Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE December 18, 2014
SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m. PART 1 (pages 1 - 101) for pages 102 - 191 see PART 2
AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda
DELEGATIONS
2. Donna McMahon, Executive Director, Gibsons & District Chamber of Commerce Regarding Potential 2015 Economic Development Projects
(Economic Development) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX A pp 1 - 4
3. Chad Hershler, Executive and Artistic Director, Deer Crossing the Art Farm Regarding Request for Letter of Support for Smart Farm Project
(Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX B pp 5 - 23
REPORTS 4. Planning and Development Department Work Plan for 2015
(Regional Planning, Rural Planning, Economic Development, Hillside, Building Inspection Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX C pp 24 – 32
5. Request for Funding – Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX D pp 33 – 48
6. VCH - SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX E pp 49 – 52
7. Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.162 (Kimm for Bolognese – 7967 Raven’s Cry Road) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX F pp 53 – 57
8. Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area Designation for Form and Character (OCP Amendment Bylaws 600.4 – Area E and 641.3 – Area D) Electoral Area D & E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting - A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX G pp 58 – 77
9. Parking on Carmen Road – Board Resolution 325/14 #6 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX H pp 78 – 79
10. Options for Ocean Beach Esplanade Road Closures and Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) (Area E) Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting - A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX I pp 80 – 101
PART 2 (pages 102 - 191) for pages 1 - 101 see PART 1
11. Hillside Activity Report – November 2014 (Hillside) (Voting – All Directors)
Verbal
12. Building Department Revenues – November 2014 (Building Department) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F, SIGD)
ANNEX J pp 102 - 105
Planning and Development Committee Agenda – December 18, 2014 Page 2 of 2
13. Planning and Development Division Monthly Report - November 2014 (Regional/Rural Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX K pp 106 - 113
MINUTES 14. Heritage Protocol Advisory Committee Minutes of November 3, 2014
(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors) ANNEX L
pp 114 – 116 15. Natural Resource Advisory Committee Minutes of November 19, 2014
(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors) ANNEX M
pp 117 – 122 16. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of November 25, 2014
(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors) ANNEX N
pp 123 - 126 17. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of November 26, 2014
Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) ANNEX O
pp 127 – 129 18. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of November 25, 2014
Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) ANNEX P
pp 130 - 131 19. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of November 24, 2014
Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) ANNEX Q
pp 132 - 133 20. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of November 26, 2014
Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) ANNEX R
pp 134 - 136 21. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of November 25, 2014
Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) ANNEX S
pp 137 - 140
IN CAMERA
That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a) and (f) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual” and “law enforcement…”.
ADJOURNMENT
COMMUNICATIONS 22. Steve Thomson, Minister, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations,
dated November 13, 2014 Regarding access to proposed subdivision on Sakinaw Lake and invasive plants.
ANNEX T pp 141 – 147
23. David Graham, Chair, Gambier Island Local Trust Committee, dated November 19, 2014 Regarding Woodlots 2068 and 2069 on Gambier Island.
ANNEX U pp 148 – 149
24. Iris Hesketh-Boles, Executive Coordinator, Association of Vancouver Island & Coastal Communities, dated November 24, 2014
Regarding Transport Canada’s Proposed Changes to the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemical Regulation & Call for Pacific Regional Advisory Council on Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Members.
ANNEX V pp 150 - 175
25. Alanya Smith, A/Project Assessment Manager, BC Environmental Assessment Office, dated November 26, 2014
Regarding Environmental Assessment for proposed Woodfibre LNG Project.
ANNEX W pp 176 – 179
26. Gwen Johansson, Mayor, Hudson’s Hope, dated December 2, 2014 Regarding Referral of Proposed Site C Dam Project to BC Utilities Commission.
ANNEX X pp 180 - 191
December 3, 2014
POTENTIAL 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The following is a list of projects and collaborations that the Gibsons Chamber has identified as
highly desirable in the coming year. This is in addition to our core economic development
activities which include answering inquiries, maintaining the ED website, and holding skill-
building workshops that are open to the community as well as our members. We have already
reported on our activities for the first three quarters of 2014 (our Q3 report is in the Oct. 16 PDC
agenda as item 21) and we will deliver a full year end report in January.
We recognize that we can't possibly carry out all the activities we have identified here, so we are
asking for the SCRD's feedback on which of them are the best fit with your priorities. Your
feedback will be incorporated in our 2015 budget request.
LANDING MARKETING - We have heard repeated concerns from local business owners that
Gibsons Landing is not adequately marketed in Vancouver. A large portion of Lower
Mainland residents have never heard of Gibsons, or are unaware that we are so close.
Sunshine Coast Tourism has a limited budget and their mandate is to cover the entire coast,
so their campaigns do not generally focus on Gibsons. And the Landing Enhancement
strategy of 2011, which initiated new branding for the Landing, has languished since the
dissolution of BCI.
Working closely with the Visitor Centre and SC Tourism, we intend to pull together key
partners (retail, accommodation, and tourism businesses, local attractions and festivals) to
hammer out a low cost, high octane marketing strategy for 2015, utilizing social media
channels to disseminate content. We will have to take a "pay to play" approach to cover
most of the advertising/media development costs. First steps will be to identify our
strongest tourism assets, target visitor markets, key messages, and best opportunities for
publicity utilizing the marketing capacity and channels that all the partners already have in
place.
We've all been talking about it; it's time to DO it.
CYCLE TOURISM - CIRCLE ROUTE - The BC Cycling Coalition has applied for grant funding to
promote some of the top cycle tourism opportunities in BC, and the Circle Route is very high
on their list, thanks to the enthusiastic involvement of so many partners, including the
Gibsons Chamber, Sunshine Coast Tourism, TRAC Sunshine Coast, Powell River Cycling
Coalition, Comox Valley Cycling Coalition, Great Nanaimo Cycling Coalition, Regional District
of Nanaimo, Comox Valley Economic Development, and more. Our portion of this project
ANNEX A
1
2015 Project Ideas - Page 2 of 4
will focus on the lower Sunshine Coast, which has the most challenging stretches of road
along the route.
Our focus in 2015 will be on the best immediate opportunities, such as promoting group
tours (in partnership with Square One Travel in Courtenay) and identifying short, medium
and long term infrastructure improvements to support cyclists and pedestrians.
Cycle touring is very big in Europe and its popularity is growing rapidly in North America.
Many more cyclists are already coming here; we want to help them have an enjoyable and
safe vacation, and to come back again.
INFORMATION AND REFERRALS - During 2014 the Community Resource Centre, through
the Progress Plan, ran pilot projects for community information and referral in Areas A and
B. The goal was "to provide a person on the ground who could offer consistent, regular
information to their respective community regarding services, economic and volunteer
opportunities, events and support for families and businesses."
The Community Resource Centre is now looking at models for delivering this service in other
rural areas, and we are discussing the possibility of using the Chamber as the service
provider for Areas E and F. The Chamber already acts as a hub for community inquiries and
distribution of printed material, and this is also a good fit with our Visitor and Travel
Ambassador programs which disseminate information to the public. Moreover, our new
location in Sunnycrest Mall is larger than our previous office, with more flexible space.
Additional funding for information and referrals would allow us to add staff hours to better
handle public inquiries.
NEW IMMIGRANT BUSINESS OWNERS - The Chamber recently convened a group that
included Welcoming Communities, Capilano University, ESL instructors, an immigration
consultant, and the Community Resource Centre to prepare for an expected influx of new
immigrant business owners in the community in 2015. It will be important to visit new
business owners soon after their arrive to ensure that they are welcomed, get access to
services they need, and become networked into their new community.
KEY PARTNERSHIPS - Following are some of our key partnership opportunities for 2015.
SEWN - We'll continue to help with develop and support an ongoing network for Self
Employed Women to ensure it will continue after Progress Plan funding expires.
2
2015 Project Ideas - Page 3 of 4
SC TECH HUB - We'll continue to collaborate on the development of this social and
professional network of tech workers, and look for joint event and project
opportunities.
VOICE - FuturePreneur Canada is an organization that helps people under 40 to start
their own businesses. In September we contacted them about holding a workshop on
the Sunshine Coast, and they are more than willing. They have a number of different
sessions available, depending on our needs, and they don't charge for their time. This is
an obvious opportunity for collaboration with VOICE in the new year.
COAST MAKERS - The Coast Makers plan to hold a Recycling Hackathon early next year
in conjunction with Sunshine Coast Recycling and other partners. Their goal is to find
novel ideas and methods for to repurposing/remanufacturing recycled materials into
potential commercial products. Geeks + Junk = Gold? We hope so.
IGNITE - The Ignite program has helped start a number of new businesses, but there are
many local entrepreneurs who have been in business for a few years and are still
struggling to refine their business model or scale it up. We see a lot of potential for an
Ignite style program that helps grow established local businesses. Preliminary talks with
Community Futures are promising.
FERRY COMMUTERS SURVEY - In 2009, Best Coast Initiatives carried out a survey of people
who commute to work via ferry to find out whether rising fares were driving them away
from the coast. They discovered that the primary issue was not price but reliability of
service. Five years later, prices are even higher and service interruptions are more frequent.
