND BAY ROAD

2011-SEP-01


That Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP180 at 4771 Hammond Bay Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development variance permit application was received from Jazz Sohal, on behalf of Tejvinder Singh and Manpreet Kaur Brar, to vary the provisions of the City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" in order to facilitate subdivision.

The subject property, included within the Single Dwelling Residential Zone (R 1 ), has a total area of 0.26 hectares (2699.25 m2

) and is a through lot with frontage on both Hammond Bay Road and Gulfview Drive. The neighbouring property was recently subdivided creating two smaller lots fronting on Gulfview Drive. The applicant is proposing a similar subdivision of two lots off the rear of the subject property. In order for the subdivision to proceed a rear yard variance is required for the existing single family dwelling located on the lot. The required rear yard setback is 7.5m; the applicant is requesting a rear yard variance of 1.1m, which would reduce the yard to 6.4m.


BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property, included within the Single Dwelling Residential Zone (R1), is a large fee simple lot with a total area of 0.26 hectares (2699.25 m2

). The property is a through lot with frontage on Hammond Bay Road and Gulfview Drive. The lot is an ideal candidate for subdivision as it has sufficient area and frontage to facilitate the creation of two smaller lots with frontage on Gulfview Drive. The parcel immediately to the west located at 4775 Hammond Bay Road was recently subdivided to achieve two lots on Gulfview Drive and through this subdivision road dedication was achieved to facilitate the future expansion of the road and to meet cross section requirements. There is a park directly across Gulfview Drive that functions as amenity space for the community. Most of the surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of single family dwellings.

~Council · [J Committee ............... .

123

~Open Meeting [J In-Camera Meeting Meemg Date: 'aD I t-Sff'- \d-.-

-Page 2-

Proposed Development The applicant wishes to subdivide the lot in the same manner as the adjacent lots located immediately east and west of the subject property. The proposed lots each have a required depth of 30m, frontage of 15m and an area of 473m2

. While lots within the R1 zone require a minimum area of 500 m2 provisions within the bylaw permit the reduction of lot area by up to 10% providing the average lot size within the subdivision is greater than 500 m2

• The parent parcel and two proposed lots result in an average area of 822m2

.

With the proposed rear lot lines of the two Gulfview lots, the rear yard setback for the existing house on the lot is reduced to less than the required setback for a single family dwelling on an R1 lot. As such, a variance is required to facilitate the subdivision of the two lots on the rear of the property.

Required Variances The applicant is requesting that the rear yard setback for a single family dwelling be reduced from the required 7.5 m to 6.5 m, as shown on the survey provided (Schedule B), in order to facilitate the subdivision of two lots at the rear of the property on Gulfview Drive. The applicant is requesting an additional 0.1 m as contingency space. This represents a rear yard variance of 1.1 m.

Staff supports the requested variance and recommends that Council consider this application.


B. Corsan A. Tucker Manager, Current Planning Director of Planning COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT


124

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00180 4771 Hammond Bay Road

s

Schedule A

Location Plan

___ _.... fir Hartford PI r-----IS

1\_, ~ CDCD ~ &

4723 4734

mm

Gulfvew Dr

rd'T . ,_~ ~~ ~~


LOCATION PLAN BJ Subject Property

Civic: 4771 Hammond Bay Road Lot 4, District Lot 51, Wellington District, Plan 20583

125

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00180 4771 Hammond Bay Road

Schedule 8

Site Plan PROPOS

L-------------------------------------------~ LOT 4, ''-"'" ~v::~o.:J, uL ::n, wt:.LLlNl.JIUN-Ul:SIKlLI

SCALE 1: 400

DISTANCES ARE IN METRES.

NOTES: CIVIC ADDRESS, 4771 HAMMOND BAY ROAD

ZONING, R1

LOT DIMENSIONS AND AREAS ARE DERIVED FROM REGISTERED PLANS AND ARE PRELIMINARY.

FIELD SURVEY COHPLETEOo NOV. 17, 2010.

REM LOT 3 PLAN 20583

LOT B PLAN VIPB4340

¥¥;&.

0 0

0 "'

REM 4 PLAN 20583 AREA = 0. 152 ha

4771 HAMMOND BAY ROAD

15.76

PROPOSED LOT A

473 m2

15.74

t

0 0

0 "'

HOUSE

15. 76

PROPOSED LOT B. 473 m2

15.74

PROPOSED ROAD DEDICATION AREA = 239 m>

31.48

GULFVIEW DRIVE

WILLIAMSON & ASSOCIATES ©2011

PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS 3088 BARONS ROAD NANAIHO B. C. V9T 495 PHONE: 250-756-7723 FAX: 250-756-7724 EMAIL; WAPSilfELUS. NET FILE: 10240-1

126

0 0

0 "'

LOT A PLAN VIP64172

LOT 13 PLAN VIP64653

VARIANCE REQUIRED TO PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR REM. LOT 4

REQUIRED SETBACK, 7.5 APPROX. PROPOSED SETBACK' - 6.5

CONTINGENCY, + 0.1 VARIANCE REQUIRED, 1.1

2011.

STAFF REPORT



RE: RA280 - 5220 METRAL DRIVE


That Council:

2011-SEP-06

1. receives the report pertaining to "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.005", which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda; and

2. directs Staff to amend the existing covenant, prior to adoption of the bylaw, should Council support the bylaw at Third Reading.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Nanaimo has received an application from Maureen Pilcher & Associates Ltd., on behalf of 0834824 BC Ltd., to amend the Comprehensive Development District Zone Five (CD-5) in order to make changes to the Comprehensive Development Plan. Staff supports the application and recommends that Council approve the proposed rezoning.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property is located on the east side of Metral Drive and backs onto the Island Highway, across from Nanaimo North Town Centre (previously Rutherford Mall) (Attachment A). The site is approximately 18,920m2 (4.7 acres) in area and has recently been clear-cut. Metral Drive is classified as a major collector. The west side of Metral Drive across from the subject property contains large single family lots. Abutting the property to the north and northwest are single family lots; with the most northern lot being a 3.4-acre site containing a single family dwelling which also abuts the Island Highway. To the south of the subject property is a commercial development containing 3 two-storey buildings.

Official Community Plan (OCP) According to Map '1' of the OCP, the subject property is located within a Corridor designation. The Corridor designation supports mixed land uses. Development within corridors will be characterized by residential development at medium to high level densities; as well as mixeduse developments consisting of residential and complimentary commercial retail and office uses. Additionally, development in corridors will address the interface between corridors and neighbourhoods. Design elements of building siting, height and massing will be used to ensure a transition from the corridor to the adjacent neighbourhood scale. Primary parking areas between the front face of the buildings and the street in corridors is not permitted.

127

~oondl ~~=~g············

Cl In-Camera Meeting MeetinQ Date: Qb \\ .,. Cdr':P - \d

Staff Comments The overall development contemplated under the CDS zone is considered to be a comprehensive mixed use development. The original intent of the CDS zone was to create a zone consistent with the goals and objectives of the corridor designation, as an appropriate Corridor zone did not exist at the time.

Staff has considered whether the subject property should be rezoned to the recently adopted COR2 zone (Mixed Use Corridor); however, due to the lot configuration, private road, and separation of uses on different lots, the site is appropriately zoned as a Comprehensive Development District Zone. Specifically, under the 'permitted uses' of the COR2 zone, there is a requirement that states where non-residential uses are proposed that at least an equal amount of residential uses be provided. This requirement would make subdivision of the proposed development unattainable as some of the proposed future lots will contain only commercial buildings, while others will be strictly residential. Therefore, maintaining the CDS zone is required in order to facilitate future subdivision of the land.

However, the COR2 zone (Mixed Use Corridor) is important as it provides the general regulations for construction of mixed use developments in corridor designations and can act as a guide in reviewing proposed amendments and future CD zones within corridors.

Within any zone in the Zoning Bylaw, there is the ability to refer to specific subsections of other zones, where appropriate. As such, there is the ability to connect Comprehensive Development District Zones to specific corridor regulations within the bylaw. The goal is to create a CD zone that is site specific, comprehensive, and flexible, while meeting the intent of the corridor designation. Therefore, the regulations contained within COR2 for 'density' and 'size of buildings' have been included in the CDS zone for the subject property in order to provide for more flexibility and a more consistent approach to corridor style developments. Allowing for greater flexibility can potentially eliminate further amendment applications in the future.

The proposed amendments, described below, are considered to be in keeping with the intent of the corridor designation. In addition, the development, as a whole, will result in greater residential floor area than commercial floor area, which is intended under the mixed use corridor regulations contained within the COR2 zone. As such, Staff considers the proposed amendments to be acceptable and supports the application.

Proposed Development The Comprehensive Development District Zone Five (CDS) reflects a comprehensive mixed use development that was designed to meet the intent of the corridor designation; and was adopted by Council on 2010-MAY-17 (RA218). The applicant proposes to amend the CDS zone in order to make changes to the comprehensive development plan and to allow for future subdivision of the parent parcel. A copy of the existing CDS zone is attached (Attachment B).

In general, the proposed CDS changes include the following: • Removing the requirement for the two buildings on proposed Lot 4 to be only for

live/work and mixed-use and allowing for commercial buildings. • Creating a new lot- proposed LotS- and allowing for a commercial building. • Amending proposed Lot 1 (due to the creation of Lot S) by reducing lot area and unit

count on Lot 1 and changing from two-storey townhouses to three-storey townhouses. • Removing the requirement for residential units from proposed Lot 3. • Updating the CDS zone to provide for more flexibility by referring to the COR2 zone

requirements for 'density' and 'size of buildings'. • Including additional 'permitted uses' which correspond to permitted uses under the

COR2 zone.

128

Parking has been demonstrated on the plan for each proposed lot as follows:

Lot 1 Lot2 Lot3 Lot4 Lot5 Townhouses Apartment/Condo Commercial Commercial Commercial Required: 25 Required: 53 Required: 85 Required: 44 Required: 22 Provided: 31 Provided: 53 Provided: 85 Provided: 44 Provided: 22

*Garages and *Below building & * Below building *Surface *Surface driveway apron surface & surface + guest spaces

The summary below compares the changes to the residential and commercial components of the existing CDS zone to the amended CDS zone:

Existing CD5 Zone: • 57 Residential Units - Residential Gross Floor Area 8, 135m2 (87 ,564ff) • 5 Live/Work Studios - Live/Work Gross Floor Area 875m2 {9,418ff) • Commercial Gross Floor Area 2,300m2 (24, 757fe) • 204 Parking Spaces Provided

Amended CD5 Zone: • 46 Residential Units- Residential Gross Floor Area ?,630m2 (82, 129ff) • Commercial Gross Floor Area 3,857m2 (41 ,516ff) • 235 Parking Spaces Provided

The proposed site plan will replace the existing CDS zone plan. The proposed site plan is attached (Attachment 'C').

Existing Covenant The existing covenant that was registered through the previous rezoning contains the existing CDS zone site plan and refers to the specific parts of the plan that will be changed should Council support the proposed amendmelnts. As such, Staff recommends as a condition of the proposed amendment application that the covenant be amended in order to reflect the changes as requested.

Community Contribution A community contribution of $150,400 towards the second artificial turf at Merle Logan Sports Field, or general parks improvements depending on the timing of the payment, was secured through the original rezoning application (RA218). As the overall development remains substantially the same, Staff considers there to be no requirement for an additional community contribution.


B. Corsan Manager, Current Planning COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

SH/pm Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera attachment: RA280

Ianning Y SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

12

5421 5420

5410

Bergen-Op-Zoom Dr 5360

File: RA000280 Civic: 5220 Metral Drive

LOCATION PLAN

130

ATTACHMENT A

.-.subject

._.Property

16.5.

16.5.1

16.5.2

16.5.3

16.5.4

16.5.5

16.5.6

16.5.7

EXISTING ZONE ATTACHMENT 8

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONE FIVE (CDS} PAGE 1 OF 3

The intent of this zone is to provide for mixed use commercial and multi-family development within the Corridor designation. Emphasis is placed on creating an environment conducive to housing that complements the existing neighbourhood through comprehensive site planning.

PERMITTED USES

Permitted uses shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.8 of this Bylaw.

CONDITIONS OF USE

No parking spaces shall be permitted between the front face of a building and a highway. For the purposes of this subsection, a highway does not include a lane.

DENSITY

Density shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.8 of this Bylaw.

YARD REQUIREMENTS

Yard Requirements shall as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.8 of this Bylaw.

HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

The height of a building shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.8 of this Bylaw.·

SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING

16.5.6.1 Where the CDS Zone abuts a highway or a Residential Zone screening and landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Part 17 of this Bylaw.

16.5.6.2 All mechanical, electrical or other service equipment located outside or on the roof of a building shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets by ornamental structures, landscaping, or other means.

PARKING

Parking shall be provided as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.8 of this Bylaw.

EXISTING ZONE

Part 16 - Page 11 Comprehensive DeJeldpment Zones City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw

EXISTING ZONE ATTACHMENT 8

PAGE 2 OF 3 16.5.8 PLANS

Within the CD5 Zone, the lands shall be developed in general accordance with the following plans:

Permitted Uses:

Lots1&2-Lots 3 &4-

Dwelling, Multiple Family Artist Studio Day Care Facility Deli/Specialty Food Store Dry Cleaners Dwelling, Multiple Family Financial Institution Laundromat Library Live I Work Studio Office Personal Service Use Restaurant Retail Store School- Commercial Veterinary Clinic

town homes +----17it~ (16UilitS)

ently

G\\~site plan ·........_~ f(;l scale: 1: 500 metric

NOTE: Landscape shown is conceptua.l only. The landscape plan will build UjXl(1 natural features: of the site and replace habitat using native place species consistent with an urbanfOt"est.

j Landscapr: design development will advance at the development permit stage. ·--------···---·~-----·----"

,--------·---------~ound parking

,_ .. --------public pathway

,---------right of way

----:f--'1~~"'!"'-.--~;,~ office/ co_mmercial

mixed-use, live I work buildings-

'-------------road dedication

'-----------------plaza

.IZ

EXISTING ZONE

Part 16- Page 12 Comprehensive Development Zones City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw I ~----------------------~r _______________ _

SITE AREA:

LAND USE:

DENSITY:

GFA:

LOT COVERAGE:

BUILDING HEIGHT:

PARKING REQUIRED:

SITE AREA:

LAND USE:

DENSITY:

GFA:

FAR:

LOT COVERAGE:

WII±JING HEIGHT:

PARKING REQUIRED:

Part 16- Page 13

EXISTING ZONE ATTACHMENT B

Subsection 16.5.8 PAGE 3 OF 3

+/-6230m2

2 storey townhouses w/ attached or detached garages

16 units (25 units per ha)

2960m2

(garages included)

27%

9m

16 units as per Development Parking Regulations Bylaw 2005 No. 7013

+/-4680m2

4 storey multi-family residential w/ covered parking

32 units (68 units per ha)

4200 m2

(excluding covered parking)

0.90

23%

16m

32 units as per Development Parking Regulations Bylaw 2005 No. 7013

PROJECT DATA

SITE AREA:

LAND USE:

Building 1:

Building2:

Rllll nJNt::..AR~ASl-'

Building 1:

Building2:

GFA:

lOT COVERAGE:

:BUILDING HEIGHT:

PARKING REQUIRED:

SITE AREA:

LAND USE:

BUILDING AREAS:

Building 1

Building 2

GFA:

LOT COVERAGE:

BUILDING HEIGHT:

PARKING REQUIRED:

EXISTING ZONE

Comprehensive DeVIESQpment Zones

+/-5370 m2

2 storey mixed use commercial 4 residential units

2 storey commercial wf underground parking

main floor retail 400m2

second floor residential 400m2

total 800m2

main floor office second floor office total

·2400m2

23%

-14m

800m2

-800m2

1600m2

400 m2 retail; 1600 m2 office; 4 residential units as per Development Parking Regulations Bylaw 2005 No. 7013

+/-2640 m2

2 buildings (1 mixed use & 1 live/work studios)

main floor commercial 300m2

second floor residential 575 m2

total 875m2

Slive/work studios 875 m2

875 m2 x 2 buildings: 1750 m2

29%

12m

300 m2 retail; 5 residential units as per Development Parking Regulations Bylaw 2005 No. 7013

5 live/work studios @ 2.5 spaces per unit

City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw

...... w ..j::o.

PERMITTED USES:

Lots 1 & 2 Principal Uses:

Multiple Family Dwelling

Accessory Uses: Boarding and Lodging- see Conditions of Use in 7.2.2 Home Based Business -subject to Part 6

tree retention

entry walkways

./

--------

~~(>/ -·- ~/ v·

_,....-'/I . I I

! I

//__....----

3.0 MD.' /, "IKJI bl.7ll)Z] req. side yard setback

l. . .J

LOT AREAS:

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5

+/- 3729 sq.m +/- 5747 sq.m +/- 6197 sq.m +!- 2788 sq.m +/- 1557 sq.m

PERMITTED USES:

Lots 3, 4, & 5 Principal Uses:

Artist Studio Commercial School Day Care Facility Financial Institution Furniture and Appliance Sales Hotel Laundromat

~=~d::.~·

NOTE:

req. flanking yard setback

metra I drive

LandscapeshowRisconceptualonly.Thelandscapeplanwillbuilduponnatural featuresoftheslteandreplacehabltatuslngnatlveplacespedesconslstent with an urb~nrorest. Landscape design development wlll adv;mce at the development permit stage,

i~/ q I) C/

/; /Gr 1;/p

q.Y

L--------- sidewalk

'-------------- road dedication

,------'==========-----------plaza NOTE: De.tallofslde.walkandbaulevardstrlpalongMetral Drlvetobedetermlne.d atsubdivisionorD.Pstage.

Library Social Services Resource Centre Veterinary Clinic NOTE:

maoaRIAIIROAll.!.ADYSUini9C, VOO!G2 phone~1n; 25n.2~S.li!M

dfi\Ol\ de!IIVln@telu!ml

s:: ,_ o-o ~coc..:1 ..,.!::::;..0 !/) Q) 0 (J E ~0 UN CON a. 1.0

DRAWlNGTill.E:

site plan

SCALE:

as noted

DRAWN BY:

A.VIB.M.IC,M,

NUMBER~

d1034.31.07

ISSUED!

forcllenlrevlew review for rezoning revise<! revised

Cl)~1,..010~ 11> \IER

E~~1~~t~~ COf'<ll'llllfn .. •IWIO. Of DtlU/&\01;$1(111 ~O!,S.Y fOR Til~ I A<PnooUC11011DI1 ~Ul~13$101.!.

PAGE NO.

E ·ro s::: co s:::

c 0

u ~ 0 u -i!: ro .5 ~ ~ (])

~

20JULY/11 23AUG/11 26AUG/11

02SEPT/11 CSSEPT/11

""0 :c 0 ""0 0 en m 0

Live I Work Studio .Multiple Family Dwelling Office Personal Service Use Restaurant

Accessory Uses: Boarding and Lodging- see Conditions of Use in 7.2.2 Home Based Business- subject to Part 6

Building footprints are for informational purposes only.

""0 r )> z

Retail

)> -1 -1 )> 0 :::c s: m z -1

0

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

FROM: BILL CORSAN, MANAGER OF REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

2011-AUG-25

RE: DISPOSITION OF LEASE TO SUB ON THE HUB RESTAURANT LTD. AT THE NANAIMO AQUATIC CENTRE, 741 THIRD STREET


That Council:

1. approve a Lease Agreement at the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre, 7 41 Third Street, to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe, to operate a food and beverage service; and

2. authorize the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to execute the Lease.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Nanaimo Aquatic Centre (NAC) has three commercial tenants who have been conducting business since the facility opened in 2001.

At the 2011-JUL-11 Council meeting, five (5) year Lease Agreements were approved for Team Aquatic Supplies Ltd. and CBI Health Group. The third commercial unit is for a food and beverage service. (Attachment A)

A Notice of Intent to direct award a new five (5) year Agreement to the existing tenant, (Sharkey's Express Foods Ltd.) was published on the City of Nanaimo website and on BC Auction. At the expiration of the Notice of Intent on 2011-MAY-19, there were two challengers to the incumbent tenant.

A competitive tender process was undertaken, with Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe, being the successful proponent, conditional upon Council's approval.

The Lease will be four (4) years, eight (8) months and eighteen (18) days in order to coincide with the 2016-May-31 expiration of the two additional commercial leases at NAC.

BACKGROUND:

In 2001, Sharkey's Express Foods Ltd. (Sharkey's) became the operator of the 41.4 m2 (446 fF) food and beverage service area in NAC (Attachment A). A License to Occupy was granted by the City, with tenure of two consecutive five (5) year terms. The tenant has been on a month-to-month tenancy since the second term expired 2011-MAY-31.

135

~ooncil J:~n~~~~g············

Cl In-Camera Meeting ~Date: ~"lY\1 -S.'Lf -1-:2._

Council Report Page2

Prior to entering into a new Agreement with Sharkey's, Staff commissioned an appraisal to determine the market rent. Cunningham & Rivard Appraisals Ltd., conclude that the current market rentable value for the service area lies within a market range of $19,500.00 to $21,000.00 per annum. The current rent is $19,200.00 per annum.

Staff published a Notice of Intent on the City of Nanaimo website as well as BC Auction to direct award to Sharkey's a new five (5) year Agreement with escalating rent. The Notice of Intent informed interested parties, of the terms of the Agreement and invited them to put forward a proposal. At the expiration of the Notice of Intent, 2011-MAY-19, there were two challengers to the direct awarding.

A competitive tender process was undertaken to assess service provider's ability to offer food services according to terms of the proposed lease including preapproval of menu, price and portion size and alignment with the Guidelines for Food and Beverage Sales in BC Schools, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. The tender process included an evaluation by a team of three Staff using a total point system based on the above criteria as well as qualifications, references, resources, an interview and a sustainability plan.

The successful proponent, Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., has been awarded the contract, conditional upon Council's approval, to operate the food and beverage service at NAC. The service provider will be doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe. The lease will be four (4) years, eight (8) months, eighteen (18) days in order to coincide with the 2016-May-31 expiration of the two additional commercial Leases at NAC.

A Notice of proposed property disposition by way of Lease in accordance with the Community Charter, Section 26 was published on the Nanaimo Daily News on 2011-AUG-25 and 2011-SEP-01.

Salient terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement are as follows:

Lessee: Property Address: Use: Lease Rent:

Occupancy Term:

Termination:

Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. 7 41 Third Street The delivery of food and beverage services Year 1: eight (8) months, eighteen (18) days: $14,129.68 plus applicable tax Year 2: $20,304.00 plus applicable tax Year 3, 4 and 5: $20,880.00 plus applicable tax Four (4) years, eight (8) months, (18) eighteen days, ending 2016-MAY-31. Five (5) year option Sixty (60) day termination clause

Sub on the Hub has been selected to operate the food and beverage service at the Nanaimo Ice Centre. This service will be covered by a License Agreement as it is for occasional shared use and is presented in a separate Staff report on tonight's agenda.


·~~~ ~;~ ~r Real Estate Planning

BC/tl Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera: LD002454

136

COMMON AREA

ATTACHMENT A

CASHIER

FOOD BAR

FOOD SERVICE

LEASE AREA

446 sq. ft. 41.4sq. m.

OFFICE

STAFF KITCHEN

Key

/

FAMILY CHANGE ROOM

~/1 STAFFROOM

I y '-----------~-----~

POOL

Lease Area at 741 Third Street, Nanaimo, B.C. Nanaimo Aquatic Centre

ATIACHMENTA

137

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT


2011-AUG-25

RE: DISPOSITION OF LICENSE TO SUB ON THE HUB RESTAURANT LTD. AT THE NANAIMO ICE CENTRE, 750 THIRD STREET


That Council:

1. approve a License Agreement at the Nanaimo Ice Centre, 750 Third Street, to Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe to operate a food and beverage service; and

2. authorize the Mayor and the Manager of Legislative Services to execute the License.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Nanaimo Ice Centre (NIC) has one commercial rental space. The unit has been utilized as a food and beverage service operation on a part-time basis with the space shared with the City of Nanaimo, since 2007-0CT-01.

A Notice of Intent to direct award a new five (5) year Agreement to the existing tenant, (Sharkey's Express Foods Ltd.) was published on the City of Nanaimo website and on BC Auction. At the expiration of the Notice of Intent on 2011-MAY-19, there were two challengers to the incumbent tenant.

A competitive tender process was undertaken, with Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe, being the successful proponent, conditional upon Council's approval.

Staff is supportive of a new Agreement and recommends that the City enter into a License with Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. The license will be four (4) years, eight (8) months, eighteen (18) days in order to coincide with the expiration of the Sub on the Hub Lease at Nanaimo Aquatic Centre, 2016-May-31.

138


BACKGROUND:

In 2007-0CT-01, Sharkey's Express Foods Ltd. (Sharkey's Cafe) became the operator of the 20.1 m2 (216 fF) food and beverage service area in NIC (Attachment A). A License to Occupy was granted by the City, with tenure of one (1) year term. In 2007-0CT-01 the Agreement was extended to 2011-MAY-31. The tenant has been on a month-to-month tenancy since the term expired 2011-MAY-31.

The License is for the delivery of food and beverage services during hockey and lacrosse seasons. The service area is shared with City of Nanaimo Staff from time to time.

Prior to entering into a new Agreement with Sharkey's Cafe, Staff determined that the current rent of 15% of the monthly gross sales for the service area was still appropriate.

Staff published a Notice of Intent on the City of Nanaimo website as well as BC Auction to direct award to Sharkey's a new five (5) year Agreement with rent of 15% of the monthly gross sales. The Notice of Intent informed interested parties of the terms of the Agreement and invited them to put forward a proposal. At the expiration of the Notice of Intent, 2011-MAY-19, there were two challengers to the direct awarding.

A competitive tender process was undertaken to assess service provider's ability to offer food services according to terms of the proposed License including preapproval of menu, price and portion size and alignment with the Guidelines for Food and Beverage Sales in BC Schools, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. The tender process included an evaluation by a team of three Staff using a total point system based on the above criteria as well as qualifications, references, resources, an interview and a sustainability plan.

The successful proponent, Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd., has been awarded the contract, conditional upon Council's approval, to operate the food and beverage service at NIC. The service provider will be doing business as Tia Mei's Cafe. The License Agreement will be four (4) years, eight (8) months, eighteen (18) days in order to coincide with the expiration of the Sub on the Hub Restaurant at the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre, 2016-May-31.

Salient terms and conditions of the License Agreement are as follows:

Licensee: Property Address: Use:

License Rent:

Occupancy Term:

Termination:

Sub on the Hub Restaurant Ltd. 750 Third Street The delivery of food and beverage services during hockey and lacrosse seasons Non-tournaments: 15% of gross monthly sales payable to the City of Nanaimo Tournaments: 5% of gross monthly sales to the City of Nanaimo; 10% of gross monthly sales to Nanaimo Minor Hockey or Lacrosse. All rent net of applicable taxes Four (4) years, eight (8) months, eighteen (18) days ending 2016-MAY-31. Five (5) year option Four (4) month termination clause

139

Council Report

Page3

Sub on the Hub has been selected to operate the food and beverage service at the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre. This service will be covered by a Lease Agreement because of the tenant's exclusive use of the space, and is presented in a separate Staff report on tonight's agenda.


~~---~---Real Estate Planning

BC/tl Council: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera: LD002440

140

Schedule "A"

License Area

UPPER LOBBY

NIC2 LOUNGE

CONCESSION

License Area

ON

141

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT


RE: PROPOSED ROAD EXCHANGE AT 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD BYLAW NO. 7135


That Council:

2011-AUG-30

1. receive the report pertaining to "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135 "which is presented under the Bylaws section of the agenda;

2. authorize the proposed road exchange to the property owner of 1064 Old Victoria Road, Trustees of the Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and direct the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to execute the conditional Contract of Purchase and Sale; and

3. direct Staff to proceed with public notice for the road closure of a portion of Old Victoria Road and the road dedication of a portion of Old Victoria Road and a portion of Melideo Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Trustees of the Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (CJW) have applied for a development permit for a 413.6 sq m ( 4,452 sq ft) Kingdom Hall which will accommodate 150 people and have 63 onsite parking spaces. The subject property has a site area of 4,205 sq m after road dedication.

In order to facilitate this development, the property owner proposes a road exchange which will close a portion of Old Victoria Road in exchange for new road dedication of a portion Old Victoria Road and a portion of Melideo Road as illustrated in Attachment A and Attachment B. Council may, by Bylaw, dispose of a portion of highway in exchange for land necessary for the purpose of improving, widening, straightening, relocating or diverting a highway.

BACKGROUND:

In order to facilitate its proposed development, CJW proposes to close a portion of Old Victoria Road in exchange for new road dedication of a portion Old Victoria Road and a portion of Melideo Road. Staff has reviewed this proposal and confirm that the portion of Old Victoria Road is surplus to future City requirements, provided that future access to the subject properties is developed as planned .

142

. )§/ Cooncil

j ~~=~g···-·-· ... Q In-Camera Meeting Meeting Date: &a\'-St:.r- \ -:L


The transaction will involve closing 204.3 sq m (2,199 sq ft) of road which will be used by the subject property. In return the property owner will dedicate 1,210 sq m (13,024 sq ft) of land for road purposes. Accordingly, as more land is being dedicated for road versus road closure no compensation issues exist with the proposed exchange.

In addition to the $500.00 fee for processing the road exchange application, costs for legal, survey and advertising will be recovered from the property owner.

There are BC Hydro services within 1064 Old Victoria Road which will require protection via a statutory right of way that will be registered against the property title. The City's prior encumbrances on the title will remain.

CJW would like to proceed with the preparation of all the necessary documentation, such that the exchange will be ready to be registered concurrently with the consolidation and Development Permit plan. Accordingly, Staff recommends that Council authorize the proposed road exchange to facilitate the completion of this Development Plan, on the condition that all closed portions of road are consolidated with the adjacent subject properties.

Upon Council approval of the 151 and 2nd reading of "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135 ",Staff will publish a Notice of Intent To Close to Traffic, Remove Highway Dedication, and Dispose of A Portion of Old Victoria Road In Exchange For Lands Required For Highway as required by the Community Charter.


4;2£2~ @;;?_ !l ~san:Maflaier A. Tucker, Director ~"' Real Estate Planning

Prospero: LD002406 Council: 2011-SEP-12

BC/np

143

ATTACHMENT A 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD

REFERENCE PLAN OF LOT C SECTION 1 NANAIMO DISTRICT PLAN 630 EXCEPT PART IN PLANS 12119 & 3212 RW AND CLOSED ROAD AS SHOWN ON PLAN EPP14549 SECTION 1. NANAIMO DISTRICT. PURSUANT to SECTION 100 (11 (b) and.

SECTION 107 of THE LAND TITLE ACT

BCGS 92G. 011

SCALE h 300 0 5 10

TI;E INTE'NOEO Pt.Dr SllE IIF TillS PLA~ IS S!On IN

!~~S~:~6~~1 ~~~~::=ltilil' 1D SIZE! WMOI PLOTTED

• STANJMUI IRON Pt:IST FOllin @ CONTROt.IIONIItiSiT I'OUil!J,, @ NON-STAiltlARO ISOI.F~REl POSTF~O.

0 STAiilAR!IJRDN PDS'I' PLACED

INTeGilUEOSURVE't'AREAN~;~, 20, tlTY OF NAIU,!IIO. I'IADBJICSR$1

GRID SEARING$ ARE OERIVED FROII COHTRDLIICJ<I.JHEifTS90N63'!'61.HO 'OOIIU7't.

TlllS PLUISHO\ISHORIZONT ... t GROLIND-ILVEL DISTANCES EXCEJ>T WKI;RE OTHtRIIISE NOTE!). TD (OIIPUTEGfllODISTAIICE:S11ULTIPLY GROUtm-LEVEL DlSTAIICESRY COI'I!IIII~O FACTOR 0. 9996550,

DETAIL NOT TO SCALE

REM 0 PLAN 630

Wt ll1Mson & Assc:u:tates Prcfnoi<>Ml Suo~~yor-"' 30CftB•ron::<Ro .. d

~~~:.'·~,~~~~:.) V'JT 455

..

.. ,/ . ,/

:t~ ~:,w

~/~ ..

.. ~.9oH6l)7a

'•,

.·

14

REM 1 PLAN 12119

'•,

15

S E C T I 0 N

"'.;>,..

DEDICATED "'~-~,;, AS ROAD -

AFll::~= ,40. 9 "''

>, ~ ... : Q

'•,

··--·~;~~,,.

PLAN 31455

PLAN EPP145SO

TlilSPl.AH LIES\IllHIIITHEJURISDICTIONOFTHE APPROY!IItiOff'!CERFCRTHECITYDFw.HI>IHO

REM B PLAN 630

~~~~~~UES IIITMIN THE REGION~L DISTRICT

THE FIELO SURVEY REPRESEtfTEO IIY THIS PE..\1! ~liS CC)!;>lETEOll'l'l!lUAfiS. HENIIIt<GllC t.S ON "!HE ~th OAT 0!' ~UGUST, lll11

ATTACHMENT B

LD002406

LOCATION PLAN Civic: 1 064 Old Victoria Road

145

~Subject ~Property

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

2011-Sep-06

FROM: RANDY CHURCHILL, MANAGER OF BYLAW, REGULATION AND SECURITY COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

RE: "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704"


That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704", direct the owners of the following properties to remove the material as listed below from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owners cost:

(1) 540 Milton Street- graffiti (2) 80 Nicol Street- graffiti (3) 600 Wentworth Street- graffiti (4) 655 Campbell Street- derelict vehicles and a derelict trailer (5) 108 Haliburton Street- overgrown blackberry bushes encroaching onto neighbouring

properties (6) 571 Albert Street - garbage, derelict boat, tree clippings, wood, refuse, and

miscellaneous debris (7) 34 Nicol Street -graffiti, garbage in the loading bay, and miscellaneous debris (8) 112 Haliburton Street- garbage, discarded furniture and miscellaneous debris

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The following properties were inspected and found to be in contravention of the "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704". Photographs were taken and are available for viewing.

BACKGROUND:

(1) 540 Milton Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot 1, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 12678 Young Entertainment Inc 540 Milton Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 2L3

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-24 and found to contain graffiti. This is the sixth graffiti complaint about this property.

146

(2) 80 Nicol Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot 1 , Block AA, Section 1 , Nanaimo District, Plan 584 Chang Hyun Kim 80 Nicol Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 4S8

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-24 and found to contain graffiti. This is the first graffiti complaint about this property.

(3) 600 Wentworth Stree

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot 1, Block 36, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 584 New Apolstolic Church Canada 319 Bridgeport Rd E Waterloo, ON N2J 2K9

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-24 and found to contain graffiti. This is the first graffiti complaint about this property.

(4) 655 Campbell Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Parcel E(53824N) of Lots C & D, Block 36, Plan 584 Arnott J Lang 655 Campbell Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 3H3

This property was inspected on 2011-Jun-24 and found to contain derelict vehicles and a derelict trailer. This is the first property maintenance complaint about this property since 2006.

(5) 108 Haliburton Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot 19, Block 10, Section1, Plan 584 John Schroeder 11751 Oldfield Avenue Richmond, BC V6X 2R8

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-15 and found to contain overgrown blackberry bushes which are encroaching onto neighbouring properties. This is the sixth complaint received regarding the overgrowth on the property and the second time it has been referred to Council for action.

(6) 571 Albert Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot a, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP77859 Jasbir Kaur Saroya 1326 Ivy Lane Nanaimo, BC V9T 5T2

14 7

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-09 and found to contain garbage, a derelict boat, tree clippings, wood, refuse and miscellaneous debris. This is the seventh property maintenance complaint about this property since 2006. It has been before Council four times. The owner has cleaned the property pursuant to Council's resolutions.

(7) 34 Nicol Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot 5, Block AA, Plan 584 except the southerly 2.75 feet thereof Sake House Restaurant Inc 3018 Jameson Road Nanaimo, BC V9R 6W8

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-05 and found to contain graffiti on the building, garbage in the loading bay, and miscellaneous debris. This is the second time this property has been referred to Council this year as a result of property maintenance issues. The property was cleaned by a contractor pursuant to Council's resolution.

(8) 112 Haliburton Street

LEGAL: OWNER:

Lot A, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP82082 0877217 BC Ltd 7721 Ontario Street Vancouver, BC V5X 3C6

This property was inspected on 2011-Aug-1 0 and found to contain garbage, discarded furniture, and miscellaneous debris. This is the third property maintenance complaint about this property but the first that has been referred to Council.

The owner of each property was notified by registered mail that Council, at its meeting of 2011-Sep-12, will give consideration to ordering the property cleaned up pursuant to City of Nanaimo "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704".


Randy Churchill Manager of Bylaw, Regulation & Security

Council: 2011-Sep-12

148

Andrew Tucker Director of Planning

2011-SEP-02

STAFF REPORT REPORT TO: D. MOUSSEAU, MANAGER ENGINEERING & SUBDIVISION

COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

FROM: A MCDONAGH, MANAGER SUBDIVISION APPROVALS COMMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

RE: SUBDIVISION APPROVAL- PARK AND CASH-IN-LIEU 1763 EXTENSION ROAD (SUB00912)


That Council approve the payment of cash-in-lieu of park for the fee simple subdivision of lands as described below:

Lot 1, Section 16, Range 4, Cranberry District, Plan 44369, except part in Plan VIP75515 and VIP77135 Civic Address: 1763 Extension Road (SUB00912)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City's Approving Officer has received an application from KSG Consulting Ltd. for a fee simple subdivision at the above-noted address. The City's Approving Officer coordinates the review of subdivision applications to ensure City bylaws and policies, as well as statutory requirements applicable to the subdivision of lands, are addressed.