And between the 2005 and 2011 Census, the coast's population growth slowed, with the
most dramatic decline (10%) being seen in Area F. (The Household Survey data also suggests
a decline in the number of commuters over that period, but the data is not reliable.) All this
strongly suggests that the coast may be bleeding a very important part of our workforce
who rely on good paying jobs in the Lower Mainland.
The Chamber is interested in a two pronged approach. We'd like to survey current ferry
commuters to find out who they are (demographically) and how the ferry service is
impacting their livelihood. And we'd also liaise with realtors to find out what we can about
the number of people moving offcoast because of ferry issues.
HARBOUR OPPORTUNITY STUDY - Because of the way Statistics Canada aggregates data,
we don't know how much the harbour contributes to the economy of the Gibsons area. In
addition to primary marine businesses, such as fishing, recreation, water taxis, barge
services, and moorage, there are a number of related onshore businesses including boat
building, marine engine repair, and ship supplies, and there is further spin-off spending from
3
2015 Project Ideas - Page 4 of 4
boating tourism in the summer months. Some enthusiastic boaters even move here so they
can live close to a marina.
We'd like to see a study done that analyzes the impact of the harbour on our economy and
also surveys marine-related businesses to identify opportunities for increased economic
activity. The lead partner on this project would be the Town of Gibsons, and the data
gathered would be helpful in planning for future harbour expansion.
OFF COAST SHOPPING SURVEY - Surveys of offcoast shopping behaviour were done in 2004
and 2009 by private industry in conjunction with local economy development. With the
huge growth of internet sales since 2009, it would be valuable to do a fresh survey, with an
emphasis on identifying opportunities for local retailers to fill gaps in locally available
products. This type of survey would be best accomplished with private partnership.
4
November 14, 2014 To the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board of Directors In 2013, with the support of the SCRD and several funders, The Art Farm completed Phase 1 of The Smart Farm Project; a series of four Smart Farm case studies on the Sunshine Coast. The term ‘Smart Farm’ refers to a proposed innovation in local zoning that would allow for increased housing on small-lot acreages outside the ALR in order to a) catalyze (and capitalize) new small farms and b) provide affordable housing opportunities for younger farmers. The case studies explored four potential small-farm co-housing (or ‘Smart Farm’) developments, three of which are eager to move forward into the implementation phase. Through the case study approach of Phase 1, we identified a number of potential concerns related to co-housing developments on small-farm acreages. These concerns included water usage, grey and black-water systems, farm management, commercial activities in residential areas, exit strategies and financing requirements. These concerns require a renewed commitment of time, energy and resources to solve them. The Smart Farm Project is at a critical juncture. The concerns mentioned above represent a seemingly complex web of barriers that stops any progressive development from moving forward. Phase 2 will identify and coordinate the government staff and consultants required to solve these concerns and, ultimately, launch two to three Smart Farm pilots with-in the next eighteen months. The objectives of Phase 2 are:
1. To define with precise language the Smart Farm Zone for the Sunshine Coast Regional District (including required set backs, commercial and agricultural uses, and density allowances)
2. To draft language for covenants/guarantees of sustained commercial agricultural use on Smart Farm developments
3. To design water, grey-water and irrigation systems for homes and farms that address all provincial health concerns
4. To finalize detailed farm plans for two to three Smart Farm pilots on the Sunshine Coast
5. To establish legal structures for each Smart Farm pilot that support governance and financing for farm and co-housing ownership.
As such, we are writing to you now to ask for your support, in principle, for this initiative. At this stage, we are looking for a letter of support from SCRD Board of Directors that indicates your desire and willingness to partner on this initiative. As a partner, you are agreeing to devote a portion of staff time to work through the relevant objectives above.
ANNEX B
5
This will enable each proponent to begin their rezoning application without facing overwhelming hurdles and regulatory restraint. Please note that this project will not replace a rezoning application and/or required work for a specific Smart Farm proposal. Smart Farm proponents will need to go through this process on their own (and pay the appropriate fees). One of the SCRD’s strategic plan goals is to examine barriers and opportunities to support innovative construction approaches to housing and to facilitate change where appropriate/achievable. Two of the Agricultural Area Plan’s strategic goals are to: 1) “advance alternatives for farmers and residents to gain broader access to land and resources for agriculture, and ensure the viability and succession of farmland”, and 2) “tailor land use policies and regulations in support of agricultural opportunities, with attention to avoiding or reducing pressures and conflicts with non-agricultural uses and activities.” One of the actions We Envision identified to enhance local food security is to “provide incentives for public-sector and community groups to promote food security and grow and preserve their own food, as well as make local foods accessible to, and affordable for all people”. We believe facilitating the launch of several Smart Farm pilots on the Sunshine Coast supports all (and more) of these goals, priorities and directions. Thank you for all your support for this initiative so far. Yours truly,
Chad Hershler Executive and Artistic Director Deer Crossing The Art Farm w: www.deercrossingtheartfarm.org e: [email protected] p: 604 886 0975
6
LEA
D
OR
GA
NIZ
ATI
ON
:
Elp
hin
sto
ne
Fa
rm C
orp
ora
tion
Bow
en
Isla
nd
Pro
pe
rtie
s
AN
EX
PLO
RA
TIO
N O
F SM
ALL
FA
RM
CO
-HO
USI
NG
Sara
De
nt
Part
ial f
un
din
g fo
r th
is p
roje
ct
ha
s b
ee
n p
rovi
de
d b
y A
gric
ultu
re a
nd
A
gri-
Foo
d C
an
ad
a t
hro
ug
h t
he
Ca
na
dia
n A
gric
ultu
ral A
da
pta
tion
Pr
og
ram
(C
AA
P). I
n B
ritish
Co
lum
bia
, th
is p
rog
ram
is d
eliv
ere
d b
y th
e In
vest
me
nt
Ag
ricu
lture
Fo
un
da
tion
of B
C.
Ag
ricu
lture
an
d A
gri-
Foo
d C
an
ad
a (
AA
FC)
is c
om
mitt
ed
to
wo
rkin
g
with
ind
ust
ry p
art
ne
rs. O
pin
ion
s e
xpre
sse
d in
th
is d
oc
um
en
t a
re
tho
se o
f De
er C
ross
ing
th
e A
rt F
arm
an
d n
ot
ne
ce
ssa
rily
tho
se o
f A
AFC
or t
he
Inve
stm
en
t A
gric
ultu
re F
ou
nd
atio
n.
Farm
Fo
lk/C
ity F
olk
an
d Y
ou
ng
Ag
raria
ns
Co
mm
un
ity F
utu
res
On
e S
tra
w S
oc
iety
VO
ICE
on
th
e C
oa
stSu
nsh
ine
Co
ast
Re
gio
na
l Dist
rict
IN C
OLL
ABO
RA
TIO
N
WIT
H:
FUN
DER
S:
SPO
NSO
RS:
PAR
TNER
S:
7
HO
W IT
BEG
AN
3In
tro
by
Ch
ad
He
rsh
ler
OV
ERV
IEW
4
CO
NSU
LTA
NT
TEA
M
5It’
s a
ll a
bo
ut
the
pe
op
le
CH
AR
TIN
G T
HE
CO
UR
SE
6
Me
tho
do
log
y, c
ha
llen
ge
s a
nd
less
on
s le
arn
ed
CO
NSI
DER
ATI
ON
S
7A
sim
ple
ch
ec
klist
CA
SE S
TUD
IES
7-15
Sto
rvo
ld R
d, L
an
gd
ale
Kin
g R
d, E
lph
inst
on
e L
ow
er R
d, R
ob
ert
s C
ree
k L
oc
kye
r Rd
, Ro
be
rts
Cre
ek
LOO
KIN
G F
OR
WA
RD
16R
ec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
an
d o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
APP
END
IX
17
TABL
E O
F CO
NTE
NTS T
he S
MAR
T F
ARM
Pro
ject
8
Two
ye
ars
aft
er m
y w
ife S
an
dy
an
d I
mo
ved
fr
om
Ea
st V
an
to
a s
pe
cta
cu
lar f
ive
-ac
re p
rop
-e
rty
on
th
e S
un
shin
e C
oa
st, 4
0 a
cre
s o
f Ag
ricu
l-tu
ral L
an
d R
ese
rve
(A
LR)
fore
st n
ext
to
us
wa
s b
ulld
oze
d a
nd
ca
rve
d in
to e
igh
t m
ore
five
-ac
re
lots
. Tw
en
ty-f
ive
ye
ars
ea
rlie
r, th
e la
nd
we
we
re
livin
g o
n w
as
cle
are
d, b
ulld
oze
d a
nd
rem
ove
d
fro
m A
LR ju
st t
he
sa
me
—so
we
co
uld
n’t
rea
lly
co
mp
lain
ab
ou
t th
e lo
ss o
f pre
cio
us
wild
ern
ess
o
r fa
rmla
nd
. Th
at
wa
s u
ntil
we
sa
w t
he
co
v-e
na
nts
. Bu
yers
of t
he
se lo
ts a
re le
ga
lly b
ou
nd
to
b
uild
a m
inim
um
3,0
00-s
qu
are
-fo
ot
ho
me
with
a
min
imu
m t
wo
-ca
r ga
rag
e. T
he
fore
st w
asn
’t ju
st
cle
are
d a
nd
rem
ove
d fr
om
th
e A
LR: i
t w
as
cle
are
d t
o b
uild
est
ate
lots
. Th
is ju
st d
idn
’t s
ee
m
fair
at
all.
Let
me
exp
lain
. Wh
en
we
firs
t m
ove
d o
nto
th
e
lan
d, S
an
dy
an
d I
ha
d t
his
wild
ly a
mb
itio
us
dre
am
: we
wa
nte
d t
o b
uild
an
art
ist re
tre
at
on
a
farm
just
a s
ho
rt fe
rry
ride
aw
ay
fro
m t
he
big
c
ity. T
ha
t d
rea
m v
an
ishe
d in
a fa
st d
esc
en
din
g
fog
of r
ea
lity
(“W
ha
t d
o y
ou
me
an
we
ha
ve t
o
pu
t in
an
oth
er s
ep
tic fi
eld
? W
ha
t’s
a s
ep
tic
field
?”)
an
d w
e w
ere
left
wo
nd
erin
g w
ha
t o
n
ea
rth
we
we
re d
oin
g. O
ne
da
y, o
verlo
oki
ng
ou
r e
mp
ty fi
eld
s, m
y w
ife t
urn
ed
to
me
. “W
e’r
e
zon
ed
for f
arm
ing
, rig
ht?
” I n
od
de
d. “
An
d w
e’r
e
art
ists,
” sh
e c
on
tinu
ed
. “So
let’
s b
e a
n a
rt fa
rm.”
Tho
se t
wo
wo
rds
side
by
side
we
re a
ll th
e fe
rtil-
ize
r we
ne
ed
ed
. We
ha
d n
o id
ea
wh
at
the
te
rm
“art
farm
” m
ea
nt
bu
t it
did
n’t
ma
tte
r. W
e c
alle
d
ou
rse
lve
s a
n a
rt fa
rm, a
nd
pe
op
le—
fro
m a
ll so
rts
of b
ac
kgro
un
ds
an
d p
rofe
ssio
ns—
em
erg
ed
, th
row
ing
th
eir
tho
ug
hts
, id
ea
s a
nd
pro
jec
ts in
to
the
mix
. We
sta
rte
d a
no
n-p
rofit
org
an
iza
tion
c
alle
d “
De
er C
ross
ing
th
e A
rt F
arm
,” ru
nn
ing
art
s a
nd
na
ture
-driv
en
pro
gra
mm
ing
on
ou
r pro
p-
ert
y a
nd
ou
t in
th
e c
om
mu
nity
, an
d T
he
Art
Fa
rm h
arv
est
gre
w b
igg
er a
nd
big
ge
r eve
ry
yea
r. Fr
om
fest
iva
ls to
pro
du
ctio
ns
to w
ork
sho
ps,
it
wa
s h
ard
to
ke
ep
up
with
th
e b
ou
nty
!
The
n w
e s
tart
ed
to
exp
lore
ho
w w
e c
ou
ld
cre
ate
, yo
u k
no
w, a
‘fa
rm’
on
Th
e A
rt F
arm
.
BY C
HA
D H
ERSH
LER
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 3/
17
ing
on
e. T
his
pro
jec
t h
as
be
en
insp
irin
g fr
om
th
e
ge
t-g
o. W
he
the
r yo
u’r
e a
reg
ion
al p
lan
ne
r, a
fa
rmin
g a
dvo
ca
te, a
n e
co
no
mic
de
velo
pm
en
t o
ffic
er,
a re
tire
e, a
no
n-p
rofit
org
an
iza
tion
, a
farm
, a fa
rme
r or s
om
eo
ne
just
like
me
with
n
oth
ing
bu
t a
visi
on
an
d re
len
tless
(so
me
mig
ht
say:
na
ïve
) d
ete
rmin
atio
n, w
e h
op
e t
he
o
utc
om
es
of t
his
exp
lora
tion
into
sm
all
farm
c
o-h
ou
sing
he
lps
you
kic
k-st
art
so
me
Sm
art
Fa
rms
of y
ou
r ow
n. T
his
ha
s b
rou
gh
t th
e d
rea
m a
w
ho
le lo
t c
lose
r to
rea
lity
for u
s. M
ay
it d
o t
he
sa
me
for y
ou
an
d y
ou
rs.
How
is it
tha
t, in
an
age
of f
ood
secu
rity
cri
ses
and
the
skyr
ocke
ting
val
ue o
f la
nd, w
here
the
ave
rage
ag
e of
far
mer
s is
in t
he
mid
-50s
and
cre
epin
g hi
gher
, our
‘cur
rent
zo
ning
’ all
ows
for
esta
te
deve
lopm
ents
suc
h as
the
on
e ne
xt d
oor
to u
s, bu
t do
esn’
t al
low
for
a l
ow
foot
prin
t cl
uste
r de
velo
p-m
ent
that
mig
ht a
ctua
lly
mak
e fa
rmin
g vi
able
for
th
e ne
xt g
ener
atio
n of
fa
rmer
s?-
Ch
ad
He
rsh
ler
Cle
arly
we
ha
d t
he
art
sid
e t
ake
n c
are
of;
the
fa
rm s
ide
… n
ot
so m
uc
h. W
e a
ren
’t fa
rme
rs. W
e
ha
ve a
ll th
e re
spe
ct
in t
he
wo
rld fo
r fa
rme
rs, b
ut
we
are
n’t
th
e o
ne
s to
ma
ke it
ha
pp
en
. So
we
se
t o
ut
to re
cru
it so
me
yo
un
g fa
rme
rs o
nto
th
e
lan
d.
Ou
r firs
t c
ha
llen
ge
wa
s w
he
re t
o h
ou
se t
he
m?
The
re is
on
e 1
,000
-sq
ua
re-f
oo
t h
om
e t
ha
t w
e li
ve
in a
nd
a o
ne
-ro
om
ca
bin
in t
he
wo
od
s. W
e
co
uld
brin
g in
vo
lun
tee
rs fo
r a fe
w w
ee
ks a
t a
tim
e b
ut
no
farm
ing
fam
ily w
as
go
ing
to
mo
ve
to a
pie
ce
of l
an
d t
he
y d
on
’t o
wn
with
no
wh
ere
to
live
. Ou
r ow
ne
rsh
ip s
itua
tion
is t
en
uo
us
en
ou
gh
, as
it is.
Sa
nd
y a
nd
I sh
are
ow
ne
rsh
ip o
f th
e la
nd
with
my
pa
ren
ts. I
t w
as
the
on
ly w
ay
we
co
uld
ma
ke t
he
lea
p in
th
e fi
rst
pla
ce
. My
pa
ren
ts a
re s
up
po
rtiv
e o
f ou
r visi
on
bu
t h
ave
no
d
esir
e t
o li
ve o
n t
he
lan
d. W
e re
aliz
ed
if w
e w
ere
g
oin
g t
o b
uy
my
pa
ren
ts o
ut,
inve
st in
mo
re
ho
usin
g a
nd
sta
rt a
farm
, we
’d n
ee
d m
ore
th
an
o
ne
oth
er f
am
ily t
o m
ake
th
is h
ap
pe
n: t
wo
m
ore
, at
the
ve
ry le
ast
. Ye
t w
he
n w
e p
rop
ose
d
a c
lust
er d
eve
lop
me
nt
(th
at
wo
uld
ta
ke u
p t
he
sa
me
or l
ess
sq
ua
re fo
ota
ge
th
en
yo
ur a
vera
ge
6,
000-
squ
are
-fo
ot
est
ate
ho
me
) to
ou
r lo
ca
l p
lan
ne
r he
exp
lain
ed
th
at
ou
r cu
rre
nt
zon
ing
w
ou
ldn
’t a
llow
it.
An
d t
ha
t b
ring
s u
s b
ac
k to
th
ose
eig
ht
five
-ac
re
co
ven
an
ted
lots
be
side
us.
Ho
w is
it t
ha
t, in
an
a
ge
of f
oo
d s
ec
urit
y c
rise
s a
nd
th
e s
kyro
cke
ting
va
lue
of l
an
d, w
he
re t
he
ave
rag
e a
ge
of f
arm
-e
rs is
in t
he
mid
-50s
an
d c
ree
pin
g h
igh
er,
ou
r “c
urr
en
t zo
nin
g”
allo
ws
for e
sta
te d
eve
lop
me
nts
su
ch
as
the
on
e n
ext
do
or t
o u
s, b
ut
do
esn
’t
allo
w fo
r a lo
w-f
oo
tprin
t c
lust
er d
eve
lop
me
nt
tha
t m
igh
t a
ctu
ally
ma
ke fa
rmin
g v
iab
le fo
r th
e
ne
xt g
en
era
tion
of f
arm
ers
?
This
is th
e is
sue
th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
Pro
jec
t tr
ies
to
ad
dre
ss. T
he
re a
re, i
t tu
rns
ou
t, m
an
y c
ha
llen
ge
s to
de
velo
pin
g a
sm
all
farm
co
-ho
usin
g m
od
el.