As part of this review, the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department makes recommendations with respect to whether the City should acquire parkland or take cash-in-lieu, or a combination of the two options.

This subdivision application conforms with Zoning Bylaw 4500 and consists of five (5) single family lots zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential Zone).

The property is in close proximity to an existing 4535m2 playground at 1899 White Blossom Way and a 29571 m2 park located at 1631 Naylor Crescent that consists of playing fields. There is also a nature park and trail network at 1729 Idaho Place (Attachment A). Dedication of the statutory requirement of 5% of the parent parcel (approximately 2440m2

} would yield parkland too small (122m2

) to be functional. Accordingly, the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department, along with the Approving Officer, recommend the payment of cash-in-lieu of park dedication with the approval of this subdivision as presented in the attached concept plan (Attachment B).

BACKGROUND:

Section 941 of the Local Government Act allows the City to authorize the owner of land being subdivided to dedicate lands to the community for parkland, or pay the cash-in-lieu equivalent thereof (or a combination of both) for any subdivision where the following criteria apply:

a) the subdivision would result in three (3) or more fee-simple, or strata title lots being created; and

149

~Coona1 ~~ammitt~ .......... .._ ~Open Meeting

Cl In-Camera Meeting Meeting Date: ctQ\\ .-:X.{>-Q

-Page 2-

b) the smallest lot being created is less than two (2) hectares; or c) a subdivision creating fewer than three (3) or more lots where the parcel proposed to be

subdivided was itself created by subdivision within the past five (5) years.

Section 941 provides for a dedication of parkland based on 5% of the original area of the parcel being subdivided. In those cases when the City does not wish to obtain parkland, subject to Council approval, the land owner is obligated to provide cash-in-lieu in an amount equal to 5% of the appraised market value of the lands being subdivided. These funds are then placed in a reserve for future acquisition of parks by the City.


A. MeDii[~ Manager Subdivision Approvals

KS/AM/Ir/kb COUNCIL: 2011-SEP-12 Prospera: SUB00912

, Manager Engineering & Subdivisions

150

llllll~llUlj1jU~ Parks

ATTACHMENT A

Location Plan File : SUB00912

Civic: 1763 Extension Road

151

...... c.n N

APPRQ.X~XTalTOI' EXlDTINGWOR~IO

w > l§

~ :;:

~ 8

ATTACHMENT B

EXISTING R 1

L"5,97M

cf,~;)-----------------(~~~J~~l~;"~' -- --- -· _,m-- -- --,

f-1 .J-1 -l--1 ---""'-1, LOT 1 !

i I I

... , j 'I

·- -·-- - -·-·------- -·- - --·-·- -·-·-·- -·- -·-- -·-·- --

~I~ LOT2

' i 556SM

i : w ----.~~------- '"'~--------:;---------: t11 ! '"" ' ,, ~:! 64BSM ~~

• ' !

;_ ___ --··------- -,;.:o--msereAc::·K !

EXTENSION ROAD

:! :: ! !

, I

:tft~9" i ~I

i I. I: l i

LOT4 : ! [LOTS : t I

662.6 SM i i i 662.6 SM I! I

!.---------------~ I. 7.5 m SET~Af.K{~jOCK

' 14.4M

EXISTING RS2

~- -~I~TI:GJ HOUSE # 1755

r------~--

I~ :~

' ---- -·~0_20~------ j

PROPOSED R1 SUBDIVISION 1763 EXTENTION ROAD

RECEiVEol LEGAL LOT1, SECTION 16 CRANBERRY DISTRICT PLAN44369, ExCEPT PART IN PlAN VIP 75515 AND IN PI.AN VIP 771JS

AUG 3 1 2011 -::;u e, a:::>~ ' d. CITY OF NANAIMO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGIN.Fe~JNG DIVISION

PROPOSED 5 LOT SUBDIVISION

1763 EXTENSION ROAD

Df!AWIN.O:

DATil: AIJQU:OU1,::1111

DI'L\YiNBV: I(I!N

REVISION;

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: T. P. SEWARD, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

FROM: J. D. KINCH, MANAGER, BUILDING INSPECTIONS COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

2011-SEP-02

RE: UNRESOLVED BUILDING DEFICIENCIES I BYLAW CONTRAVENTION NOTICES


That Council, by resolution, instruct the Manager of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter:

(1) 40 Watkins Street - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

(2) 2522 Nadely Crescent - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

(3) 2115 Lang Crescent - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

(4) 5957 Butcher Road - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

(5) 505 Kennedy Street - Illegal Construction I Rear Deck

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Construction has been undertaken at the following property(ies) that is not in compliance with "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693", "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" or the applicable edition of the BC Building Code (BCBC).

BACKGROUND:

( 1) 40 Watkins Street - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

Owner(s):

Legal:

Joanne Bedggood 1103 5750 Larch Street Vancouver BC V6M 4E2

Madeline A. Bruce 40 Watkins Street Nanaimo BC V9R 1 L8

The Easterly 71.6 Feet of Lot 13, Block "Fry", Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 584 :;g((

/a{ouncil P. 1. D.: 000-509-779 S, ,emmitt~ ............... .

~Open Meeting Cl !n-Camera Meeting

153 Meeting Date: @0\\-~R-\cl

The Single Family Dwelling (SFD) located at 40 Watkins Street was inspected on 2011-MAY-03 as the result of a complaint. It was found that construction had been undertaken to finish the basement and incorporate a secondary suite. No building permits were obtained for the construction in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". The construction of the illegal suite occurred prior to Council's adoption of "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2004 NO. 4000.366", permitting secondary suites in residential and rural agricultural zones.

A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with interest in the property of the regulations contravened. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the illegal construction. As per Council's Secondary Suite Policy (Policy), the owners may retain the suite in the basement as Building Permit No. 116332 (BP116332) has been completed, which involved undertaking the required safety upgrades.

File summary:

Received complaint Inspection completed Correspondence mailed advising results of inspection Building Permit No. 116332 issued Building Permit No. 116332 completed Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

2011-FEB-09 2011-MAY-03 2011-MAY-13 2011-JUN-24 2011-AUG-02 2011-AUG-10

(2) 2522 Nadely Crescent - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

Owner(s):

Legal:

Jagdish S. Sadhra Kamlesh K. Sadhra 2522 Nadely Crescent Nanaimo BC V9T 5T1

Lot 6, Section 18, Range 6, Mountain District, Plan 50409

P. I. D.: 016-095-626

The Single Family Dwelling (SFD) located at 2522 Nadely Crescent was inspected on 2011-FEB-09 as the result of a complaint. It was found that construction had been undertaken to finish the basement and incorporate a secondary suite. No building permits were obtained for the construction in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". The construction of the illegal suite occurred prior to Council's adoption of "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2004 NO. 4000.366", permitting secondary suites in residential and rural agricultural zones.

A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with interest in the property of the regulations contravened. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the illegal construction. As per Council's Secondary Suite Policy (Policy), the owners may retain the suite in the basement if a building permit is completed to undertake the required safety upgrades.

154

File summary:

Received complaint Inspection completed Building Permit issued

Page 3

Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

201 0-NOV-02 2011-FEB-09 2011-AUG-11 2011-AUG-31

(3) 2115 Lang Crescent - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

Owner(s):

Legal:

Tomoyuki Miwa Machika Miwa 2115 Lang Crescent Nanaimo BC V9S 5S7

Lot 5, Section 17, Range 7, Mountain District, Plan 49220

P. I. D.: 014-929-317

Building Permit No. 116375 (BP116375) was issued 2011-AUG-03 to undertake the required safety upgrades and authorize the existing Secondary Suite previously constructed in the basement of the Single Family Dwelling (SFD), located at 2115 Lang Crescent, without a building permit. As the suite was constructed prior to Council's adoption of the Secondary Suite Policy (Policy) (2005-FEB-07), the Policy allows it to be upgraded under a building permit to meet the basic requirements of "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" and the basic safety provisions identified in the Policy, thereby achieving the status of authorized.

A condition of BP116375 is that a Bylaw Contravention Notice be registered on the property title in compliance with the Policy.

A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with interest in the property of the regulations contravened. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the illegal construction.

File summary:

Building permit application Building permit issued Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

2011-JUL-04 2011-AUG-03 2011-AUG-31

(4) 5957 Butcher Road - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

Owner(s):

Legal:

Jennifer A. Maltby 5957 Butcher Road Nanaimo BC V9T 5M7

Lot 26, District Lot 38, Wellington District, Plan 30707

P. I. D.: 000-359-548

155

Building Permit No. 116312 (BP116312) was issued 2011-AUG-23 to undertake the required safety upgrades and authorize the existing Secondary Suite previously constructed in the basement of the Single Family Dwelling (SFD), located at 5957 Butcher Road, without a building permit. As the suite was constructed prior to Council's adoption of the Secondary Suite Policy (Policy) (2005-FEB-07), the Policy allows it to be upgraded under a building permit to meet the basic requirements of "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" and the basic safety provisions identified in the Policy, thereby achieving the status of authorized.

A condition of BP116312 is that a Bylaw Contravention Notice be registered on the property title in compliance with the Policy.

A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with interest in the property of the regulations contravened. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the illegal construction.

File summary:

Building permit application Building permit issued Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

(5) 505 Kennedy Street- Illegal Construction I Rear Deck

Owner(s): Kimberley A. Garland 505 Kennedy Street Nanaimo BC V9R 2J6

2011-JUN-15 2011-AUG-23 2011-AUG-31

Legal: Section C of Lot 1 0 and 11, Block V, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 584

P. I. D.: 000-832-855

The Single Family Dwelling (SFD) located at 505 Kennedy Street was inspected on 2011-JUN-07 as the result of a complaint. At the time of the Inspection, it was found that construction was underway to build a deck at the rear of the SFD with no regard for the side yard setback in contravention of "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500". No Building Permits were obtained for the construction in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693" and the method of construction does not comply with the BC Building Code (BCBC).

At the Board of Variance (BOV) Meeting, held 2011-JUL-21, the Board denied the property owner's appeal, requesting that the required side yard setback be reduced in order to permit the deck under construction in its current location. If the deck construction is to continue, a building permit application will be required, including a site plan and drawings confirming compliance with "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" and the BCBC.

156

PageS

A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with interest in the property of the regulations contravened. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the illegal construction. If the Owners do not comply with removal of the deck or bring the deck into compliance under the supervision of a building permit, the file will be referred to a future Council meeting for further enforcement action.

File summary:

Received complaint Inspection completed Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice


~- Kinch, Manager BUILDING INSPECTIONS

T. P. Seward, Dire tor DEVELOPMENT

2011-JUN-06 2011-JUN-07 2011-AUG-31


Council: 2011-SEP-12 NR\kb g:\devbldg\council\2011 reports\2011 sep12 section 57 report.doc

157

wabey, General Manager "ty Safety & Development

STAFF REPORT


2011-SEP-12

FROM: B. ANDERSON, MANAGER, COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION, COMMUNITY SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT

RE: REPORT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY, 2011-SEP-08 FOR BYLAWS NO. 6500.016,4500.001, 4500.002, 4500.003 AND 4500.004


That Council receives the report and the minutes of the Public Hearing held on Thursday, 2011-SEP-08.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A Public Hearing was held on 2011-SEP-08, the subject of which was five items. Approximately 55 members of the public were in attendance. Minutes of the Public Hearing are attached.

BACKGROUND:

1. BYLAW NO. 6500.016:

OCP62 - 1985 Island Diesel Way

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" by redesignating the subject property from 'Light Industrial' to 'Corridor' in order to facilitate a mixed use development. The subject property is legally described as LOT 35, SECTION 16, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP61143.

This application appears before Council this evening for consideration of Third and Final Reading.

There was one written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 6500.016.

2. BYLAW NO. 4500.001:

ZA1-51- 1 Terminal Avenue

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by rezoning the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue from the Gateway (DT12) zone to a new Comprehensive Development District Zone Seven (CD?) in order to recognize the development rights permitted within the C-11 Zone of the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000".

The subject property is legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, DISTRICT LOT 234, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15318, EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 48701 and LOT 330, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF INCLUDED IN PLAN 2100 RW, and LOTS A & B, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 3360

This application appears before Council this evening for consideration of Third Reading.

There were no written or verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.001.

3. BYLAW NO. 4500.002:

ZA1-51- Various

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by: 1) Removing 'Boarding and Lodging' from the list of permitted uses within Part 8 -

Agriculture Rural Residential, and adding it to the list of permitted accessory uses. 2) Increasing the minimum lot size within the Rural Resource (AR1) zone from 1.0 hectare

to 2.0 hectares, and decreasing the minimum lot size within the Urban Reserve (AR2) zone from 2.0 hectares to 1.0 hectare.

3) Amending the address and legal description for the site specific Fast Food Restaurant within Part 10 - Commercial Centre, so that it references the property located at 2310 Northfield Road, and not the neighbouring property located at 2300 Northfield Road.

4) Adding Gas Station as a site specific use within Part 11 - Downtown, for the property located at 199 Nicol Street.

5) Adding Warehouse as a site specific use within Part 9 - Corridor, for the property located at 114 Fry Street.

6) Amending the 'Intent of Zone' description for the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone to clarify the W2 zone supports a building height of up to four storeys.

7) Amending the Conditions of Use for Retail within Part 15 - Waterfront, to replace the word 'all' with 'each' to clarify the maximum Gross Floor Area limit applies to individual retail stores, and is not cumulative.

8) Amending the Conditions of Use for Canoe and Kayak Rental by removing the Gross Floor Area limit for the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone.

9) Clarifying that the height of a float home located within the Waterfront zones area, shall be measured from the surface of the water on which the home is constructed.

10) Removing the R1a subzone from Subsection 7.4.5 within Part 7- Residential Zones so the provision for a 10% variability in residential lot size is no longer applicable within the R1a subzone.

11) Removing 'Secondary Suite' as an accessory use within the Duplex Residential (R4) zone.

12)Amending the 'Intent of Zone' description for the Duplex Residential (R4) zone to clarify that two dwelling units permitted on a lot do not have to be within the same building; however, no more than two dwelling units in total are permitted on a residential lot.

13) Amending the definition of 'Marina' to clarify that a marina includes the accessory use of 'dry land storage of watercraft'.

14)Amending the Maximum Allowable Base Density within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a) zone from a Floor Area Ratio requirement to "one single residential dwelling."

15) Rezoning the property located at 2000 Island Highway North (Brooks Landing) from City Commercial Centre (CC3) to Comprehensive Development District Eight (CDS) in order to reinstate the development regulations permitted within the Comprehensive Development District Zone 1 (CD-1) of the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000". The subject property is legally described as LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP8404.

16) Rezoning those lands shown on Map D from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) to Single Dwelling Residential (R1a) in order to increase the minimum allowable lot size within the subject area from 500m2 to 600m2

.

17) Rezoning a portion of the property located at 5521 Noye Road from Single Dwelling Residential (R 1) to Parks, Recreation and Culture Two (PRC-2) in order to recognize the recently acquired park use of the property. The subject property is legally described as PARK DEDICATED BY PLANS 33180 AND VIP88881.


There were two written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.002.

4. BYLAW NO. 4500.003:

ZA 1-51 - 150 Comox Road

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by rezoning the property located at 150 Comox Road from Comprehensive Development District Zone Three (CD3) to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Three (PRC-3) zone in order to recognize the park use of the property. The subject property is legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP82428.


There were no written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.003.

5. BYLAW NO. 4500.004:

ZA1-51- Various

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by reducing the maximum allowable height within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a), Single Dwelling Residential- Small Lot (R2), Island Residential (R3), and Duplex Residential (R4) zones to generally reflect those maximum heights specified in the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000." Maximum heights for a principal building are proposed at 6.71 metres for a flat roof building(< 4:12 pitch) and 8.25 metres for a sloped roof building(;::: 4:12 pitch). Where a lot is less than 1666.66 m2 in size and the principal building with a sloped roof is measured from the curb level of the highest street on which the property fronts, the maximum allowable height is reduced from 5.5 metres to 5.0 metres. Properties exempt from specified building heights are specified in Schedule E - Height Exemption of the Zoning Bylaw.


There were 84 written and 22 verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.004.

\ '5l--. 3


B. Anderson Manager, Community Planning Section Community Safety & Development

lpm Council: 2011-SEP-12

Page4

g:\devplan\fi/es\admin\0575\20\201 0\reports\2011 SepOB PH Rpt.docx

l51. 4

A. Tucker Director of Planning Community Safety & Development

w ey, General Manager uni y Safety & Development

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, IN THE VANCOUVER ISLAND CONFERENCE CENTRE,

SHAW AUDITORIUM, 101 GORDON STREET, NANAIMO, BC, ON THURSDAY, 2011-SEP-08, TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF NANAIMO "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" AND

THE CITY OF NANAIMO "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 2008 NO. 6500"

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor J.R. Ruttan, Chair Councillor W.L. Bestwick Councillor G.E. Greves Councillor W.J. Holdom Councillor O.K. Johnstone Councillor J.A. Kipp Councillor J.F. Pattje Councillor L.J. Sherry Councillor M.W. Unger

STAFF: A. Tucker, Director of Planning, Community Safety & Development B. Anderson, Manager, Community Planning, Community Safety & Development D. Stewart, Planner, Planning Section, Community Safety & Development P. Masse, Planning Clerk, Planning Section, Community Safety & Development

PUBLIC: There were approximately 55 members of the public present.

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Ruttan called the meeting to order at 7:01pm and advised that members of City Council, as established by provincial case law, cannot accept any further submissions or comments from the public following the close of a Public Hearing. Mr. Tucker explained the required procedures in conducting a Public Hearing and the regulations contained within Section 890 of the Local Government Act. He advised that this is the final opportunity to provide input to Council before consideration of Third Reading of Bylaws No. 4500.001, 4500.002, 4500.003, 4500.004 and Third and Final Reading of Bylaw No. 6500.016 at the regularly scheduled Council meeting of 2011-SEP-12.

1. BYLAW NO. 6500.016:

OCP62 - 1985 Island Diesel Way

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" by redesignating the subject property from 'Light Industrial' to 'Corridor' in order to facilitate a mixed use development. The subject property is legally described as LOT 35, SECTION 16, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP61143.

Ms. Maureen Pilcher, Maureen Pilcher & Associates Ltd. -Applicant Representative

• Ms. Pilcher's presentation is attached as a part of "Attachment A - Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.016".

Public Hearing Minutes -2- 2011-SEP-08

Mr. Rob Smith, 1970 Island Diesel Way- Opposed

• Concerned about setbacks and future access I egress on the subject property. Noted the intersection is busy and dangerous.

• Has tenants on the upper floor of his building who have exposure to Bowen Road, would not like to see their view or his signage blocked.

• Would be in support of the proposal if the maximum setback of 6m could be enforced.

Councillor Bestwick asked Staff for clarification regarding access and egress to the subject property and setback requirements.

Mr. Tucker noted this application is in relation to an OCP amendment; details like access locations and setback requirements would be determined through the rezoning process. Stated the general access I egress concept would be a joint access with Nanaimo Bakery at the northern end of the subject properties with exiting onto Island Diesel Way. A covenant at the rezoning stage could require the building be set back as far from Bowen Road as possible to ensure Mr. Smith's signage and his tenants retain visibility.

Councillor Kipp asked for clarification on whether or not people could still exit onto Bowen Road.

Mr. Tucker noted that Island Diesel Way will become a cul-de-sac in the future, the timing of which is tied to the extension of Boxwood Road. A right-in I right-out access will remain for the speaker's property.

Councillor Pattje asked Ms. Pilcher if the speakers concerns could be resolved.

Ms. Pilcher noted that the plan in front of Council is conceptual only and the applicant is more than willing to work with Mr. Smith to angle the building and work with the setbacks to ensure his views and signage are unaffected.

There was one written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 6500.016.

2. BYLAW NO. 4500.001:

ZA1-51- 1 Terminal Avenue

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by rezoning the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue from the Gateway (DT12) zone to a new Comprehensive Development District Zone Seven (CD?) in order to recognize the development rights permitted within the C-11 zone of the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000". The subject property is legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, DISTRICT LOT 234, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15318, EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 48701 and LOT 330, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF INCLUDED IN PLAN 2100 RW, and LOTS A & B, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 3360

Mayor Ruttan asked for confirmation that the subject property will regain all previously permitted uses under Bylaw 4000.

Mr. Tucker confirmed all previous permitted uses would now be reinstated on the subject property.

There were no written or verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.001.


3. BYLAW NO. 4500.002:

ZA1-51- Various

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by: 1) Removing 'Boarding and Lodging' from the list of permitted uses within Part 8 -

Agriculture Rural Residential, and adding it to the list of permitted accessory uses. 2) Increasing the minimum lot size within the Rural Resource (AR 1) zone from 1.0 hectare

to 2.0 hectares, and decreasing the minimum lot size within the Urban Reserve (AR2) zone from 2.0 hectares to 1.0 hectare.

3) Amending the address and legal description for the site specific Fast Food Restaurant within Part 10 - Commercial Centre, so that it references the property located at 2310 Northfield Road, and not the neighbouring property located at 2300 Northfield Road.

4) Adding Gas Station as a site specific use within Part 11 - Downtown, for the property located at 199 Nicol Street.

5) Adding Warehouse as a site specific use within Part 9 - Corridor, for the property located at 114 Fry Street.

6) Amending the 'Intent of Zone' description for the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone to clarify the W2 zone supports a building height of up to four storeys.

7) Amending the Conditions of Use for Retail within Part 15 - Waterfront, to replace the word 'all' with 'each' to clarify the maximum Gross Floor Area limit applies to individual retail stores, and is not cumulative.

8) Amending the Conditions of Use for Canoe and Kayak Rental by removing the Gross Floor Area limit for the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone.

9) Clarifying that the height of a float home located within the Waterfront zones area, shall be measured from the surface of the water on which the home is constructed.

1 0) Removing the R 1 a subzone from Subsection 7 .4. 5 within Part 7 - Residential Zones so the provision for a 10% variability in residential lot size is no longer applicable within the R1a subzone.

11) Removing 'Secondary Suite' as an accessory use within the Duplex Residential (R4) zone.

12)Amending the 'Intent of Zone' description for the Duplex Residential (R4) zone to clarify that two dwelling units permitted on a lot do not have to be within the same building; however, no more than two dwelling units in total are permitted on a residential lot.

13) Amending the definition of 'Marina' to clarify that a marina includes the accessory use of 'dry land storage of watercraft'.

14)Amending the Maximum Allowable Base Density within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1 a) zone from a Floor Area Ratio requirement to "one single residential dwelling."

15) Rezoning the property located at 2000 Island Highway North (Brooks Landing) from City Commercial Centre (CC3) to Comprehensive Development District Eight (CDS) in order to reinstate the development regulations permitted within the Comprehensive Development District Zone 1 (CD-1) of the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000". The subject property is legally described as LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP8404.

16) Rezoning those lands shown on Map D from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) to Single Dwelling Residential (R1a) in order to increase the minimum allowable lot size within the subject area from 500m2 to 600m2

.

17) Rezoning a portion of the property located at 5521 Noye Road from Single Dwelling Residential (R 1) to Parks, Recreation and Culture Two (PRC-2) in order to recognize the recently acquired park use of the property. The subject property is legally described as PARK DEDICATED BY PLANS 33180 AND VIP88881.

18) Rezoning those lands shown on Map F from Residential Corridor (COR1) to Single Dwelling Residential (R 1) in order to limit the use and density on each property to a Single Residential Dwelling use.


19) Rezoning the property located at 108 Haliburton Street from Local Service Centre (CC1) to Medium Density Residential (R8) in order to permit the construction of a multiple family dwelling previously approved through development permit. The subject property is legally described as LOT 19, BLOCK 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584.

20) Rezoning the properties located at 301 Third Street, and 307 and 321 Bruce Avenue from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) to Parks, Recreation and Culture One (PRC-1) in order to recognize the parkland use of the property. The subject properties are legally described as THAT PART OF LOT 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2137, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 882R, AND INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PLAN 36796 and THAT PART OF LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 16238 IN PLAN 36796, and LOT 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2137

21) Rezoning the properties located at 3150 Island Highway and 2700 Norwell Drive from Mixed Use Corridor (COR2) to Community Corridor (COR3) in order to permit stand alone commercial use. The subject properties are legally described as LOT B, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 32586 and LOT A, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 32586.

Councillor Bestwick asked for clarification regarding amendment No. 3.

Mr. Tucker noted the subject property is the undeveloped lot west of the Esso gas station at the far west end of Northfield Road; it previously had a site-specific use for a fast food restaurant. This amendment will ensure the property retains that use.

Councillor Bestwick asked for clarification regarding amendment No. 9 and, specifically, for clarification on the maximum height permitted for a float home.

Mr. Tucker stated the maximum height permitted for a float home is 8.25m.

Mr. Lawrence Rieper, 990 Campbell Street- In Favour and Opposed

• In favour of amendments No. 10, 11, and 16. • Opposed to amendment No. 12 as he does not believe the wording or intent makes

sense. • Confused as to the intent of amendment No. 14 and asked for clarification.

In reference to amendment No. 14, Mr. Tucker noted control over density for most residential zones is typically calculated by a ratio of "units per acre". Nanaimo has historically used Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is a density calculation, as a "condition of use" in Bylaw 4000. All previous variance applications considered by Council for FAR raise a question; are they conditions of use or density calculations that were varied by variance permits? By moving to a "one single family dwelling" Council is relieved of the duty of considering variance permits when the exterior form of the building is exactly the same and covers the same amount of the lot. Lot coverage and building height are more appropriate uses within a single family dwelling to gauge the size of the building; FAR is a density calculation, as it is in most planning bylaws. This amendment is to correct that historical error.

In reference to amendment No. 12, Mr. Tucker stated that both single family dwellings and duplexes are permitted uses in the R4 zone. The density on a property is two dwelling units, either in a duplex building or in two single family units.

Councillor Pattje noted that the R4 zone indicates it "provides for two single family dwellings in one principal building on a residential lot".

~5=t. ~


Mr. Tucker agreed the intent of the R4 zone is to have them in a principal building, meaning a duplex, but two single family dwellings are also permitted.

Ms. Gloria Bell, 323 Shepherd Avenue- Opposed

• Speaking in regard to amendment No. 20. • A park was created on the subject property in the early 1980's and trails were installed.

The trails are now gone but they caused problems with flooding, garbage, police issues and undesirables. She does not want to see the land turned into a park and would instead like to see the land remain as natural as possible and as is. Distributed photos of garbage discarded on the main streets of the neighbourhood (attached as a part of "Attachment B- Submissions for Bylaw No. 4500.002").

Mr. Tucker noted the City recently zoned parks throughout Nanaimo; three levels of park zoning were applied: PRC1 is for parks being left in a natural state with minimal development, PRC2 is for neighbourhood parks and PRC3 is for high development parks, like Maffeo Sutton or Bowen. This amendment does not intend development of facilities; these subject properties were missed when all parkland was zoned. This is only to bring the properties in line with the rest of the park zoning within the city.

Ms. Bell noted that the City informed her that trails or bridges could be built in the park area, which would be a concern for neighbourhood residents.

Mr. Tucker noted that there is no immediate intent to develop anything on the subject properties; furthermore, any development plan would need to go through a public process.

Ms. Bell noted when trails did exist on the subject properties there was a lot of garbage and it was not maintained.

Councillor Johnstone invited the speaker to appear before the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission to express her concerns.

Councillor Unger asked Staff for clarification regarding parks care and maintenance if adjacent property owners complain about garbage.

Mr. Tucker stated that concerned property owners could contact the Parks, Recreation and Culture department and maintenance crew would respond to the concerns as quickly as their workload permitted.

There were two written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.002.

4. BYLAW NO. 4500.003:

ZA1-51- 150 Comox Road

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by rezoning the property located at 150 Comox Road from Comprehensive Development District Zone Three (CD3) to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Three (PRC-3) zone in order to recognize the park use of the property. The subject property is legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP82428.

\ s:r. 9


Mr. Fred Taylor, 204 Emery Way- In Favour

• Suggested the two bylaw amendments on this evening's agenda regarding parkland be added to the list of parkland being dedicated at the same Council meeting where the amendments will be considered.

Mr. Tucker noted 141 parks are being dedicated at the Council meeting of 2011-SEP-12; added he believes it can be done but cannot guarantee the sequencing.

Mr. Gord Fuller, 604 Nicol Street -In Favour

• Noted the subject property, at the discretion of future Council's, could be offered for highrise development.

Mayor Ruttan noted that this Council cannot obligate or commit a future Council in any way, this Council is addressing what it feels is important now.

There were no written and two verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.003.

5. BYLAW NO. 4500.004:

ZA1-51- Various

This bylaw, if adopted, will amend "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" by reducing the maximum allowable height within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a), Single Dwelling Residential- Small Lot (R2), Island Residential (R3), and Duplex Residential (R4) zones to generally reflect those maximum heights specified in the previous "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000." Maximum heights for a principal building are proposed at 6.71 metres for a flat roof building ( < 4:12 pitch) and 8.25 metres for a sloped roof building (;::::: 4:12 pitch). Where a lot is less than 1666.66 m2 in size and the principal building with a sloped roof is measured from the curb level of the highest street on which the property fronts, the maximum allowable height is reduced from 5.5 metres to 5.0 metres. Properties exempt from specified building heights are specified in Schedule E - Height Exemption of the Zoning Bylaw.

Councillor Holdom asked if height exemptions for properties included in Schedule E or Schedule H have been taken advantage of.

Mr. Tucker noted Schedule H has been in place since 2001; some individual builders have made use of the additional height allowances and others have not.

Councillor Holdom asked for confirmation that nothing would change if Council maintained the exemptions from the previous bylaw along with a height restriction for the rest of the City.

Mr. Tucker noted the amendment would be setting the Zoning Bylaw back to what height restrictions were under Bylaw 4000; some of those areas are now being built out and some of those buildings are higher than 8.25m, other people within the area would enjoy the same rights as their neighbours within those areas.

Councillor Holdom noted if Council maintains Schedule E as is; there would not be a change to a person's right to development nor anyone's expectation of the height of surrounding residences.

151-.lD

Public Hearing Minutes - 7- 2011-SEP-08

Mr. Tucker noted that Schedule E covers the same areas as Schedule H and would restore what existed under Bylaw 4000.

Councillor Pattje asked if there is any room for Council to compromise and give the industry a 9m height where it does not interfere with concerns received from existing neighbourhoods.

Mr. Tucker noted that Staff's recommendation to Council was a 9m height restriction for homes with sloped roofs and a 7m restriction for homes with flat roofs, which was contained in Bylaw 4500. This bylaw is different from that recommendation, as directed by Council.

Councillor Holdom stated the compromise from Council is Schedule E; this compromise was made 10 years ago; this Council would simply continue that compromise.

Councillor Sherry asked for clarification on where height is measured from for a building.

Mr. Tucker stated height is measured from grade and the four corners of the building and then averaged. It is measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is the lesser of the two.

Mayor Ruttan asked Staff for clarification on where the 9m height restriction would or could qualify.

Mr. Tucker noted Staff's recommendation for a height of 9m for a sloped roof building was to be applied citywide within residential zones.

Councillor Bestwick asked for clarification regarding Schedule E versus Schedule H and whether or not the height exceptions remain and properties within those areas are permitted heights greater than 8.25m.

Mr. Tucker noted that areas on Schedule H would be reinstated under the new bylaw. For a roof pitch greater than 8:12 it could go to a height of 8.53m and a 10:12 or greater pitch could go to a height of 9.14m within the areas in Schedule E.

Mr. Lee Bouchard, 111 Captain Morgan Boulevard- Opposed

• Believes a height restriction of 8.25m creates tremendous restrictions for building within a lot.

• Currently building a 1.5-storey home on Protection Island with a 12:12 pitch, they received their height survey they are .5m above height. Does not understand how a 1.5-storey home can be over height; all plans were approved by the City. He is on an inside lot and is not blocking anyone's view yet his home is not permitted.

• Applied to the Board of Variance in June and was advised by City Staff, who have been very helpful, to hold off as the new height restriction of 9m had been unanimously passed by Council and, therefore, a variance may not be required. Now notified that Council may reverse the height restriction increase and he is back to where he started.

Councillor Holdom asked the speaker if he was advised that a development variance permit could be applied for.

Mr. Bouchard noted that Staff advised him if the height restriction increase was rescinded by Council, he could opt for applying for a development variance permit.

Councillor Holdom noted this is a specific situation; not sure that Council could or should base an entire bylaw on the basis of one example.


Mr. Bouchard noted it is his belief and experience that if you want to build a two-storey dwelling you have to have a flat roof and to him that is ludicrous.

Councillor Pattje noted the process of amending the bylaw has almost created a hardship for the speaker that the Board of Variance may consider. Asked Staff for recommendations on how to alleviate the Mr. Bouchard's problem.

Mr. Tucker noted that the outcome is dependent upon Council's decision on this bylaw.

Mr. Rod Ekland, 4963 Ney Drive - Opposed

• Builder and renovator in Nanaimo and the current Vice President of the Canadian Home Builders' Association of central Vancouver Island, presenting on their behalf.

• Thanked Council for adopting Zoning Bylaw 4500 and Staff for creating it. Believes the impact of the new Zoning Bylaw will have significant and positive changes to the construction industry and, in turn, to the citizens of Nanaimo.

• PNAC and City Staff recommended the height increase to 9m. Does not believe rescinding the height increase is a solution.

• Density is critical to Nanaimo's future, the 9m height is essential to achieve this. All neighbourhoods must be subject to increased height and density, especially older, downtown neighbourhoods. There are a small handful of vacant lots which could affect views with a 9m height; however, most will be protected by building schemes which would restrict the building height to 8.25m or less. A 9m height restriction does not mean all homes will be built to 9m. The construction industry creates jobs and boosts the economy on the whole. Council needs to consider what is best for the citizen's of Nanaimo and retain the 9m height restriction.

Councillor Sherry asked the speaker if he believes it is fair to build a 9m home in an established, older neighbourhood.

Mr. Ekland believes it would be okay, adding the community as a whole should be considered.

Councillor Sherry noted that the higher homes may block the view of existing homes behind it, believes the 9m height can be used in new subdivisions, as nobody would be adversely affected.

Councillor Kipp asked the speaker if a development variance permit could be used in established areas to obtain height exemptions to achieve more infill.

Mr. Ekland believes to be consistent with Bylaw 4500 there should be a blanket building height throughout the city. Heights are consistently over the 8.25m permitted height. Applying for a variance takes more time, delays construction, increases costs, creates smaller margins, effects employment and insurance and ends up costing the end user.

Mr. Ron Bolin, 3165 King Richard Drive -In Favour

• Asked for clarification on whether or not legal advice was sought regarding allowing a home to be built higher than existing homes, thereby taking views and value away from the existing home.

Mr. Tucker confirmed the bylaw was reviewed by the City's legal counsel and this issue was not raised.

Public Hearing Minutes - 9 - 2011-SEP-08

Ms. Lorraine Rickard, 6461 Groveland Drive - In Favour

• Ms. Rickard's presentation is attached as a part of "Attachment C - Submissions for Bylaw No. 4500.004".

Ms. Donna Watson, 6546 Groveland Drive -In Favour

• Moved here from Victoria ten years ago. Loves Nanaimo, her home and her views. Resides in an existing neighbourhood and her home would not be affected if the height restrictions were increased but others in her neighbourhood would.

• Does not want the ambiance of Nanaimo to change with height increases.

Mr. Jim Routledge, 5858 Shadow Mountain Road - Opposed

• It is natural to try to protect views; it would have to be a very important need to trump the desire to protect views. Believes the needs of this community do trump the wants of some to have a slightly larger vista.

• Efficient use of resources is a cornerstone of Nanaimo's OCP. The recently adopted new Zoning Bylaw is the practical application of the OCP. The new bylaw took many years and many people to create and resulted in tangible, significant improvements in how land is used. Believes a kneejerk reaction will negatively alter the new Zoning Bylaw after all the work and time went into creating it. Zoning Bylaw 4500 went to open houses, surveys were conducted, and pNAC approved it.

• A 9m height would make a very big difference. 8.25m restrictions make it almost impossible to build a home with a basement.

• When he cannot offer a product that can be offered in Campbell River it affects his business negatively. Many other municipalities offer height restrictions higher than 9m (see attached chart as a part of "Attachment C - Submissions for Bylaw No. 4500.004"). Believes we should be competitive and on an equal playing field with other communities.

Councillor Holdom asked the speaker if he had plans for a home, land to build it on and a client to buy it and it was over-height by a small margin why he would not bring the project forward to Council with a development variance permit.

Mr. Routledge noted that a piece of property is purchased, it is subdivided according to the rules and plans are obtained that are applicable. There are no guarantees that a rezoning, development variance or any other application would be approved.