Fro
m t
he
leg
al q
ua
nd
arie
s a
rou
nd
ow
ne
rsh
ip, t
o
the
ec
on
om
ic fe
asib
ility
of s
ma
ll fa
rmin
g, t
o
zon
ing
co
mp
lica
tion
s, b
uild
ing
a S
ma
rt F
arm
is
no
t a
sim
ple
en
de
avo
ur.
It is,
ho
we
ver,
an
exc
it-
HO
W IT
BEG
AN
Ch
ad
He
rsh
ler a
nd
da
ug
he
r Ma
gg
ie
on
th
e A
rt F
arm
9
A q
uic
k sc
an
of
the
201
1 C
en
sus
of
Ag
ricu
lture
p
ain
ts a
ble
ak
pic
ture
. Th
e a
vera
ge
ag
e o
f fa
rme
rs in
Ca
na
da
is 5
5, w
ith m
ore
th
an
48%
o
ver
the
ag
e o
f 55
. On
ly 8
% o
f o
ur
farm
ers
are
yo
un
ge
r th
an
35.
Th
e n
um
be
r o
f fa
rme
rs
dro
pp
ed
10%
fro
m 2
006
to 2
011,
as
did
th
e
nu
mb
er
of
farm
s. T
he
rea
son
s a
re s
imp
le. I
n
mo
st o
f o
ur
pro
vin
ce
s, la
nd
co
sts
too
mu
ch
a
nd
fa
rmin
g m
ake
s to
o li
ttle
. Th
is is
a n
atio
na
l c
risis
th
at
req
uire
s c
olla
bo
rativ
e in
no
vatio
n
be
twe
en
th
e p
ub
lic, p
riva
te a
nd
co
mm
un
ity-
driv
en
se
cto
rs. T
he
Sm
art
Fa
rm P
roje
ct
is a
n
exp
lora
tion
of
seve
ral s
uc
h in
no
vatio
ns.
In B
C, t
he
ALR
—a
nd
th
e A
gric
ultu
ral L
an
d
Co
mm
issi
on
th
at
ove
rse
es
it—w
as
est
ab
lish
ed
to
pro
tec
t fa
rmla
nd
fro
m t
he
pre
ssu
res
of
de
velo
pm
en
t a
nd
urb
an
sp
raw
l. R
ule
s a
nd
re
gu
latio
ns
ne
ed
to
be
firm
to
with
sta
nd
th
is
pre
ssu
re. B
ut
rura
l mu
nic
ipa
litie
s a
nd
reg
ion
al
dis
tric
ts a
cro
ss B
C h
ave
juris
dic
tion
ove
r th
ou
-sa
nd
s o
f h
ec
tare
s o
f p
ote
ntia
l fa
rmla
nd
ou
t-si
de
th
e A
LR. T
he
se p
rop
ert
ies
are
ge
ne
rally
sm
alle
r th
an
ave
rag
e A
LR lo
ts, a
re t
ypic
ally
se
rvic
ed
an
d c
lea
red
an
d in
ma
ny
ca
ses
ha
ve s
om
e t
ype
of
ho
usi
ng
alre
ad
y in
pla
ce
. Th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
Pro
jec
t e
xplo
res
wh
eth
er
inc
rea
sed
de
nsi
ty o
n s
uc
h lo
ts u
sin
g lo
w f
oo
t-p
rint
clu
ste
r d
esi
gn
s c
ou
ld c
ata
lyze
sm
all
farm
s a
nd
pro
vid
e a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usi
ng
fo
r th
e
you
ng
er
ge
ne
ratio
n o
f fa
rme
rs w
e s
o d
esp
er-
ate
ly n
ee
d.
The
pro
jec
t w
en
t th
rou
gh
se
vera
l sta
ge
s,
be
gin
nin
g f
irst
with
ma
rke
t re
sea
rch
, mo
vin
g
into
an
ou
tre
ac
h p
ha
se f
or
da
ta a
nd
rec
ruit-
me
nt
of
volu
nte
ers
fo
r th
e c
ase
stu
die
s to
c
om
e. T
he
co
nsu
ltan
t a
nd
ma
na
ge
me
nt
tea
m s
ele
cte
d f
ou
r c
ase
stu
dy
pro
pe
rtie
s th
at
refle
cte
d a
div
ers
ity o
f g
eo
gra
ph
y, o
wn
ers
hip
a
nd
po
ten
tial f
arm
yie
ld. T
he
te
am
co
llab
o-
rate
d o
n a
Sm
art
Fa
rm p
rop
osa
l fo
r e
ac
h
pro
pe
rty,
inc
lud
ing
fa
rm p
lan
, de
sig
ns,
leg
al
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
an
d a
fe
asi
bili
ty a
na
lysi
s.
The
ca
se-s
tud
y a
pp
roa
ch
allo
we
d t
he
te
am
to
exp
lore
th
is in
no
vatio
n a
cro
ss a
sp
ec
tru
m o
f
po
ten
tial p
rop
osa
ls, f
rom
th
e u
nc
on
ven
tion
al
co
-op
era
tive
driv
en
mo
de
l th
rou
gh
to
th
e
mo
re c
on
ven
tion
al d
eve
lop
er-
driv
en
mo
de
l.
The
fin
din
gs
we
re d
au
ntin
g, s
urp
risin
g a
nd
e
xciti
ng
all
at
the
sa
me
tim
e. T
he
re is
a s
ign
ifi-
ca
nt
am
ou
nt
of
fro
nt-
en
d w
ork
—fr
om
th
e
bu
sin
ess
pla
n t
o le
ga
l co
nsi
de
ratio
ns
to
rezo
nin
g—
req
uire
d t
o e
sta
blis
h t
he
se p
rop
os-
als
. Th
at
said
, on
th
e S
un
shin
e C
oa
st w
he
re
this
pro
jec
t is
ba
sed
, th
ey
ga
rne
red
litt
le t
o n
o
resi
sta
nc
e a
t th
e g
ove
rnm
en
t o
r re
gu
lato
ry
leve
l. Th
ere
is a
gro
win
g (
alm
ost
de
spe
rate
) d
esi
re f
or
mo
re lo
ca
l fa
rms
an
d t
his
de
sire
ha
s tr
an
sla
ted
into
an
op
en
ne
ss t
o a
ltern
ativ
e
solu
tion
s. L
ast
ly, t
he
nu
mb
er
an
d d
ive
rsity
of
pe
op
le w
ho
are
inte
rest
ed
in e
xplo
ring
th
e
Sma
rt F
arm
co
nc
ep
t—h
ere
on
th
e S
un
shin
e
Co
ast
an
d e
lse
wh
ere
—m
ea
ns
the
se p
rop
osa
ls
are
no
t ju
st v
iab
le; t
he
pro
po
sals
are
ac
hie
v-a
ble
. With
co
ntin
ue
d s
up
po
rt f
rom
fu
nd
ers
a
nd
loc
al g
ove
rnm
en
t, S
ma
rt F
arm
s h
ave
th
e
po
ten
tial t
o p
lay
a p
ivo
tal r
ole
in a
ttra
ctin
g
you
ng
fa
rme
rs a
nd
ca
taly
zin
g n
ew
fa
rms
ac
ross
BC
an
d C
an
ad
a.
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 4/
17
OVE
RVIE
W
Sara
De
nt
Sara
De
nt
The
nu
mb
er
of
farm
ers
dro
pp
ed
10
% f
rom
200
6 to
201
1, a
s d
id t
he
n
um
be
r o
f fa
rms.
Th
e re
aso
ns
are
si
mp
le. I
n m
ost
of
ou
r p
rovi
nc
es,
la
nd
co
sts
too
mu
ch
an
d f
arm
ing
m
ake
s to
o li
ttle
.
10
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 5/
17
CON
SULT
AN
T T
EAM
THE
SMA
RT F
ARM
PRO
JEC
T -
IT’S
ALL
ABO
UT
THE
PEO
PLE
-A
mo
ng
th
e m
an
y th
ing
s le
arn
ed
, or r
ein
forc
ed
, du
ring
th
is p
roje
ct
wa
s th
e s
imp
le t
ruth
th
at
pe
op
le a
nd
rela
tion
ship
s a
re c
ritic
al t
o t
he
su
cc
ess
of a
ny
co
llab
ora
tive
en
terp
rise
. A
ll a
spe
cts
of t
he
pro
jec
t in
volv
ed
foc
use
d e
ng
ag
em
en
t w
ith o
ne
or m
ore
sta
keh
old
er g
rou
p.
The
un
ive
rse
of s
take
ho
lde
rs in
th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
Pro
jec
t in
clu
de
s: in
div
idu
als
an
d fa
mili
es
inte
rest
ed
in e
xplo
ring
th
e p
oss
ibili
ty o
f sm
all
farm
co
-ho
usin
g; p
eo
ple
an
d o
rga
niz
atio
ns
alre
ad
y e
ng
ag
ed
in re
late
d a
ctiv
itie
s su
ch
as
foo
d s
ec
urit
y a
nd
aff
ord
ab
le h
ou
sing
; lo
ca
l g
ove
rnm
en
t a
nd
th
eir
pla
nn
ing
de
pa
rtm
en
ts; a
nd
co
nsu
ltan
ts w
ith t
he
pa
ssio
n a
nd
ca
pa
c-
ity t
o s
up
po
rt t
he
wo
rk.