Councillor Holdom suggested that the FAR amendment on this evening's agenda might be an additional tool to include a basement in future plans or designs.

Mr. Routledge believes confusion surrounds the height issue; asked Council to get a clear understanding of it, as it is very important to remain competitive to other municipalities.

Councillor Johnstone asked if the height restrictions in other municipalities are the result of recent increases or if they are historical height restrictions.

Mr. Stewart noted that height restrictions in other municipalities were researched by himself and another planner. They looked at Zoning Bylaws from other municipalities to find a comparable zone to the R1 zone. Not sure of the history of height restrictions established in other municipalities.


Councillor Sherry asked Staff for clarification on whether or not any of the municipalities referenced measure differently than Nanaimo does. Mr. Stewart stated that all municipalities measure from grade, which is how Nanaimo measures. Only Campbell River and Victoria measure differently than Nanaimo.

Councillor Pattje stated that Zoning Bylaw 4500 took two years to accomplish; however, the issue of height did not arise until end of May 2011. Asked Staff why height was considered near the end of the process.

Mr. Tucker noted that discussion and corrections to Bylaw 4500 came up throughout the twoyear process. Many stakeholders were included and several open houses were conducted. Areas of improvement are continually discovered, as it is a living document. If Staff had all answers at the beginning of the process, it would not have taken two years to accomplish. Councillor Bestwick asked the speaker why basements are difficult to include in his home designs.

Mr. Routledge noted the height of services and the height of a full basement would result in an over-height home under the 8.25m height restriction.

Mr. Allan Davidson, 2730 Elk Street- In Favour

• Mr. Davidson's presentation is attached as a part of "Attachment C - Submissions for Bylaw No. 4500.004".

Ms. Susanne Lavender, 6601 Groveland Drive - In Favour

• Believes consistency is important to a community and contributes to the aesthetic of a neighbourhood. Moved to Nanaimo for its aesthetic. Bought her house for the view and although her view would not be affected if the height were increased to 9m; she believes the consistency in the neighbourhood should be maintained.

• Considered buying a home in Parksville, but there was a home two doors down which had a much higher roofline than all neighbouring homes and it ruined the ambience.

• Does not believe Nanaimo can be compared to other municipalities.

Mr. Willy Clark, 278 Pine Street- In Favour

• Does not believe Nanaimo should be compared to other municipalities in BC. • Believes development should always consider the history and character of the

neighbourhood it is proposed within.

Mr. Wally Wells, 154 Promenade Drive- Chair, Chamber of Commerce, Opposed

• Chamber of Commerce current initiative is called "Successful Cities". Criteria for successful cities are clear, well-defined and transparent processes and roles. Commended Staff for the work done on the OCP and new Zoning Bylaw; the Chamber was consulted through the entire process. Attended the public open houses, which were well-attended, and took as many opportunities as possible to provide input on the Zoning Bylaw. Asked Council to stay with the clear, defined process that they have put in the public venue.

\5i-. \ L\

Public Hearing Minutes - 11 - 2011-SEP-08

• Members of the public should have contacted City Hall to ascertain how the new Zoning Bylaw could affect their property; the City cannot contact every property owner.

• Believes Council should give the new Zoning Bylaw time to work and proceed with the bylaw.

Mr. Jolyon Brown, 373 Trinity Drive- Opposed

• As an architect, he has never worked for a developer. Does not appreciate huge developments that contain identical homes. He could build a very ugly house that meets the 8.2m height restriction directly in front of a small and beautiful home that has a height of 6m and he would be permitted to do so, as it would meet every bylaw requirement.

• The difference of the two height options is only 2.6 feet; does not believe it would affect anyone's view that drastically. Believes the panic is unwarranted.

• Believes variety is what makes a city beautiful and that a 9m height exemption would create that variety.

• Current restrictions almost guarantee a two-story home with a basement is impossible, if Council is trying to density the downtown, a 9m height is the way to go.

• Member of the Design Advisory Panel and without exception the Panel agreed the 9m height would be positive for the city. Urged Council to maintain the 9m height.

Councillor Pattje noted he has known the speaker for a long time and knows him to be a fair person. Asked Mr. Jolyon what he would say to a home-owner who will lose their view due to the height increase.

Mr. Jolyon stated that some individuals may lose some of their view but change is constant. Believes very few people will lose their views.

Councillor Pattje asked the speaker if he is implying that an 8.25m height restriction equates to architecture without variety.

Mr. Jolyon noted that he strongly believes if plans for a home in some way offend a neighbour that great care should be taken to consider neighbours on a one-on-one basis and adjust the designs accordingly.

Councillor Holdom agreed that 2.6 feet is unlikely to make too much difference to most views. Does a builder then gain that much more diversity and architectural design room with only 2.6 feet?

Mr. Jolyon noted that a high-pitched roof and a 14-foot ceiling would be very attractive in some areas and density would be achieved, which cannot be achieved under an 8.25m height restriction. Architectural variety could be achieved as well through the size of accommodation on the lot.

Ms. Pam Agnew, 6529 Groveland Drive- In Favour

• Chose Nanaimo for its values and principles. Believed they could trust the City and not have the rules changed in the middle of the game.

• City should make decisions on sound judgement and what is reasonable not to one, but to all.


• The developers are the same people who have prospered based on the properties that they built for all, now they are saying the requirements are not good enough.

• Happy to have paid a premium price for her home and to pay taxes because anyone who comes into her home praises it for its beauty and views.

• Good design is key to compromise and making it work.

Ms. Joy Bremner, 235 St. George Street- In Favour

• Lives in the Brechin neighbourhood; two years of hard work went into the creation of the Neighbourhood Plan. Input involved hundreds of residents from the neighbourhood and across the city. View protection was a key issue, which was respected and adhered to.

Councillor Kipp asked the speaker if she believes a variance could be used to achieve a 9m height.

Ms. Bremner stated she believes a variance application would be a useful tool to achieve heights as many properties have slopes that could be utilized. Neighbourhood residents always react positively to being asked for input and to quality plans for infill in existing neighbourhoods.

Mr. Doug Bromage, 711 Poplar Street- Opposed

• Congratulated Staff and Council on Zoning Bylaw 4500, added that it is a great document. Nanaimo has changed and the document reflects that.

• Does not believe one element should be taken out of the Zoning Bylaw out of context with the rest of the bylaw as it does a great disservice to the process.

• Believes the timing is wrong; the Zoning Bylaw has not been given enough to time. • Urged Council to think about the big picture and why the changes were initiated. • Biggest challenge is how height is defined, as it is arbitrary. It does not apply to every

property, it is only a tool used. Height has always been a challenge to him and his team, most past projects have included an application for height relaxation.

Councillor Pattje noted that past variance applications for Mr. Bromage have worked very well.

Mr. Bromage agreed past variance applications have worked well; however, they were time consuming, very expensive and ended up adding 6 months to the project and made the project less affordable.

Councillor Pattje asked the speaker for a compromise that does not take away from someone to give to someone else.

Mr. Bromage suggested Councillor Pattje might be looking at the past versus the future. Existing neighbourhoods were not discussed in the new Zoning Bylaw, and perhaps they should have been as it could be used as a tool for Council. Communities are evolving and recycling, change has to occur.

Councillor Pattje noted that the development community was at one time opinionated about urban sprawl and now they are discussing infill and densification as if urban sprawl does not exist.


Mr. Bromage stated the development community does not want sprawl and they are looking for a tool to help the community go forward. Believes the height difference of 2.6 feet is a 'boogie man' and is not a big deal. It is not what everyone fears.

Councillor Holdom thanked Mr. Bromage for his work and input on Zoning Bylaw 4500. Asked Mr. Bromage why he believes the 9m height is imperative to the entire bylaw when it only came up late in the game.

Mr. Bromage stated he believes Bylaw 4500 has changed the ways communities are going to grow. It reduces lot sizes and setbacks, which has an impact on the appearance and scale of the house. If Council does not ensure that the document evolves properly, it will evolve in a way that will not work. Believes the 9m height is important to give the community needed flexibility. Believes Council needs to take a bold step and have faith in Bylaw 4500 as they have the opportunity to show leadership in how Nanaimo can evolve.

Mr. Lawrence Rieper, 990 Campbell Street- In Favour

• Does not want higher buildings in his neighbourhood. Any consideration for increased height should be in new subdivisions only.

• Believes those who have spoken in opposition to the amendment have a vested interest and those who have spoken in favour are mostly from the neighbourhood.

Ms. Nancy Mitchell, 225 Cypress Street- In Favour

• Believes the 8.25m height restriction is working fine. Height has nothing to do with sustainability. Lives in a 900 square foot apartment; her footprint is very small. A home with 9-foot ceilings has a very large footprint. It is a trend wherein people want bigger single family dwellings. Leave it at 8.25m and discuss a 9m height more comprehensively with the community, there needs to be more consultation. A developer can use a variance permit if needed.

Councillor Pattje asked the speaker if her concerns regarding Schedules E and H expressed in her email submission had been addressed.

Ms. Mitchell confirmed that her concerns were addressed; added she believes it is example of process. If the maps shown tonight matched the maps in Council agenda she would not needed to have raised the question.

Mr. Tucker added it is Staff's intent to replace the maps that are in the current bylaw with the maps that were on display this evening as they are much more clearly defined. Prior to Third Reading Staff will be bringing forward a recommendation to Council to substitute the maps currently in the bylaw.

Councillor Bestwick asked for clarification regarding Schedule E and whether or not it is permissible to build to 9m.

Mr. Tucker stated a property located in the areas identified on Schedule E with a 10:12 pitch roof can build to a height of 9.14m and a 8:12 pitch roof can build to a height of 8.53m. Added that many speakers gave their address as living on Groveland Drive, if a homeowner is four lots east of Seabold they would be at the 8.25m restriction, if however, they are in the next segment of Groveland Drive travelling east they would be in the Schedule E area, which has the higher height allowance.


Councillor Bestwick asked Staff is there is anything unique about the seven areas within Schedule E.

Mr. Tucker noted that in 2001 when these areas were identified, the City went through a process to identify large areas that were, at that point, largely un-subdivided or undeveloped. Some areas have filled in substantially over the past ten years.

Councillor Bestwick asked Staff if a home which would not be permitted in an area with a 8.25m height restriction would be permitted in one of the areas within Schedule E.

Mr. Tucker noted he does not know the height of the home in question but believed the home could potentially be allowed in an area within Schedule E.

Councillor Pattje asked Staff if the City knows how much land left in the areas of Schedule E are Greenfield.

Mr Tucker confirmed the City does not know how much of the land left in the areas of Schedule E are Greenfield.

Mr. Kevin Krastel, 4116 Orchard Circle- Opposed

• Has been designing homes for 30 years. Has sat on numerous City Committees over many years, including the Committee that created Schedule H; it was thought at that time if people were allowed to create steeper rooflines, higher height restrictions would be offered. After 10 years, it can now be seen that by increasing the roof pitch the increment height restriction does not work. If the 8.25m height restriction and Schedule E are reinstated, the incremented roof pitch height calculation will again be in place and it does not work, another solution is needed.

• Houses are getting bigger, roof pitches are getting steeper and ceilings are getting higher; designs are based on the demands of customers. Customers ask for house designs that he cannot provide due to restrictions. Does not expect customers to ask for smaller houses or flatter rooflines. His industry has been struggling with the 8.25m height restriction since 1980; prior to that, the height restriction was 9.14m. Many of the older neighbourhoods contain homes at the 9.14m height.

• Believes the older neighbourhoods in Nanaimo could be perfect for densification if the height restriction was 9m.

• Many existing neighbourhoods contain homes with heights well under 8.25m.

Councillor Sherry asked the speaker why the increased heights in the areas of Schedule H did not work.

Mr. Krastel stated that they did not correctly calculate what the height would be when you take a roof at a certain angle over a typical truss span.

Councillor Sherry asked the speaker if it did not improve conditions ten years ago how it would improve conditions today.

Mr. Krastel does not believe the development community would require more than a 9m height restriction. The Committee of architects, designers, builders and City Staff met a few months ago and looked at the height restriction and at other municipalities; many people thought a height restriction higher than 9m would be appropriate. They compromised and decided to keep the height restriction below other municipalities because it would be fair and we could make it work.


Councillor Sherry asked how the other municipalities that were compared to Nanaimo measure.

Mr. Krastel stated that almost every municipality, including Nanaimo, measures from natural grade on the site and then takes an average.

Mr. Jim Galloway, 6558 Groveland Drive- In Favour

• Mr. Galloway's presentation is attached as a part of "Attachment C - Submissions for Bylaw No. 4500.004".

Mr. Fred Taylor, 204 Emery Way- In Favour

• Was at the pNAC meeting when they reviewed the 9m height restriction, the chairman of the Design Panel strongly encouraged pNAC to support the 9m height.

• Believes the 8.25m height is fair to all. Development variance permits are an excellent tool to analyze plans outside of what is permitted.

Ms. Maureen Pilcher, Maureen Pilcher & Associates Ltd. - Opposed

• Loves the new OCP; the new Zoning Bylaw was needed and is now appreciated. Staff has worked long and hard to achieve the new Zoning Bylaw. Public consultation and review was extensive. It is a great document, urged Council to see how it works, if it does not work it can be amended.

• Believes Council should trust that Staff is providing the right information. • The intent of the 9m height is for a two-storey building with a sloped roof. Does not

believe it is Council's job to protect everyone's in Nanaimo, as it is impossible. • Has been in the business for a long time and has seen people slice off the top of their

roof to fit into the 8.25m height restriction.

Mr. Ivan Plavetic, 130 Canterbury Crescent- Opposed

• Has been in the building business for 40 years. Urged Council to give the 9m height restriction a chance, if it does not work it can be amended.

Mr. Ron Bolin, 3165 King Richard Drive - In Favour - Redress

• If the 8.25m height restriction does not work, a developer can apply for a development variance permit. Believes developers do not want to apply for a development variance permit, as they will then have to consult with neighbours.

• Does not believe the difference of 2.6 feet will affect density levels in any real way.

Mr. Gord Fuller, 604 Nicol Street- In Favour

• No denying that Staff and others have worked very hard on the new Zoning Bylaw; however, the height issue did not come up in any of the consultation he was a part of. Communication needs to be better handled.


• If the group that came up with the idea of a 9m height restriction included the development industry, why were neighbourhoods not invited to that meeting? This needs to be looked at with common sense, not dollars and cents.

There were 84 written and 22 verbal submissions with regard to Zoning Bylaw No. 4500.004.

MOVED by Councillor Sherry, SECONDED by Councillor Holdom that the meeting adjourn at 10:26 pm.

Certified Correct:

~~-----------8. Anderson Manager, Community Planning Section Community Safety & Development

lpm Council: 2011-SEP-12 G:Devplan!Fi/es/Admin/057512011/Minutes/2011 SepOB PH Minutes.docx

CARRIED

Attachment A

Submission

For

Bylaw No. 6500.016

(OCP62 - 1985 Island Diesel Way)

Maureen Pilcher & Associates Land Use Consultants

Presentation to Council

2011-September-08 PUBLIC HEARING

Re:19851sland Diesel Way- OCP-62

Good Evening Your Worship Mayor Ruttan, Members of Council, Members of Staff, Ladies and Gentlemen:

My name is Maureen Pilcher, and I am a Land Use Consultant in the Central Vancouver Island area. Lance McNabb and Rod Milner, owners of this property, are requesting this redesignation with the intention of proceeding to a rezoning application for this property and the adjacent property, in order to develop a mixed use development that meets the goals and objectives of Plan Nanaimo for "corridor'' development.

This stretch of Bowen Road can, and should, support higher intensity land uses that will add to a pleasing pedestrian corridor with commercial and multiple family uses on this busy Corridor. An industrial use on this property will not - and does not - provide that pleasing pedestrian space that is sought through plan Nanaimo. A comprehensive development that includes commercial space at and above ground level, with prime pedestrian spacesand increased residential densities - that does meet the goals and objectives of plan Nanaimo and it is possible along Bowen Road. It is expected that the buildings will be oriented toward Bowen Road and with increased landscaping and green space design will enhance pedestrian safety and vehicle separation along this already active pedestrian route. Street trees, benches and public spaces will create an area to be utilized by the community and pedestrian walkways through the site will integrate well into the neighbourhood.

The grade change in this area, from the adjacent Boxwood Industrial area, will provide a natural separation from the residential and commercial uses. The development of multiple family units will provide the much needed higher density residential land use and the proposed commercial uses will create employment opportunities. Small commercial retail shops will provide for the day to day necessities of the residents - and their other service providers -doctors, dentists etc. will rent office space here. Bowen Road is a busy transit corridor- more people equal more transit on this direct route right through the middle of Nanaimo. A comprehensive multi-family/commercial development will be more compatible with the single family homes found along Bowen Road than with an industrial development on the site. This proposal will complete this street edge and set the tone for development along the Bowen Road Corridor.

1149 Pratt Road Qualicum Beach, BC V9K1W6

Phone: (250) 752-6246 Fax: (250) 752-8513 Cell: (250) 802-6046 E-Mail: [email protected]

The redesignation of this one small industrial property will not negatively impact the stock of industrially zoned land in Nanaimo - but it could pave the way for this block of Bowen Road to become a visually pleasing and well used shopping and living corridor. Corridor development, with good aesthetic planning, will give Nanaimo residents the choice to leave their cars at home -walking, cycling or taking public transit will be easier and quicker than climbing into your car. This is a rapidly growing area - and good all-inclusive development will support that growth and achieve the ambitions of the corridor designation of plan Nanaimo. The location - close to many schools, parks and other amenities - makes this a prime site for a mixed use development that will enhance this corridor and enhance a vibrant Nanaimo community.

We know that including the neighbourhood early on in any redevelopment process can result in a winning outcome for all sides. We held a public information open house regarding this OCP amendment at Beban Park - four interested residents attended and all indicated support for this concept.

An OCP redesignation is just the first step towards the development of these properties. We look forward to working with City Staff, Council and the neighbourhood towards rezoning these properties and completing a comprehensive development at this location that we can all be proud of.

I thank you for your time and attention - and would be pleased to answer any questions.

1149 Pratt Road Qualicum Beach, BC V9K1W6

Phone: (250) 752-6246 Fax: (250) 752-8513 Cell: (250) 802-6046 E-Mail: [email protected]

Attachment B

Submissions

For

Bylaw No. 4500.002

(General Amendments)

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

~ L/G:;o. 002'

Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:51 PM Public Hearing webmaster@nanaimo. ca Send a Submission Online

Nancy Mitchell has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 225 Cypress Street Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Bylaw 4500: September 8, 2011 Comments: To Mayor and Council:

RE: Public Hearing, September 8, 2011 regarding Zoning Bylaw: 4500

I am writing to express my support for Bylaw 4500.002, Section 6 which amends the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone to clarify that the W2 zone supports a building height of up to four storeys.

I also support that portion of Bylaw 4500.004 which reduces the maximum allowable height within single dwelling residential zones to reflect the previous Zoning Bylaw 1993, No. 4000.

I must however, express my concern as to the meaning of the sentence, in proposed Bylaw 4500.004: "Properties exempt from specified building heights are specified in Schedule E - Height Exemption of the Zoning Bylaw". As far as I could tell, there was no readily available copy of this Schedule Eon the website for the City of Nanaimo. The only one I could find was a useless black and white attachment to a Report to City Council. If there is to be such a Schedule E, it should be published on the City's web site in a format that everyone can identify which properties are exempt. It is my recommendation that until this Schedule is publically available online and residents have an opportunity to comment on it, then it should be removed from this proposed bylaw 4500.004.

Regards, Nancy Mitchell

\6+-.1-S 1

~ L/soo. ao2, =J tf Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Subject:

delores dallas [2011 [email protected]] Thursday, September 08, 2011 11:06 AM Public Hearing rezoning

Plan 33180@vip8888on map E

My husband and myself are very upset about this rezoning. We received the paper on Thur. Sept. the first, and did not read it until we were on the plane to London, England.

We were under the impression there is to be: A notice board on the site three months before it goes to council The people in the area have letters that are delivered to them regarding the zoning This needs to go to council three times before it is approved

None of the above has been done and as I said above we are very upset and I am sure that the other people on Noye Road will also be upset when this comes to their attention.

We do not want a park at 5521 Noye Rd. reasons are: It will be a place for anti social teenagers in the evenings to gather If anything is said to them you can be sure there be retribution

We will be returning to Canada Oct. the fourteeth. I would like an answer to this email and the name of the person who is sending it so I know who to call when we return home. My email address is 2011 [email protected].

Delores Dallas

tS-.;_.)2

lSl-.3}

Attachment C

Submissions

For

Bylaw 4500.004

(Permitted Height of a Single Residential Dwelling)

Mr. Mayor, Council Members

It is with. a sad heart that I find myself compelled to address this assembly .. We tax payers have entrusted you with the responsibility of doing what is best for our residents. A city is only as good as it people. We have the rightto live in peace and harmony. Most of us here to speak to this issue, have carefully chosen our place of residence; One of Nanaimo's greatest features is the terrain which affords lovely views which . is in itself is a huge . seiling/purchasing/living feature. ..LattM ~J_ ~

. If this is compromised, the results are far reaching, as so many here {!;owvL,(.~ tonight have pointed out. · 1 . . . . ··1-.(

-v1/LtUI.{_ r--v-v~t

We do not wish to jeopardize the right of the construction industry to !.J·t.<)f.

earn a living. I seriously doubt that keeping the building height a~ its current 8.25 M. would do so.

But, when a resident's view is suddenly altered by a new construCtion or renovation in front or near· his/her home, or the view property being sold is no longer a view property, thereby bringing in a much lower price, what would seem initially to those unaffected, as a simple Lets· Raise the Height is now a lifestyle altering occurrence for those directly affected.

I speak for many tonight. We· bought or built our homes under one set of rules. We made our choices based on those rules. You, dear council would li~e to change the ~ules part way through the-game. Even children know that it is not right to change the rules part way through the game. ·It is not fair. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you wish to start a new game, the rules are. up front. Then one can

· decide if one wants to play. . But this is not a game for us. We. live in our homes, raise our families, enjoy our views. Our home heights, for most of us, are permanent. It would not be economically prudent for us to raise the ·existing roof of our home almost 2.5 ft in order to maintain our view. This is a no brainer. ·

In favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 Metre HeightRestriction. Zoning Amendment bylaw No~ 2011 4500.004 ·

Public Hearing, Sept.8th 2011, 7prri. Shaw auditorium 80 Commercial St.

Letter to council sent Aug. 21 and again Sept. 8th.

Under no circumstances should the height of existing neighbourhoods be changed to accommodate new builders. We purchased a lot in a new subdivision, with the understanding that this was a single family residence area. (Eagleridge) We built, knowing that our neighbourhood would not contain rentals. In short order, the city passed a bylaw allowing suites in new residents, and. immediately

. contractors jumped on the "suitell bandwagon, and our lovely neighbourhood is filled with renters, who park in front of our homes, and the peace and quiet is disturbed by late night loud autos coming

· and going from rentals. The city changed the rules and we suffer the consequences. This cannot happen again. Once something is established, it is not fair, nor prudent to change the parameters. -No problem for new areas as those purchasing or building kno~ what is already in existenQe will continue. Please do not change the building heights in existing neighbourhoods. Thank you, Rene Rickard

~a-4-,tJ/U~·~ ~·.~ ~ .. M'dJ_~J

.CUte( k ~ J»tft~IL .u~ cdfr .~ d·

Please consider the following points:

1 . New subdivision - home/building heights could . be set at· whatever is deemed to be reasonable by council. That would make an even playing field. for all new home owners, not affecting what is already in existence.

2. Views are extremeli · important to many, many potential purchasers and sellers of existing homes. Morally, you do not have the right to take that away from us.

3. We live in our neighbourhoods. by choice, fully understanding that you, as our representatives will protect that which is dear to us, such as our lifestyles and our property values.

4. Please ... ----Do what is right. Do what is fair. Maintain the integrity of our exiting subdivisions. Honour our rights and Retain the height in existing neighbourhoods at 8.25 M.

Thank you for your attention.

Building Height- Single Family Residential

A 9m high single family home in Nanaimo with a steep sloped roof

A 8.19m high single family home in Nanaimo with a sloped roof

Abbotsford

Campbell River

Kamloops

Langford

North Cowichan

Prince George

Victoria

9.8m nor 3 storeys

Bm to wall plate

15m nor 2 storeys

9m

9m

1Om nor 2 1f2 storeys

7.6m to mid-point

_9 en (0 --

Zoning Bylaw Changes to Residential Building Heights

City of Nanaimo Public Hearing Sept 8, 2011

I am in favour of repealing the changes to residential building heights that were

included in the new Zoning Bylaw. What concerns me most is the lack of

information provided to the public and the lack of meaningful consultation that

took place when these new height allowances were developed.

To provide you with specific examples of what the public was told, I went back

and looked through some of the documents that were issued while the Zoning

Bylaw rewrite was going on. For example:

On June 30, 2010- about 15 months ago- an early Draft of the new Zoning

Bylaw showed the allowed Height of Principal residential building with

sloping roof at 8.25m. (as it was in the old bylaw)

- Aug 17, 2010 in an updated version of Draft Zoning Bylaw- the Height of

Principal residential building with sloping roof is still given as 8.25m

- Feb 1, 2011in a further update to the Draft Zoning Bylaw- Height remains

at 8.25 m

On March 15, 2011 a summary of proposed changes to the old Zoning

Bylaw presented at PNAC- there is a long list of proposed changes to the

old bylaw however there is no mention of changing the residential building

heights

And perhaps most importantly, the questionnaire used to gather input

from the public at all of the open houses, on the city web site and at city

hall made no mention at all of increasing building heights in residential

areas. There wasn't even a question on this topic included in the survey. If

you would like to look at the questionnaire results they were attached to

the minutes of the June 13 Council meeting agenda.

In Summary-It is apparent that throughout the zoning bylaw development

process the public was left with the impression that residential building height

would remain as they were in the old bylaw.

At the very last minute, in mid April 2011, the allowed building height suddenly

changed to 9m. The earliest notification that I have been able to find for this

change is recorded in the PNAC minutes of April19, 2011. When this change was

introduced the minutes state that some members of the committee were

opposed to the change due to impact on views.

View protection and building heights are important considerations to many home

owners in Nanaimo. You simply have to look at the Neighbourhood plans that

have been completed in recent years to see that most of them have some sort of

language expressing the importance of preserving views. As a result I believe that

before making a city wide change to the allowable height of buildings, broad

consultation with all affected groups was warranted. This type of consultation

didn't happen.

Quite a bit has been said in recent weeks about the greater building heights

permitted in some other municipalities. However not all of these municipalities

have the same stunning view potential that we have, and the protection of views

may not be as important a consideration as they are here.

In addition the issue we are dealing with at the moment isn't so much whether

an 8 or 9m residential height is correct for Nanaimo, but rather ensuring that

existing home owners are treated fairly when building height changes are allowed

in new construction. Rather than trying to compare building heights in different

municipalities (especially when everyone is working with different definitions for

the height of a building), it would be more useful to look at which municipalities

have actually changed allowable building heights in recent years, and how they

have dealt with minimizing the impacts of these changes on established

neighbourhoods.

I encourage you to return to the old building heights that most residents believed

would apply when the Zoning Bylaw public consultation took place. If there are

problems with these heights, that have only recently been identified, then they

should be dealt with at a future time through an amendment to the zoning bylaw.

In the interest of fairness, hopefully such an amendment would be based on

consultation with all affected parties, not just those in favour of higher buildings.

A variety of options could be looked to help minimize the impact of building

height changes within established neighbourhoods.

Thank you

Allan Davidson

2730 Elk Street

Nanaimo

250 756 0395

[email protected]

Good evening Mayor, Councilors, City Staff, Developers and fellow Citizens.

Before I start I think it might be beneficial to say a little about my background. I have spent my entire business career in the development industry, including senior positions with an international real estate developer and a large Canadian assurance company. My business degree, from UBC, is in Urban Land Economics and, as some of you may know, for the past 4 years I have served as a member of the Board of Variance for the City of Nanaimo.

Because of this background and experience, I'm supportive of the Development Industry in general -- and fully appreciate and encourage all development that is done correctly. It is from this vantage point that I'm here tonight, to lend my full support to the 8.25 metre Amending Bylaw.

Tonight, there are 4 key points that I would like to make:

The first key point deals with matters of Misconception - density being one of them. Frankly, raising the height of a single family residence will not, in itself, increase density. Other factors, such as adding a suite, will increase density, but that's not what the Bylaw we are considering tonight, is about.

Secondly, it has been erroneously stated our tax base will be increased by increasing height. It is obvious that taxes are raised through assessment and they are not simply proportionate to height ...... in fact, where views are destroyed, the assessment should and will decline commensurate with the decline in real property value.

Another misconception is that views are a trivial matter. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to question any citizen who has bought a home with a view and no doubt paid a premium for that view. Just ask that homeowner if they believe their view is a trivial matter? And then listen to them get fired up, just like I can do!

The final misconception I would like to address is the red herring called Building Schemes. Does Council really believe the best way to deal with this planning I height issue is to hand the matter over to the Developers in our City and let the citizens attempt to manage on their own? I very much doubt that, and if it were to come to this, then why do we employ planners?

The second key point I would like to make is about the comparisons of

Nanaimo being made with other Cities. I submit Nanaimo is unique, in that we are blessed with many wonderful views from a significant number of our existing residences ..... such as with many homes viewing the ocean from Lantzville Road to Departure Bay and further south. These homes have been purchased by people moving to Nanaimo, in good part because of their view .... views that the homeowners have always believed and understood would be retained.

The third key point is the question of fairness. Although I'm sure others have, and will, address this matter this evening, I would like to simply state it is wrong to take benefits 11paid for" by one party and, for all practical purposes, transfer these benefits to another- with no compensation to the party that has been harmed. This is not an example of the ~~even-handed principle".

The final key point I would like to leave with you, is the matter of Compromise. I do believe there are solutions to the position we find ourselves in, and we do have the opportunity to make it work. In the course of the communications back and forth, some of our citizens have been described by one of our reputable contractors, as bullies, working for their own interests. The person who said this has subsequently apologized, and I am grateful for that, but this does give an indication of how strong the feelings are on both sides. Nevertheless, this seems to me, now is the time for compromise and I have one to suggest.

It is, in fact, what I have suggested all along. Why not apply the proposed new height Bylaw to new developments, in new subdivisions, but not to existing residential developments and subdivisions? I realize that this will take some staff work to define which is ~~existing" and which is ~~new". However, it seems rather obvious and I'm certain that Planning Staff are capable of making this distinction. The "existing" are subdivisions currently registered in the Land Titles Office whereas, the ~~new" will be subdivisions registered subsequent to adoption of this Amending Height Bylaw 4500.004

Nanaimo is transforming from a small city to a significant urban area. It is critical, at the same time, for our Bylaws to carefully transition accordingly. A dramatic leap from one stage to another, as suggested, would leave a lot

\~l-.4\

of people hurt and in trouble. We need to take the time to do it right!

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

Jim Galloway

6558 Groveland Drive}

Nanaimo} BC

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:36 PM Public Hearing webmaster@nanaimo. ca Send a Submission Online

will melville has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 4378 obrian road ladysmith Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I am opposed to the proposed amendemnt to the recently adopted bylaw 4500 reducing allowable building heights to the standards previously specified in bylaw 4000. I feel this is a regressive step. From my perspective City Staff have done a commendable job over the past 2 years in putting together a simplified comprehensive zoning bylaw that correlates well with the objectives of the OCP. Considerable consultation, and public input was sought during the drafting of this document. Establishing new parameters was not a decision lightly made. Reducing allowable heights will be detrimental to encouraging varying form, character and housing types within the City. From experience, allowing 9.0m as a maximum height does not translate into all housing being taller nor permit latitude for extra storeys. It does however provide a necessary tool for more innovative design, better solutions for difficult sites, better fit where context in old city neighbourhoods is important, and more options for sites designated for 2 to 4 units. Bylaw 4500 also has provision for smaller single family lot sizes. This can translate into much needed increased density and affordability for buyers wanting single family housing. The perscribed lot sizes invariably will lead to a housing form of 2 storeys. Here again 9 .Om allowable height will permit some flexibility as to how these units are configured. I encourage Mayor and Council to defer any change to Bylaw 4500 as it relates to building height and allow the Bylaw to be put into practise.

Penny Masse


Fred and Rosina [[email protected]] Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:24 AM Public Hearing ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004

I would like to be included in the group that opposes an increase to the allowable height of homes in Nanaimo, at least in existing neighbourhoods. We purchased our property with the assurance that our splendid ocean view would not be impeded by oversize construction of other homes. In fact, we signed documents to assure that the height of our house along with other considerations would be maintained.The view that we currently enjoy certainly came at a financial cost beyond others but that is what we paid for and hope to be able to continue to enjoy. With an increase to the height of new or renovated construction our visual enjoyment would quickly diminish. Personally I am not opposed to increased heights in yet to be established areas as everyone would be informed of this in advance and would be able to base their decision to purchase such a sight could be made on an in advance informed basis. I sincerely hope that the area where enjoy life will continue to be as visually pleasant as it has been for these past several years. Please do not allow an increase to the height of residential housing. Thank you. Fred Solylo 6540 Groveland Dr. Nanaimo.

Penny Masse

From: J Galloway [[email protected]] Thursday, September 08, 2011 11 :22 AM Public Hearing

Sent: To: Subject: Fw: Fw: Bylaw 4500.004 -the issue of height, single dwelling residential

Please add this letter, as partially taken from previous correspondence, to the file for the September 8th Public Hearing .

.,.--.,..,.Original Message-----[ErQ,t!J~jjtJ.:Ga'ii6Wayl;[;·L,g.;,~f(}{ •... · .•...•..•.•.•. ·· ..• :~.;.: SJWij•J•.t\;; > -••· ~:>ti'i;; .. •·.····•·••·····-•·.·••-•-.·· .. · ..•. ::·······.·;\:i·. •) i;,.•) ......................... -/c.~;·:·;;:· .• -.••h;~ i'i'i,S?t>'U.i ••: ..• :;;;·?• To: Ken Connolly Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:08AM Subject: Fw: Fw: Bylaw 4500.004 -the issue of height, single dwelling residentia

Ken, welcome back to what, no doubt, will be an interesting week.

Please be assured I have no problem with you holding your views, just as I believe you would of mine.

If we might, I would welcome some exchange of thinking as to this height matter (Bylaw 4500.004). And, frankly, I sense our thoughts, for practical purposes, may not be that far apart.

For example, from the time I learned of the proposed increase in height (which, believe it or not, was only in mid July of this year) I have supported the increased height for new subdivisions. I submit my opinion has been consistent and clearly stated, to all concerned parties. Furthermore, I trust you do not see that as either "maddening" nor "downright entertaining" - for should you, yes we are far apart.

Of the neighbours, and others, that I have been working with on this issue, I also believe their concerns are the same as mine. Furthermore, I submit, it was only due to a partial misunderstanding of the issue that the original Motion was made such that it included all residential development, versus existing residential. Can I assume you are aware of the subsequent Motion passed by Council? 67011 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to prepare a report regarding heights in all residential zones, and whether Council can distinguish between new and old subdivisions. The motion carried unanimously. I'm not aware of any group who are promoting the '8.25 m. height' for all residential lands. Are you?

As to your 'main motivation', which you have stated is to grapple with Nanaimo's looming infrastructure catastrophe, I question how you can seriously believe adding 30 inches to the permitted height of a single family residence in an existing neighbourhood of our City, will make any contribution whatsoever to this economic issue? In similar manner, your industry 'representative' has emphatically stated that "Density is Key to Nanaimo". The following paragraph expresses my thoughts on this logic, or lack thereof, as copied from part of another letter.

It has been stated "Density is Key to Nanaimo" While this may be a theoretical objective from a planning perspective, clearly density is only one of the many planning factors to consider ... and as such does not stand on its own ..... as otherwise we should simply convert to a City of high-rises. Do we want Nanaimo to be like the west end of Vancouver? I don't think so. Furthermore, our concerns are limited to established single family residential neighbourhoods, where until major redevelopment and rezoning occurs, (which I submit for the majority of our existing neighbourhoods will be many years down the road), density will remain static. Raising the height of a single residence will, in itself, not increase the density, but it will, over time, impede existing views and hence reduce property values . Other factors such as adding secondary suites will increase the density, but that has already been accomplished. Clearly suites can be accommodated within the 8.25 metre height limit- as has been proven since that change

· was made. Furthermore, today, we are now dealing only with the height issue, as the density enhancing factors (such as smaller lots) of the new Bylaw 4500 have already been approved by Council. Accordingly, for purposes of discussing the height factor, relative to existing subdivisions, I submit the "density" argument is a non-issue.

Ken, as to your paragraph wherein you questioned how my wife and I might be personally impacted by the consequence of the increased height, I would like to reverse 'the put'. As I have done with Members of

1

Council, I invite you to visit our home anytime and examine what I feel could be the consequences. For example, one is the many years we have very much enjoyed watching the eagles raise their young in the nest at the waterfront. The extra height would eliminate that pleasure, not to mention the rest of the impediments. However, irregardless of our situation, there are the 1 OO's of residences beween Dickinson Road and Departure Bay, with wonderful views of our ocean and other vistas, that will, without a doubt, be negatively impacted, should the permitted height be increased to 9 metres.