On
e o
f ou
r re
co
mm
en
da
tion
s to
oth
ers
se
eki
ng
to
exp
lore
a S
ma
rt F
arm
mo
de
l is
to fa
cto
r in
th
e t
ime
an
d e
xpe
nse
invo
lve
d in
de
velo
pin
g a
nd
ma
na
gin
g re
latio
nsh
ips
with
sta
keh
old
-e
rs, a
s w
ell
as
to e
nsu
re t
ha
t th
e in
div
idu
als
at
the
he
lm o
f su
ch
en
de
avo
urs
ha
ve s
tro
ng
p
eo
ple
an
d c
om
mu
nic
atio
n s
kills
. In
ma
ny
resp
ec
ts, s
uc
h s
kills
are
mo
re im
po
rta
nt
tha
n
exp
erie
nc
e o
r kn
ow
led
ge
in fa
rmin
g o
r co
-ho
usin
g.
The
follo
win
g o
rga
niz
atio
ns
we
re in
stru
me
nta
l in
he
lpin
g s
pre
ad
th
e w
ord
ab
ou
t th
e p
roje
ct.
R
ep
rese
nta
tive
s a
tte
nd
ed
me
etin
gs,
ga
ve c
ritic
al i
np
ut
aro
un
d t
he
ma
rke
t fo
r alte
rna
tive
fa
rm a
nd
ho
usin
g m
od
els,
an
d p
oin
ted
us
to o
the
r so
urc
es
of i
nfo
rma
tion
:
ON
E ST
RAW
SO
CIE
TY
Y
OU
NG
AG
RARI
AN
S
FA
RM F
OLK
/CIT
Y F
OLK
VO
ICE
ON
TH
E C
OA
ST S
OC
IETY
UBC
FA
RMS
CO
MM
UN
ITY
FU
TURE
S
SU
NSH
INE
CO
AST
REG
ION
AL
DIS
TRIC
T
Base
d u
po
n o
ur r
ese
arc
h w
e w
ou
ld e
xpe
ct
tha
t sim
ilar s
take
ho
lde
r org
an
iza
tion
s e
xist
in
co
mm
un
itie
s th
rou
gh
ou
t BC
an
d C
an
ad
a. W
e w
ou
ld re
co
mm
en
d c
rea
ting
an
inve
nto
ry o
f su
ch
sta
keh
old
ers
for o
utr
ea
ch
an
d c
ap
ac
ity b
uild
ing
.
The
Sm
art
Fa
rm P
roje
ct
be
ne
fite
d fr
om
a s
olid
co
nsu
ltan
t a
nd
ma
na
ge
me
nt
tea
m w
ho
b
rou
gh
t th
eir
resp
ec
tive
exp
ert
ise t
o t
he
ta
ble
– li
tera
lly a
s w
ell
as
figu
rativ
ely
giv
en
th
e
nu
mb
er o
f me
etin
gs
tha
t in
volv
ed
go
od
an
d lo
ca
lly g
row
n fo
od
!
BRIA
N W
. SIL
VER
A
rchi
tec
tura
l co
nsul
tatio
n a
nd re
sea
rch
for e
ac
h si
te,
cre
atio
n o
f exa
mp
le h
om
e d
esi
gns
and
bui
ldin
g s
yste
ms
rese
arc
h. w
ww
.silv
erle
afs
ust
ain
ab
le.c
om
ION
E SM
ITH
A
gro
log
ist s
erv
ice
s to
ass
ess
fea
sib
ility
and
de
velo
p fa
rm
pla
ns fo
r ea
ch
po
tent
ial S
ma
rt F
arm
site
ww
w.u
pla
nd
co
nsu
ltin
g.c
a
MEL
AN
IA C
AN
NO
N
Co
nsid
era
tion
of l
eg
al q
uest
ions
and
issu
es
aris
ing
fro
m th
e
land
use
s a
nd b
usin
ess
co
nce
pts
exp
lore
d in
the
Sm
art
Fa
rm
mo
de
ls m
ela
nia
.ca
nn
on
@g
ma
il.c
om
RHO
NI W
HY
ARD
M
ark
et r
ese
arc
h o
n th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
mo
de
lsw
ww
.rwb
usin
ess
solu
tion
s.c
om
SCO
TT H
UG
HES
Fi
nanc
ial f
ram
ew
ork
de
velo
pm
ent
and
fea
sib
ility
ana
lysi
s fo
r th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
mo
de
ls s
co
tt.h
ug
he
s@sh
aw
.ca
VA
LERI
E N
ASH
Pro
jec
t pla
nnin
g a
nd fa
cili
tatio
n, a
ssis
tanc
e d
rafti
ng o
f w
ritte
n m
ate
rials
for c
om
mun
ity e
nga
ge
me
nt a
nd re
po
rtin
gV
Na
sh@
Na
sha
nd
Ass
oc
iate
s.o
rg
CH
AD
HER
SHLE
R
Pro
jec
t ma
nag
em
ent
ww
w.c
ha
dh
ers
hle
r.co
m
SAN
DY
BU
CK
O
utre
ac
h a
nd e
vent
sc
on
tac
t@d
ee
rcro
ssin
gth
ea
rtfa
rm.o
rg
BETH
HA
WTH
ORN
Gra
phi
c d
esi
gn
and
layo
utb
eth
ha
wth
orn
.co
m
Mor
e in
-dep
th b
ios
foun
d in
the
App
endi
x.
The
Smar
t Fa
rm p
roje
ct
give
s lo
cal
gove
rnm
ents
and
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
the
oppo
rtun
ity
to
incr
ease
vit
alit
y an
d
prod
ucti
vity
in r
ural
area
s, w
hile
fos
teri
ng
stro
nger
com
mun
ity
ties
.
-Me
lan
ia C
an
no
n
11
ZON
ING
REC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS
The
se p
rop
osa
ls no
w in
pla
ce
, le
ga
l co
nsul
tant
Me
lani
a C
ann
on
and
d
esig
n c
ons
ulta
nt B
rian
Silv
er,
in c
olla
bo
ratio
n w
ith p
lann
ers
fro
m t
he
Suns
hine
Co
ast
Re
gio
nal D
istric
t, d
evi
sed
a ‘
Sma
rt F
arm
’ zo
ne t
hat
satis
fied
th
e n
ee
ds
of b
oth
loc
al g
ove
rnm
ent
and
pro
spe
ctiv
e S
ma
rt F
arm
pro
po
-ne
nts.
De
tails
on
the
Sm
art
Fa
rm z
one
ca
n b
e fo
und
in t
he a
pp
end
ix.
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 6/
17
CO
OR
DIN
ATI
ON
O
ur m
eth
od
olo
gy
for c
oo
rdin
atio
n c
on
siste
d o
f in
itia
l me
etin
gs
with
th
e c
on
sulta
nt
tea
m
an
d la
nd
ow
ne
rs in
ord
er t
o m
ap
ou
t th
e p
roje
ct
wo
rk p
lan
, su
pp
lem
en
ted
by
ind
ivid
ua
l m
ee
ting
s a
nd
co
nfe
ren
ce
ca
lls.
The
re w
ere
no
no
tab
le o
r un
exp
ec
ted
ch
alle
ng
es
in t
his
are
a, m
ost
ly d
ue
to
th
e fa
ct
tha
t w
e h
ad
a d
esig
na
ted
Pro
jec
t M
an
ag
er a
nd
exp
eri-
en
ce
d c
on
sulta
nts
wh
o w
ere
hig
hly
co
mm
itte
d t
o t
he
su
cc
ess
of t
he
pro
jec
t.
CHA
RTIN
G T
HE
COU
RSE
MA
RKE
T R
ESEA
RC
HC
on
sulta
nt
Rh
on
i Wh
yard
un
de
rto
ok
initi
al m
ark
et
rese
arc
h t
o e
nsu
re o
ur o
utr
ea
ch
an
d
site
pla
nn
ing
wa
s w
ell
info
rme
d b
y e
xist
ing
co
mm
un
ity fa
rms
an
d c
o-h
ou
sing
pro
jec
ts.
SITE
PLA
NN
ING
W
ith a
n o
verw
he
lmin
g re
spo
nse
fro
m la
nd
ow
ne
rs a
nd
po
ten
tial f
arm
ers
on
th
e S
un
shin
e C
oa
st
du
ring
th
e o
utr
ea
ch
co
mp
on
en
t, t
he
co
nsu
ltan
t a
nd
ma
na
ge
me
nt
tea
m d
ec
ide
d t
o s
ele
ct
fou
r pro
pe
rtie
s a
s c
ase
stu
die
s.
Ou
r se
lec
tion
pro
ce
ss w
as
ba
sed
on
th
e n
ee
d fo
r div
ers
ity w
ithin
th
e p
ara
me
ters
of t
he
pro
jec
t.