In summary, while a looming infrastructure challenge may be worthy of consideration relative to a planning policy, the real issue for current and future residents is the question of fairness. Allowing one property to negatively impact another is wrong. Unfair treatment is also contrary to urban planning principles and design aesthetics, which seek to embrace and protect the character and integrity of existing neighbourhoods, principles that promote and protect harmonious communities. Accordingly, I suggest it may be in the best interests of your industry to focus on increasing the permitted height for 'new subdivisions', and leave the exisitng neighbouhoods to function within the height limits that have been in place for the past thirty years.

Your thoughts would be welcomed. Jim Galloway 6568 Groveland Drive 250 390 1906 jgalloway@telus. net

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:51 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Nancy Mitchell has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 225 Cypress Street. Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Bylaw 4500: September 8, 2011 Comments: To Mayor and Council:

RE: Public Hearing, September 8, 2011 regarding Zoning Bylaw: 4500

I am writing to express my support for Bylaw 4500.002, Section 6 which amends the Harbour Waterfront (W2) zone to clarify that the W2 zone supports a building height of up to four storeys.

I also support that portion of Bylaw 4500.004 which reduces the maximum allowable height within single dwelling residential zones to reflect the previous Zoning Bylaw 1993, No. 4000.

I must, however, express my concern as to the meaning of the sentence, in proposed Bylaw 4500.004: "Properties exempt from specified building heights are specified in Schedule E - Height Exemption of the Zoning Bylaw". As far as I could tell, there was no readily available copy of this Schedule E on the website for the City of Nanaimo. The only one I could find was a useless black and white attachment to a Report to City Council. If there is to be such a Schedule E, it should be published on the City's web site in a format that everyone can identify which properties are exempt. It is my recommendation that until this Schedule is publically available online and residents have an opportunity to comment on it, then it should be removed from this proposed bylaw 4500.004.

Regards, Nancy Mitchell

Penny Masse


Jane Pettingill [[email protected]] Thursday, September 08, 2011 1 :54 PM Public Hearing Fwd: Residential Height Restrictions

----------Forwarded message----------From: Jane Pettingill <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Aug 22,2011 at 10:39 AM Subject: Residential Height Restrictions To: mayor&[email protected]

We moved to Nanaimo from Ontario and were delighted with all the positives we observed. But now, we are concerned about the direction of urban planning. Who is going to benefit from the proposal to increase the residential building height in established housing areas? Probably, only a select few- the vast majority of homeowners in these already established subdivisions will see negative changes to sun exposure, views, and ambiance of their neighbourhoods. Does the mayor and council represent all people in Nanaimo, or just a select few? Please do not vote for increased building height in established neighbourhoods. Respectfully, Jane & Peter Pettingill.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 2:08 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Pat Durose has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 5858 Shadow Mountain Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 5400 004 Comments: Opposed to bylaw amendment limiting roof height to 9 m

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:25 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Robert Huck has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6535 Raven Rd Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I categorically reject any attempt to increase the height restriction above 8.25 M. Our house was built to meet current standards in good faith and any increase would adversely affect not only our view, for which we paid a premium, but our property value. Changing the rules after the fact is unfair and, indeed, irresponsible on the part of elected officials charged with looking after our interests.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:1 0 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Dominic Jones has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6529 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction.

9 m in established neighbourhoods is not fair to current single family home owners.

Thank you.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:31 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Charles Janjic/ Concept Design Group has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 5339 Scenic Place Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I am against the proposed Bylaw amendment to the 9m height restriction. I feel as a designer and builder that the 9m height is critical to the future growth and development of all areas of Nanaimo. The City should be planning progressively as other communities have and not amend the height Bylaw back to the 8.25m max. height requirement.

Penny Masse



Ron Bolin has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 3165 King Richard Drive, Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the amendment to return residential building heights in established neighbourhoods to the 8.25m which has pertained for the past several decades. It is not fair that one persons view should be jeopardized in favour of another with no major offsetting general public benefit. The argument of increasing density with this .75m height increase is persiflage of the highest order. As Occam's Razor slices it, to be a difference, it must make a difference. If density increase is to be considered in such cases then it must be of sufficient magnitude to enable better transportation strategies, the development of local shops and services, etc., i.e. to make a difference to the community rather than to a single individual.

1

\5f.S3

Penny Masse



Lynda Wright has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6499 Raven Rd., Nanaimo, B.C. Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Bylaw 4000, Zoning Amendment Bylaw No 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favor of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:06PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Carla Montrose has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 108 Sharon Place, Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: In favour of proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction.

1

t6+.55

Penny Masse



Army Montrose has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 108 Sharon Place, Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: In favour of proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, September 08, 2011 7:47AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

John Cline has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 4500 Peregrine Road, Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction. Thank you -John Cline

1

\'51, Sl--

Penny Masse

From: Public Hearing Subject: FW: re send regarding home heights

From: Rene Rickard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:15AM To: Public Hearing Subject: Fwd: re send regarding home heights

please see message below initially sent August 21st to city council. Thank you.

Begin forwarded message:

Under no circumstances should the height of existing neighbourhoods be changed to accommodate new builders. We purchased a lot in a new subdivision, with the understanding that this was a single family residence area. (Eagleridge) We built, knowing that our neighbourhood would not contain rentals. In short order, the city passed a bylaw allowing suites in new residents, and immediately contractors jumped on the "suite" bandwagon, and our lovely neighbourhood is filled with renters, who park in front of our homes, and the peace and quiet is disturbed by late night loud autos coming and going from rentals. The city changed the rules and we suffer the consequences. This cannot happen again. Once something is established, it is not fair, nor prudent to change the parameters. No problem for new areas as those purchasing or building know what is already in existence will continue. Please do not change the building heights in existing neighbourhoods. Thank you, Rene Rickard [email protected] To stay young, the doctor said to exercise and eat the right foods. I thought he said to accessorize and buy nice shoes.

Penny Masse


[email protected] Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:58 AM Public Hearing Fw: change of building height restrictions

To Council Re: Change of Housing Height Restrictions Changing height restrictions for homes in established neighbourhoods is a flagrant disregard of current property owners wishes and rights. What right do you have to arbitrarily make changes that will directly impact both the monetary and aesthetic value of our properties? We can't help but wonder who council is working for: certainly it is not the current property owners. Who requested this change? The same self-serving blockheads who pushed for the conference centre and adjoining hotel? Keep the building height restrictions as they are in existing residential areas. }and £Swann

Penny Masse

From: 'Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

J Galloway [email protected]] Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:13PM Public Hearing Fw: Letter to Mayor and Members of Council re Height Matter Fw_ Single Residential Dwelling Building Heights, proposed Bylaw 4500.eml

Please add this correspondence, which was submitted August 17th, to the Public Record for the Sept 8th Public Hearing. ----- Original Message -----tEr9:m;[MKGaii6w~y1~0~!jj)-)iiii'.0 (:s'' -····?····•······-?•:,r• ;·······)··;,_:~.) ·'!ES . ·-·,: ·.:•: ;•;;: :.J.•t'}:; .• •,·n.·x·::;:·.;;;.:;·~·--· ··::.; .... •.···•\ ... c;;.:.······.••····· ... ·...............<:•·:···: ... · __ , ........... , ... ····.-·· To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 17,201112:43 PM Subject: Letter to Mayor and Members of Council re Height Matter

Mayor and Members of Council.

Re: Change of Building Height for Single Family Residences

For the past four years I have been a member of the Board of Variance for the City of Nanaimo. During this time the Board has received applications whereby numerous neighbours have voiced their opposition for a request to increase the permitted height of a single family residence, particularly where the situation involves an existing established subdivision with view lots. Depending on the circumstances, these applications have been approved, or declined. In all cases the amount of variance being requested was significantly less than the increase proposed through Bylaw 4500 i.e. from 8.25 metres to 9 metres, being 30 inches.

I respectfully submit that a substantial relaxation I expansion of the permitted height within existing subdivisions, particularly where view lots are involved, will directly impact and be very detrimental to many homeowners within our City.

As a case in point I can speak to, is my residence at 6558 Groveland Drive, Nanaimo. We recently constructed, at considerable expense, an addition with large picture windows to better enjoy the wonderful view our property provides of the ocean and the Winchelsea Islands. Although our subdivision is now say 96% build out, ironically the adjacent downslope lot to our property is yet to be developed. All of the other residences constructed in our neighbourhood have been built in accordance with the permitted 8.25 metre max height. Naturally, it was always our understanding this would be the maximum height permitted for the lot below us. However, with the new Zoning Bylaw as it is being proposed, a new residence could have a roof line to the maximum permitted height of 9 metres, significantly out of step with the other immediate homes. It would also destroy a significant portion our vista and no doubt impact the value of our investment.

I strongly encourage Staff and Council to give serious consideration to the concept of increasing the permitted height of sfngle family residences. I know our City Planning Staff has the skills required to resolve this matter in a better way. For existing neighbourhoods I subdivisions, I submit the height limitation should remain as it is and variances should be heard, on a case by case basis, through a Development Variance from Council and/or Board of Variance application. This will ensure immediate neighbours are able to participate in the process.

In summary, I question the wisdom and fairness of implementing 9 metres across the board for the total City and ask of Council.. .... what is the public benefit of devalueing residents of Nanaimo from

1

\51.bb

their enjoyment I investment of the homes they have purchased and reside in, by transferring it to another?

My wife and I extend an invitation for any of you to visit our home, to see for yourselves a specific example of the impact an additional 30 inches will entail. Accordingly, for the well being of the many Nanaimo homeowners who benefit from our spectacular views, due to the favourable natural topography of our City, I encourage your thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Galloway 6558 Groveland Drive, Nanaimo, BC 250 390 1906

Penny Masse



Ed Chan has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 167 Irwin St Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004 Comments: In established neighbourhoods, I support the maximum height of 8.25m for single family residential homes. Allow the maximum height in new developments to expand to 9 .Om, but keep the established maximum in established neighbourhoods. I feel very strongly about this. Thank you for your attention.

Penny Masse

ocrom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:27 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Janice Chantree has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 2875 Holiday Crescent Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4000 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the height of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000 at 8.25m.

1

l51.f0

Penny Masse

f'rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Web master Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:29 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Joan Wallace has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 27 65 Elk Street, Nanaimo, B.C. Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Amendment # 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed amendment to Retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 201110:34 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Robert Mazanik has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6552 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the above mentioned amendment retaining the 8.25 meter height restriction

1

\'51-. 6S

Penny Masse



Vania Mazanik has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6552 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the above mentioned amendment retaining the 8.25 meter height restriction

1

\5l-. loG

Penny Masse


Good morning,

Rick Hoggarth [[email protected]] Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:57 AM Public Hearing; Mayor&Council Input to Bylaw 4500.004 Property Heights

My wife and I are in support of retention/reduction of a maximum single family dwelling height of 8.25 M. Retention of existing standards in our area (Icarus/Eagle Point) and others help maintain view lines, privacy and property values.

Many thanks for looking out for our interests,

Rick and Heather Hoggarth

1

\51--~ l-

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 201112:17 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Andre McNicol! has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 1825 Latimer Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500 Comments: I am against the amendment to reduce the maximum height for building from 9m to 8.25 m.

1

lSi-, b <J>

Penny Masse


Mark Warbrick [[email protected]] Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40 PM Public Hearing Bylaw No. 4500.004

Your Worship Mayor Ruttan and honourable members of Council:

As a concerned resident of the City of Nanaimo, as a person who served on the committee formed to assist in the creation and review of Bylaw 4500, and as a business owner in the City of Nanaimo I am NOT in favour of the above

noted bylaw. Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly, Mark Warbrick, P.Eng., Newcastle Engineering Ltd., #4-3179 Barons Road, Nanaimo, B.C., V9T 5W5 Phone: 250-756-9553, Ext. 23, Fax: 250-756-9503

Penny Masse


Mark Warbrick [[email protected]] Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:44 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Bylaw No. 4500.004

Your Worship Mayor Ruttan and honourable members of council:

As a concerned homeowner in the City ofNanaimo I wish to make it known that I am NOT in favour of the above noted bylaw. Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly, Darlene W arbrick 1907 Carmel Place, Nanaimo, B.C., V9T 5R3

Penny Masse


Webmaster Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:20AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Brianne de Yerteuil has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 637 Prideaux Street Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction

1

\51-. i-\

Penny Masse


Web master Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:30AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Clare Craig has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 7-540 Prideaux St., Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am writing to express my opinion in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Marilyn Smith Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:04AM 'Andy & Barb Murray'; '[email protected]'; Mayor&Council DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse RE: Public Meeting -September 8th, 2011 regarding raising the height restriction in neighborhoods

Your email regarding raising the height restrictions in neighbourhoods has been received by all members of

City Council. I have forwarded a copy of your email to members of our senior staff for their information.

:Mari{yn Smitfi 5td'ministrative 5tssistant to :Mayor and' Counci{ City of Nanaimo Pfione: 250-755-4400 :fax: 250-754-8263

' From: Andy & Barb Murray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 6:53PM To: [email protected]; Mayor&Council Subject: Public Meeting- September 8th, 2011 regarding raising the height restriction in neighborhoods

I am writing to advise that myself and my wife, Barbara, who reside at 6506 Raven Road DO NOT SUPPORT raising the 1eight restriction to 9m in residential neighborhoods. Our neighborhood is well established, however, there are still some lots left for development. Raising the height to 9m will severely restrict a person's views of their landscape and many of us have seen our municipal taxes rise over the last couple of years because of the water view. We purchased our homes in this area because of the water view and having this compromised is not acceptable and will severely impact on property values.

Several members of our neighborhood had to attend a Board of Variance hearing approx. two years ago because a home owner, who was building a new home, wanted to raise the level of his roof above the height restriction. The request was denied by the Board. Raising the height restriction by .75 of a meter (29 X inches) doesn't sound like much but it would be enough to totally block some views and severely restrict others that people enjoy. A home is the most significant purchase anyone will make in their lifetime and raising the height restriction will have a very significant impact on their investment. Some people purchased their home in the location it is in knowing that there is a height restriction and believing that it will never change.

Andy Murray

Penny Masse


Marilyn Smith Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:03AM 'Bill Baird'; Mayor&Council DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse RE: Zoning Amendment ByLaw No 2011 4500.004

Your email regarding building height restrictions in Nanaimo has been received by all members of City

Council. I have forwarded a copy of your email to members of our senior staff for their information.

:Jvl.ari{yn Smitfi .Jttiministrative .Jtssistant to Mayor anti Counci{ City of :Nanaimo Pfione: 250-755-4400

:fax: 250-754-8263

--------·----·----------------· From: Bill Baird [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:14PM To: Mayor&Council Subject: Zoning Amendment ByLaw·No 20114500.004

Dear Mr Mayor and Members of Council,

1 understand that you and the Council are proposing further examination of the current bylaw on building height restriction with a public hearing on September 8th 2011. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the meeting but strongly support the motion that the height of building remains at 8.25 metres. Indeed it is alarming that developers have placed caveats on titles stating that homes cannot exceed determined limits and now seem to be coming in the back door to increase the heights of new buildings. Because of this the City will be swamped with tax reductions, as values plummet, if such a height increase passes through Council.

Please note my strong opposition to any increased height.

Yours Sincerely,

WILLIAM BAIRD Resident 6482 Raven Road Nanaimo V9V 1V6

Penny Masse

From: · Sent:

To: Cc: Subject:

Marilyn Smith Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:48 PM 'J HOWARDSON'; Mayor&Council DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse RE: let's protect our old neighbourhoods! a height of 8.5 metres works for us!

Your email regarding building heights in Nanaimo has been received by all members of City Council. I have

forwarded a copy to members of our senior staff for their information.

Mari{yn Smitfi .Jtd"ministrative .J\.ssistant to Mayor ana Counci{ City of Nanaimo Pfione: 250-755-4400

:fax: 250-754-8263

From: J HOWARDSON [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:40PM To: Mayor&Council Subject: let's protect our old neighbourhoods! a height of 8.5 metres works for us!

I've lived in Nanaimo for 35 years and for the past seven years has resided in Nob Hill. I've watched beautiful views shrink and am very aware that narrow view corridors are in the future as high rises are being built on the waterfront. Many are still empty and yet developers will build several more and views will be lost. The vistas that many could enjoy as they drive or walk down any of the streets that lead to the "hub" ofNanaimo are being taken away so a FEW right on the waterfront can enjoy the view. These original old neighbourhods were designed so that the MAXIMUM amount of people in the Old City, Nob Hill, South Side and downtown could stop, reflect and enjoy stunning views. In fact, it seems to me there was a recent celebration downtown this summer that honoured the wisdom of past planners. These lovely old neighbourhoods are a part ofNanaimo's heritage and past and surely they deserve to be respected and protected. They were designed so that residents could enjoy a view - no matter how humble the abode.

Now that all the land in the north ofNanaimo has been gobbled up- it seems developers are greedily eyeing old neighbourhoods as their next untapped resource. I do believe we that live in these neighbourhoods should have a say in something as important as this. We are completely vested in our neighbourhoods- many have lived here for years because developers have been busy on the waterfront and north end and we have quite a peacable kingdom. Blocking views in our neighbourhoods is not progress - it's more like bullying.

I would respectfully ask that you consider leaving the 8.5 meter height as it is and let the "old girls" be "old girls".

Sincerely Jacquie Howardson

1

\s:t-.15

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Donna Watson [[email protected]] Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:13PM Public Hearing FW: Zoning amendment 4500.004 _Certification_. txt

Mayor and Members of Council,

Attention: Changes of Building Height for Single Family Residence

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004

I am writing to voice my opposition to change the zoning bylaw to increase building heights from 8.25 meters to 9 meters, another 30 inches. This will directly impact us and many people who own view lots in this lovely city of Nanaimo. We moved here from Victoria because of the spectacular view of the ocean and the surrounding islands. And to think that now some of our view could be lost is disheartening and unfair to say the least.

I am also concerned for owners in older, established subdivisions when developers chose to remove old homes and build newer, bigger and now taller residences. Think of the impact that will have on people who perhaps have lived in the area for years.

I would strongly encourage the Staff and our elected Council to reconsider the concept of height increases for single family homes. Perhaps in new, undeveloped subdivisions that would not be an issue. But in established ones, it could devalue property and that should not happen.

Zoning Bylaws must be fair and just to all residents.

Thank you,

Donna and Wayne Watson

6546 Groveland Drive

Nanaimo, BC

Penny Masse


Web master Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:14PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Janet & Ernie Couture has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6553 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Bylaw 4500.004 Comments: We are in favor of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Webmaster Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:03 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Veronica Baird has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6482 Raven Road Nanaimo BC V9V 1 V7 Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Amdt. Bylaw No.2011 4500.004 Comments: We built our house on this particular piece of land with the knowledge that who ever built below us would not compromise our view. The developers for this established neighbourhood had a caveat placed on these lots stating that no one could build beyond a certain height. There are very few lots left in our subdidvision, including the one below us, so to change the rules now would have any future build with the increased height stand out too much plus it would obscure the view of others. Also if at any time we decided to sell our property it would have depreciated in value for that same reason. I believe the new height of 9 metres should only apply to new developments outside of established neighbourhoods where all the properties are built to the same scale and maximum heights. So I am "in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction" of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000.

Penny Masse


Web master Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:24 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

William Baird has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6482 Raven Road Nanaimo BC V9V 1 V7 Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Bylaw No 2011 4500 004 Comments: Height restriction as is MUST remain. This is clearly in the public interest and special interest groups must not be allowed to dictate their own agenda clearly for finacial gain.

Penny Masse



Jackie Gelling has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6290 McGirr Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: The Bylaw to increase the height restriction to 9 metres should not be applied to established neighborhoods.

Penny Masse

From: Sent:

Alistair Mclean [[email protected]] Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:08 PM

To: Public Hearing; Mayor&Council Cc: 'Alistair Mclean' Subject: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2011.4500.004

Mayor and Council,

Unfortunately due to my employment I am not able to be in Nanaimo to attend the September 08, 2011 public hearing in person.

I am against Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2011.4500.004 and hope Council will not approve same. Nanaimo has so many neighbourhoods with gorgeous views of water, mountains, and natural landscapes. With the potential raising of the maximum family residential housing to 9 metres from 8.25 metres this will create neighbourhoods where more homes will have reduced views for the benefit of a few. This will also cause the construction of larger size homes on their footprints.

I built a home in a Windley development in Nanaimo North 6 years ago. This is the perfect example of an extremely well planned sub-division that maximized the views of all homes facing Georgia Strait within the current height restriction. Yes the developer may have had to spend more funds up front on planning and site prep but I did not hear anyone during construction or have not heard since anyone complaining about height regulations and their view. What happens to current lots not developed, in lets say, this sub-division. If this amendment passes does that mean on those lots currently not developed a contractor can build a home to 9 metres. Do you realize what .75 metres actually is. That is 2.5 feet. That will encroach on the views of the current homeowners who purchased and built their home with the total understanding that any home in their view would be built to a certain height. I think it is also a registered covenant in the sub-division. I forsee potential lawsuits against the City.

Again I urge City Council to vote against the Amendment.

Sincerely,

Alistair Mclean Nanaimo Resident 604-999-8655 ( c )

Alistair Mclean CEO Hostelling International -Canada - Pacific Mountain Region

Suite 200- 1155 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6E 2P4 p: 604.684.7111 ext. 313 f: 604.684.7181 e: [email protected] www.hihostels.ca

1

\Sl . CZ:> \

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Andy & Barb Murray [[email protected]] Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:01 PM Merv Unger Public Hearing; Mayor&Council; Andy Murray

Subject: RE: Public Meeting -September 8th, 2011 regarding raising the height restriction in residential neighborhoods

Hello Councillor Unger, The notice that I received stated that bylaw no.2011 4500-004 has only received first and second reading and that a public meeting was being held on Sept 8th, 2011 @ 7pm in the Shaw Auditorium for public input. The notice stated that if you could not attend in person you could submit your support/non-support for the by-law by email to two sites[email protected] and [email protected] . As stated in my message below, my wife and I do not support raising the height of residential homes to 9meters .... That the established height of 8.25 meters be maintained.

My question then is if this height restriction has already passed why is council holding a public meeting to solicit the public's input?

Andy Murray

----·--·-----------------From: Merv Unger [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:15 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: Public Meeting - September 8th, 2011 regarding raising the height restriction in neighborhoods

That bylaw has already been passed. What we are talking about is amending the byaw to return to the previous height levels. I have opposed this bylaw from the beginning and still do. Merv

Merv Unger Councillor- City of Nanaimo Sent from my Blackberry- please excuse spelling anomalies.

----------- ------------------------From: Andy & Barb Murray [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 06:52PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mayor&Council Subject: Public Meeting - September 8th, 2011 regarding raising the height restriction in neighborhoods

-----------

I am writing to advise that myself and my wife, Barbara, who reside at 6506 Raven Road DO NOT SUPPORT raising the height restriction to 9m in residential neighborhoods. Our neighborhood is well established, however, there are still some lots left for development. Raising the height to 9m will severely restrict a person's views of their landscape and many of us have seen our municipal taxes rise over the last couple of years because of the water view. We purchased our homes in this area because of the water view and having this compromised is not acceptable and will severely impact on property values.

Several members of our neighborhood had to attend a Board of Variance hearing approx. two years ago because a home owner, who was building a new home, wanted to raise the level of his roof above the height restriction. The request was

1

\5=r. <'6'd .

denied by the Board. Raising the height restriction by .75 of a meter (29 '%inches) doesn't sound like much but it would be enough to totally block some views and severely restrict others that people enjoy. A home is the most significant purchase anyone will make in their lifetime and raising the height restriction will have a very significant impact on their investment. Some people purchased their home in the location it is in knowing that there is a height restriction and believing that it will never change.

Andy Murray

No virus found in this message. Checked by A VG- www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 I Virus Database: 1520/3881 -Release Date: 09/06/11

2

Penny Masse



Ronald and Janet Marwick has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6548 Raven Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2011 4500.004 Comments: We are in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 meter Height Restriction. Any changes to the existing height 8.5 would have a negative impact on exisiting subdivisions. Increasing height restrictions should only be permitted in brand new subdivisions.

Penny Masse



Stan & Susan Jarvis has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6502 Gerke Place (lw'r) Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 6501 Kestrel Cresent Comments: We are in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction .... any higher will restrict many families viewing in this area and will not fit into the area plan.

Penny Masse



Boon Haw Lim has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6059 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am against increasing the height restrictions on residences around Nanaimo from 8.25 metre to 9 metre.

Penny Masse



Cheng Sim Lim has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6059 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am against increasing the height restrictions on residences around Nanaimo from 8.25 metre to 9 metre. As it will decrease the value of my house, houses will block our ocean view.

1

t5l-.~i-

Penny Masse



Eric Lim has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 3018 Jameson Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am against increasing the height restrictions on residences around Nanaimo from 8.25 metre to 9 metre.

Penny Masse


Web master Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Julie Lim has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 3018 Jameson Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am against increasing the height restrictions on residences around Nanaimo from 8.25 metre to 9 metre.

Penny Masse



Bill & Lorraine Robertson has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6580 Pelican Way, Nanaimo, BC V9V 1 P9 Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2011 4500.004 Comments: We are in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction in Nanaimo. Allowing a higher height restriction could restrict the views of existing properties and thus devalue them.

Penny Masse



Sandra Rickson has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 531 6 Kenwill Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favor of the proposed Amendment to retain the height of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000 at 8.25 meters.

Thank you, Sandra Rickson

Penny Masse



Patricia Archibald has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 5316 Kenwill Drive Nanaimo B. C. Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I am in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the height of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000 at 8.25 metres.

1

\ Sl- .q:l.

Penny Masse



Gordon Fuller has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: go4 Nicol St. Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: Honourable Mayor and Council

I am writing this submission in support of ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004

It has been said that the most important purchase an individual or family will make in their lifetime is their home. People purchase for many reasons the most important being the ambiance of the neighbourhood and views.

On reading Ken Connolly's submission I have to say that quite frankly, I was appalled.

Mr. Connolly has referred to the citizens of Nanaimo, who do not support his position, as being "a handful of bullies", he has also stated these citizens "own self-interests blind them to the realities of the world around them".

Pretty strong language, if I do say so. Seems to me if there's a 'bully' in the group he might like to take a look in the mirror and if those self interests are the very reasons they purchased a home in the first place then should it not be so?

As to realities of the world, perhaps Mr. Connolly has been absorbing too much of Donald Trump, on the TV.

The following is the essence of Mr. Connolly's submission, with the position's reversed, from the position of one whose 'interests' might be affected if this zoning bylaw were not to pass. It read's as follows;

With utmost respect regarding the complexities of the decisions you are required to make, I urge council to serve ALL members of our community by accepting the arguments of local citizens who wish to roll back the building height increase allowed for in Bylaw 4500.

You are elected to serve the entire community, and not just a few individuals. You are expected to act with due consideration and a vision for the future well being of our community and its citizens.

Evidence abounds that Bylaw 4500, with the proposed amendments, is well reasoned and will help our community to develop in a financially sustainable fashion for years to come. As stewards of public policy in this community you MUST vote for the benefit of the entire city and approve the amendment.

How tragic it would be if we all looked back on this issue and recalled that this council bowed to the pressure from a handful of developers self-focused arguments at this crucial juncture. Please vote now to serve the citizens of the City of Nanaimo, not a handful of people whose own self-interests and quest for profit blind them to the realities of the world around them.

In closing, this is a matter of fairness and in my opinion that's an issue you have to address by approving the amendment before you.

1

\ Sl-.. C1.3

Penny Masse


Webmaster Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:14 PM

· Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Lars Apland has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 1277 Selkirk Drive, Nanaimo. Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Amending Bylaw No. 2011 4500.004 Comments: As an owner of an existing view property in Nanaimo, I believe that, in the interests of fairness, the 8.25 meter height restriction should be retained. I am in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction in established neighbourhoods.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:37 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Fred Solylo has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6540 Groveland Drive Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: As a north end Nanaimo resident I am strongly opposed to the height increse for residential housing. An increase in heightwoudl impede the continuity of an existing neighborhood which we have all come to enjoy and appreciate.

1

\ Sl- .95

Penny Masse


Webmaster Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:48 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Larry and Kathy Evans has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6440 Raven Road Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Zoning Amendment Bylaw #20 11 4500.004 Comments: We would like the existing height restriction, set at 8.25 meters, to remain as is with no consideration to increase it to 9.00 meters.

1

\5~.<1\a

What neighbourhoods are important for a 9m height.

Mr. Krastel has stated all neighbourhoods are important, but at the same time has acknowledge there are neighbourhoods established in say the past 30 years, (which I submit makes up a substantial portion of our City), that are not ready for replacement... ... yet he states ... why wait?.

As to Protecting View Corridors. I find the representative for the construction industry's comments to be very cavalier. The number of people affected is not "very, very small" as stated and yet the potential impact is significant for many citizens of Nanaimo ... who have either invested in, or had built, residences believing they knew the rules of the road i.e. a maximum building height of 8.25 metres. Let's also keep in mind renovations/additions to existing residences can also impede views. And, what about all of the many existing residences with wonderful views of the ocean between Dickinson Road and Departure Bay. How many are there? Is the number "very, very small"?

As to Variances, the construction industry has only made reference to the Board of Variance and has omitted the optional Development Variance Permit. It is true the BOV is confined to considering variances limited to a demonstration of a 'hardship'. And, to use the example of houses built prior to 1980, perhaps this would in fact qualify as a hardship for a BOV application and BOV approval might therefore be granted, provided all other factors are also demonstrated. Nevertheless, 'hardship' is not required when Council is granting a Development Variance, and this option may very well be one potential tool for Staff and the industry to consider.

Building Schemes I submit, it is not for the City to foist on to the Public an arrangement such that citizens should now have to rely on whatever Building Schemes they may, or may not, have been contracted to, when they purchased their residences. In many situations the building scheme might not have existed in the first place. Or, the Building Scheme may have expired through time, bankruptcy/death of the developer. But, and most importantly, it also puts the onus on the homeowner to obtain enforcement through the Courts (provided the developer is then in agreement). As most of us know, this can be a very time consuming process and often an impracticable solution to a disagreement between two parties. Accordingly, the substitution of the Building Scheme argument simply does not hold water.

Follow the Example of Other Cities.

Clearly the Public supports architectural style changes, both for new and established neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, in itself, this is not enough reason to justify over-riding other significant planning factors. Accordingly, for established subdivisions, it is simply wrong to thrust an out of proportion residence into an established neighbourhood, potentially with significant impediment to the neighbours existing views and no neighbourhood consultation.

As to the question of Supporting Nanaimo's Construction Industry, from what I have personally experienced over the past 10 years, this City has bent over backwards to accommodate this industry. Take for example the more recent changes to the Sign Bylaw, in regards to construction and realtor signage. If this was not a piece of legislation in favour of the industry, at the expense of the existing residential homeowners in Nanaimo, then what more could be granted ... other than the complete elimination of the Bylaw. Regarding the question of jobs ... sure we need them, but without the citizens there is no need for builders. Accordingly, the citizens are not just pawns for the job-makers and profiteers. The residential construction jobs are there because of the requirements of, and for, the citizens. Who is working for whom? Are we citizens working for the construction industry, or are they working for us?

In closing I question why the construction industry decided not to attend the Aug 22nd Special Council Meeting. The Public did attend, with three speakers and numerous letters presented, in support of the 8.25 metre height. As to conceding to pressure, that one cuts both ways and it seems to me the construction industry is often motivated by what might best suit its interests, regardless of the general public, who lest we might forget are also by far the most significant group of taxpayers within our City .... while albeit not the most vocal. Furthermore, from what I have observed, the construction industry has not made one inch of compromise in their claims, there is no reaching out, no suggestion of workable participatory solutions that are fair to all.

Please continue to vote for the proposed amendment, as it is simply the right thing to do.

Jim Galloway

250 390 1906

2

\Si-.C\~

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Marilyn Smith Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:54AM 'J Galloway'; Mayor John Ruttan; DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse Ted Greves; Merv Unger; Loyd Sherry; Fred Pattje; Jim Kipp; Diana Johnstone; Bill Holdom; Bill Bestwick RE: Zoning Amendment Bylaw 4500.004

Your email regarding Zoning Amendment Bylaw 4500.004 has been received by all members of City Council.

have forwarded a copy of your email to members of our senior staff for their information.

Mari[yn Smitfi :Administrative :Assistant to Mayor ancf Counci[ City of Nanaimo Pfione: 250-755-4400 :fax: 250-754-8263

From: J Galloway [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:31 PM To: Mayor John Ruttan Cc: Ted Greves; Merv Unger; Loyd Sherry; Fred Pattje; Jim Kipp; Diana Johnstone; Bill Holdom; Bill Bestwick Subject: Zoning Amendment Bylaw 4500.004

Mayor John Ruttan and Members of Council,

If I might, some comments in rebuttal to the construction industry's promotion of the increased height to 9 metres.

I'm one of the voices of the general public who are completely in support of the proposed amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height for residential zones, particularly as it concerns existing established neighbourhoods. I have, not by choice, (as I'd rather be fishing) also become one who has been spending the better part of the past few weeks fielding emails and phone calls from numerous citizens who believe very strongly in the need to retain our neighbourhoods and views ...... that for many years, have been governed through a Zoning Bylaw with a 8.25 metre height limit.

Of the members of the public that I have met with, not one has accepted the statement "The only solution is a blanket 9m height restriction for all residential zones".

To specifically comment on the construction industry letters:

It has been stated "Density is Key to Nanaimo"

While this may be a theoretical objective from a planning perspective, clearly density is only one of the many planning factors to consider ... and as such does not stand on its own ..... as otherwise we should simply convert to a City of highrises. Do we want Nanaimo to be like the west end of Vancouver? I don't think so. Furthermore, our concerns are limited to established single family residential neighbourhoods, where until major redevelopment and rezoning occurs, (which I submit for the majority of our existing neighbourhoods will be many years down the road), density will remain static. Raising the height of a single residence will, in itself, not increase the density, but it will, over time, impede existing views and hence reduce property values . Other factors such as adding secondary suites will increase the density, but that has already been accomplished. Clearly suites can be accommodated within the 8.25 metre height limit- as has been proven since that change was made. Furthermore, today, we are now dealing only with the height issue, as the density enhancing factors (such as smaller lots) of the new Bylaw 4500 have already been approved by Council. Accordingly, for purposes of discussing the height factor, relative to existing subdivisions, I submit the "density" argument is a non-issue.

Penny Masse

From: Marilyn Smith Sent: To: Cc:

Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:55 AM 'Anna Mohit'; Public Hearing; Mayor&Council DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse

Subject: RE: Zoning amendment bylaw no. 2011 4500.004

Your email regarding Zoning amendment Bylaw No. 4500.004 has been received by all members of City Council. I have forwarded a copy of your email to members of our senior staff for their information.

Marilyn Smith Administrative Assistant to Mayor and Council City of Nanaimo Phone: 250-755-4400 Fax: 250-754-8263

----Original Message-----From: Anna Mohit [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 05,2011 2:12PM To: Public Hearing; Mayor&Council Subject: Zoning amendment bylaw no. 2011 4500.004

To the Mayor and Council, This is to inform you that we are strongly opposed to the notion of the Zoning Amendment Bylaw 2011 4500.004. It is patently unfair to increase the height restrictions from 8.25m to 9 .Om in established neighbourhoods. No one wants to be unfairly compromised or disadvantaged by construction on empty lots, here and there, with new hights of 9.0m. We find it disturbing that this amendment has already passed first AND second reading by council. Common sense dictates that this matter should never have been an issue, as it is unfair, a waste of discussion, time and money by council, given it's discriminating propensity to home owners already established in existing neighbourhoods. If you want the bylaw to be operative in new developments, that is fine. That will provide equal opportunity to the new home owners but not in already existing neighbourhoods. To conclude, we want our voices to be hard and be counted as NO to the Zoning Amendment Bylaw 2011 4500.004 Thank you, S. & A. Mohit 6573 Golden Eagle Way Nanaimo (ph: 250.390.3634) AND Loraine Venuti 6577 Golden Eagle Way Nanaimo (ph: 250.390.5177)

Sent from my iPad ....... .that's right, my iPad!

1

\ :)-1-.C)a,

Penny Masse


Hello C and J,

Ted Greves Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:47AM 'C and J'; Mayor&Council Public Hearing RE: leave the height restriction at 8.25 metres please

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the height restriction for the residential housing zones. I am always interested in the reason for people becoming interested or involved in issues. I would like to ask your address (if you don't mind) and how you would be impacted personally by the height restriction. Please be assured that I and the rest of council (although I cannot speak for them of course) take this issue seriously. Hopefully we can come to a consensus that satisfies most of the people in the City. Thanks Ted Greves

From: C and J [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September OS, 2011 7:29PM To: Mayor&Council Cc: Public Hearing Subject: leave the height restriction at 8.25 metres please

Your Worship,

Please leave house height maximum at 8.25 M in Nanaimo. There is no viable reason to go to 9 metres. Please ensure it doesn't change. This City, so I have been told, is allegedly "bought" by lobby groups/special interest groups, it's time to stop bending to groups, yes, even during these tough times .... don't change the height restrictions by laws. I am a tax paying home owner in North Nanaimo , (we should separate from the City of Nanaimo and create a city call North Nanaimo), and am very tired of the high property taxes and the occasional bit of garbage that comes from City hall. Thank you.

1

\S{.lOD

Penny Masse

From: 1Sent: To: Subject:

September 2, 2011

Dear Mayor and Council,

Pam Agnew [[email protected]] Friday, September 02, 2011 4:44 PM Mayor&Council; Public Hearing Submission for September 8, 2011 public meeting, re bylaw 4500.004: height restrictions

I write to you as a Nanaimo property owner to express my support for a height restriction of 8.25 metres for single family residences in established neighbourhoods in Nanaimo. While I completely accept and expect zoning bylaws to change over time, these should always focus on being designed and applied in a manner that best serves both existing and future residents, on a no-harm basis. That is what sound development principles are all about; what is fair to all; and, what positively contributes to strong and healthy communities.

It may be one thing to say that an increased height restriction of 9 m is possible in new neighbourhoods that have no impact on established neighbourhoods, but it is another to impose a standard of 9 m for all land including properties and new subdivisions within established neighbourhoods. If a 9 m height restriction was allowed on all land in the City of Nanaimo, it would be possible for developers to erect higher homes in front of, behind, and next to, lower homes (adhering to 8.25 m height restrictions), with numerous negative consequences, including but not limited to light deprivation, increased shadow, negative privacy consequences, decreased livability, negative impacts on quality of life as well as negative impacts on property prices. No reasonable person could deem this fair.

As the City's own economic development office puts it in the 2010 community profile report on page 18: "There is a wide range of housing choices in Nanaimo, from waterfront estates to condos. Because of the 'mountainous terrain, many properties offer spectacular views ... " I would argue it is in no small part due to these beautiful views that many choose to purchase particular view properties, paying premium realty prices for them and the city appropriately benefiting from the resultant sustainable higher property tax base. To impede these views we market to prospective residents as one of Nanaimo's unique qualities when compared to similar-sized BC cities, is counter-intuitive.

But I think the most critical issue for current and future residents is the issue of fairness. Allowing one property to negatively impact another is wrong. Unfair treatment is also contrary to urban planning principles and design aesthetics which seek to embrace and protect the character and integrity of existing neighbourhoods, principles that promote and protect harmonious communities.

I believe there are always workable solutions. To better balance the needs of the present and the future, a bylaw could allow for future 9 m heights where these do not impact established neighbourhoods or individual properties within established neighbourhoods. In addition, any person wishing to apply for a variance would still be able to do so, with each application being considered on its individual merits along with input from all impacted residents within a site view of the said property. This would be fair to all.

When a city treats people fairly, we all win. Please let good sense prevail.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter again.

Pam Agnew

Penny Masse


Paul Glassen [[email protected]] Friday, September 02, 2011 11 :02 PM Public Hearing favour retaining 8.25 metre height

To: Public Hearing Record

Re: Support for proposed amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction.

I have read the letters from both Mr. Ken Connelly and Mr. Kevin Krastel. As Mr. Krastel points out, construction is big industry. And yet, both of these members of the construction industry try to describe Nanaimo home owners as some sort of special interest group; "self-focused arguments of a very few vocal citizens" (Mr. Connelly's letter).

No, we home owners are not the special interest group. Indeed, we are the opposite, we have the interest of the general public in mind. We do not have the financial conflict-of-interest that these developers have. It is they who are rightly concerned for their profits. But that is just why their opinion is the opinion of a special interest group, one that stands to profit if it can have its way with council.

Mr. Krastel writes that, "City of Nanaimo Staff are continuing to do very well to develope( sic) a good working relationship with builders & developers." How is staff's relationship with the home owners whose taxes provide the city with two thirds of its revenues? Hopefully staff see their responsibility to the larger community. And if they fail to than it is for elected council to remind them.

A builder has a business interest, concerned with the short term profit that can be made in the near future. He is right to be. That's his job. But the home owning citizens are going to be living in this city for decades to come. They have the long term welfare of the city at heart.

Council certainly should consider the opinion of the construction industry. But vote for the good of the public as a whole.

Paul Glassen Nanaimo 250 390-4054

1

l5l-.. lD~

Penny Masse


Webmaster Saturday, September 03, 2011 1:56 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Raymond Leroux has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6049 Christopher Rd Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 2011 4500.004 Comments: I support a height of 8.25 meters in established neighbourhoods.

Penny Masse


Dear Sirs,

Derek Young [[email protected]] Saturday, September 03, 2011 5:04 PM Public Hearing Re.height restrictions.

We would like to go on record that the new height restriction may impact us, there is an empty lot below us and depending what the roof line is of a new house with an extra 30 inches, it would spoil our view.

We already had an extra expense when building our house because the City allowed the wrong style of house immediately bellow us to be built, and it compromised our lot. The wall we had to build impacted 5 houses and cost us $100,000.00 between us. Therefore spoiling our view now or at a later date would seem very unfair, as we expected to be protected by our City Council.

We do think that for Brand New Subdivisions where everyone is on equal heights, there would be no problem, but would be extremely unfair for already established subdivisions.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely Mr. and Mrs. Derek Young.

Penny Masse


Brian Herten [[email protected]] Saturday, September 03, 2011 5:20 PM Public Hearing Fwd: Increase in Height Restriction for Residential Properties in Nanaimo - Concerns

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian Herten <brian [email protected]> Date: August 18,201112:21:19 PM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: Increase in Height Restriction for Residential Properties in Nanaimo -Concerns

I would like to take this opportunity as a resident and taxpayer within the City ofNanaimo to express my concern with the current proposal to raise the height limit for residential properties. I have no objection to raising the height limit for new developments but object to the height increase where the increase will negatively impact existing properties with views. The revised height limit should be "grandfathered" to protect properties with views. The property owners have paid a premium to enjoy their view and the city through additionally property taxes paid have been enjoying a significant benefit financially. I would like to thank the council for their consideration.

Brian Herten 6254 Eldorado Place Nanaimo, V9VlN4

1

\5l-.\D5

Penny Masse


q q [email protected]] Saturday, September 03, 2011 5:51 PM Public Hearing Zoning amendment bylaw 2011

This letter is to indicate that I am in favor of keeping the height restriction for single family residential houses at 8.25 metres throughout the city in established neighbourhoods. Jocelyne Coltart

1

\Sl-. \Db

Penny Masse


Lynn [[email protected]] Saturday, September 03, 2011 6:34 PM Public Hearing Re.Building height restriction

Mayor Ruttan and council members, Thank you so much for freezing this height increase to residential dwellings until it has been further looked into. As I have mentioned before this height increase for a brand new subdivision sounds very reasonable as everyone has the same height restriction to work from. To put in a height increase to subdivisions that are already well established would be disastorous. For our home, this would have a great impact on our view and the view was the reason we purchased the lot and built, knowing the height restriction on the empty lot in front of us (that is still empty). We have felt our view has been protected by the city by-laws. To change this after six years living here does not seem fair. It would not only interfere with our view but several houses on both sides of us will have their view interfered with in addition to the people across the street to this lot may not enjoy a higher house. Another occurence that seems to happen with much older homes now when sold they are torn down and a new dwelling is put up. This new dwelling could then be higher than the previous height restrictions and ruin several homes view. It also can make the residential area look a bit out of kilter with most homes one height and this new home higher. Sincerely Lynn Kropinak

1

\ Sl--. \Dl-

Penny Masse


J Galloway [email protected]] Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:33 AM Public Hearing Bylaw No. 4500.004

Dr. Bothma is in favour of the Proposed Amendment to retain the height of the previous Bylaw 4400 at 8.25 metres, and hereby resubmits his letter for purposes of the Public Hearing.

From: Jaun Bothma [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 17,2011 3:03PM To: Mayor&Council

Subject: Proposed height increase of single domestic dwellings

City Council ofNanaimo The Mayor

Dear Sir

Could I please urge you to reconsider the bylaw affecting the building height of new single homes in established neighbourhoods: this bylaw seems to benefit the developer only.

As a homeowner in an established neighbourhood I hereby respectfully request you and your staff to reconsider this issue which has the potential to cause ramifications.

Dr J aun Bothma 6559 Peregrine Road

Nanaimo

Jaun Bothma

Penny Masse


Anna Reeves [[email protected]] Sunday, September 04, 2011 11:50 AM Public Hearing Supporting proposed amended bylaw to retain 8.25 metre height

I sent a notice to council saying I was not in favour of the increase height proposed by developers. I'm still of that opinion and support the proposed amended bylaw to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction.

Thank you Anna Reeves 2657 Jasmine Place Nanaimo, BC V9T 5W6 250 758 9739

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Donna Watson [[email protected]] Sunday, September 04, 2011 3:55 PM Public Hearing FW: letter rezoning bylaws.wps

Attention Mayor and Council

Please read the attachment which supports the 8.5 meter height restriction, Zoning Bylaw No. 20114500.004

Thank You,

Donna and Wayne Watson

1

\51-.\lD

Penny Masse


Sirs,

Doug Unia [[email protected]] Sunday, September 04, 2011 9:35 PM Public Hearing Zoning Amendment ylaw #2011.004

I am in favour of retaining the height of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000 at 8.25 meters. Exhisting propertyholders should not be subjected to their view being blocked by new construction.

1

\s-1-,\\\

Doug Unia 1 05 Cheryl Place Nanaimo B.C. V9V 1C5

Penny Masse


Webmaster Monday, September 05, 2011 9:47AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Fred Kardel has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6495 Raven Rd Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I suport this amendment to revert R 1 height restrictions to 8.25 meters.

1

\ 5-:J-. \ I'd-

Penny Masse


Webmaster Monday, September 05, 2011 9:48AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Janice Kardel has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 6495 Raven Rd Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004 Comments: I suport this amendment to revert Rl height restrictions to 8.25 meters.

Penny Masse

From: Sent: To:

Anna Mohit [[email protected]] Monday, September 05, 2011 2:12 PM Public Hearing; Mayor&Council

Subject: Zoning amendment bylaw no. 2011 4500.004

To the Mayor and Council, This is to inform you that we are strongly opposed to the notion of the Zoning Amendment Bylaw 2011 4500.004. It is patently unfair to increase the height restrictions from 8.25m to 9 .Om in established neighbourhoods. No one wants to be unfairly compromised or disadvantaged by construction on empty lots, here and there, with new hights of 9 .Om. We find it disturbing that this amendment has already passed first AND second reading by council. Common sense dictates that this matter should never have been an issue, as it is unfair, a waste of discussion, time and money by council, given it's discriminating propensity to home owners already established in existing neighbourhoods. If you want the bylaw to be operative in new developments, that is fine. That will provide equal opportunity to the new home owners but not in already existing neighbourhoods. To conclude, we want our voices to be hard and be counted as NO to the Zoning Amendment Bylaw 2011 4500.004 Thank you, S. & A. Mohit 6573 Golden Eagle Way Nanaimo (ph: 250.390.3634) AND Loraine Venuti 6577 Golden Eagle Way Nanaimo (ph: 250.390.5177)

Sent from my iPad ........ that's right, my iPad!

1

\51-.\\4

Penny Masse


Webmaster Monday, September 05, 2011 2:38 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Dale Clozza has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 125 Sharon Pl. Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4000 Comments: Keep the hieght of 8.25 metres. This will stop any over hieght being built in and older area witch could block views. (if you have a good view

Penny Masse


carl pauls [[email protected]] Monday, September 05, 2011 4:35 PM Public Hearing Mayor&Council Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2010 4500.004

I am in favor of the proposed amendment to retain the 8.25 metre height restriction

Carl Pauls 6559 Peregrine Road

1

Penny Masse


Anne Henderson [[email protected]] Monday, September 05, 2011 5:44 PM Public Hearing Zoning amendment bylaw no 2011 4500.004

I am writing to say that I am in favour of of the proposed amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction. Anne Henderson

6025 Christopher Road

1

\51-.\\~

Penny Masse


Your Worship,

C and J [[email protected]] Monday, September 05, 2011 7:29 PM Mayor&Council Public Hearing leave the height restriction at 8.25 metres please

Please leave house height maximum at 8.25 M in Nanaimo. There is no viable reason to go to 9 metres. Please ensure it doesn't change. This City, so I have been told, is allegedly "bought" by lobby groups/special interest groups, it's time to stop bending to groups, yes, even during these tough times .... don't change the height restrictions by laws. I am a tax paying home owner in North Nanaimo , (we should separate from the City of Nanaimo and create a city call North Nanaimo), and am very tired of the high property taxes and the occasional bit of garbage that comes from City hall. Thank you.

Penny Masse


Marilyn Smith Friday, September 02, 2011 2:40 PM 'Paul Glassen'; Mayor&Council DIRECTORS; David Stewart; Penny Masse RE: bylaw 4500

Your email regarding Bylaw 4500 has been received by all members of City Council. I have forwarded a copy of your email to members of our senior staff for their information.

:Mari{yn Smitfi .Jtd"ministrative .Jtssistant to :Mayor and" Counci{ City of :Nanaimo Pfione: 250-755-4400 :fax: 250-754-8263

From: Paul Glassen [mailto:paul [email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:35 PM To: Mayor&Council Subject: bylaw 4500

To: Mayor and Council

Re: bylaw 4500, height restriction

I have read the letters from both Mr. Ken Connelly and Mr. Kevin Krastel. As Mr. Krastel points out, construction is big industry. And yet, both of these members of the construction industry try to describe Nanaimo home owners as some sort of special interest group; "self-focused arguments of a very few vocal citizens" (Mr. Connelly's letter).

No, we home owners are not the special interest group. Indeed, we are the opposite, we have the interest of the general public in mind. We do not have the financial conflict-of-interest that these developers have. It is they who are rightly concerned for their profits. But that is just why their opinion is the opinion of a special interest group, one that stands to profit if it can have its way with council.

Mr. Krastel writes that, "City of Nanaimo Staff are continuing to do very well to develope( sic) a good working relationship with builders & developers." How is staffs relationship with the home owners whose taxes provide the city with two thirds of its revenues? Hopefully staff see their responsibility to the larger community. And if they fail to than it is for elected council to remind them.

A builder has a business interest, concerned with the short term profit that can be made in the near future. He is right to be. That's his job. But the home owning citizens are going to be living in this city for decades to come. They have the long term welfare of the city at heart.

Council certainly should consider the opinion of the construction industry. But vote for the good of the public as a whole.

Penny Masse

From: -~nt: To: Cc:

Subject:

Marilyn Smith Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:02 PM 'Kevin Krastel'; Mayor&Council; Penny Masse; David Stewart Andrew Tucker; 'CHBA- Admin'; 'Rick Windley'; 'IWCD -Greg Constable'; 'Blair Dueck'; 'A J Hustins' RE: Amendment to the 9m Height Restriction

Your email regarding the amendment to the 9m height restriction has been received by all members of City Council.

Marilyn Smith Administrative Assistant to Mayor and Council City of Nanaimo Phone: 250-755-4400 Fax: 250-7 54-8263

----Original Message-----From: Kevin Krastel [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 01,2011 1:23PM To: Mayor&Council Cc: Andrew Tucker: CHBA- Admin; Rick Windley; IWCD- Greg Constable; Blair Dueck; A J Hustins Subject: Amendment to the 9m Height Restriction

Dear Mayor & Council,

Further, to our ongoing discussion regarding the Amendment to the 9m Height Restriction.

First, I would like to provide my professional opinion regarding the vacant lot located at 6529 Peregrine Rd. This is the property of concern as pointed out by Lynn Kropinak of 6522 Groveland Dr. at the Aug 22 2011 Council Meeting. Her concern was that with the new 9m height restriction her view would be compromised.

There are two important factors that Council and Lynn Kropinak must understand:

1- BUILDING SCHEMES: I've designed many homes in this neighbourhood (Groveland, Peregrine, Raven & Ptarmigan} and recall clearly that Building Schemes are in place to protect the property owners. The Eagle Ridge Subdivision takes up most of this area. The building scheme for Eagle Ridge (which I'm not certain this lot is a part of} actually has specific height restrictions for each individual lot that supersede the City's height restriction. If this vacant lot does not fall within Eagle Ridge, it would be important for the property owner to find the building scheme in question to see if\how they are protected. There not only could be a lower height restriction, but also the building scheme could indicate which City Bylaw the height restriction adheres to. Many of these schemes will indicate the height adhere to the City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw 4000 for example.

2- A 9m HEIGHT DOES NOT MEAN A 9m HOUSE WILL BE BUILT: Again, I've designed many houses in this neighbourhood. I've also visited the vacant site in question and observed the existing houses around this lot. It is very important for you to understand that there is an overwhelming high probability that any house built on this property will be identical in shape and height to those around it. This is due to fact that these lots only suit Basement Entry type plans which are designed for front-facing views. I know from experience that most, if not all of these houses on Peregrine Rd are well below 8.25m in height. Realistically, most are probably more closer to 7.6m. This, in part is due to the limitations to max driveway slopes set forth by the Building Dept. Combine this with the trend that most builders will choose to incorporate lower roof slopes to preserve building costs results in

' r'he highest probability that the actual house that will eventually be built on this property will be well under 8.25m in height, not 9m.

I would also like to provide my opinion regarding some of you who are looking for a compromise to the 9m height: IE: Excluding existing neighbourhoods ... applying the 9m height to new areas only. Older areas (Old City, Brechin, Townsite, Harewood, etc.) must be made available to higher density to combat urban sprawl, encourage revitalization and help increase downtown tax base revenue. A 9m height is a great .ool to achieve this by allowing the opportunity to build 2 1/2 storey houses. Also, without a 9m height restriction it would be almost impossible for new buildings in the Old City to match the character of many existing houses which have steeper roofs. Also many existing houses in the Old City are far higher than 9m. Most newer subdivisions are protected by building schemes. Also, they won't be subject to knock-down-rebuild construction for many, many years. There are very, very few vacant lots that will have their views affected by a 9m height. There are many existing lots in new subdivisions which aren't selling due to the demands for taller, 2 1 /2-storey houses which can't conform to a 8m height restriction. These lots on the high side of the street (Laguna Way, etc.) and do not affect view corridors either.

If there can be any compromise, I would like to add that we in the building industry ARE making a compromise ... some of us were seeking a higher height restriction equal to most other municipalities. Instead, we compromised and chose a lesser 9m height which will still place us at a disadvantage compared to other cities when it comes to creative architectural expression.

I hope you will finally understand that providing a 9m height restriction to all residential areas of Nanaimo is the only solution. Please vote against the proposed Amendment to Bylaw 4500- 9m Height Restriction.

Sincerely,

Kevin Krastel Krastel Design Group Inc. #204b- 2520 Bowen Rd

· Nanaimo, BC V9T 3L3 250-756-1110

Penny Masse


Web master Monday, August 29, 2011 10:21 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Jerry Ellins Architect has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 50 Haig Road Gabriela Island BC Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500 Comments: I am against the proposed amendment to the 9m height restriction.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Monday, August 29, 2011 9:27AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Ken Connolly has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 2664 Willow Grouse Rd, Nanaimo Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500 Comments: Council and Mayor:

With all due respect and with regard for the complexities of the decisions you are required to make, I urge council to serve ALL members of our community by rejecting the self-focused arguments of a very few vocal citizens who wish to roll back the building height increase allowed for in Bylaw 4500. You are elected to serve the entire community, and not just a few individuals. You are expected to act with due consideration and a vision for the future well being of our community. Evidence abounds that Bylaw 4500 is well reasoned and will help our community to develop in a financially sustainable fashion for years to come. As stewards of public policy in this community you MUST vote for the benefit of the entire city. How tragic it would be if we all looked back on this issue and recalled that this council bowed to the pressure from a handful of bullies at this crucial juncture. To have done so will be to have betrayed your entire constituency by saddling present and future taxpayers with yet higher taxation. Please vote now to serve the City of Nanaimo, not a handful of people whose own self-interests blind them to the realities of the world around them.

Sincerely:

Ken Connolly

Penny Masse


Web master Sunday, August 28, 2011 8:16AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Brian McCullough has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 211 Ferntree Place, Nanaimo BC Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Proposed ammendment to 9 mtr height increase Comments: I am against The Proposed Amendment To The 9m Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Webmaster Friday, August 26, 2011 8:26 AM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Steven Leckie has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 457 Poet's Trail Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 9m Height Restriction Comments: Against The Proposed Amendment To The 9m Height Restriction

Penny Masse


Web master Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:19 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Grant Crabtree has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 2697 Beaver Creek Cres Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Hight restrictions Comments: I am against the proposed amendment to changing the 9m hight restriction back to 8.25. This is going to cost the construction indusry and undermine any faith from the construction indusry to the memebers of council.

Penny Masse


Webmaster Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:32 PM Public Hearing [email protected] Send a Submission Online

Darrell K Mayzes has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online. Address: 104-2520 Bowen Rd Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: Against The Proposed Amendment To The 9m Height Restriction Comments: Against The Proposed Amendment To The 9m Height Restriction

2011-SEP-01

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: D. W. HOLMES, GENERAL MANAGER OF CORPORATE SERVICES

FROM: J. E. HARRISON, MANAGER OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

RE: EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS - RESULTS


That Council receive this report regarding the results of the Emergency Water Connection Alternative Approval Process and EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131, which is presented under the bylaws section of the agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As per Council direction, the City proceeded with an alternative approval process (AAP) to seek approval of the electors for the adoption of EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131. The 2011-AUG-31 deadline for receipt of elector

· response forms has now passed and the results below confirm that elector approval through the AAP has been obtained.

Council may now proceed with the adoption of EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131.

AAP RESULTS:

The deadline for the receipt of elector response forms for EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131 was 4:30p.m. on 2011-AUG-31.

Number of Valid Elector Response Forms received before the deadline 2 10% of electors within the City of Nanaimo 6268

On the basis of the elector response forms received before the deadline I have determined and hereby certify that elector approval in accordance with Section 86 of the Community Charter has been obtained.

Therefore, Council may proceed with the adoption of EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131.

1 . Respectfully submitted,

J~on -Manager, Legislative Services

.-h-/Douglas Holmes Assistant City Manager I General Manager of Corporate Services

158

2011-SEP-01

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: D. W. HOLMES, GENERAL MANAGER OF CORPORATE SERVICES


RE: WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS-RESULTS


That Council receive this report regarding the results of the Water Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Alternative Approval Process and WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127, which is presented under the bylaws section of the agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As per Council direction, the City proceeded with an alternative approval process (AAP) to seek approval of the electors for the adoption of WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127. The 2011-AUG-31 deadline for receipt of elector response forms has now passed and the results below confirm that elector approval through the AAP has been obtained.

Council may now proceed with the adoption of WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127.

AAP RESULTS:

The deadline for the receipt of elector response forms for WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127 was 4:30p.m. on 2011-AUG-31.

Number of Valid Elector Response Forms received before the deadline 3 10% of electors within the City of Nanaimo 6268

On the basis of the elector response forms received before the deadline I have determined and hereby certify that elector approval in accordance with Section 86 of the Community Charter has been obtained.

-JJ_· Therefore, Council may proceed with the adoption of WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN \ ui AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127.

\ c Respectfully submitted,

J an . Hamson Manager, Legislative Services

{~.' Douglas Holmes Assistant City Manager I General Manager of Corporate Services

159

2011-SEP-06

STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: D. W. HOLMES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER I GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE SERVICES


RE: REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP & HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.56, 2011


That Council waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of "REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP & HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.56, 2011" and that the Regional District of Nanaimo be notified accordingly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff have received correspondence from the Regional District of Nanaimo advising that they have introduced and read three times "REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP & HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.56, 2011". The bylaw proposes to amend the boundaries of the pump and haul local service to exclude the lands legally described as:

Strata Lot 179, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District; Strata Lot 181, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District; Strata Lot 182, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District; Strata Lot 183, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District; Lot 24, Section 5, Plan 19972, Nanaimo Land District; and, Lot A, Salvation Army Lots, Plan 1115, Except part in Plan 734 RW, Nanoose Land District.

As part of the approval process, the Regional District of Nanaimo requires the City's consent to this bylaw.


J. . arnson, Manager Legislative Services

D. W. Holmes, Assistant City Manager I General Manager, Corporate Services

Council: 2011-SEP-12 L:\DocSearch\Reports\Administration\2011\RPT11912RDNPumpHaul.doc

160

~Council C Cemmittee ............... .

.:8-Qpen Meeting lJ In-Camera Meeting ~Date:ctct\-Sf£ G . . ,

REGIONAL DISTRICT OFNANAIMO

6300 Hammond Bay Rd. Nonaimo, B.C.

V9T 6N2

Ph: (250)390-4lll Toll Free: 1·877-607·4lll

Fox: (250) 390·4163

RDN Website: www.rdn.bc.ca

September 6, 2011

City ofNanaimo 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 5J6

Attention: Joan Harrision Manager of Legislative Services

Re: Regional District of Nanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 975.56

The Board, at its regular meeting held August 23, 2011, introduced and read three times the above noted amendment bylaw. (copy attached) This bylaw proposes to amend the boundaries of the pump and haul local service to exclude the lands legally described as:

• Strata Lot 179, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.




• Lot 24, Section 5, Plan 19972, Nanaimo Land District.

• Lot A, Salvation Army Lots, Plan 1115, Except part in Plan 734 RW, Nanoose Land District.

As part of the approval process, the Regional District of Nanaimo requires the City's consent to this bylaw.

It would be appreciated if your Council would endorse the following resolution:

MOVED ________ , SECONDED ________ , that the Council of the City of Nanaimo waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 975.56, 2011" and FURTHER that the Regional District be notified accordingly.

\975.56 Nanaimo bylaw consent feller- August 201J.doc

161

As the District requires this consent to complete the approval process, it would be appreciated if you would consider this request at your next Council meeting.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Maureen Pearse Senior Manager, Corporate Administration

mmp:nh

Attachment

\975.56 Nanaimo bylaw consent letter- August 201 J.doc

162

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 975.56

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PUMP & HAUL LOCAL SERVICE

WHEREAS the Regional District of Nanaimo established a pump and haul service pursuant to Bylaw No. 975, cited as "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Establishment Bylaw No. 975, 1995";

AND WHEREAS the Board of the Regional District of Nanaimo has been petitioned by the property owners to reduce the boundaries of the service area to exclude the land legally described as:





• Lot 24, Section 5, Plan 19972, Nanaimo Land District.

• Lot A, Salvation Army Lots, Plan 1115, Except part in Plan 734 RW, Nanoose Land District.

AND WHEREAS at least 2/3 of the service participants have consented to the adoption of this bylaw in accordance with section 802 of the Local Government Act;

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Regional District ofNanaimo, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Amendment

"Regional District of Nanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Establislunent Bylaw No. 975, 1995" is amended by deleting Schedule 'A' and replacing it with the Schedule 'A' attached to this bylaw.

2. Citation

This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Regional District ofNanaimo Pump & Haul Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 975.56, 2011".

Introduced and read three times this 4th day of October, 2011.

Adopted this 4th day of October, 2011.

CHAIRPERSON SR. MGR., CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

163

Electoral Area 'B'

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

BYLAW NO. 975.56

SCHEDULE 'A'

Schedule 'A' to accompany "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 975.56, 2011".

Chairperson

Sr. Mgr., Corporate Administration

Lot 108, Section 31, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.





Lot A, Section 31, Plan VIP84225, Gabriola Island, Nanaimo District







Lot 84, Sections 12 & 13, Plan 21531, Nanaimo Land District.


164

Electoral Area 'E'

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Electoral Area 'F'

I.

2.

Electoral Area 'G'

1.

2.

Lot 1, District Lot 72, Plan 17681, Nanoose Land District.



Schedule 'A' Page2

Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 38, Plan 13054, Nanoose Land District.

Lot 13, District Lot 78, Plm1 25828, Nanoose Lm1d District.


Lot 28, District Lot 78, Plm1 15983, Nanoose Land District.



Lot 53, District Lot 78, Plm114275, Nm1oose Land District.


Lot 57, District Lot 78, Plan 14275, Nanoose District

Lot 2, District Lot 74, Plan 36425, Newcastle Land District.

Strata Lot 180, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cmneron Land District.

Lot 28, District Lot 28, Plan 26472, Nm10ose Land District.


165

Electoral Area 'H'

. I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

City ofNanaimo

1.

District of Lantzville

1.

2.

3.

Schedule 'A'

Page 3

Lot 22, District Lot 16, Plan 13312, Newcastle Land District .

Lot 29, District Lot 81, Plan 2723 8, Newcastle Land District.

Lot 46, District Lot 81, Plan27238, Newcastle Land District.


Lot 41, District Lot 81, Plan27238, Newcastle Land District.

Lot 20, District Lot 16, Planl3312, Newcastle Land District.

Lot 1, District Lot 40, Plan16121, Newcastle District.

Lot 27, Plan16121, District Lot 40, Newcastle Land District.

Lot 43, Section 8, Plan24916, Wellington Land District.

Lot 24, District Lot 44, Plan27557, Wellington Land District.

Lot A, District Lot 270, Plan29942, Wellington Land District.

Lot 1, District Lot 85, Plan15245, Wellington Land District.

166

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4500.001

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE CITY OF NANAIMO "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500"

WHEREAS the Council may zone land, by bylaw, pursuant to Sections 890, 891, 903 and 904 of the Local Government Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.001".

2. The City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" is hereby amended as follows:

(1) By rezoning the lands legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, DISTRICT LOT 234, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15318 EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 48701 and LOT 330, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF INCLUDED IN PLAN 2100 RW AND LOTS A & B, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRIC, PLAN 3360 from the Gateway (DT12) Zone to Comprehensive Development Seven (CD7) Zone, as shown on Schedule A.

(2) By adding the following after Comprehensive Development District Zone Seven (CD?):

16.6 Comprehensive Development District Zone Seven (CD7)

The intent of this zone is to provide for the wide range of businesses and services generally which serve the needs of the community at large.

16.6.1 PERMITTED USES Accessory Dwelling Unit Accessory Storage and Accessory Mini Storage Arcades Assembly Hall Automobile Rentals, Sales and Service Automotive Repair Shop Bingo Hall Car Wash Commercial School Convention Centre Court of Law Cultural Facility Custom Workshop Fast Food Restaurant Financial Institution Funeral Parlour and Related Facilities Gasoline Station Hotel Laundromat and Dry Cleaner Library Liquor Store Micro-Brewery

167

Bylaw 4500.001 Page2

16.6.3

16.6.4

Multiple Family Dwelling Neighbourhood Pub Parking Lot and Parkade Office Personal Care Facility Printing and Publishing Facility Public Assembly Use and Entertainment Use Recreational Facility Refund Container Recycling Depot Religious Institution Repair Shop Restaurant Retail Store Rooming House Shopping Centre Single Residential Dwelling Social Services Resource Centre Teletheatre Outlet Tools and Equipment Sales and Rentals Transportation Terminal Veterinary Clinics Wholesale

DENSITY

Where the use is a Multiple Family Dwelling, the maximum Floor Area Ratio shall not exceed 1.50 except where parking spaces are provided beneath a principal building (where the roof of the underground parking is not more than 0.8m above the adjacent finished grade), in which case an amount may be added to the Floor Area Ratio equal to 0.25 multiplied by the percentage of the total parking spaces which are provided underground. The maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio shall only apply to residential uses on the lot.

CONDITIONS OF USE

16.6.4.1

16.6.4.2

16.6.4.3

16.6.4.4

16.6.4.5

16.6.4.6

Where a mixed-use development is proposed combining both commercial and residential uses, only the commercial uses shall be permitted on the first storey. Arcades must be contained within a shopping centre and must be accessible to the public only from the internal hallway or corridor of the shopping centre. The sum total of the Gross Floor Area used for microbreweries shall not exceed 278. 7m2

.

Refund container recycling depots must be wholly enclosed within a building. The Gross Floor Area of a refund container recycling depot shall not exceed 140m2

.

Teletheatre outlets shall be contained within a hotel pub or neighbourhood pub as licensed by the Province and shall only be accessible to the public from within the hotel or neighbourhood pub.

168

Bylaw 4500.001 Page 3

16.6.5

16.6.6

16.6.7

16.6.8

16.6.4.7

LOT AREA

16.6.5.1

16.6.5.2

Wholesale Uses and Custom workshops shall be wholly contained within a building.

The minimum lot area shall not be less than 750m2, serviced

by a community water system, a community sanitary sewer system, and a storm drainage system. Notwithstanding Subsection 16.6.4.1, where a lot contains or abuts a watercourse identified in Schedule C, the required leave strip shall not be included in the calculation of minimum lot area.

LOT COVERAGE

The maximum lot coverage permitted is 100%.

YARD REQUIREMENTS

16.6.7.1 16.6.7.2

16.6.7.3

No front, side or rear yard is required. Notwithstanding Subsection 16.6. 7.1, where the use is multiple family residential that portion of the building must meet the setbacks as specified within the Medium Density Residential (R8) Zone. Notwithstanding Subsection 16.6.7.2, there shall be no obstruction to the line of vision between the established curb level and the first storey of a building within an area bounded by: (a) The intersecting lot lines at a street corner and a

line joining points along said lot lines 2.5m from their point of intersection.

(b) The intersecting lot lines at a lane intersection and a line joining points along said lot lines 2.5m from their point of intersection. A lane intersection shall include the intersection of a lane with any other lane or with a street.

HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

16.6.8.1

16.6.8.2

16.6.8.3

The maximum height allowed shall be determined by multiplying the distance from the centre line of the street upon which the building fronts to the front line of the building by2. Notwithstanding Subsection 16.6.8.1, in the case of a through lot where street widths differ, the maximum height shall be determined by averaging the calculation obtained for each frontage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a corner lot, or a lot with three or more frontages, the maximum height shall be determined by averaging the calculation obtained for each frontage.

169


16.6.9

16.6.10

HEIGHT OF FENCES

16.6.9.1 16.6.9.2

The height of a fence shall not exceed 1.2m in a front yard. The height of a fence shall not exceed 1.8m in any side or rear yard.

SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING

16.6.1 0.1 All mechanical, electrical or other service equipment located outside or on the roof of a building shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets by ornamental structures, landscaping, or other means.

16.6.1 0.2 All outdoor storage receptacle areas shall be screened in accordance with Part 17 of this Bylaw.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-22 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-22 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2011-SEP-08 PASSED THIRD READING-------MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL _____ _ ADOPTED _______ __

170

MAYOR

MANAGER LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

Bylaw 4500.001

SCHEDULE A

Civic: 1 Terminal Avenue LOCATION PLAN

171

SUBJECT PROPERTY

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4500.002






Zone AR1 AR2

(1) By removing the permitted use and all related conditions of use of 'Boarding and Lodging' from Subsection 8.2.1 and adding the permitted accessory use of 'Boarding and Lodging' to Subsection 8.2.2 after 'Bed and Breakfast' and adding the following as a condition of use related to 'Boarding and Lodging': "Shall not exceed two sleeping units and shall not accommodate more than two persons".

(2) By deleting Subsection 8.4.1 and replacing with the following:

8.4.1 The following table specifies the minimum lot size, minimum lot frontage and minimum lot depth of all serviced agricultural residential lots within the corresponding zone:

Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Frontage Minimum Lot Depth 2 hectares 15m 45m 1 hectare 15m 45m

(3) By amending Subsection 1 0.2.4 in order to delete the site specific use of 'fast food' at 2300 Northfield Road, LOT 2, SECTION 18, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66379, and the following as a site specific fast food use after 'custom workshop':

Use Permitted Location Address Legal Description of Permitted Location Fast Food 231 0 Northfield Road LOT 1, SECTION 17, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN Restaurant DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66379

(4) By amending Subsection 11.2.3 in order to add the following site specific gas station use after 'fast food restaurant':

Use Permitted Location Address Legal Description of Permitted Location Gas 199 Nicol Street LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT,

Station PLAN 44401 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP63763

172


(5) By amending Subsection 9.2.3 in order to add the following site specific warehouse use after 'student housing':

Use Permitted Location Address Legal Description of Permitted Location Warehouse 114 Fry Street THAT PART OF LOT 17, BLOCK 4, SECTION

1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 LYING NORTHERLY OF A BOUNDARY PARALLEL TO AND PERPENDICULARLY DISTANT 21

FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT

(6) By amending Subsection 15.1 by deleting the "intent of zone" description for the Harbour Waterfront (W2) Zone and replacing it with the following:

"This zone provides for active marine uses, such as ship yards, fishing fleet support, float homes, moorage and water-based transportation. Marine retail, tourism, and recreational activities will also be permitted. Medium density residential development will also be permitted in this zone and supports a building height of up to four storeys."

(7) By amending Subsection 15.2.1 by deleting the condition of use related to 'retail' and replacing with the following: "the Gross Floor Area of each retail store shall not exceed 500m2

".

(8) By amending Subsection 15.2.1 by deleting the condition of use related to 'canoe and kayak rental' and replacing with the following: "The Gross Floor Area of any building constructed for canoe and kayak rentals within the W1 and W3 Zones shall not exceed 70m2

".

(9) By amending Subsection 15.2.2 by deleting the condition of use related to 'float homes' and replacing with the following: "Float homes shall be permitted as an accessory use in a marina within the W2 Zone, provided not more than 50% of the moorage space of the marina on which the float home is located is occupied by float homes. The maximum allowable height of a float home shall not exceed 8.25m as measured from the surface of the water".