The
pa
ram
ete
rs w
ere
: th
e la
nd
ha
d t
o b
e o
uts
ide
th
e A
LR a
nd
it h
ad
to
be
be
twe
en
five
an
d
twe
nty
ac
res
in s
ize
. On
th
e d
ive
rsity
sid
e, w
e w
an
ted
th
e c
ase
stu
die
s to
rep
rese
nt
a ra
ng
e o
f c
urre
nt
zon
ing
, pro
xim
ity t
o t
ow
n a
nd
villa
ge
ce
ntr
es,
leve
l of c
urre
nt
de
velo
pm
en
t o
n la
nd
, a
nd
typ
es
of p
ers
on
alit
ies
lea
din
g t
he
pro
jec
ts.
As
the
Art
Fa
rm c
urre
ntly
lea
ses
a fi
ve-a
cre
pa
rce
l of l
an
d t
ha
t th
e o
rga
niz
atio
n is
inte
rest
ed
in
de
velo
pin
g in
to a
Sm
art
Fa
rm p
ilot,
th
e p
roje
ct
tea
m n
ee
de
d t
o id
en
tify
thre
e m
ore
pro
pe
rtie
s fo
r th
e p
roje
ct.
Th
e t
ea
m m
et
with
oth
er p
rosp
ec
tive
or c
urre
nt
pro
pe
rty
ow
ne
rs a
nd
co
n-
du
cte
d a
n in
itia
l in
form
al i
nte
rvie
w t
o e
nsu
re t
he
y u
nd
ers
too
d t
he
na
ture
of t
he
pro
jec
t a
nd
th
e t
ime
co
mm
itme
nt
req
uire
d o
f th
em
as
we
ll a
s th
e b
en
efit
s th
at
the
pro
jec
t o
ffe
red
to
th
em
a
nd
th
e c
om
mu
nity
at
larg
e. T
he
te
am
se
ttle
d o
n t
wo
mo
re p
rop
ert
ies
with
ow
ne
rs in
tere
ste
d
in d
eve
lop
ing
Sm
art
Fa
rm p
ilots
of t
he
ir o
wn
an
d a
th
ird p
rop
ert
y u
po
n w
hic
h w
e c
ou
ld p
rese
nt
a d
eve
lop
er-
driv
en
mo
de
l. W
ith fo
ur p
rop
ert
ies
sele
cte
d, t
he
pro
jec
t te
am
th
en
foc
use
d o
n
de
live
ring
a c
lea
r an
d c
on
cise
pro
po
sal f
or e
ac
h p
rop
ert
y. T
his
pro
po
sal i
nc
lud
ed
a fa
rm p
lan
, a
de
sign
pla
n fo
r ho
usin
g a
nd
leg
al r
ec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
aro
un
d la
nd
, ho
usin
g a
nd
farm
ow
ne
r-sh
ip.
This
sec
tion
will
loo
k a
t o
ur p
roje
ct
me
tho
do
log
y w
ith a
vie
w t
o p
rovi
din
g
gu
ida
nc
e fo
r th
ose
insp
ired
to
exp
lore
th
eir
ow
n S
ma
rt F
arm
initi
ativ
es.
Sma
rt F
arm
Pro
jec
t a
ctiv
itie
s in
clu
de
d:
i
$
CO
ORD
INA
TIO
N |
MA
RKET
RES
EARC
H |
OU
TREA
CH
| S
ITE
PLA
NN
ING
|
ZON
ING
REC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS
| F
EASI
BILI
TY A
NA
LYSI
S
OU
TREA
CH
The
pu
rpo
se o
f pro
jec
t o
utr
ea
ch
wa
s to
ide
ntif
y a
nd
en
ga
ge
ind
ivid
ua
ls w
ho
ha
ve a
n in
tere
st
in t
he
de
velo
pm
en
t o
f sm
all
farm
co
-ho
usin
g m
od
els
eith
er a
s o
wn
er/
farm
ers
, te
na
nts
, se
llers
or
co
nsu
me
rs o
f fa
rm p
rod
uc
e, o
r th
rou
gh
th
eir
role
s a
s lo
ca
l pla
nn
ers
or l
an
d u
se, f
oo
d s
ec
urit
y a
nd
/or a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usin
g a
dvo
ca
tes.
Co
mm
un
ity o
utr
ea
ch
ac
tiviti
es
inc
lud
ed
pa
rtic
ipa
tion
at
the
“Li
vin
g t
he
Ne
w E
co
no
my”
co
nfe
r-e
nc
e in
Va
nc
ou
ver,
a p
rese
nta
tion
to
th
e lo
ca
l ch
ap
ter o
f th
e P
lan
ne
rs In
stitu
te, c
om
mu
nity
p
otlu
ck
an
d fa
rm t
ou
r (So
le F
arm
) in
Va
nc
ou
ver,
a c
om
mu
nity
po
tluc
k in
fo s
ess
ion
at
on
e o
f th
e
Sma
rt F
arm
ca
se s
tud
y sit
es
(Up
pe
r Ro
be
rts
Cre
ek)
, an
d a
dia
log
ue
/disc
uss
ion
with
He
ath
er
Pritc
ha
rd o
f Fa
rm F
olk
/ C
ity F
olk
ho
ste
d b
y th
e R
eg
ion
al D
istric
t a
s p
art
of t
he
ir A
gric
ultu
ral A
rea
Pl
an
. Co
mb
ine
d, t
he
se a
ctiv
itie
s e
ng
ag
ed
mo
re t
ha
n 2
50 in
div
idu
als.
Mu
ch
wa
s g
ain
ed
fro
m p
art
ne
ring
with
org
an
iza
tion
s th
at
are
alre
ad
y e
ng
ag
ed
in c
on
gru
en
t e
ffo
rts
rela
ted
to
foo
d s
ec
urit
y, la
nd
ma
na
ge
me
nt
an
d a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usin
g. S
uc
h a
n e
ntit
y h
as
an
est
ab
lish
ed
da
tab
ase
of m
em
be
rs a
nd
th
e c
ap
ac
ity t
o m
ob
ilize
an
alre
ad
y in
tere
ste
d
co
nst
itue
nc
y.
FEA
SIBI
LITY
AN
ALY
SIS
The
fin
al s
tep
in t
he
pro
ce
ss w
as
a fe
asib
ility
an
aly
sis t
o e
nsu
re a
rea
listic
fis
ca
l pla
n fo
r ea
ch
pro
po
sal c
ou
ld b
e a
ch
ieve
d. T
his
an
aly
sis, l
ed
by
co
nsu
ltan
t Sc
ott
Hu
gh
es,
use
d a
ca
sh-f
low
te
mp
late
—re
lyin
g o
n c
on
-st
ruc
tion
est
ima
tes
for t
he
ho
usin
g a
nd
exp
en
se/r
eve
nu
e p
roje
ctio
ns
for
the
farm
s—to
cre
ate
a fi
ve-y
ea
r fin
an
cia
l ro
ad
ma
p fo
r ea
ch
ca
se
stu
dy.
12
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 7/
17
CASE
STU
DY
2Ki
ng
Rd
, Elp
hin
sto
ne
CASE
STU
DY
1St
orv
old
Rd
, La
ng
da
le
CASE
STU
DY
4Lo
cky
er R
d, R
ob
ert
s C
ree
k
CASE
STU
DY
3Lo
wer
Rd,
Rob
erts
Cre
ek
A n
on-
pro
fit/s
oc
ial e
nte
rpris
e-
driv
en
ap
pro
ac
h.
A d
eve
lop
er-
driv
en
ap
pro
ac
h.
A c
oo
pe
rativ
e-d
rive
n a
pp
roa
ch.
An
ent
rep
rene
uria
l ap
pro
ac
h.
THE
SMA
RT F
ARM
PRO
JEC
T CA
SE S
TUD
IES
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
S
UN
DER
STA
ND
TH
E M
OTI
VATI
ON
S A
ND
NEE
DS
OF
THE
LAN
DO
WN
ERS
Wha
t a
re t
heir
fina
ncia
l ne
ed
s, v
alu
es
and
life
styl
es?
Also
, are
the
re
any
co
nstr
ain
ts, u
niq
ue c
ircum
sta
nce
s o
r op
po
rtun
itie
s?
ASS
ESS
LAN
D U
SE P
OTE
NTI
AL
AN
D L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
Wha
t is
the
cur
rent
zo
ning
? W
hat
raw
ma
teria
ls a
re a
vaila
ble
in
clu
din
g e
xist
ing
tre
es
and
pla
nts,
so
il q
ualit
y, w
ate
r sys
tem
s a
nd
dra
ina
ge
, sun
exp
osu
re, e
xist
ing
str
uctu
res,
pro
pe
rty
size
and
loc
a-
tion,
pro
xim
ity t
o c
ent
ers
, ac
rea
ge
? A
nd w
hat
are
the
op
tions
for
hous
ing
(fu
ll o
wne
rshi
p, s
hare
d o
wne
rshi
p, r
ent
al)?
UN
DER
STA
ND
LO
CAL
CON
DIT
ION
S A
ND
NEE
DS
Are
the
re fo
od
se
cur
ity c
onc
ern
s a
nd n
ee
ds,
ho
usin
g n
ee
ds,
pro
x-im
ity w
ith a
nd c
onc
ern
s o
f im
me
dia
te n
eig
hbo
rs?