(1 0) By removing Subsection 7.4.5 and replacing with the following: 7.4.5 Notwithstanding 7.4.1, within the R1 Zone where a lot is subdivided the minimum lot size requirement may be reduced by up to 10% provided the average lot size within the subdivision is equal to or greater than 500m2

•

(11) By amending Subsection 7.1 by deleting the "intent of zone" description for the Duplex Residential (R4) Zone and replacing it with the following: "This zone provides for two dwellings in one or two principal buildings on a residential lot".

(12) By amending Subsection 7.2 by removing the accessory use of 'secondary suite' from the Duplex Residential (R4) Zone.

173


(13) By deleting the definition of 'Marina' and replacing with the following:

"MARINA - means a facility which provides moorage space for watercraft and may also include, as accessory uses, administrative offices, recreational lounges, restaurants, the retail sale of marine supplies and equipment, laundromat, shower facilities, dock-side boat repair, dry land storage and repair of watercraft, marine fuelling installations, and water taxi docks, but does not include a marine public house."

(14) By adding the following after Comprehensive Development District Zone Seven (CD7):

16.8 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONE EIGHT (CDS)

The intent of this zone is to permit development of integrated projects including commercial, residential, and other uses as specified in the applicable Comprehensive Development Plan.

16.8.1. PERMITTED USES

Permitted uses shall be those allowed in the applicable Comprehensive Development Plan referred to in Subsection 16.8.3.

16.8.2. PERMITTED SIZE, SITING, SHAPE AND DENSITY

All buildings, structures, and uses shall comply with the size, shape, siting, and density requirements designated on the applicable Comprehensive Development Plan referred to in Subsection 16.8.3.

16.8.3. PLANS

The Comprehensive Development Plan entitled "Northbrook Centre Comprehensive Development Plan" prepared by Raymond Letkeman Architect Inc. and dated the 2nd day of May, 1994 on file in the office of the Director of Planning is deemed to be attached to and form part of this bylaw and any development on the lands zoned Comprehensive Development District Zone Eight shall be in conformity with the Northbrook Centre Comprehensive Development Plan.

(15) By rezoning the land legally described as LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP84049 from City Commercial Centre (CC3) to Comprehensive Development District Eight (CDS), as shown on Schedule A.

(16) By amending Subsection 7.3.1 by deleting the maximum allowable base density within the R1/R1a and R2 Zones and replacing with the following: "One single residential dwelling".

(17) By rezoning those lands as shown on Schedule B, from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) Zone to Single Dwelling Residential (R1a) Zone.

174


(18) By rezoning the land legally described as PARK DEDICATED BY PLANS 33180 AND VIP88881 from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) Zone to Parks, Recreation and Culture (PRC2) Zone, as shown on Schedule C.

(19) By rezoning those lands as shown on Schedule D, from Residential Corridor (COR1) Zone to Single Dwelling Residential (R1) Zone.

(20) By rezoning the land legally described as LOT 19, BLOCK 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 from Local Service Centre (CC1) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R8) Zone, as shown on Schedule E.

(21) By rezoning the lands legally described as THAT PART OF LOT 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2137, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 882R, AND INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PLAN 36796 and THAT PART OF LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 16238 IN PLAN 36796 and LOT 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2137 from Single Dwelling Residential (R1) Zone to Parks, Recreation and Culture One (PRC-1) Zone, as shown on Schedule F.

(22) By rezoning the lands legally described as LOT B, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 32586 and LOT A, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 32586 from Mixed Use Corridor (COR2) Zone to Community Corridor (COR3) Zone, as shown on Schedule G.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-22 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-22 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2011-SEP-08 PASSED THIRD READING ______ _ APPROVED BY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION---------ADOPTED ___________ __

175

MAYOR


Bylaw 4500.002

SCHEDULE A

•ioo to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~19ro ~

1120 ~ ~ ~ ~ :; 11925

;::i

Civic: 2000 Island Highway LOCATION PLAN

Cl

176

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Bylaw 4500.002

SCHEDULE B

LOCATION PLAN

177

C Subject Property

Bylaw 4500.002

SCHEDULE C

Civic: 5521 Noye Road

LOCATION PLAN

178

Portion Btobe

Rezoned

Bylaw 4500.002

SCHEDULED

2192

2190

~ 2188

Meredith Rd

Civic: 2105, 2107, 2109, 2119, 2121, 2123 and 2125 Bowen Road

LOCATION PLAN

179

csubject Property

Bylaw 4500.002

r--.-1 Jss

f--.-N

h 80

:I T r-"' 9'1

.!! ~.Fr-s tn

.~ 110

>1--- I-- 2 t=i" 107 a ..___ 1--

120 !4 113 ~ ~

134

~ !--

~ 136

-....___::::: 146

113 150 -

~ 164

190

~.~

SCHEDULE E

61 30 1.;; 65

75 34 41

33 45

47

85 42 ~ 87

Tg ~T 44 ""' 0 55 <X>

Finlayson St ~~~

r~ 0 ~ 107 ~~g 102 w"' 109 103

115

~}~ 108 107

111 123 :r 125 112 IIJ 115 -\OQ 127 s:

= Ins g 119 143 118

145 = 155 126 !4

131

135

193 139

147

199 r IN T~ 0

151 '-Milton St

Civic: 108 Haliburton Street

LOCATION PLAN

180

42

R 46

so 7

~ 21

~ \ 68 I 75

85

5; 1106 ~[J

:r

110 111

112 1-1

~. 115

= 122

f4 119

123 128

129

134 135 140 1--

152 141

rill-153

156 ~

162 w 163

1----~ jil::s 167 0 0 0

I---.

I r--r

C Subject Property

Bylaw 4500.002

328 329

332 331

340 335

!i: ~ N

M ~

SCHEDULE F

g:r "'l c 310 n t1)

> 320 321 <

t1) 322

329 324

330 342

~ > 333 < t1) 344 340

34

350

Civic: 301 Third Street and 307 and 321 Bruce Avenue

LOCATION PLAN

181

341

343

csubject Property

Bylaw 4500.002

SCHEDULE G

Civic: 3150 Island Highway and 2700 Norwell Drive

LOCATION PLAN

182

..-.subject

..... Property

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4500.003






(1) By rezoning the land legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP82428 from Comprehensive Development District Three (CD3) Zone to Parks, Recreation and Culture Three (PRC3) Zone, as shown on Schedule A.

(2) By deleting the Comprehensive Development District Three (CD3) Zone.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-22 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-22 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2011-SEP-08 PASSED THIRD READING------MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL _____ _ ADOPTED __________________ _

183

MAYOR


Bylaw 4500.003

SCHEDULE A

Civic: 150 Comox Road

LOCATION PLAN

184

.... subject

._.Property··

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4500.004






Zone

R1/ R1a R2 R3 R4 RS R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12

R13 R14 R15

(1) By deleting subsection 7.6.1 and replacing with the following:

7.6.1 The following table indentifies the maximum lot coverage, the maximum height of a principal building for a flat and sloped roof building and the maximum allowable perimeter wall height within each zone:

Lot Coverage Height of Height of Height of Principal Perimeter Principal Principal Building Wall Building Building Schedule E Height1

-Flat Roof - Sloped Roof (2 Roof Roof (<than 4:12 4:12 pitch) pitch pitch

pitch) (;:::: 8:12) (;:::: 10:12)

40% 6.71m 8.25m 8.53m 9.14m 7.32m

,: 40% 6.71m 8.25m N/A N/A 7.32m 35% 6.71m 8.25m N/A N/A N/A

... 40% 6.71m 8.25m N/A N/A 7.32m 50% 8m 9m N/A N/A N/A

: 40% 7m 9m .·N/A N/A N/A 70% 9m 10.5m N/A N/A N/A

\ 40% 14m 14m N/A N/A N/A 40% 36m 36m N/A N/A N/A

:' 40% 7m 9m N/A N/A 7.32m 40% 7m 7m N/A N/A N/A

20% excluding 7m 7m N/A N/A N/A recreational vehicles

40% 7.75m 7.75m N/A N/A N/A · .. 40% 7.75m 7.75m N/A N/A N/A

40% 9.5m 9.5m N/A N/A N/A

1 Gable ends, localized depressions and dormers are exempt from the calculation of perimeter wall height.

185


(2) By deleting subsection 7.6.3 and replacing with the following

7 .6.3 Notwithstanding Subsection 7.6.1, for a lot having an area less than 1,666.66 m2

, within the R1/ R1a, R2, R9 and R10 Zones, the height of a principal dwelling may also be measured from the curb level of the highest highway abutting the property, in accordance with Table 7.6.3:

Roof Pitch Maximum Height A flat roof(< than 4:12 pitch) 3m

A sloped roof (a roof with a slope 5m :::::a 4:12 pitch)

For the purposes of this Subsection, the geotechnical setback and watercourse leave strip shall not be included in the calculation of lot area.

(3) By adding the following as Schedule E - Height Exemption, as shown on Schedule A, attached.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-22 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-22 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2011-SEP-08 PASSED THIRD READING _____ _ MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL _____ _ ADOPTED _______ __

186

MAYOR


Schedule A

KEY MAP

• 0

\ \

1 of3

Schedule A

\ ~ ~ . \ 3 of3

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 6500.016

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE CITY OF NANAIMO "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500"

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Nanaimo wishes to amend City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500";

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 6500.016".

2. The City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" is hereby amended as set out in Schedule A to this Bylaw.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-MAY-30 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-MAY-30 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2011-SEP-08 PASSED THIRD READING-------ADOPTED _________ _

File: OCP00062 Address: 19851sland Diesel Way Applicant: Maureen Pilcher and Associates Inc.

189

MAYOR


Bylaw 6500.016

SCHEDULE A

1. Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" is amended as follows:

a) Redesignate the subject area known as Lot 35, Section 16, Range 7, Mountain District, Plan VIP61143; PID 023 074 680) from 'Light Industrial' to 'Corridor'.

N

A

190

CITY OF NANAIMO BYLAW NO. 7109

A BYLAW TO REGULATE STREET ENTERTAINERS IN THE CITY OF NANAIMO

WHEREAS Council recognizes that the arts, which include talented Street Entertainers, contribute to a vibrant and healthy urban environment;

AND WHEREAS Council wishes to provide for a regulatory scheme that is designed to encourage performance by talented Street Entertainers under conditions that minimize the potential for conflict and nuisance to the public and other people living and working in areas where Street Entertainers perform;

AND WHEREAS Council is authorized, under the Community Charter, to regulate business and the use of highways and other public places within the City of Nanaimo;

AND WHEREAS Council is authorized, under the Community Charter, to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to the protection and enhancement of the well-being of its community.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. TITLE

This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109".

2. INTERPRETATION

In this bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

City

Dangerous props

Director

Entertainer Location

Nanaimo Port Authority

means the City of Nanaimo

means items used by a Street Entertainer or Street Entertainer Group during a performance that would constitute a threat to public safety or cause injury to members of the public including, but not limited to, swords, knives, fire and chainsaws

for the purpose of this bylaw, means the person appointed as Director of Development from time to time and includes any person appointed or designated by the Director to act on his behalf

means locations set out on the Street Entertainer Location maps attached to this bylaw as Schedule "A" indicating where Street Entertainers may perform in accordance with this bylaw

a corporation continued by Letters Patent under the Canada Marine Act, S.C. 1998, CH 10

1 91

Bylaw 7109 Page2

Non-Acoustical Musical Instrument

Peace Officer

Restricted Entertainer Location

Special Event

Street Entertainer

means a musical instrument that cannot produce a musical sound without amplification

includes a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a Bylaw Enforcement Officer appointed from time to time by Resolution of Council

means a location where music or noise from any performance, amplified or not, that creates sound audible beyond 75 metres from that location is prohibited. Restricted Entertainer Locations are set out on the Street Entertainers location maps attached to this bylaw as Schedule "A".

means, where permitted verbally or in writing by the City or the Nanaimo Port Authority, an activity or event undertaken in a public place including, but not limited to, a festival, concert, carnival, sport or other competition, tournament, derby, wedding, group p1cmc, group celebration, procession, performance, exhibition, ceremony, organized gathering or social, recreational event, convention, workshop, meeting, sales event, kiosk or concession.

includes a musician or performer who entertains the public in or adjacent to a highway or other place open to the public and who receives or has an expectation of receiving a gratuity or other donation from one or more members of the public.

Street Group

Entertainment includes two or more Street Entertainers who entertain the public as a group in or adjacent to a highway or other place open to the public and who receives or has an expectation of receiving a gratuity or other donation from one or more members of the public.

Street Entertainment means a permit issued under Section 3 of this bylaw to a Street Permit Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group

Unrestricted Entertainer Location

means a location where music or noise from any performance, amplified or not, that creates sound audible beyond 75 metres from that location is permitted. Unrestricted Entertainer Locations are set out on the Street Entertainers location maps attached to this bylaw as Schedule "A".

3. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Permits

(1) Street Entertainer Permits shall be issued to individuals or, in the case of a Street Entertainment Group, to one individual of that group.

192

Bylaw 7109 Page3

(2) Each permitted Street Entertainer and each individual in a Street Entertainment Group will be issued an identification badge which must be clearly displayed to the public while the Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group is performing.

(3) Each Street Entertainment Group will have all group members endorsed on the permit.

(4) Each Street Entertainment Group may only entertain when two or more individuals endorsed on the permit are performing together.

(5) A Street Entertainer Permit will be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of issue.

(6) Each Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group shall pay Street Entertainer Permit fees as prescribed in Schedule "B" attached to and forming part of this bylaw.

(7) Despite any Street Entertainer Permit issued or anything in this bylaw, the Director or a Peace Officer may, at any time, with or without written notice, require a Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group to vacate an entertainer location to accommodate: (a) a Special Event; or (b) operational or emergency activities or works related to services or lands of

the City or the Nanaimo Port Authority such as, but not limited to, maintenance, closures, repairs, installations or construction or other safety or emergency planning activities carried out by the City of Nanaimo or Nanaimo Port Authority;

(8) The permission to use the Entertainer Locations located on the Nanaimo Port Authority property granted in each Street Entertainer Permit is subject to the rights of the Nanaimo Port Authority, in its sole discretion, to require a Street Entertainer of Street Entertainer Group to vacate those Entertainer Locations on its property.

(9) As a condition of issuing a Street Entertainer Permit, each Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group must take part in an orientation, to be conducted by the City, of the Street Entertainer Locations and their use.

(1 0) The Director may impose conditions on a Street Entertainment Permit for continuing to hold a Street Entertainment Permit where such conditions are related to the interference with or obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or any other public safety matter.

4. REGULATIONS

Permit

No person, Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group shall perform:

(1) as a Street Entertainer without first obtaining a valid Street Entertainer Permit; (2) as part of a Street Entertainment Group without being endorsed on the permit; (3) as an individual if endorsed on a Street Entertainment Group, unless holding an

individual Street Entertainer Permit; (4) without displaying the identification badge issued to the Street Entertainer or

Street Entertainment Group; (5) while their Street Entertainer Permit or Street Entertainer Group Permit has been

suspended.

193

Bylaw 7109 Page4

Locations

No person, Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group shall perform:

(6) in any location on public property within the City of Nanaimo except those Entertainment Locations identified in Schedule "A" of this bylaw;

(7) in any restricted Entertainment Location where the human voice or musical instrument is audible beyond 75 meters.

No person, Street Entertainer or Street Entertainer Group shall perform:

(8) in any Entertainment Location before 10:00 am or after 10:00 pm seven days a week;

(9) in any Entertainment Location for a single continuous time exceeding two (2) hours per day;

(1 0) in any Entertainment Location on the same day where the same Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group has already performed or has vacated the location;

(11) in "Diana Krall Plaza", as identified in Schedule "A1a", on more than one (1) Entertainment location on the same day.

Amplification


(12) with any amplification except with non-acoustical instruments; (13) with more than one amplifier; (14) with any amplification other than with battery operated amplifiers that do not

exceed 15 watts; (15) with any amplification that utilized more than one speaker at any restricted or

unrestricted location; (16) with any amplification of the human voice at any restricted or unrestricted

location; (17) with any amplification that is audible beyond 75 meters from any restricted

entertainer location.

General


(18) unless in compliance with all provisions of this bylaw; (19) without removing all litter and/or garbage generated by the performance; (20) if obstructing the free passage of pedestrian or permitted bicycle traffic in any

way as determined by a Peace Officer; (21) if soliciting for money, verbally or otherwise, in any way other than having an

open container for donations at the entertainer location; (22) and sell any recordings or other depictions of their own performances unless

doing so during a performance at an entertainer location;

194

Bylaw 7109 Page 5

(23) or continue to perform when directed by the Director or a Peace Officer to vacate an entertainer location;

(24) at any entertainer location during or for the duration of any event that has been ·scheduled to take place by the City or any organization that has been permitted by the City to hold an event or rent a park, unless permitted to do so by the City or event organizer;

(25) using profanity; (26) while consuming alcohol or illegal drugs or while under the influence of alcohol or

illegal drugs during performances; (27) using props in a manner that could injure or cause damage to a member of the

public; or, (28) using dangerous props.

5. SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF PERMIT

(1) The Director is authorized to suspend or cancel the Street Entertainment Permit of any Street Entertainer or Street Entertainer Group where there is reasonable cause.

(2) The Director is authorized to suspend or cancel the Street Entertainer Permit of any Street Entertainer or Street Entertainer Group who fails to comply with this bylaw or a condition of the Street Entertainer Permit on two occasions or more within any single twelve month period.

(3) A Street Entertainer Permit issued to a Street Entertainment Group may be suspended or cancelled where one or more persons endorsed in that Street Entertainer Permit fails to comply with this bylaw or a condition of the Street Entertainer Permit on two occasions or more within any single twelve month period.

(4) Street Entertainers and Street Entertainment Groups must pay all outstanding fines levied under this bylaw before a suspended Street Entertainer Permit will be reinstated.

(5) If a Street Entertainer Permit is cancelled, a new application will not be accepted until after one year from the date of cancellation of the previous permit held by that Street Entertainer.

(6) If a Street Entertainer Permit is cancelled, a new application will not be accepted until all outstanding fines levied under this bylaw are paid in full.

6. PENALTY

A person or persons who contravenes, violates or fails to comply with any provision of this bylaw, or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or violation of this bylaw, or who fails to do anything required by this bylaw, commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and not less than the fines prescribed in Schedule "C" of this bylaw, the cost of prosecution and any other penalty or order imposed pursuant to the Community Charter (British Columbia) or the Offence Act (British Columbia) as amended from time to time. Each day that an offence against this bylaw continues or exists shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offence.

195

Bylaw 7109 Page6

7. SCHEDULES

The schedules in this bylaw form part of the bylaw and are enforceable in the same manner as the bylaw.

8. SEVERABILITY

If any section or provision of this bylaw is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid portion shall be severed and the validity of the remainder of the bylaw shall not be affected.

9. REPEAL

"STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2004 NO. 5723" and amendments thereto are hereby repealed.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-08 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-08 PASSED THIRD READING 2011-AUG-08 ADOPTED __________________ __

196

MAYOR


Bylaw 7109

CITY OF NANAIMO STREET ENTERTAINER

LOCATION MAP (DOWNTOWN AREA)

Schedule nAn DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINER SITES

Restricted Unrestricted

• every day *every day

See Ala for Diana Krall Plaza

197

Bylaw 7109


LOCATION MAP (DIANA KRALL PLAZA)

Schedule "N' DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINER SITES



198

Bylaw 7109


LOCATION MAP (DOWNTOWN AREA)

Schedule "A" DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINER SITES



199

Bylaw 7109


LOCATION MAP (Maffeo Sutton Park)

Schedule "A" DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINIER SITES

A2a

200

Bylaw 7109

201


LOCATION MAP (BEBAN PARK) Schedule nA'r

DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINER SITES


• evety day *every day

Bylaw 7109

202


LOCATION MAP (DUFFERIN CRESCENT)



• evety day *every day

Bylaw 7109

203


LOCATION MAP (DEPARTURE BAY)


Restricted

.eve1yday

Unrestricted

*everyday

Bylaw 7109

204


LOCATION MAP (AQUATIC CENTRE)

Schedule 'W' DESIGNATED STREIT ENTERTAINER SITES



Bylaw 7109

205


LOCATION MAP (WESTWOOD LAKE)

Schedule "A" DESIGNATED STREIT ENTERTAINER SITES


• eve1y day *every day

Bylaw 7109

206


LOCATION MAP (COUNTRY CLUB AREA)

Schedule 11A11

DESIGNATED STREET ENTERTAINER SITES

Restricted Untestricted


Bylaw 7109

SCHEDULE "B"

FEE SCHEDULE

Street Entertainer or Street Entertainment Group Permit

207

$25.00

Bylaw 7109

SCHEDULE "C" Fine Schedule

OFFENCE

Perform without a Street Entertainer Permit

Perform without endorsement on permit

Perform as individual from Street Entertainer Group

Perform without displaying badge

Perform when permit is suspended

Perform in unauthorized location

Noise audible beyond 75 meters from a restricted location

Perform during prohibited time

Perform exceeding two hours

Perform in same location when prohibited

Perform in more than one location on same day

Amplify an acoustical instrument

Perform with more than one amplifier

Use amplifier that is not battery operated or is more than 15 watts

Amplify more than one speaker

Amplify voice during a performance

Amplification audible 75 meters from a restricted location

Fail to comply with bylaw

Fail to remove litter or garbage

Obstruct pedestrian or bicycle traffic

Solicit for money

Sell recordings other than at performance

Perform when directed to vacate

Perform during event where prohibited

208

SECTION

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

MINIMUM FINE

75.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

75.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

Bylaw 7109

Perform using profanity

Perform while using or under the influence

Perform in a dangerous manner

Perform with dangerous props

209

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7127

A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE BORROWING OF 22.5 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER TREATMENT PLANT

WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient to construct a Water Treatment Plant to serve the City of Nanaimo Water Supply System;

AND WHEREAS the estimated cost of developing and constructing a Water Treatment Plant including expenses incidental thereto is the sum of $65 Million of which the sum of $22.5 Million is the amount of debt intended to be borrowed by this bylaw;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Nanaimo in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

1. This bylaw may be cited as "WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127".

2. The Council is hereby empowered and authorized to undertake and carry out or cause to be carried out the construction of a Water Treatment Plant generally in accordance with general plans on file in the municipal office and to do all things necessary in connection therewith and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

a) to borrow upon the credit of the Municipality a sum not exceeding 22.5 Million Dollars;

b) to acquire all such real property, easements, rights of way, licenses, rights or authorities as may be requisite or desirable for or in connection with the construction of the Water Treatment Plant.

3. The maximum term for which debentures may be issued to secure the debt created by this bylaw is twenty (20) years.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-JUN-13 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-JUN-13 PASSED THIRD READING 2011-JUN-27

APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES 2011-JUL-07

210

Bylaw No. 7127 Page2

Notice of the alternative approval process was published on the 21st day of July 2011 in the Nanaimo Daily News, and on the 28th day of July 2011 in the Nanaimo News Bulletin, newspapers circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter.

RECEIVED APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORS BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS 2011-AUG-31

ADOPTED ______________ __

211

MAYOR


07/07/2011 15:28 FAX 250 356 1873

~ BRITISH

COLUMBIA

LOCAL GOV'T DEPT.

Statutory Approval

Under the provisions of section 179

of the ____ C_o_m_m_u_n_.ity,__Ch ___ a_rl_e_r _______ _

I hereby approve Bylaw No. ---------------7127

of the City of Nanaimo , ------------~-----------------

a copy of which is attached hereto.

Dated this day

of '2011

--·-----·--· #~---···---Deputy inspector of Municipalities

212

!41 002

CITY OF NANAI MO

BYLAW NO. 7131

A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NANAIMO AND NANAIMO FOREST PRODUCTS

WHEREAS the Council wishes to enter into an Emergency Water Connection agreement (the "Agreement") with Nanaimo Forest Products for a term of 30 years;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131".

2. The Council of the City of Nanaimo hereby authorizes the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services to enter into the Agreement, on behalf of the City of Nanaimo, in substantially the form attached hereto as Schedule 'A', which sets out the terms and conditions of the Agreement for the sharing of water and mitigating supply risk for either party in the event of supply interruption.

3. Upon execution of the Agreement by the Mayor and Manager of Legislative Services, this Agreement shall be validly entered into as authorized by this Bylaw.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-JUL-11 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-JUL-11 PASSED THIRD READING 2011-JUL-11

Notice of the alternative approval process was published on the 21st day of July 2011 in the Nanaimo Daily News, and on the 28th day of July 2011 in the Nanaimo News Bulletin, newspapers circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter.

RECEIVED APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORS BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS 2011-AUG-31 ADOPTED __________________ __

213

MAYOR


SCHEDULE A EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of 2011.

BETWEEN:

AND:

WHEREAS:

CITY OF NANAIMO 455 Wallace Street

Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5J6

("Nanaimo")

OF THE FIRST PART

NANAIMO FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. P.O. Box 667

Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5L9

("NFP")

OF THE SECOND PART

A. Nanaimo operates a water system for the supply and distribution of water within the boundaries of the City of Nanaimo;

B. NFP operates a water system for the supply and distribution of water to serve NFP;

C. Nanaimo and NFP wish to establish an emergency water connection between the water systems of Nanaimo and NFP for the purpose of providing a supply of water to Nanaimo in the event that an emergency prevents Nanaimo from relying upon its own water supply and providing a supply of water to NFP if an emergency at NFP prevents NFP from relying on its own water supply.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Nanaimo and NFP hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows:

\CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai)(July 6 2011).doc\

214

-2-

1.0 DEFINITIONS

"Connection" means the water pipeline and appurtenances connecting the Nanaimo Water System to the NFP Water System in the location more particularly described in Schedule "B" attached to this Agreement; for greater clarity, the location of the division is shown in Schedule "B";

"Emergency Use" means an interruption in the supply of water of a Receiving Party at a point before the water reaches the distribution system of the Receiving Party in circumstances:

(a) that were not reasonably foreseeable; or

(b) as part of a supply risk mitigation.

"Lands" means the Lands described in Schedule "D"; "Mill" means the pulp mill known as the Harmac mill located in Nanaimo, B.C.;

"Nanaimo Water System" means the Duke Point Water Supply Main and the connection up to and including the isolation valve at the NFP Water System;

"NFP Water System" means the water system serving the serving the Mill;

"Pipeline" means the 750mm diameter water main proposed to interconnect the Duke Point Water Supply Main and the NFP Water System;

"Pump Station" means the proposed pump station and ancillary works to be constructed to lift water from NFP water supply mains to Nanaimo's Water System through the Connection;

"Receiving Party" means the party receiving water under this agreement;

"Supplying Party" means the party providing water from its water system under this Agreement;

"Water Use Effective Date" means in connection with:

(a) NFP, the completion of the Connection;

(b) Nanaimo, the completion of the Pump Station and connection of the Pump Station to the Connection;

"Work" means the construction of the Connection and the Pump Station.

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai)(July 6 2011).doc \

215

- 3 -

2.0 WATER CONNECTION

2.1 Nanaimo shall in accordance with this agreement, design, construct, install, provide and maintain the Connection.

2.2 The Connection shall include a meter. The meter and Connection shall be the property of Nanaimo notwithstanding any thing done or any money contributed by NFP toward the cost of the Connection.

2.3 Nanaimo shall be the owner of the Works and the control of the Connection shall be as set out in this Agreement.

3.0 TERM AND CONDITION PRECEDENT

3.1 The term of this agreement shall be thirty (30) years from the date first written above.

3.2 Despite section 3.1, it is a condition precedent to the obligations of the parties under this Agreement that this Agreement be approved by the electors of the City of Nanaimo through an alternative approval process on or before the First day of September, 2011, and if not so approved, this Agreement shall have no force or effect and neither party shall have any claim against the other.

4.0 EMERGENCY SUPPLY OF WATER

4.1 From and after the Water Use Effective Date in the event of a situation or occurrence requiring Emergency Use that requires the provision of a supply of water to Nanaimo, Nanaimo may temporarily use a supply of water through the Connection.

4.2 From and after the Water Use Effective Date, in the event of a situation or occurrence requiring Emergency Use and that requires the provision of a supply of water to NFP, NFP may temporarily use a supply of water through the Connection.

4.3 Water shall be provided under this agreement provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) the situation giving rise to the connection is an Emergency Use as defined in section 1.0 of this Agreement; and

(b) in the case that NFP is the receiving party, NFP has first made all reasonable efforts to contact Nanaimo's designated representative as set out in Schedule "C" or, in case of his or her absence or incapacity, another senior representative of Nanaimo having a manager position to discuss the nature and the expected duration of the Emergency Use, and seek permission to open the Connection; or


216

-4-

(c) in the case where Nanaimo is the Receiving Party, Nanaimo has first made all reasonable efforts to contact NFP's designated representative as set out in Schedule "C" or, in case of his or her absence or incapacity, another senior representative of NFP to discuss the nature and the expected duration of the Emergency Use, and seek permission to open the Connection; and

(d) approval of the Supplying Party has been obtained in writing, and shall include both facsimile and email transmissions, which approval is not to be unreasonably withheld.

4.4 At the conclusion of every instance of Emergency Use, and regardless of whether or not the Connection was opened with the prior permission of a Supplying Party, the Connection shall be closed only under the supervision of Nanaimo.

4.5 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,

(a) Nanaimo may close the Connection at any time, including during a period of Emergency Use, if the closure is necessary to protect the health or safety of Nanaimo's citizens; or to ensure that the City has sufficient volumes of water reasonably available for use by the residents and property owners in Nanaimo's water supply jurisdiction, and Nanaimo shall not be liable for any loss, cost, damage or expense incurred by NFP as a result of such closure; and

(b) NFP may close the Connection at any time, including during a period of Emergency Use, if the closure is necessary to protect the health or safety of NFP employees or volumes of water reasonably required for the NFP's business operations; and NFP shall not be liable for any loss, cost, damage or expense incurred by Nanaimo as a result of such closure.

5.0 COSTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK AND POWER SUPPLY

5.1 Nanaimo shall cause the Work to be designed, and shall tender the Work, award the contract for the Work and make all payments to the contractor on account of the Work.

5.2 The cost of designing, installing and constructing the Connection shall be divided equally between the Parties. Nanaimo shall invoice NFP monthly for NFP's share of all amounts paid by Nanaimo on account of the cost of the Work (including NFP's share of amounts to be retained by Nanaimo under the Builder's Lien Act (British Columbia)) and NFP shall remit such amount to Nanaimo within 30 days of the delivery of the invoice without setoff or deduction of any kind. Nanaimo shall include with the invoice to NFP a copy of the applicable progress


217

- 5 -

payment certificate verifying the amount paid to the contractor.

5.3 If NFP disputes the cost of the Work allocated to NFP, or the payment of any amount by Nanaimo on which the monthly invoice to NFP from Nanaimo is based, the dispute shall be resolved under section 15.1 of this Agreement.

5.4 The amount of the cost to Nanaimo of all consultants, architects and engineers and apportioned under section 5.2 plus all applicable taxes shall be the greater of:

(a) the lowest compliant tender for the Connection plus an amount of 10% for contingency, together with the total of all change orders reasonably approved by Nanaimo; and

(b) the actual cost of the Connection carried out by a contractor under contract to Nanaimo.

5.5 Nanaimo shall cause the Pump Station to be constructed at its sole cost.

5.6 The designated representatives of the parties shall meet on a regular basis as agreed by the parties at all critical stages of project management during the construction of the Work to discuss construction progress and any cost-related issues so that NFP is kept informed of the cost of the Work and has an opportunity to comment on the circumstances giving rise to any projected change in cost.

5.7 NFP shall, at the cost of Nanaimo, cause to be designed, constructed and installed a supply of power to the Pumping Station. NFP shall tender the work for the installation of the power supply unless otherwise agreed in writing by Nanaimo. The cost payable by Nanaimo shall be the actual cost of all consultants, architects and engineers, the actual cost of the construction of the power supply plus all applicable taxes.

6.0 FEES FOR WATER USE

6.1 NFP shall pay Nanaimo for water at the rate of NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE DOLLARS ($9,453.00) per 10,000 usgpm/day, or, prorated portion thereof, as measured at the Connection, calculated on a quarterly basis.

6.2 Nanaimo shall pay NFP §!_the rate of THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY_DOLLARS ($3920.00) per 10,000 usgpm/day, or, prorated portion thereof, as measured at the Connection, calculated on a quarterly basis.

6.3 Amounts under sections 6.1 and 6.2 shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt by the Receiving Party of an invoice from the Supplying Party.

6.4 If a Receiving Party disputes the amount of an invoice it shall pay the amount of


218

- 6 -

the invoice under section 6.3 and refer the matter for dispute resolution under section 15.0 of this Agreement.

6.5 The parties shall document the calculation of charges for water supplied under this Agreement, as shown in Schedule E.

6.6 The fees payable for water shall be revised on the fifth anniversary of this Agreement and thereafter every five (5) years to reflect changes in the cost of supplying water to a Receiving Party based on the same method used to calculate the rates in sections 6.1 and 6.2. If the parties cannot agree on the fees to be charged in the second or any subsequent five year period they shall refer the matter for dispute resolution under section 15.0 of this Agreement.

7.0 MAINTENANCE

7.1 Each of the parties shall maintain all pipes and equipment appurtenant to the Connection which lie upon its side of the Connection.

7.2 Each of the parties shall maintain its water system generally, including its supply and distribution facilities, in such a manner as to minimize the frequency and duration of Emergency Use.

7.3 In the event of Emergency Use the Receiving Party shall make all reasonable efforts to correct or resolve the Emergency so as to minimize the duration of the Emergency Use and to minimize the possibility of the recurrence of the Emergency Use.

7.4 For the purpose of greater certainty, it is acknowledged and agreed between the parties that:

(a) Nanaimo is not and shall not be obliged to install, possess, control, operate or maintain any of the NFP Water System; and

(b) NFP is not and shall not be obliged to install, posses, control, operate or maintain any of the Nanaimo Water System, or the Works.

8.0 CHARGED PIPE

8.1 Upon notice from a Receiving Party that it requires Emergency Use, the Supplying Party shall make reasonable commercial efforts to ensure that the pipe connecting the Supplying Party's water system to the Connection is charged.

8.2 In the event that a Supplying Party anticipates or becomes aware that the pipe connecting the Supplying Party's water system is not charged or will not be charged, the Supplying Party shall make reasonable commercial efforts to inform the Receiving Party of the situation.

8.3 Notwithstanding sections 8.1 and 8.2 of this Agreement, it is hereby


219

-7-

acknowledged and agreed by the parties that neither party warrants, represents, or guarantees that the pipe connecting its water system to the point of connection will be charged at any time.

9.0 TESTING

9.1 The parties agree that from time to time, the parties may test the Connection. Nanaimo shall make the necessary scheduling arrangements to carry out each Test, including coordination of the scheduling of each Test with NFP. There shall be no Fees for Water Use during such testing.

10.0 NO WARRANTIES

10.1 It is hereby acknowledged and agreed by the parties that neither Nanaimo nor NFP makes any representation or warranty with respect to the potability of any water supplied through the Connection as Emergency Use.

10.2 For greater certainty, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the Receiving Party shall be responsible for ensuring that water received at the Connection is treated as necessary for the purposes of distribution to any consumer.

11.0 STATUTORY RIGHT OF WAY

11.1 Prior to commencement of the construction of the Connection, NFP shall grant to Nanaimo a Statutory Right of Way substantially in the form attached to this Agreement as Schedule "A" over the Lands for the purpose of accommodating the Work. Nanaimo shall pay to NFP as consideration for the right of way the fair market value of the right of way as determined by an appraiser who is a qualified AACI to be jointly selected by the parties.

12.0 RELEASE AND INDEMNITY

12.1 NFP hereby indemnifies, releases, saves harmless and forever discharges Nanaimo and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, solicitors, and successors from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, losses, dues, accounts, expenses, damages, costs, claims, demands or other liability whatsoever and by whomsoever (collectively, "Liability") which may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Connection, any Emergency Use or any other matter or thing hereunder, including but not limited to Liability arising as a consequence of the failure, breakdown or malfunction of the NFP Water System caused by the inadequacy of the NFP Water System to withstand the pressure of water supplied through the Connection, or the contamination by pathogens or otherwise of water supplied to NFP through the Connection, or the failure of a pressure-reducing valve on the Nanaimo side of the Connection. The indemnity and release provided in this section shall not apply where liability is caused solely by the negligence of Nanaimo or persons for whom Nanaimo is in law responsible.


220

- 8 -

12.2 In addition to the indemnity and release provided in secUon 12.0 of this Agreement, NFP hereby warrants to Nanaimo that NFP's Water System is adequate to withstand the pressure of any water supplied to it through the Connection.

12.3 Nanaimo hereby indemnifies, releases, saves harmless and forever discharges NFP and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, solicitors, and successors from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, losses, dues, accounts, expenses, damages, costs, claims, demands or other liability whatsoever and by whomsoever (collectively, "Liability") which may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Connection, any Emergency Use or any other matter or thing hereunder, including but not limited to Liability arising as a consequence of the failure, breakdown or malfunction of the Nanaimo Water System caused by the inadequacy of the Nanaimo Water System to withstand the pressure of water supplied through the Connection, or the contamination by pathogens or otherwise of water supplied to Nanaimo through the Connection, or the failure of a pressure-reducing valve on the NFP side of the Connection. The indemnity and release provided in this section shall not apply where liability is caused solely by the negligence of NFP or persons for whom NFP is in law responsible.