Is t
here
suf
ficie
nt
po
litic
al a
nd c
om
mun
ity w
ill a
nd o
pe
nne
ss fo
r cha
nge
and
alte
rna
-tiv
e li
fest
yle
cho
ice
s?
IDEN
TIFY
SO
CIA
L CA
PITA
LW
ho a
nd w
here
are
the
loc
al i
ndiv
idua
ls a
nd g
roup
s w
ith e
xpe
rtise
in
are
as
suc
h a
s la
nd u
se, f
ina
ncia
l fe
asib
ility,
ma
rke
t re
sea
rch,
leg
al
stru
ctu
re, a
rchi
tec
ture
and
de
sign?
THE
FOLL
OW
ING
FO
UR
CA
SE S
TUD
IES
ARE
TH
E PR
OD
UC
TS O
F TH
IS P
ROC
ESS.
The
ca
se s
tud
y a
pp
roa
ch
pro
vid
ed
bo
th d
ive
rsity
an
d c
om
ple
xity
to
th
e p
roc
ess
. In
ord
er t
o d
eve
lop
a b
ala
nc
ed
pro
po
sal f
or e
ac
h
pro
pe
rty,
th
e p
roje
ct
tea
m h
ad
to
foc
us
its w
ork
aro
un
d fo
ur k
ey
co
nsid
era
tion
s:
Plea
se n
ote
that
the
case
stu
dies
to fo
llow
are
hig
h-le
vel d
escr
iptio
ns o
f eac
h pr
opos
al. F
or in
-dep
th a
naly
sis
and
deta
ils, p
leas
e re
fer t
o th
e re
late
d ca
se
stud
y se
ctio
n of
the
App
endi
x.
13
CU
RR
ENT
SITE
MA
P
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 8/
17
Build
ing
Setb
ack
Line
Prop
erty
Lin
eM
ulti-
use
Spac
e
Wel
lRe
side
nce
Sept
ic F
ield
Barn
CU
RR
ENT
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: C
o-o
wn
ed
by
San
dy
Buc
k, C
ha
d
He
rsh
ler a
nd
fam
ily in
vest
me
nt
co
mp
an
y
HO
USI
NG
: 1,0
00 s
qu
are
-fo
ot
two
-be
dro
om
bu
ng
alo
w, a
nd
a o
ne
-ro
om
c
ab
in in
th
e w
oo
ds
ZON
ING
: RU
2
CU
RR
ENT
LAN
D U
SE: O
ffic
e, w
ork
sho
p, s
tud
io a
nd
sle
ep
ing
fac
ilitie
s fo
r n
on
-pro
fit s
oc
iety
(th
e A
rt F
arm
) +
sp
in fa
rm
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Ho
op
ho
use
farm
ed
by
spin
farm
er,
tom
ato
es
an
d
pe
pp
ers
VALU
E O
F LA
ND
: $57
5K
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: Fa
rm/l
an
d o
wn
ers
hip
su
bsid
ize
d b
y in
vest
me
nt
co
mp
an
y,
no
n-p
rofit
op
era
ting
reve
nu
e g
row
ing
Cabi
n
NO
RT
H
CASE
STU
DY
1St
orv
old
Rd
, La
ng
da
le4.
96 a
cres
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
Laur
el H
edge
Spi
ral
“I fe
el s
tro
ng
ly o
ur
lan
d s
ho
uld
be
sh
are
d. T
he
mo
re
pe
op
le t
ha
t ta
ke
ca
re o
f th
e la
nd
, th
e m
ore
th
e la
nd
w
ill g
ive
ba
ck.
” -S
an
dy
Buc
kA
n A
rt F
arm
Eve
nt
San
dy
Buc
k a
nd
so
n
Sky
on
th
e A
rt F
arm
14
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
MA
P
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 9/
17
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: S
tra
ta c
orp
ora
tion
with
fou
r ow
ne
rs, t
hre
e
ho
me
ow
ne
rs +
no
n-p
rofit
so
cie
ty (
the
Art
Fa
rm)
HO
USI
NG
: Th
ree
2,0
00 s
qu
are
-fo
ot
two
an
d a
ha
lf st
ory
en
erg
y e
ffic
ien
t h
om
es
in c
lust
er-
de
velo
pm
en
t, c
am
pin
g a
nd
de
tac
he
d b
ed
roo
m a
rea
s fo
r vo
lun
tee
rs/i
nte
rns
ZON
ING
: Sm
art
Fa
rm (
See
Ap
pe
nd
ix)
PRO
POSE
D L
AN
D U
SE: A
rt F
arm
-ma
na
ge
d fa
rm, o
ffic
e/w
ork
sho
p/s
tud
io/
slee
pin
g fa
cili
ties
for A
rt F
arm
pro
gra
mm
ing
, ho
usin
g fo
r th
ree
fam
ilie
s (in
clu
din
g fa
rme
r)
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Blu
eb
err
ies,
ve
gg
ies,
go
at’
s m
ilk, g
oa
t’s
ch
ee
se –
Re
ven
ue
Ye
ar 1
$42
K, Y
ea
r 3 $
49K
CO
ST O
F D
EVEL
OPM
ENT:
$57
5K la
nd
+ $
780K
co
nst
ruc
tion
+ $
57K
farm
co
sts
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: No
n-p
rofit
-driv
en
with
co
mb
ina
tion
of b
ridg
e-f
ina
nc
ing
, fa
rm
loa
ns,
gra
nts
an
d d
on
atio
ns
PLO
T 7
PLO
T 1
PLO
T 2
PLO
T 3
PLO
T 4
PLO
T 5
PLO
T 6
BEES
HO
OPH
OU
SE
HO
OPH
OU
SE
PLO
T 7
BEES
BEES
Mul
ti-us
e Sp
ace
for
Art
Far
m P
rogr
ams
Wel
l
PLO
T 1
PLO
T 2
PLO
T 3
PlLO
T 4
PLO
T 5
PLO
T 6
Chee
se-m
akin
g Bu
ildin
gVo
lunt
eer C
abin
Sept
ic F
ield
Sec
ond
Wel
l Se
ptic
Fie
ld3
Res
iden
ces
Barn
for H
ousi
ng G
oats
HO
OPH
OU
SES
FRU
IT T
REE
SN
UT
TREE
S
NO
RT
H STORVOLD ROAD
CASE
STU
DY
1St
orv
old
Rd
, La
ng
da
le4.
96 a
cres
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
15
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 10
/17
CU
RR
ENT
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: O
wn
ed
by
an
ind
ivid
ua
l
HO
USI
NG
: Co
nd
em
ne
d s
ing
le fa
mily
ho
me
(ra
nc
he
r)
ZON
ING
: RU
1, E
lph
inst
on
e O
ffic
ial C
om
mu
nity
Pla
n C
om
pre
he
nsiv
e
De
velo
pm
en
t C
lust
er H
ou
sing
Are
a 4
CU
RR
ENT
LAN
D U
SE: U
nu
sed
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: No
ne
VALU
E O
F LA
ND
: $33
5K
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: La
nd
no
t a
ctiv
ely
farm
ed
, site
ma
rke
ted
as
resid
en
tial
dw
elli
ng
site
on
ly
CU
RR
ENT
SITE
MA
P
Build
ing
Setb
ack
Line
Driv
eway
Cond
emne
d H
ouse
Prop
erty
Lin
e
Sept
ic F
ield
KIN
G R
OA
D
CHASTER ROAD
MA
PLE
GRO
VE
NORTH
CASE
STU
DY
2Ki
ng
Rd
, Elp
hin
sto
ne
5.01
ac
res
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
"It’s
imp
ort
an
t to
sh
ow
th
at
Sma
rt F
arm
s c
an
b
e d
rive
n b
y vi
sion
ary
c
olle
ctiv
es
AN
D b
y vi
sion
ary
de
velo
pe
rs."