12.4 In addition to the indemnity and release provided in section 12.0 of this Agreement, Nanaimo hereby warrants to NFP that Nanaimo's Water System is adequate to withstand the pressure of any water supplied to it through the Connection.

13.0 INSURANCE

13.1 The parties shall, throughout the Term of this Agreement, obtain and maintain, with a deductible and otherwise in a form acceptable to the other Party, with an insurance company licensed to carry on business in the Province of British Columbia, a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability and property insurance in amounts satisfactory to the other Party providing the following coverage and protecting Nanaimo and NFP against all claims arising out of:

(a) death or injury to persons;

(b) damage to, or loss of, or loss of use of any property; and

(c) damage to, or loss of or loss of use of Nanaimo's Water System.

13.2 Such policy of insurance shall:

(a) name the other Party as an additional insured;

(b) state that the policy applies to each insured in the same manner and to the same extent as if a separate policy had been issued to each insured;

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(final)(July 6 2011).doc \

221

-9-

and

(c) contain a waiver of subrogation.

13.3 The parties shall provide a certified copy of each policy of insurance to Nanaimo promptly upon request by Nanaimo.

13.4 Loss Payable

The parties shall cause each such policy of insurance to contain a provision that the policy will not be changed or amended in any way nor cancelled until thirty (30) days after written notice to Nanaimo. The parties shall pay all premiums as the same become due and payable in respect of such insurance that each is required to maintain under this Agreement.

13.5 Insurance Renewal

If any insurance required to be maintained hereunder is not effected nor kept duly renewed, Nanaimo may effect or renew such insurance, and if a party defaults in the payment of premiums, Nanaimo may pay the same and such sums of money shall be payable by NFP to Nanaimo forthwith without demand.

14.0 TERMINATION

14.1 Excessive Cost

Despite anything else in this Agreement, either Party may terminate this Agreement if it is determined that the cost of the Connection will exceed three (3) million dollars.

14.2 Events of Default

Any one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default (whether any such Event or Default shall be voluntary or involuntary or be effected by operation of law or pursuant to or in compliance with any judgment, decree or order of any Court or any order, rule or regulation of any administrative or governmental body);

(a) the failure by a Party to perform or observe any of the covenants, conditions or agreements to be performed or observed by a Party hereunder, which such failure shall continue unremedied for a period of 30 days after delivery by the other Party of written notice thereof;

(b) the making of an order or the passage of a resolution for the liquidation or winding-up of the NFP;

(c) the making by a Party of a proposal or general assignment for the benefit of its creditors or other acknowledgment of its insolvency;


222

- 10-

(d) the appointment of a receiver, receiver-manager or receiver and manager of the NFP or any part of its property or assets;

(e) the default by a Party in the payment of any indebtedness whatsoever under this Agreement, which such default shall continue unremedied for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the Party and the Party is not then contesting such default in good faith.

14.3 Remedies Upon Default

Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and at any time thereafter, provided that the Party in default has not therefore remedied all outstanding Events of Default, the Party not in default may, in its discretion, by notice to the Party in default, declare this Agreement to be in default. At any time thereafter, while the Party in default shall not have remedied all outstanding Events of Default, the other Party, at its discretion and subject to compliance with any mandatory requirements of applicable law then in effect, may terminate any of its obligations hereunder.

15.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

15.1 The parties hereto agree that in the event of a dispute or disagreement concerning the terms and conditions of this Agreement or of any rights, duties or obligations arising out of this Agreement, the parties will meet with each other and use their best efforts to resolve the dispute or disagreement upon terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties and are in accordance with the spirit and intent of this Agreement. If despite the best efforts of both parties, resolution is not reached, then the dispute or disagreement shall be referred to a single arbitrator pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act (British Columbia) and the determination of such arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. The costs of arbitration shall be borne by the parties equally.

16.0 REASONABLE ASSURANCES

16.1 The parties hereto will at all times and upon every reasonable request give such further assurances and do all further things for the purpose of giving full effect to the covenants and provisions contained in this Agreement.

17.0 CORPORATE ACTS

17. 1 The parties warrant to each other that they have taken all necessary corporate acts and have all necessary corporate authority in order to authorize entering into and carrying out the terms of this Agreement.

18.0 TIME

18.1 Time is of the essence of this Agreement.


223

- 11 -

19.0 STATUTORY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Nothing contained or implied herein shall prejudice or affect the rights and powers of Nanaimo in the exercise of its functions under any public and private statutes, bylaws, orders and regulations, all of which may be fully and effectively exercised as if this Agreement had not been executed and delivered by the parties and the interpretation of this Agreement shall be subject to and consistent with statutory restrictions imposed on the parties under the Community Charier and the Local Government Act, and any successor legislation.

20.0 NOTICE

20.1 Unless otherwise specified herein, any notice required to be given under this Agreement by either party will be deemed to have been given if mailed by prepaid registered mail, or sent by facsimile transmission or email in the case of Notice of Use, or delivered to the address of the other party set forth on the first page of this Agreement or at such other address as the other party may from time to time direct in writing, and any such notice will be deemed to have been received if mailed or faxed, 72 hours after the time of mailing or faxing and, if delivered, upon the date of delivery. If normal mail service or facsimile service is interrupted by strike, slow down, force majeure or other cause, then a notice sent by the impaired means of communication will not be deemed to be received until actually received, and the party sending the notice must utilize any other such services which have not been so interrupted or must deliver such notice in order to ensure prompt receipt thereof.

21.0 ASSIGNMENT

21.1 Neither party may assign or otherwise dispose of this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other Party, not to be unreasonably withheld, except in the following circumstances where consent is not required:

(a) by NFP to any person acquiring any interest in fee simple in the Lands or the Mill.

21.2 Despite an assignment referred to in section 20.1, the assigning Party shall continue to be bound by all provisions of this Agreement unless and until the proposed assignee agrees in writing with the other Party to be bound by all provisions of this Agreement, and demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the other Party that the proposed assignee shall meet all obligations under this Agreement.

21.3 NFP must obtain from any person acquiring any interest in fee simple in the Lands such person's agreement to be bound by and become a party to this Agreement in respect of NFP's interest prior to the completion date of any


224

- 12-

transfer of a fee simple interest in the land.

21.4 Upon being reasonably satisfied under section 21.2, Nanaimo shall provide NFP with a release of the NFP's obligations under this Agreement.

21.5 A Party which intends to assign its interest in this Agreement shall provide prompt notice to the other Party in advance of all permitted assignments or dispositions and shall reimburse the other Party for all reasonable costs incurred in connection with such assignment.

22.0 HEADINGS

22.1 The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit or enlarge the scope or meaning of this Agreement or any provision of it.

23.0 WAIVER

23.1 No waiver or any term or condition of this Agreement or of a breach of any term or condition of this Agreement by either party hereto shall be effective unless it is in writing and no waiver of breach even if in writing shall be construed as a waiver of any future breach.

24.0 LANGUAGE

24.1 Wherever the singular, masculine and neuter are used throughout this Agreement, the same shall be constructed as meaning the plural or the feminine or the body corporate or politic as the context so requires.

25.0 BINDING EFFECT

25.1 This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors.

26.0 SEVERABILITY

26.1 Each article of this Agreement shall be severable. If any prov1s1on of this Agreement is held to be illegal or invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the provision may be severed and the illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.


225

- 13-

27.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT

27.1 The provisions herein contained constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersede all previous communications, representations and agreements, whether verbal or written, between such parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF NANAIMO by its authorized ) signatories this day of ____ , 2011. )

) ) ) ) ) )

NANAIMO FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. by its ) authorized signatories this day of ) ---' 2011. )

) )

Print Name: ) ) )

Print Name: ) )

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai)(July 6 201l).doc \

226

- 14-

SCHEDULE"A"

Statutory Right of Way

TERMS OF INSTRUMENT--PART 2

WHEREAS:

A. The Transferor is the registered owner, or is entitled to become the registered owner, of the lands and premises more particularly described in Form C (page 1) hereto (the "Lands ofTransferor");

B. To facilitate the installation of a system of high pressure waterworks, pump house and water treatment facilities, including all pipes, valves, fittings and facilities in connection therewith and/or hydro electric and communications works including all wires, poles, conduits, radios and other facilities in connection therewith, and chemical storage and injection facilities for the purposes of treating the water to a drinking water standard and other facilities in connection therewith (herein called the "Works"), the Transferor has agreed to permit the construction by the Transferee of the Works on a portion of the Lands of the Transferor and to Grant for these purposes the Rights-of-way hereafter described.

C. The Transferor has agreed to grant to the Transferee a Right-of-way through, under and across the Lands of the Transferor on the terms and conditions set out below; and

D. It is necessary for the operation and maintenance of Transferee's undertaking to obtain a Statutory Right-of-way;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) of lawful money of Canada, now paid by the Transferee to the Transferor (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Transferor), and in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter contained to be observed and performed by the Transferee and for other valuable consideration:

PARAGRAPH 1- GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE WORKS

1.1 THE PARTIES HERETO EACH HEREBY COVENANT TO AND AGREE WITH THE OTHER, as follows:

(a) The Transferor does hereby grant, convey, confirm and transfer, in perpetuity, unto the Transferee the full, free and uninterrupted right, license, liberty, privilege, permission and Right-of-way to lay down, install, construct, entrench, operate, maintain, inspect, alter, remove, replace, bury, cleanse, string, and otherwise establish one or more systems of Works upon, over, under and across the Lands of the Transferor.

(b) The Transferee does hereby covenant and agree that as soon as reasonably

\CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai}(July 6 2011}.doc\

227

- 15-

practical after the construction and installation of the Works upon the Lands of the Transferor the Transferee shall cause to be delivered to the applicable Land Title Office for deposit under the Land Title Act a plan of Right-of-way defining that part of the Lands of the Transferor required by the Transferee for: the accommodation of the Works, and immediately after deposit of the said plan of Right-of-way the Transferee shall cause to be registered in the Land Title Office a release from the rights granted in this Paragraph 1 over all of the Lands of the Transferor not within the Right-of-way shown on the plan. Thereafter the rights granted in this Section 1 shall only apply to the Lands of the Transferor shown outlined and marked on the Right-of-way plan (hereinafter called the "Right of Way").

(c) The Transferor does hereby covenant and agree to and with the Transferee that for the purposes aforesaid and upon, over, under and across the Right-of-Way, the Transferee shall for itself and its servants, agents, workers, contractors and all other licensees of the Transferee together with machinery, vehicles, equipment, and materials be entitled at all times to enter, use, pass and repass, labour, construct, erect, install, dig, carry away soil or other surface or subsurface materials, clear of all trees, growth, buildings or obstructions now or hereafter in existence, as may be necessary, useful, or convenient in connection with the operations of the Transferee in relation to the Works.

(d) The Transferor does hereby transfer, assign and convey to the Transferee all right, title and interest in and to any Works that the Transferee, or the Transferor have prior to this Agreement established or constructed or maintained or operated within the Right-of-Way or in relation to any similar Works previously constructed by any party whatsoever within the Right -of-Way.

(e) The said Works referred to above, together with all pipes, valves, conduits, wires, casings, fittings, lines, meters, appliances, facilities, attachments or devices used in connection therewith shall constitute the Works.

(f) Notwithstanding any rule of law or equity to the contrary, the Works brought on to, set, constructed, laid, erected in, upon or under the Right-of-way by the Transferee shall at all times remain the property of the Transferee notwithstanding that the same may be annexed or affixed to the freehold and shall at any time and from time to time be removable in whole or in part by the Transferee.

(d) In the event that the Transferee abandons the Works or any part thereof the Transferee may, if it so elects, leave the whole or any part thereof in place.

1.2 THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY COVENANTS TO AND AGREES WITH THE TRANSFEREE, as follows:

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai)(July 6 201l).doc \

228

- 16-

(a) That the Transferor will not, nor permit any other person to erect, place, install or maintain any fence, buildings, structure, mobile home, concrete driveway or patio, pipe, wire or other conduit on, over or under any portion of the Right-ofWay so that it in any way interferes with or damages or prevents access to, or is likely to cause harm to Works authorized hereby to be installed in or upon the Right-of-way.

(b) That the Transferor will not do nor knowingly permit to be done any act or thing which will interfere with or injure the said Works and in particular will not carry out any blasting on or adjacent to the Right-of-Way without the consent in writing of the Transferee, provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

(c) That the Transferor acknowledges that any act or thing which interferes with or injures the Works or any authorized work or activity by the Transferor within the Right-of-Way may rupture the high pressure waterworks which could result in explosion, massive flooding, injury or death.

(c) That the Transferor will not substantially add to or diminish the soil cover over any of the Works installed in the Right-of-Way and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, will not construct open drains or ditches along or across any of the Works installed in the Right-of-Way without the consent of the Transferee which will not be unreasonably withheld.

1.3 THE TRANSFEREE HEREBY COVENANTS TO AND AGREES WITH THE TRANSFEROR, as follows:

(a) That the Transferee will not bury any debris or rubbish of any kind in the excavations or backfill, and will remove shoring and like temporary structures as backfilling proceeds.

(b) That the Transferee will thoroughly clean the Right of Way of all rubbish and construction debris created or placed thereon by the Transferee and will leave the Right of Way in a neat and clean condition.

(c) That the Transferee wilt as soon as weather and soil conditions permit and so often as it may exercise its rights hereunder to the Right of Way, replace the surface soil as nearly as may be reasonably possible to the same condition as it was prior to such entry, in order to restore the natural drainage to such lands, PROVIDED HOWEVER that nothing herein contained shall require the Transferee to restore any trees or other surface growth but the Transferee shall leave such lands in a condition which will not inhibit natural regeneration of such growth.

(d) That the Transferee wilt as far as reasonably possible, carry out all work in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to do as little injury to the Right of Way


229

- 17-

as possible.

(e) That the Transferee will make good at its own expense all damage or disturbance which may be caused to the surface soil of the Right of Way in the exercise of its rights hereunder.

(f) The Transferee will, as far as reasonably possible, restore any fences, lawns, and flower beds, at its cost as nearly as may be reasonably possible to the same condition that they were in prior to any entry by the Transferee upon the Right of Way.

PARAGRAPH2 GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE LANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR

2.1 THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY COVENANTS TO AND AGREES WITH THE TRANSFEREE, as follows:

(a) The Transferor does hereby grant, convey, confirm and transfer unto the Transferee for itself, and its servants, agents, workmen, contractors and all other licensees of the Transferee together with machinery, vehicles, equipment and materials, the right at all times to enter upon and to pass and repass over such of the Lands of the Transferor as may reasonably be required for the purpose of ingress to and egress from the Right-of-Way.

(b) The Transferor does hereby grant, convey, confirm and transfer unto the Transferee for itself, and its servants, agents, workmen, contractors and all other licensees of the Transferee together with machinery, vehicles, equipment and materials, the right at all reasonable times to use such of the Lands of the Transferor as may reasonably be required for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, altering, removing replacing or repairing the Works.

2.2 THE TRANSFEREE HEREBY COVENANTS TO AND AGREES WITH THE TRANSFEROR, as follows:

(a) That the Transferee will not bury any debris or rubbish of any kind on the Lands of the Transferor, and will remove shoring and like temporary structures as backfilling proceeds.

(b) That the Transferee will thoroughly clean all lands to which it has access hereunder of all rubbish and construction debris created or placed thereon by the Transferee and will leave such lands in a neat and clean condition.

(c) That the Transferee will, as soon as weather and soil conditions permit, and so often as it may exercise its rights of entry hereunder to any of the Lands of the Transferor, replace the surface soil as nearly as may be reasonably possible to


230

- 18-

the same condition as it was prior to such entry, in order to restore the natural drainage to such lands, PROVIDED HOWEVER that nothing herein contained shall require the Transferee to restore any trees or other surface growth but the Transferee shall leave such lands in a condition which will not inhibit natural regeneration of such growth.

(d) That the Transferee will, as far as reasonably possible, carry out all work in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to do as little injury to the Lands of the Transferor as possible.

(e) That the Transferee will make good at its own expense all damage or disturbance which may be caused to the surface soil of the Lands of the Transferor in the exercise of its rights hereunder.

(f) The Transferee will, as far as reasonably possible, restore any fences, lawns, flower beds at its cost as nearly as may be reasonably possible to the same condition that they were in prior to any entry by the Transferee upon the Lands of the Transferor.

PARAGRAPH 3 GENERAL TERMS

3.1 THE PARTIES HERETO EACH HEREBY COVENANT TO AND AGREE WITH THE OTHER, as follows:

(a) That the Transferor will from time to time and at all times upon every reasonable request and at the cost of the Transferee do and execute or cause to be made, done or executed all such further and other lawful acts, deeds, things, devices, conveyances and assurances in law whatsoever for the better assuring unto the Transferee of the rights hereby granted.

(b) That no part of the title in fee simple to the soil shall pass to or be vested in the Transferee under or by virtue of these presents and the Transferor may fully use and enjoy the Lands of the Transferor subject only to the rights and restrictions herein contained.

(c) That the covenants herein contained shall be covenants running with the land and that none of the covenants herein contained shall be personal or binding upon the Transferor, save and except during the Transferor's ownership of any interest in the Lands of the Transferor, and with respect only to that portion of the Lands of the Transferor of which the Transferor shall be seized or in which he shall have an interest, but that the Lands of the Transferor, shall nevertheless, be and remain at all times charged therewith.

(d) If at the date hereof the Transferor is not the sole registered owner of the Lands of the Transferor, this Agreement shall nevertheless bind the Transferor to the full extent of his interest therein, and if he shall acquire a


231

- 19-

greater or the entire interest in fee simple, this Agreement shall likewise extend to such after-acquired interests.

(e) Where the expression "Transferor" includes more than one person, all covenants herein on the part of the Transferor shall be construed as being several as well as joint.

(f) This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns as the case may be and wherever the singular or masculine is used, it shall be construed as if the plural or the feminine or neuter, as the case may be, had been used, where the parties or the context hereto so require and the rest of the sentence shall be construed as if the grammatical and terminological changes thereby rendered necessary had been made.

End of Document


232

0

Statutory Right-of-Way

The Connection

7

-20-

SCHEDULE "8" The Connection

~ ~ ~ Nanaimo Forest Products B:

~ J Water /'Svstem

* / I ~ I

~~

/ NFP Water System

I L--- Point of Division (POD)

I

Connection

233

-21 -

SCHEDULE "C"

Designated Contract Persons

Title Phone Cell Nanaimo Forest Products Central Control Room Operations (24 hour) 250-722-4307 Gerry Turner Supervisor (Waterline) 250-722-4293 David Bramley Technical Services 250-722-4267 250-739-1 043

Superintendant Ryan Prontack Engineering 250-722-4320 250-714-4787

Superintendant City of Nanaimo Public Works Yard 24 hour Operator on 250-758-5222

call Ritchie Fulla General Foreman, 250-756-5324 250-755-5731

Waterworks Bill Sims Manager, Water 250-756-5302 250-714-3568

Resources John Elliot Manager, Utilities 250-756-5305 250-755-5186 Scott Pamminger Water Resources 250-756-5338 250-713-9857

Specialist

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt(finai)(July 6 20ll).doc \

234

-22-

SCHEDULE "D"

Lands Occupied by the Connection

1. 1 000 Wave Place • PID: 003-926-516- WEST 60 ACRES OF SECTION 22, RANGE 1,

CEDAR DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT PART SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 1499R AND EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN VIP74868

• PID: 023-922-893 -LOT 3 OF SECTIONS 21 ,22,23, RANGE 1 & 2, CEDAR DISTRICT, & DISTRICT LOT 137 & 385, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VI P65621

2. 1140 Hooker Road • PID: 003-924-424-THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 2, RANGE 8, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, EXCEPT PLANS 32333, 37427 AND VIP7486

3. 1190 Maughan Road • PID: 023-922-877- LOT 1, SECTION 1, RANGE 8, NANAIMO DISTRICT AND

SECTION 21, RANGE 1, CEDAR DISTRICT, PLAN VIP65621

\ CON-NFP Emergency Water Connection Agt{finai)(July 6 2011).doc \

235

-23-

SCHEDULE "E" Calculation of Water Charges

City of Nanaimo Calculations: CHARGE TO

SW FULL COST AT 22M

f Supply Costo

Deb

Less

Tran

Cap

Sup

t

: Transfer from DCC Fund

sfer to (from) Reserves

ita!

ply Operation Expense

A dministration

s

T p

Dams Transmission Lines Reservoirs Telemetry & Instrumentation Pressure Reducing Stations Waterworks Grnds Mtce P&R Utility Yard Maintenance Water Testing WPC Chlorination #1 Reservoir Chlorination Water Supply Projects Water Treatment Centre Operations

upply and Storage

Engineering & PNV Overhead

Less: cc # 3757 Water Supply ad min

Water Supply Share= 51.5%

Watermain Flushing

Water Supply Share = 50%

ransmission and Distribution

umping

Cos t of Supply - Gross

Water Consumption (Gallons)

Costp er 1,000 Gallons

COST PER DAY

GALLONS PER DAY

COST PER 1000 GAL PER DAY

CQ$TFQRHARI\I]AQ P£::RDI\.Y

EXTENSION

2011 2011

544,334 544,334

0 0

125,816 125,816

2,816,976 2,816,976

746,751 746,751 250,179 250,179 175,771 175,771 54,326 54,326

123,244 123,244 136,662 136,662 16,000 16,000 10,080 10,080

106,714 106,714 108,324 108,324 62,112 0

371,000 371,000 0 0

1,414,412 1,352,300

984,224 984,224

(336,756) (336,756)

647,468 647,468

333,446 333,446

118,863 118,863

59,432 59,432

392,878 392,878 242,065 242,065

6,283,231 6,221,119

3,650,000,000 3,650,000,000

$1.72 $1.70

17,214 17,341

10,000,000 21,990,448

... ~ 1.72 l 0.79

$ 9,455 Additional costs (included in unit costs above): I

- double chlorination costs 297

Additional gallons per day 11,990,448 l


236

-24-

Nanaimo Forest Products Calculations:

Nanaimo Forest Products -Water Supply Calculation of Charges for City of Nanaimo Incremental Flow

Description Cost Notes Based on 2005 pipeline replacement feasibility engineering estimates. Assumes existing wood stave well and river water lines are replaced with HOPE lines below ground.

Capital Costs - Annualized over 30 vr life $3,504,337.37 Based on average costs from 2005-2011 Included in above calculation Included in above calculation

Cost of Supply - Operational Expenses $730,122.44 Included in above calculation Estimate Annual Maintenance. Estimate

Electricity Estimate Wells Attendent Based on 2009-2010 average water flows, see attached trends

Based on 350 operating days (typ) Administration @ 5% of operational costs $36,506.12 Prorated on supply of 11 ,990,448 USGPM/day Supevision @ 10% of labour costs $30,000.00 Permits $102,000.00 Testing/Sampling $5,000.00

Total $4,407,965.93

Cost Distribution Calculation

Annual Average Water Flow (Well + River) 18,434 USGPM

Annual Avg Daily Water Flow (USGPD) 26,544,960 Cost Per 1 000 Gal Per Day $0.47

Additional Flow to City (GPO) 11,990,448 Total Flow Including City Flow (GPO) 38,535,408 Cost for City of Nanaimo Per 1000 Gal $0.33 Cost to City of Naimo per Day $3,918.73

Annualized Capital Cost Calculation For the purposes of this exercise, only costs related to the

Pipeline Replacement Capital $37,125,000.00 replacement of the well and river water pipelines have been Life of installed equipment (yrs) 20 included in the calculation. (The capital value of river pumps, Annual Interest Rate 5% + 2% Inflation 7% electrical supply, wells, well pumps, storage tanks, 4th Lake Capital Costs - Annualized over 30 yr life ($3,504,337.37) Dam, etc, have not been included}_


237

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7134

A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF LAKE ROAD ADJACENT TO 4044 APSLEY AVENUE

WHEREAS Council has deemed it expedient to stop up and close to traffic and remove the highway dedication of a portion of Lake Road adjacent to 4044 Apsley Avenue for the purpose of disposing of the land to the adjacent landowner for consolidation with the adjacent landowner's lands; and

WHEREAS all lands and premises immediately adjoining, and in the vicinity of the portion of highway that is stopped up and closed are adequately serviced by well-established highways giving convenient access to all such premises; and

WHEREAS pursuant to Sections 40(3) and (4) and Section 94 of the Community Charter the City of Nanaimo has published notice of its intention to adopt this Bylaw, has delivered notice to the operators of utilities whose transmission or distribution facilities or work Council considers will be affected, and has provided an opportunity for persons who consider they are affected to make representations to Council;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134".

2. That portion of Lake Road adjacent to 4044 Apsley Avenue comprising 315.1 square metres, more or less, shown as "Closed Road" on Plan EPP14162 prepared by Brock Williamson, B.C.L.S., a reduced copy of which is attached as Schedule A hereto, is hereby closed to all traffic.

3. The highway dedication of that portion Lake Road adjacent to 4044 Apsley Avenue referred to in section 2 is hereby removed.

238

Bylaw 7134 Page2

4. His Worship the Mayor and the Manager of Legislative Services are hereby authorized to execute all the necessary documents as may be required for the due completion of the aforesaid highway closure and dedication removal.

PASSED FIRST READING 2011-AUG-08 PASSED SECOND READING 2011-AUG-08

Notice of intention to proceed with this bylaw was published on the 11th day of August, 2011 and the 18th day of August, 2011 in the Nanaimo Daily News newspaper, circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter.

PASSED THIRD READING-------APPROVED BY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION---------ADOPTED _____ _

File: LD000255

239

MAYOR


"<t (") ...--('-

.(")

~

(!) roO

> -ro

~c..

~ w

.....J ~

0 w

:c (.) (/)

BE

EE

BE

NC

LEL

AN_TO_AC

COMF.'ANLC

U.L

OE

._NANA.I.MD

_I:ll.lil:lWA.UL

OSURE_A

NIL

OED

ICAU

ON

. REM

OVAL

!POR

TION

O

f LAKE

ROAD! BYIAVI

2011 NO

7134 OF

PART OF PLAN

EPP14162

SECTIO

N

5 W

ELLING

TON

O

!STR

ICT

PURSUAI!T

h SECJTO

N

120 ot THE" lA

I!O llllf

ACT Ol!d

~ SECTlQ!~~l.lLcti..~!f&..

BCC

iS92F.030

I 'I

n M

U

NI,.o

~·

................ ,............... ~"'·-~·u••u••t-~•

•••nu.oo

~>o >101M

tr -· 10 C

l~l ~ IIlii \IU

'"

llal

"~ ""',.. .....

illi~

~ ~~~~~~~

' L

UG

~""-rUttD

a 1141011'1110•«t"'>

t'll-"'"

-.. .. n•u

...... u.-oo.O<•

II'\"'"'~"

.,,._.,>

t>•O

I-It

o'-"

hi•

IIO.I

1\-lol '"'on( lit •

.~ u•otl

llhU~ 1

n1 IO

C III)!O

o.tiii<

J\1 ll't

lll .. HIHIO:I"'

'IH"~

1•11<111'1 .. Ill IQ IC

W'o

i!Oif'lln

!o:I<

IIOI.

1\lftti!U

CW

I .... "H

I-s.!T

irln(U

III .... II . ....,-

\IIIIUII<>li!GI.OI-IO"UIIOii-1~

ION_!I>_""";'"""""""'U.......,.~

!lmc.oll•ou..orn.or.•,.

lt.IJI'I'O

',....'""' •"''II(Y

<\1

!o>I~K'"II<CJ 1

C C

(llltQ ... I

Io'~l"lfl;!" J.l

loll~

otCQ

IIf( '"''"

'' -~··

, ........ ""''''·

llii~O\""'IIC"'-U\Moiii"V..D-U11

.011101CU

I•U

" ~~ ..

11\~~IU: ~lfL

lf:-

.rii"

'II

DIIT

OIO

:UiliU

,If"':u1

>1

fl11

"•"""'"'r<,.,..~,.,~ .... ,n

•u

' ~·· ~:.~:.,~:·~

.. , ..

) '...

~........ . .~:.........

( '

"·' ''"

4/(

""'

LAKE ROAD

''· ~,

""'-·~

I; ""-,'

w

.. ,.. -~";·;;"·;c;H" ''" ........ '~,.

'J: ;f '•~ "~ ..... •'--'" ~

""-" .

!r-".~1\f."---;;;-•"'' ·.;,::--•<$

·~ ,,jl•,,' .t,.•

~-

·:.,:·~ 1/o

" V

·

""" I·

... ~~-->.. 1

-........, /,.

t.t ~~· "'~

•'!t ~D

" ./

.... ":.~~~ ~s(

"-'"

"" "

f.,~~ ~'\

~ ''-

,:. t

uru

>l\ <·',

~}' '•~J

'A/ / -......,_,

2 ~·~·"::· .. ~:, '"' _,/'-........ ·~ .-:. .... ~-~r·

~~

: ~

"'\..'~ ',

.J,,

(; '

' .,;

. «-"'

\

! : ', . ""-

1t--e ' I

ti' ., ... ,

'

~·.

"-'~<oe-

';)th· .,

.. •:MI

'v ·.

~ R

EH

1 •'·

;i; '*.

• I .. <ff

'-);

""'"""' )' · .. /''-,

/.;,::\ L .. '

/.

r.,.' ' ... ·····.~~(<

0.

...., .. '·· ,. ,.{ '·. '··

! I

., . ((J-"-

,.· .

.,,,, /'-

."

" • :

•• •

't'l ,.

?-----~_.{· :< ~

005111 ..... l•loll .......... ,"

,.

~~ "'

'•, ""'

.:' ',

"-, I E

C T T 0~ \~\.._

5 ~"r<b

'-::::.._-.. •·~·"'"~-... /.

I ~<"c

""-. ·········.,. f}

~

<obi t

'• '

I .,<>,.i

'• "'

···~·,1"e, I

'

'i../ / ·-· ..

WH

li•IIOI'I

t. •uo

ch

tn

~~.:~:tT~::'::

I /

~~ ~··

'~<u. I

/ ~

~

/f.. A

......

..

•, ·' I

<"q.. 1~ ("'""

~

~ ............

~1. ~'

•. A

( .

. .,

I '·' <~,~

~,. ·.

~/.·~ ·· .... r., .. ~ .

. ··'>::·:.:""-""-''··.,1

1 ... 111

,,.,,.,o,._..,._lllm.l>ornd•••"'"'

(30

'\(IID II ... .X

. I.~

Ollll ........ lolo

i.L

~ ,,,

'"~""' ,._ ......

1111

0 o:::t N

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7135

A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL IN EXCHANGE FOR LANDS REQUIRED FOR HIGHWAY

WHEREAS Council has deemed it expedient to stop up and close to traffic and remove highway dedication of a portion of Old Victoria Road adjacent to 1064 Old Victoria Road for the purpose of disposing of the land to the adjacent landowner for consolidation with the adjacent landowner's lands, in exchange for other land required for highway purposes; and

WHEREAS all lands and premises immediately adjoining, and in the vicinity of the portion of highway that is stopped up and closed are adequately serviced by well-established highways giving convenient access to all such premises; and

WHEREAS pursuant to Sections 40(3) and (4) and Section 94 of the Community Charter the City of Nanaimo has published notice of its intention to adopt this Bylaw, has delivered notice to the operators of utilities whose transmission or distribution facilities or work Council considers will be affected, and has provided an opportunity for persons who consider they are affected to make representations to Council;


1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF OLD VICTORIA ROAD ADJACENT TO 1064 OLD VICTORIA ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7135 ".

2. That portion of Old Victoria Road adjacent to 1064 Old Victoria Road comprising 204.3 square meters, more or less shown as "Closed Road" on plan EPP14549 prepared by Brian Henning, B.C.L.S., a reduced copy of which is attached as Schedule A hereto, is hereby closed to all traffic.

3. The highway dedication of that portion of Old Victoria Road adjacent to 1064 Old Victoria Road referred to in section 2 is hereby removed.

241

Bylaw 7135 Page2

4. His Worship the Mayor and the Manager of Legislative Services are hereby authorized to execute all the necessary documents as may be required for the due completion of the aforesaid highway closure and dedication removal.

PASSED FIRST READING-------PASSED SECOND READING ______ _

Notice of intention to proceed with this bylaw was published on the __ day of _______ , 2011 and the __ day of , 2011 in the Nanaimo Daily News newspaper, circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter.

PASSED THIRD READING----------=--APPROVED BY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION-------ADOPTED _____ _

File: LD002406

242

MAYOR


Bylaw 7135

SCHEDULE A

!l.~l;;e_~~&_l>l_IQ...A._Q;OOPANY CITY OF NANAJ~ !:Ul.llV.ll!LmiLP.mlC!!..l!lli..llEH!m t BYI AW 2011 NO _2US,_ O.E_LABJ..M'_"-\!J-!I_,_Qm!_CllO!L.ID'.B.l!!i-2.1A'lQ_Jii;U!.(; ehB.LO.E.~.crJ.ll!L1 •. .JW!AllilLQruBKL ~.M!L!:!.~20 cf...!!li LAA'il Jl!J:,E:,,M;!~-

BCGS ~G.~11

.~~~:·~...u·~ ···~---•. _

·· .. SECTION ··-....

11 ~-•..... ·-...

···• ... ·· ...

/ ···· ..

243

PLAN EPP14549

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7137

A BYLAW TO DEDICATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES

WHEREAS Council may under section 30 of the Community Charter, by a bylaw adopted with an affirmative vote of at least 2/3 of all the members of Council, dedicate land for the public purpose of a park;


1. This Bylaw may be cited as "PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137".

2. The lands described in Schedule A attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw are hereby dedicated as park.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READIN-G:---------

PASSED THIRD READING---------ADOPTED BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST 2/3 OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL----------

MAYOR


Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE"A"

PARK DEDICATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7137

Park Name Address Street Name PID Legal Description #

1 Barney Moriez 450 Poplar Street 003-290-077 LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, Playground PLAN 15723

003-296-156 LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15723

003-296-164 LOT3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15723



003-296-202 LOT6, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 15723

2 Beban Park 2300 Bowen Road 000-289-078 LOT 1, SECTIONS 18,19 AND 20, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27441, EXCEPT THOSE PARTS IN PLANS 40622 AND44255

3 Brechin Boat 1890 Zorkin Road 027-675-017 LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP85783

4 Chase River Park 845 Park Avenue 008-759-561 THAT PART OF SECTION 16, RANGE 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 61 RW

5 Chase River 708 Bruce Avenue 007-529-376 THAT PART OF SECTION 18, RANGE 10, Watercourse SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN

1387 INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PLAN 63 RW

007-529-279 THAT PART OF SECTION 19, RANGE 9, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1387 INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PLAN 63 RW



6 Douglas & 8th Park 303 Eighth Street 006-293-981 LOT2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2937

7 Duke & Robins Park 62 Duke Street 007-215-274 BLOCK 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

8 Harry Wipper Park 5050 Hammond Bay Road 000-225-177 LOT 7, DISTRICT LOT 54, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 33028

9 Joan Point Park 1080 Phoenix Way 008-991-545 SECTION 22, RANGE 4, CEDAR DISTRICT

10 Jordan/Nova Park 827 Jordon Avenue 004-934-636 LOT 14, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12003

11 .Kinette Evergreen 451 Ninth Street 018-713-530 LOT 47, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, Park PLAN VIP58686

12 Knowles Park 68 Rainer Street 006-634-508 LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2009

006-634-541 LOT3, BLOCK3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2009

13 Knowles Park 76 Rainer Street 006-634-133 LOT 1, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2009

1 of 11 File: CIL00309

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE"A"



14 Loudon Park 4295 Victoria Avenue 009-168-559 LOT 1, BLOCK2, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318

009-168-630 LOT 6, BLOCK 2, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318



15 Maffeo Sutton Park 2 Cliff Street 009-776-460 THAT PART OF THE BED OF THE PUBLIC HARBOUR OF NANAIMO, LYING IN FRONT OF AND ADJOINING LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 51, PLAN 584; COMMENCING AT THE POINT WHERE THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4, CUTS THE SHORE OF NANAIMO HARBOUR AT HIGH WATER MARK;THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST MAGNETIC FROM 1180 FEET; THENCE 49 DEGREES 42 MINUTES WEST MAGNETIC FOR 330 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT BEARING NORTH 40 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST MAGNETIC FROM THE POINT WHERE THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 8 CUTS THE SHORE OF NANAIMO HARBOUR AT HIGH WATER MARK; THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES 18 MINUTES WEST MAGNETIC FOR 1190 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO SAID POINT WHERE THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 8 CUTS HIGH WATER MARK; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG HIGH WATER MARK TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT AS SHOWN COLOURED RED ON PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER NO. 18177N

16 McGirr Park 6175 McGirr Road 002-015-269 LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 48, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 42751

17 Mcgregor Park 126 Front Street 023-378-042 LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, AND BED OF THE PUBLIC HARBOUR OF NANAIMO, PLAN VIP63076

18 Nanaimo Aquatic 741 Third Street 025-088-467 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, Center PLAN VIP71878

19 Nanaimo Ice Center 750 Third Street 000-359-181 LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 35726 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 50590

20 Bowen Park West 400 McKay Avenue 009-765-778 PARCEL X (DO 661 N), OF SECTION 1, (Parcel X) NANAIMO DISTRICT

21 Northfield Nature 2667 Starlight Trail 002-811-871 LOT A, SECTION 19, RANGE 5, MOUNTAIN Park DISTRICT, PLAN 24700

22 Oliver Road Park 6000 Oliver Road 026-993-830 LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 14, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP82682

23 Park Avenue Park 724 Park Avenue 007-224-401 LOT?, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

24 Pipers Lagoon Park 3600 Place Road 001-457-705 LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 39, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 28952


Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"



25 Railway Park 730 Connaught Avenue 007-223-552 LOT 7, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

26 Railway Park 699 Railway Avenue 007-223-994 LOT 37, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

007-224-010 LOT 38, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

007-224-044 LOT39 BLOCK3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555


27 Rosamond Park 1 Rosamond Park 007-150-431 LOT 11, BLOCK 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1642

28 Serauxman Fields 850 Third Street 024-931-969 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, at Third Street Park PLAN VIP71816

29 Sugarloaf Mtn Park 3160 Marion Way 002-116-740 LOT 1, SECTION 2, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 27549

30 Valley Oak Park 1900 Jingle Pot Road 018-57 8-985 LOT 1, SECTION 11, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN (Buttertubs Marsh DISTRICT, PLAN VIP57517 West)

31 Wardropper Park 2957 Departure Bay Road 002-912-813 LOT 1, SECTION 2, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 25319

32 Westwood Lake 150 Dogwood Road 009-457-399 SECTION 8, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN Park DISTRICT EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN

535R, EXCEPT THAT PART SHOWN ON PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER DD 200411 AND EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING WITHIN NO.4 RESERVOIR AS SAID RESERVIOR AS SHOWN ON A F. B. PARCEL BOOK VOLUME 10, FOLIO 766, N0.8562C

33 Chase River 1160 Island Highway S. 024-816-906 LOT 1, SECTIONS 1 AND 2, NANAIMO Estuary Park DISTRICT, PLAN VIP71009

34 Kiwanis 10 Wallace Street 008-819-696 PART OF BLOCK43, SECTION 1, Park/Pioneer NANAIMO DISTRICT FORMERLY KNOWN Cemetery AS THE OLD CEMETERY, SHOWN ON

PLAN ATTACHED TO DD19034F AND NOW KNOWN AS THE GRAVEYARD, PLAN 584

35 Bastion Square 94 Front Street 006-760-716 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, Park PLAN 44834

36 Belford Avenue 1060 Belford Avenue 009-096-957 LOT 1, BLOCK87, NEWCASTLE Park TOWNSITE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, PLAN 366 009-096-990 LOT 2, BLOCK 87, NEWCASTLE

TOWNSITE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 366

009-097-015 LOT 3, BLOCK 87, NEWCASTLE TOWNSITE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 366

37 Bruce Avenue Park 329 Bruce Avenue 009-765-824 THAT PART OF PARCEL Q (DO 33911 N), OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 1211R

38 Bruce Park 330 Bruce Avenue 007-399-308 LOT 19, BLOCK 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1476

3 of 11 Fife: CIL00309

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDUlE "A"



39 Chase River Park 840 Park Avenue 008-7 59-600 THAT PART OF SECTION 14, RANGE 11, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PlAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PlAN 61 RW

008-759-626 THAT PART OF SECTION 15, RANGE 11, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 61 RW

008-759-642 THAT PART OF SECTION 16, RANGE 11, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 61 RW

40 Chase River Park 418 Seventh Street 008-747-989 THAT PART OF SECTION 17, RANGE 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 INClUDED IN PLAN 63 RW

008-747-997 THAT PART OF SECTION 18, RANGE 10, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 INClUDED IN PlAN 63 RW

41 Chase River Park 775 Park Avenue 009-765-697 THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, LYING EAST OF THE LEFT BANK OF THE CHASE RIVER AND WEST OF THE WEST LIMIT OF PARK AVENUE AS SHOWN ON PLAN 63 RW

009-765-743 THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT LYING SOUTH OF SECTION 19, EAST OF SECTION 18, RANGE 9, AND WEST OF SECTION 18, RANGE 10, PLAN 630 AND OF THE CHASE RIVER AS SHOWN ON PLAN 63 RW

009-765-727 THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT MARKED CHASE RIVER AND OUTLINED IN BlUE ON PLAN 63RW

42 Chesterlea Park 343 Chesterlea Avenue 007-347-961 LOT 30, BLOCK 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1476

007-347-979 LOT 31, BlOCK 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PlAN 1476


43 Con naught Avenue 705 Connaught Avenue 007-225-946 lOT 38, BlOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

44 Connaught Avenue 709 Connaught Avenue 007-225-920 LOT 37, BlOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT PLAN 1555

45 Connaught Avenue 713 Connaught Avenue 007-225-261 LOT 36, BlOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

46 Connaught Avenue 717 Con naught Avenue 007-225-245 LOT 35, BlOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

47 Connaught Avenue 719 Con naught Avenue 007-225-237 LOT 34, BlOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

48 ConnaughtAvenue 725 Con naught Avenue 007-225-211 LOT 33, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

49 Connaught Avenue 729 Connaught Avenue 007-225-202 LOT 32, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

50 Connaught Avenue 733 Connaught Avenue 007-225-172 LOT31, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555



Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE"A"


Park Name Address Street Name PID legal Description #


53 Connaught Avenue 745 ConnaughtAvenue 007-225-130 LOT28, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555



56 Connaught Avenue 757 Conn aught Avenue 007-225-032 LOT 25, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

57 Connaught Avenue 761 ConnaughtAvenue 007-225-016 LOT 24, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

58 ConnaughtAvenue 765 Con naught Avenue 007-224-991 LOT 23, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

59 Connaught Avenue 769 Connaught Avenue 007-224-966 Park LOT22, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 60 Connaught Avenue 773 Con naught Avenue 007-224-893 LOT21, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 61 Connaught Avenue 777 Conn aught Avenue 007-224-885 LOT 20, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 62 Duke Street Park 59 Duke Street 007-226-021 LOT3, BLOCKS, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 63 Duke Street Park 61 Duke Street 007-226-004 LOT2, BLOCKS, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 64 Duke Street Park 63 Duke Street 007-225-989 LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, PLAN 1555 65 Douglas Park 320 Eighth Street 008-759-651 THAT PART OF SECTION 14, RANGE 12,

SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 61 RW

66 Durham Park 423 Pine Street 007-348-207 LOT 4, BLOCK 3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1476

67 Haliday Cres Park 2930 Haliday Crescent 004-963-806 LOT 37, SECTION 15, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 12125

68 Harewood 739 Howard Avenue 008-735-735 THAT PART OF SECTION 18, RANGE 6, Centennial Park SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN

630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 64RW

008-735-743 THAT PART OF SECTION 19, RANGE 6, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 64RW


69 Harewood 730 Howard Avenue 008-735-760 THAT PART OF SECTION 19, RANGE 7, Centennial Park SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN

630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 64RW


70 Kerry Lane Park 5790 Kerry Lane 002-829-487 LOT 21, DISTRICT LOT 38, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 24873

5 of 11 File: Cll00309

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"



71 Molly's Marsh Park 3742 Cavendish Place 025-572-717 LOT 24 SECTION 20 RANGE 4 MOUNTAIN DISTRICTVIP74760 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP78456

72 Mountain Vista 2141 Mountain Vista Drive 026-464-608 LOT 44 SECTION 18 RANGE 6 MOUNTAIN Drive Park DISTRICT PLAN VIP79784

73 Nova Park 536 Nova Street 005-592-291 LOT 17, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 7863

74 Park Avenue Park 772 Park Avenue 007-224-851 LOT 19, BLOCK4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

75 Park Avenue Park 728 Park Avenue 007-224-427 LOT 8, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

76 Park Avenue Park 732 Park Avenue 007-224-451 LOT 9, BLOCK 4, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555






82 Park Avenue Park 755 Park Avenue 006-392-334 LOT3, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2844





87 Ranchview Park 165 Ranchview Drive 003-202-780 LOT 11, SECTION 15, RANGE 4, CRANBERRY DISTRICT, PLAN 22987

88 Rutherford Park 5317 Rutherford Road 006-334-296 LOT 8, DISTRICT LOT 32, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 3009

89 Sixth Street Park 60 Sixth Street 000-013-366 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 39975

90 Sixth Street Park 62 Sixth Street 007-226-306 LOT 14, BLOCK 5, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1555

91 Sealand Park 6100 Sealand Road 014-324-172 LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 25G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 48730 EXCEPT PARTS IN PLANS 50442 AND VIP59828

92 Smugglers Park 116 Capt Morgans Boulevard 004-332-199 LOT 190, DOUGLAS ISLAND (ALSO KNOWN AS PROTECTION ISLAND), NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 14111





Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"


Park Name Address Street Name PID Legal Description

#

96 Southhampton Rd 6544 Southampton Road 002-406-551 LOT 36, DISTRICT LOT 28, WELLINGTON Park DISTRICT, PLAN 26689

97 Stirling/Deering 840 Stirling Avenue 008-759-502 THAT PART OF SECTION 15, RANGE 10, Park SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN

630 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 61 RW EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 16789

98 Sunrise Place Park 3675 Sunrise Place 004-039-980 LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 17, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 17709

99 Taylor Place Park 273 Wakesiah Avenue 001-162-900 LOT 57, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 31277

100 Williamson Park 5250 Williamson Road 012-711-373 LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 54, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 47815, EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 49326

101 Lions Square 280 Wallace Street 000-683-850 THAT PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK31, SECTION 1, NANAIMO CITY, PLAN 584, LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 52 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THEROF HAVING A FRONTAGE OF 92 FEET ON FRASER STREET AND 110.5 FEET ON WALLACE STREET, EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 25442

102 View Street Park 26 View Street 007-109-016 LOT 21, BLOCK2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1662

103 View Street Park 38 View Street 007-108-664 LOT 20, BLOCK 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1662

104 View Street Park 48 View Street 007-108-958 LOT 19, BLOCK2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1662

105 Fifth Street Park 81 Fifth Street 009-766-090 THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO (Trailway) DISTRICT, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON

PLAN 60 RW 106 Park Area Adjacent 1606 Townsite Road 006-461-387 LOT 2, SECTION 14, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN

Karam Park DISTRICT, PLAN 2406 EXCEPT PARTS IN PLANS 3257, 3519,6633 AND 7310

107 Robson Road Park 2930 Robson Road 009-081-992 LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SECTION 15, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 419

108 The Anchor at 20 Anchor Way 001-870-955 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, Anchor Way PLAN 42590

109 Third Street Park 1651 Jingle Pot Road 016-197-267 LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 50590

110 Westwood Lake 385 Westwood Road 000-089-770 LOT 3, SECTION 10, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN Park2 DISTRICT, PLAN 1985, EXCEPT THE

EASTERLY 162 FEET AND EXCEPT THAT PART OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 151 RW

111 Westwood Lake 389 Westwood Road 000-738-522 LOT 1, SECTION 10, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN Park 2 DISTRICT, PLAN 14248

112 Neck Point Park 4050 Morningside Drive 001-035-380 LOT 4, DISTRICT LOT 41, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 37808

113 Neck Point Park 1055 Morningside Drive 001-035-355 LOT 3, DISTRICT LOT 41, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 37808, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 48249 AND VIP63399

114 East Wellington 2191 East Wellington Road 003-629-414 LOT 1, SECTIONS 14 AND 15, RANGE 7, Road Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 14201,

EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 45345


Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"



115 Linley Valley (Cottle 3669 Rock City Road 009-432-485 SECTION 13, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, Lake) Park EXCEPT THE WEST 4 CHAINS OF THE

SOUTH 25 CHAINS THEREOF AND EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 30110

116 Neck Point Park 4000 Shores Drive 001-035-339 LOT 2, DISTRICT LOT 41, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 37808

117 Millstone Park II 680 Riverside Drive 000-366-765 LOT 4, SUBURBAN LOT 18, NEWCASTLE TOWNSITE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 35932

118 Caledonia Park 110 Wall Street 006-300-723 LOT D, SUBURBAN LOT 24, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 3142

119 Cathers Lake Park 2213 Michigan Way 000-987-441 LOT 1, SECTION 12, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 38821, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN49025

120 Gallows Point Light 208 Colvilleton Trail 004-235-959 LOT 1, DOUGLAS ISLAND (ALSO KNOWN AS PROTECTION ISLAND), NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 14550

121 John Weeks Park 1407 Island Highway S 003-225-283 LOT 2, SECTION 2, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 23032, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 3212 RW

122 Mansfield Park BOO St Andrews Street 006-485-090 LOT 1, BLOCK 9, DISTRICT LOTS 96-B AND 96-G, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2039

006-485-138 LOT 2, BLOCK 9, DISTRICT LOTS 96-B AND 96-G, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2039












d43.9

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"







123 May Richards 6700 Dover Road 000-984-817 LOT 7, DISTRICT LOT 53, WELLINGTON Bennett Park DISTRICT, PLAN 1792 EXCEPT PART IN

PLAN VIP66439 124 Northfield Rotary 2450 Northfield Road 023-018-67 4 LOT 2 SECTIONS 16 AND 17 RANGE 6

Lookout Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT PLAN VIP60640 125 Ravine Park Access 2669 Labieux Road 003-585-972 BLOCK A, SECTION 20, RANGE 5,

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT 003-585-981 BLOCK B, SECTION 20, RANGE 5,

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT 126 St George Ravine 980 Tenninal Avenue 001-218-034 LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 96B, NEWCASTLE

Park RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 42125

127 Westwood Lake 1655 College Drive 009-461-035 THAT PART OF SECTION 9, RANGE 7, Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT DESCRIBED AS

FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 784.3 FEET; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 261.1 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 324.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 4 MINTUES EAST A DISTANCE OF 529.8 FEET TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE NORTH 8 DEGREES 11 MINUTES WEST ALONG THE SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 9, A DISTANCE OF 542.3 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMMENCEMENT, AS SHOWN OUTLINE IN RED ON PLAN ATTACHED TODD 200421

128 Westwood Lake 1675 College Drive 009-456-091 THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 9, RANGE 7, Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT

PART IN PLAN 2035 129 Westwood Lake 3850 Kilpatrick Road 009-463-186 THAT PART OF SECTION 10, RANGE 5

Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SHOWN ON PLAN 173RW

009-463-194 THAT PART OF SECTION 10, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SHOWN ON PLAN 173RW

130 Westwood Lake 3900 Kilpatrick Road 009-461-876 THAT PART OF SECTION 9, RANGE 6, Park MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SHOWN ON PLAN

2035


~43 .\C)

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDUlE "A"

PARK DEDICATION BYlAW 2011 NO. 7137


009-461-906 THAT PART OF SECTION 9, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SHOWN ON PlAN 2035



131 Westwood lake 3940 Kilpatrick Road 009-468-650 THAT PART OF SECTION 8, RANGES 6 Park AND 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT DESCRIBED

AS FOllOWS; COMMENCING AT A POST ON THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SECTIONS 8 AND 9, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT AFORESAID, WHICH IS NORTH 89 DEGREES 11 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.197 CHAINS FROM THE NORTH EAST CORNER POST OF SECTION 8, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT AFORESAID; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE 6.690 CHAINS TO A POST; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 7.307 CHAINS TO A POST; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 4.382 CHAINS TO A POST; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 12.163 CHAINS TO A POST, THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 7.658 CHAINS TO A POST; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 2.615 CHAINS TO A POST; THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 8 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 33.142 CHAINS TO A POST ON THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SECTIONS 8 AND 9, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, AFORESAID; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 11 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 48.943 CHAINS AlONG SAID BOUNDARY TO POINT OF COMMENCEMENT, AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PlAN DEPOSITED UNDER DD 200411

132 Westwood Lake 395 Westwood Road 004-363-213 LOT 2, SECTION 10, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN Park DISTRICT, PlAN 14248

133 Westwood Lake 397 Westwood Road 006-226-981 THAT PART OF LOT C, SECTION 10, Park RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PlAN

2977 AS SHOWN ON PlAN 146 RW 134 Westwood lake 399 Westwood Road 003-305-872 THAT PART OF lOT3, SECTION 10,

Park RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 1985 AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 151 RWAND CONTAINING 2.14 ACRES MORE OR LESS

135 Westwood Ravine 2245 ArbotRoad 003-306-054 THAT PART OF LOT 6, SECTION 10, Park RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN

1985 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 74 RW AND CONTAINING 0.12 OF AN ACRE, MORE OR LESS

10 of 11 File: Cll00309

~43' \\

Bylaw 7137

SCHEDULE "A"



003-306-071 THAT PART OF LOT7, SECTION 10, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 1985 SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 74 RWAND CONTAINING 0.11 OF AN ACRE, MORE OR LESS

136 Westwood Ravine 284 Westwood Road 007-205-201 THAT PART OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, Park SECTION 11, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN

DISTRICT, PLAN 1651, AS SHOWN ON PLAN 133 RW

007-205-252 THAT PART OF LOT 4, BLOCK 13, SECTION 11, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 1651, AS SHOWN ON PLAN 133 RW

007-205-317 THAT PART OF LOT 5, BLOCK 13, SECTION 11, RANGE?, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 1651, AS SHOWN ON PLAN 133 RW

007-205-368 THAT PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 13, SECTION 11, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 1651, AS SHOWN ON PLAN 133 RW

137 Bowen Park 500 Bowen Road 009-764-364 THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, LYING SOUTH AND EAST OF THE MILLSTONE RIVER, NORTH OF THE COM OX ROAD, AND WEST OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY AND OF PARCEL REGISTERED UNDER NO. 16813C; EXCEPT PARCEL X (DD 661 N) AND EXCEPT MACH LEARY STREET AND WAKESIAH AVENUE. THE LAND HEREBY REGISTERED, INCLUDING SAID STREET AND AVENUE, CONTAINS 89.4 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON EXPLANATORY PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER DD NO. 14817N

11 of 11 File: Cll00309

CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4500.005




1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500.005".

2. The City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 2011 NO. 4500" is hereby amended by deleting Section 16.5 and replacing it with the following:

16.5

' 16.5.1

16.5.2

16.5.3

16.5.4

16.5.5

16.5.6

16.5.7

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONE FIVE (CDS) The intent of this zone is to provide for mixed use commercial and multifamily development within the Corridor designation.

PERMITTED USES Permitted uses shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5.7 of this Bylaw.

DENSITY Density shall be as set out in the regulations of Part 9 - Corridor, Subsection 9.3.

LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS Lot sizes and dimensions shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5. 7 of this Bylaw.

YARD REQUIREMENTS Yard requirements shall be as set out in the plans included within Subsection 16.5. 7 of this Bylaw.

LOCATION OF PARKING AREAS No parking spaces shall be permitted between the front face of a building and Metra! Drive or the Island Highway.

SIZE OF BUILDINGS Size of buildings shall be as set out in the regulations of Part 9 - Corridor, Subsection 9.7.

PLANS Within the CDS Zone, the permitted uses, lot size and dimensions, and yard requirements shall be developed in general accordance with the following plan:

244

N ..J::o U1

PERMITTED USES: Lots 1 &2

Principal Uses: Multiple Family Dwelling

AccessOfY Uses: Boarding and Lodging- see Conditions of Use in 7 .2.2 Home Based Business- subject to Part 6

l:e&retenllcn

"''"

i&; ~ /} Q'

IJ;[II;

J.t,<l_y

~.,,,.~ "

·~··'~''' _ ~~~;a ~nu _ ('"""l~nM ~2 ~ :;:

LOT AREAS:

Lot 1 Lot2 Lot3 Lot4 Lots

+/- 3729 sq.m +I- 57 47 sq.m +1- 6197 sq.m +I- 2788 sq.m +1- 1557 sq.m

PERMITTED USES: Lots 3,4, &5

Principal Uses: Artist Studio Commercial School Day Care Facilily Financial Institution Furniture and Appliance Sales Hotel Laundroma

'--------&JdowaOI

'----------rcnddodlnoUon

,---======::::;--------P11Ua """ t.l!lap!.illlooltiii:-,MIM!y.Thalirlharp.~~~"!lil~ llfltiii.Ntlnt fu.lnfsa/ll\t$llld!OPGhWitoll-Nih•~toJmJ;;diClll\lk\tlll ...nhOinutbnform l.andn:ip!.llcs!gnlltYtlt911>"~rM•mru•tiHIOOrdl¥'!1lmtP!ImkstJge..

...,. oa.lof,~J;fftlbolfenrd.st~llotriJ•Ittrtl tl!l<.""b.~ d,..bdiYii'on tt D.P.stz.;le.

Library Live I Work Studio

.Multiple Family Dwelling Office

Social Services Resource Centre Veterinary Clinic

Personal Service Usa Restaurant

etail

AccessofY Uses: Boarding and Lodging- see Conditions of Use in 7.2.2 Home Based Business -subject to Part 6

NOTE: Building footprints are for lnfonmational purposes only.

""IJOJ Ol'S_ <Oru (1) ~ N~

01 0 0 0 0 01


PASSED FIRST READING------PASSED SECOND READING ______ _ PUBLIC HEARING HELD-------PASSED THIRD READING------MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL-----COVENANT AMENDMENT REGISTERED ------ADOPTED _______ __

File: RA000280 Address: 5220 Metra! Drive

246

MAYOR


2011-SEP-12 STATUS OF BYLAWS PAGE 1

4500.001 "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.001" (To rezone the property located at 1 Terminal Avenue [Howard Johnson site]).

Passed first and second readings 2011-AUG-22.

4500.002 "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.002" (13 text amendments and 6 mapping changes to clarify the intent and to correct errors that have been identified in the new zoning bylaw).


4500.003 "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.003" (To rezone the property located at 150 Comox Road [Maffeo Sutton Park]).


4500.004 "ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004" (To amend height restrictions within the Single Dwelling Residential [R1/R1 a] zones).


6500.016 "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 6500.016" (OCP62 - to redesignate 1985 Island Diesel Way from "Light Industrial" to "Corridor'' in order to permit a mixed-use development).

Passed first and second readings 2011-MAY-30.

7109 "STREET ENTERTAINERS REGULATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7109" (To regulate street entertainers).

Passed first three readings 2011-AUG-08.

7116 "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL BYLAW 2010 NO. 7116" (For the partial road closure of Labieux Road).

7127

Passed first and second readings 2010-0CT-25. Requires newspaper advertising prior to third reading. Requires Ministry of Transportation approval prior to adoption.

"WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7127" (To authorize the borrowing of 22.5 Million dollars for the construction of a water treatment plant).

Passed first and second readings 2011-JUN-13. Passed third reading 2011-JUN-27. Approval by the Inspector of Municipalities received 2011-JUL-07. Approval of the Electors by Alternative Approval Process required prior to final adoption.

247

2011-SEP-12 STATUS OF BYLAWS PAGE2

7131 "EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT BYLAW 2011 NO. 7131" (to authorize the emergency water connection agreement between the City of Nanaimo and Nanaimo Forest Products).

7134

Passed first, second and third readings 2011-JUL-11. Alternate Approval Process in process.

"HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LAKE ROAD) BYLAW 2011 NO. 7134" (Road closure bylaw for Louden Walkway)

Passed first and second readings 2011-AUG-08. Requires publication of Notice of Intention to proceed in a newspaper circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charier prior to adoption.

g:\bylaws\agenda\bylawstatus.docx

248

City of Nanaimo 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 5J6

August 17, 2011

Dear Mayor and Council,

Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378

2nd Floor, 4595 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC V5G 1J9

TEL 604-299-0378 TOLL FREE IN BC 1-800-665-6838 FAX 604-299-8211 WWW.cope378.ca

AUG 2 5 2011

lEGISL-~T!VE SEf~VICES

Your council has recently expressed concerns about the impact of Smart Meters to your community. I write to you as the president of COPE 378, the union representing the meter readers who will be put out of work by Smart Meters. It is our understanding that this issue will be coming up at UBCM in September and we wanted to take this opportunity to discuss it with you.

While you have likely heard debate on the health and environmental impacts and concern about privacy issues, there is one further key impact I am urging elected officials to consider while reviewing the Smart Meter Initiative- the loss of nearly 400 jobs in communities around this province.

Since the Smart Meter Initiative was introduced in 2007 our meter readers have faced an uncertain future. It's far past time they were given answers that will allow them to plan for their jobs and their families. But COPE 378 has been trying to get answers and a plan for these people from BC Hydro, Accenture (the outsourced arm of BC Hydro which employs the meter readers) and the provincial government for over four years- without success.

Among all the other issues that come with Smart Meters- from time~of-use billing and higher hydro rates to mandatory participation -these impacts are the most immediate and measurable. Meter readers have been told to expect layoffs in February of 2012. This potential job loss is in addition to the recently proposed layoffs at BC Hydro and the loss of another 800 jobs at Accenture (a contracting arm of BC Hydro). These layoffs will have a devastating impact on families and communities across BC.

Our members need answers to the following questions. I hope you will consider adding them to your queries about Smart !'v'leters.

• What are BC Hydro, Accenture, and the provincial government doing to make sure meter readers are retained? What plans are there in place to retrain the existing workers for this new technology?

• Why has BC Hydro given $75 million to the private company Corix to install these meters? Altogether the cost of the Smart Meter Initiative approaches $1 billion. Given BC Hydro's current financial situation, can we afford this cost?

~

climatesmart

~Council 0 Cemmittee.-

}(J.1pen Meeting '. 1 1n-r~mera Meeting ;,,;rer:n~ Uate: Qp\ \. -::k_.P- lC\

• The provincial government legislated a Smart Meter into every home and business in BC through the Clean Energy Act. In Part 1 ofthe same Act, government pledges to "encourage economic development and the creation and retention of jobs". How does the provincial government plan to rectify this contradiction?

To date, the provincial government has simply ignored the issue. COPE 378 has tried several times to get an {anywhere, anytime' meeting with various premiers and ministers o_f energy to discuss Smart Meters and meter readers, to no avail.

We support a moratorium on Smart Meters until these questions can be answered. And if Smart Meters end up going ahead, we want to ensure our members get the opportunity to re-train and continue work in BC Hydro. They have valuable institutional knowledge and are proud of the work they do in service of our public utility and communities.

I hope you will join us in askif1g for a just transition to new work for Meter Readers. The impacts of Smart Meters must be mitigated- and the loss of nearly 400 jobs is one of the most significant negative impacts.

Sincerely,

David Black COPE 378 President

250

Board of Trustees

France Tellier President

Don Moody Vice-President

John D. Hough Treasurer

Secretary JP Guy

Trustees

Suzanne Jakobsen Sorab Rupa David Labay

August 29, 2011

City of Nanaimo

Nanaimo Addiction Foundation P.O. Box 2311 Stn. A 140 Terminal Avenue Nanaimo, BC V9R 6X6 PH: 250.585.2540 Cell: 250.816.9315

455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo BC V9R SJ6

Council Member Merv Unger,

The executive of the Nanaimo Addiction Foundation would like to invite the City of Nanaimo consider becoming a partner and sponsor for their annual educational event. The 2012 event will be the National Therapeutic Community Symposium and is scheduled to take place March 5-8 at Nanaimo's Convention Centre. Other partners and sponsors of the event at this time include: Vancouver Island University, Corrections Canada, and Nanaimo Region John Howard Society. We are approaching additional possible partners because our event this year is national in scope.

In a time of addiction treatment uncertainty, our guest presenters will be offering proven therapeutic model program designs and success stories related to addiction and mental health services from across Canada and into the United States. They will also provide information about how to establish such programs.

Registrations will be invited across Canada to: parole officers, provincial corrections staff, universities (pertinent program heads), health authorities, treatment centres, large corporations (human resources departments), city police departments, ministries of health, First Nations, physicians and educators. Sponsors for the event will be gifted seats for participants of their choice, including their own staff.

Please find attached information about the Foundation, and some statistics regarding both Island and BC addiction and mental health facts. We have not produced our 2012 promotional materials as yet, but all our sponsors and partners will be recognized on our registration, web and our promotional materials. They will also be recognized at the event banquet.

We believe City Council would have an interest in addiction and mental health issues with regard to staff and for the people of Nanaimo they serve. Sponsorship with the Foundation for this event would evidence those considerations.

Sincerely,

Nanaimo Addiction Foundation Executive

ut'Council Agenda Item (J LJ Committee ................ Delegation 1J Ia" Open Meeting Proclamation [J tl ln-Carnera'M~ Correspende

2

W. ~ MM!ng oat~: .~ .. 1- s ce-~

€~rt~~e~ www.nanaimoaddictionfoundation.org Email: [email protected]

251

Nanaimo Addiction Foundation

THE FOUNDATION

P.O. Box 2311 Stn. A, 140 Terminal Avenue Nanaimo, BC V9R 6X6

PH: 250.816.9315 or 250.585.2540

The Nanaimo Addiction Foundation was formed in 2006 and became a federally registered charity in 2007 with the following purposes:

• To provide funding for the development, implementation and coordination of alcohol and drug education/prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services by non-profit organizations within the Nanaimo regional district.

• To designate available annual funds for disbursement in the following categories:

1. Prevention/Education 2. Harm Reduction 3. Treatment

• To accept designated gifts for specific expenditure within the funding areas

• To raise funds by lawful means

• To do all such other things as may assist directly or indirectly, in achieving any of the above mentioned objects of the Foundation.

In 2011-12 the Foundation has commenced plans for the National Therapeutic Community Model Symposium, slated for March 5-8, 2012 at the Nanaimo Conference Centre. The event will bring presenters from across Canada (and the US) to Nanaimo to address the most successful treatment of addiction/mental health model -the Therapeutic Community Model (TC).

Who will be invited: parole officers, provincial corrections staff, universities (pertinent program heads), health authorities, treatment centres, large corporations (human resources departments), city police departments, ministries of health, First Nations, physicians and educators.

University students from pertinent faculties and community residents will also be invited to attend a number of the symposium sessions.

1

252

DID YOU KNOW?

The following statistics are related to Island and provincial addiction and alcohol/substance consumption. Alcohol is typically a drug of preference because of easy aceess. The facts evidence need for information sharing about preventative and "best practices" for treatment supports to both professionals and Canadians/Be residents.

The COST of Addiction Realities in BC $6 Billion annually (BCMA 2009)

• 12% of hospitalizations • 18% of neuro-psychiatric deaths

(e.g. schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disordel} • 30-35% of Motor Vehicle Accidents

• 10% of all drivers are impaired on a daily basis

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION FACTS FOR VANCOUVER ISLAND

AREA

Victoria

Sooke

Sa~nich

Gulf Islands

Cowichan

Lake Cowichan

Ladysmith

Qualicum

Alberni

Courtenay

Campbell River

VI West

VI North

-

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

10.15

9·9

10.17

10.2

- 11.23

9·9

10.66

13.14

10.01

15.08

2

253

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION • The rate of drug use by youth 15-24 years of age remains much higher than that reported by adults 25 years and older: three times higher for cannabis use (25.1% versus 7.9%), and almost nine times higher for past-year use of any drug excluding cannabis (7.9% versus 0.8%). • The prevalence of heavy frequent drinking among youth 15 to 24 years of age, was approximately three times higher than the rate for adults 25 years and older (9.4% versus 3.3%). • BC Government spends about $1.3 billion annually to address mental health and

substance use in British Columbia. This is an increase of 47% since 2001. • Alcohol is the drug of choice, (accessible, least expensive); • No additional funding for services were budgeted after expanding for private liquor

dealers/sales; • BC Alcohol- Heavy, Frequent use

7.3% (Canada 7.1%) • BC Cannabis (past year)

16.8% (Canada 14.1%) • BC Cocaine/Crack

2.6% (Canada 1.9%)

BC Medical Association on Addiction *Addiction affects nearly 400,000 people in British Columbia. Those who suffer from this disease are not only the visibly homeless-they come from every socioeconomic, geographic, cultural and age demographic, and their struggles include not only addiction to illicit drugs butalso the more prevalent addictions to alcohol and gambling. (Bc Medical Association)

1. BC Medical Association-Be Needs More Addiction Services: 1 in 10 Is Addicted to Something

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/BC-Medicai-Association-BC-Needs-MoreAddiction-Services-1-1 0-ls-Addicted -Something-966530 .htm

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire- March 26, 2009) -Addiction affects nearly 400,000 people in British Columbia. Those who suffer from this disease are not only the visibly homeless-they come from every socioeconomic, geographic, cultural and age demographic, and their struggles include not only addiction to illicit drugs but also the more prevalent addictions to alcohol and gambling.

In its just released policy paper, Stepping Forward: Improving Addiction Care in British Columbia, the BC Medical Association makes 1 0 recommendations to enhance current methods of addiction care and ensure that everyone who needs treatment has access to it. Chief among these recommendations is that the provincial government formally recognize addiction as a chronic disease and fund all medical care for addicted people accordingly. As well, BC must significantly invest in treatment infrastructure and community support.

3

254

2. Prince George is Canada's crime capital. http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc north/pgfreepress/news/1 04971659.html?mobile=true

Mclean's Magazine has informed the City of Prince George that the city has the highest amount of crime per capita in its annual ranking of the 100 largest cities in Canada. The annual ranking is based on Statistics Canada data for homicides, sexual assaults, assaults, break and enters, robberies and automobile thefts.

Prince George RCMP Const. Lesley Smith said the increase in crime is directly related to increased gang and drug activity.

Contact person: Geri Sera Position: Executive Director

Mail Address: P.O. Box 2311 Stn. A 140 Terminal Ave. Nanaimo, BC V9R 6X6

Phone: 250. 585.2540

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.nanaimoaddictionfoundation.org

4

255

Sponsorship For the

National Therapeutic Community Symposium

. BRONZE level $100 Listed within the Registration Package.

SILVER level $500 Listed within the Registration PackC:lge & logo.

One seat at the Symposium for agency of choice or self. Logo on Symposium promotional/marketing materials.

Two seats for Symposium banquet with recognition.

GOLD level Listed as a Major Sponsor in Registration Package & logo.

Two seats at the Symposium. Identification with logo as Major Sponsor on

promotional/marketing materials. Three seats for Symposium banquet/ may address guests

for 3-5 minutes.

DIAMOND level $21500 or more Listed as a Diamond Sponsor in Registration Package and

promotional/marketing materials & logo. Five seats at the Symposium (may designate).

Four seats for the Symposium banquet/ may address guests for 10 minutes.

256

DELEGATION REQUEST

Marianne Erb - Kidsport Nanaimo has requested an appearance before council.

The requested date is Sep 12, 2011.



Address: 2690 Elk Street City: Nanaimo Province: BC Postal Code: V9S 3T8 Home Phone: Email: Business Phone: 250-616-9794 Fax:


Marianne Erb is on the Board of Directors of Kidsport Nanaimo which is a chapter of Kidsport BC. The 10 minute presentation will explain what Kidsport Nanaimo does: raise funds and provide funding for registration fees for children whose parent(s) cannot afford the fees. Kidsport provides up to $200 yr per child on a confidential basis. Kidsport is launching a community awareness program for 2 reasons: 1) that families who need the assistance are aware of Kidsport and that we are there to help them and 2) donors consisting of individuals, corporations and service assns are aware of the need for funds to meet the kids of our area's needs.

Kidsport Nanaimo provides funding to kids aged 6-18 from Lantzville to Cedar.

We are launching a corporate f/raiser in Sept for the month of September, called: Step Up to The Plate for Kidsport Nanaimo.

Co-chairs of this event are: Marianne Erb and Dan Morris. Committee members are: Marianne Erb, Dan Morris, Chris Erb, Andrea Rosato Taylor, Mark Vanderhorst.

Many businesses are coming on board re supporting Kidsport Nanaimo.

Thank you, Marianne Erb

257

DELEGATION REQUEST

Serena Pallot has requested an appearance before council.

The requested date is Sep 12, 2011.



Address: 3678 Dolphin Drive City: Nanoose Bay Province: BC Postal Code: V9P 9H1 Home Phone: Email:


On October 2, 2011 the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation CIBC Run for the Cure will take place at Beban Park in Nanaimo. There will be over 1,400 participants and volunteers at the run. The goal of the run is to raise both money and awareness in the ongoing fight to beat Breast Cancer. Our Nanaimo volunteers request that Oct 2, 2011 be designated as Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation CIBC Run for the Cure Day in Nanaimo, or some other designation if that it not possible, in order to generate even more interest in the event, to generate interest in City of Nanaimo employees into entering even more teams this year, and to access volunteers for the run day . This is the 25th anniversary of the Run for the Cure, which makes it that more special. Fundraising and awareness for Breast Cancer has been so successful in Canada over the last 25 years that not only are a great number of those afflicted by Breast Cancer now surviving the disease, a goal of eradicating Breast Cancer has been set by 2020. All members of Nanaimo City Council are invited to attend the Run for the Cure. We would be happy to answer any questions that you have after our presentation to your committee.

258

amended - eSCRIBE Published Meetings

Documents

Transcript of amended - eSCRIBE Published Meetings