-Ch
ad
He
rsh
ler
16
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 11
/17
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: B
are
lan
d s
tra
ta c
orp
ora
tion
with
six
str
ata
un
its
HO
USI
NG
: Six
2,0
00 s
qu
are
-fo
ot
ho
me
s a
nd
ren
ova
ted
he
rita
ge
farm
co
tta
ge
ZON
ING
: Co
mp
reh
en
sive
De
velo
pm
en
t Zo
ne
(sim
ilar t
o t
he
Ro
be
rts
Cre
ek
co
-ho
usin
g C
D 1
zo
ne
)
PRO
POSE
D L
AN
D U
SE: S
ma
ll c
om
mu
nity
of s
ix fa
mily
ho
me
s, fa
rm a
nd
he
rita
ge
co
tta
ge
m
an
ag
ed
by
pro
vin
cia
l or r
eg
ion
al f
arm
tru
st
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Blu
eb
err
ies,
ve
ge
tab
les
– R
eve
nu
e Y
ea
r 1 $
67K,
Ye
ar 3
$81
K
CO
ST O
F D
EVEL
OPM
ENT:
$35
0K la
nd
+ $
1,87
8K c
on
stru
ctio
n +
$25
K fa
rm c
ost
s
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: Re
ven
ue
s fr
om
sa
le o
f six
resid
en
tial p
rop
ert
ies
fun
d t
he
lan
d a
nd
farm
ca
pita
liza
tion
c
ost
, th
en
farm
an
d h
erit
ag
e fa
rm c
ott
ag
e a
re d
on
ate
d t
o re
gio
na
l fa
rm t
rust
for m
an
ag
em
en
t
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
MA
P
HO
OPH
OU
SES
BEES
FRU
IT T
REE
SN
UT
TREE
S
PLO
TS 1
& 2
HOOPHOUSE 2 HOOPHOUSE 1
Build
ing
Setb
ack
Line
Publ
ic P
athw
ay
Wet
land
Sep
tic S
yste
m(P
ublic
Sus
tain
able
Dem
onst
ratio
nPr
ojec
t)
Reno
vate
d H
erita
geFa
rm C
otta
ge
Prop
erty
Lin
e
6 H
omes
Com
mun
ity
Gat
herin
g Sp
ace
Sept
ic F
ield
Shar
ed O
ne-w
ayD
rivew
ay W
ith P
arki
ngKI
NG
RO
AD
CHASTER ROAD
BEES
PLO
T 1
PLO
T 2
MA
PLE
GRO
VE
NORTH
CASE
STU
DY
2Ki
ng
Rd
, Elp
hin
sto
ne
5.01
ac
res
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
"Mu
ch
like
ho
w d
en
sity-
bo
nu
ses
ha
ve re
-invi
go
rate
d
the
Do
wn
tow
n E
ast
side
in
Va
nc
ou
ver,
swa
pp
ing
in
cre
ase
d d
en
sity
for f
ully
c
ap
italiz
ed
farm
s c
ou
ld b
e a
p
ow
erf
ul f
orc
e in
re-
invi
go
ratin
g fa
rmin
g o
n t
he
Su
nsh
ine
Co
ast
.”
-Ch
ad
He
rsh
ler
17
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 12
/17
CU
RR
ENT
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: O
wn
ed
by
Sco
tt A
very
HO
USI
NG
: On
e w
ork
sho
p a
nd
th
ree
au
xilia
ry b
uild
ing
s
ZON
ING
: RU
2
CU
RR
ENT
LAN
D U
SE: E
xpe
rime
nta
l bu
ildin
g s
tru
ctu
res,
p
erm
ac
ultu
re e
xplo
ratio
n le
ad
by
ten
an
t D
an
a W
ilso
n
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Sm
all
ga
rde
n p
lot,
sm
all
gre
en
ho
use
VALU
E O
F LA
ND
: $50
0K
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: Lim
ited
gre
en
ho
use
ag
ricu
lture
, la
nd
su
pp
ort
ed
prim
aril
y b
y e
xte
rna
l in
co
me
so
urc
es
“Ec
olo
gy
an
d
Ha
pp
ine
ss s
ho
uld
a
lwa
ys t
rum
p
Eco
no
mic
s.”
-Sc
ott
Ave
ry
“With
th
e in
cre
asin
g d
ivid
e b
etw
ee
n ri
ch
an
d
po
or,
the
gro
win
g d
em
an
d fo
r aff
ord
ab
le h
ou
sing
a
nd
de
velo
pin
g n
ee
d t
o lo
ca
lize
foo
d s
yste
ms,
c
rea
ting
su
sta
ina
ble
, ho
listic
an
d re
ge
ne
rativ
e
co
mm
un
itie
s is
the
hig
he
st p
riorit
y.”
-Da
na
Wils
on
CU
RR
ENT
SITE
MA
P
PON
D
Wor
ksho
p
Prop
erty
Lin
eBu
ildin
g Se
tbac
kLi
ne
15m
Cre
ek S
etba
ck
30m
Cre
ek S
etba
ck
Driv
eway
NO
RT
H
Sco
tt A
very
Da
na
Wils
on
CASE
STU
DY
3Lo
we
r Rd
, Ro
be
rts
Cre
ek
5.07
ac
res
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
Jon
ath
an
H. L
ee
KIN
G R
OA
D
Auxi
liary
Bui
ldin
gs
18
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 13
/17
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: O
wn
ed
by
Sco
tt A
very
HO
USI
NG
: Six
-se
ven
de
tac
he
d b
ed
roo
m s
pa
ce
s c
lust
ere
d
aro
un
d a
n E
art
hsh
ip-s
tyle
co
mm
un
al h
om
e
ZON
ING
: Sm
art
Fa
rm (
See
Ap
pe
nd
ix)
PRO
POSE
D L
AN
D U
SE: F
arm
ing
an
d p
erm
ac
ultu
re e
du
ca
-tio
n, a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usin
g fo
r yo
un
g a
du
lts in
tere
ste
d in
a
simp
le li
vin
g s
tyle
an
d fa
rmin
g
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Na
tive
an
d im
po
rte
d h
erb
s, fr
uit
tre
es,
ve
ge
tab
les,
eg
gs
– R
eve
nu
e Y
ea
r 1 $
62K,
Ye
ar 3
$86
K
CO
ST O
F D
EVEL
OPM
ENT:
$85
K c
on
stru
ctio
n +
$25
,580
farm
c
ost
s
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: Ad
diti
on
al d
eve
lop
me
nt
brin
gs
ne
w fa
mili
es
to
the
farm
to
exp
an
d a
gric
ultu
ral a
ctiv
ity o
n t
he
site
an
d
sup
po
rt a
ste
ad
y st
ate
, clo
sed
loo
p fa
rmin
g c
om
mu
nity
u
sing
exp
erim
en
tal a
nd
su
sta
ina
ble
farm
ing
pra
ctic
es
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
MA
P
HO
OPH
OU
SES
BEES
PLO
TS 3
& 5
PLO
T 3
& 5
PLO
TS 1
, 2, 4
& 7
PLO
T 6
PLO
T 8
PON
D
PON
D
PON
D
Det
atch
ed B
edro
om
Spac
es
Det
atch
ed B
edro
om
Spac
es
Driv
ewayHO
OPH
OU
SE
Mul
ti-us
e Sp
ace
Wor
ksho
p
PLO
T 6
PLO
T 5
PLO
T 8
PLO
T 7
PLO
T 4
PLO
T 3
PLO
T 1
PLO
T 2
BEES
BEES
15m
Cre
ek
Setb
ack
30m
Cre
ek
Setb
ack
Eart
hsh
ip-s
tyle
c
om
mu
na
l ho
me
NO
RT
H
Att
ac
he
d g
ree
nh
ou
se in
Eart
hsh
ip-s
tyle
co
mm
un
al h
om
e
CASE
STU
DY
3Lo
we
r Rd
, Ro
be
rts
Cre
ek
5.07
ac
res
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
KIN
G R
OA
D
19
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 14
/17
CU
RR
ENT
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: C
o-o
wn
ed
by
Beth
Ha
wth
orn
a
nd
Ro
be
rt S
tud
er
HO
USI
NG
: 3,2
00 s
qu
are
-fo
ot
sing
le fa
mily
ho
me
ZON
ING
: RU
1
CU
RR
ENT
LAN
D U
SE: D
esig
n a
nd
art
stu
dio
, sp
ec
ial e
ven
ts
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Sm
all
ga
rde
n w
ith m
ixe
d v
eg
gie
s a
nd
fru
it, c
hic
ken
s
VALU
E O
F LA
ND
: $77
5K
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: La
nd
no
t c
urr
en
tly a
ctiv
e in
ag
ricu
ltura
l pro
du
ctio
n, l
an
d fu
nd
ed
b
y st
ud
io a
nd
eve
nt
reve
nu
es
an
d e
xte
rna
l in
co
me
“Aft
er l
ivin
g o
n t
he
pro
pe
rty
for o
ver s
eve
n y
ea
rs it
b
ec
am
e o
bvi
ou
s th
an
4.6
7 a
cre
s w
as
mo
re t
ha
n e
no
ug
h
roo
m fo
r us.
In fa
ct,
wh
at
it re
ally
ne
ed
s is
a fa
rme
r wh
o
ca
n b
ring
th
e p
rop
ert
y fu
lly
aliv
e.”
-Be
th H
aw
tho
rn
CU
RR
ENT
SITE
MA
PN
OR
TH
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
CASE
STU
DY
4Lo
cky
er R
d, R
ob
ert
s C
ree
k4.
67 a
cre
s
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
Wel
lM
ulti-
use
Spac
e
FLUME CREEK
Resi
denc
e
Sept
ic F
ield
Stor
age
Area
Build
ing
Setb
ack
Line
Prop
erty
Lin
e
30m
Cre
ek S
etba
ck
15m
Cre
ek S
etba
ck
LOCKYER ROAD
PO
ND
GA
RDEN Ro
be
rt S
tud
er
with
so
n M
arc
el
Beth
Ha
wth
orn
20
NO
RT
H
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 15
/17
Carp
ort
PLO
T 3
HO
OPH
OU
SES
BEES
FRU
IT T
REE
SN
UT
TREE
S
PLO
T 1&
2PL
OT
4
PLO
T 5
PLO
T 6
PLO
T 4
PLO
T 1
& 2
PLO
T 3
OW
NER
SHIP
STR
UC
TUR
E: C
o-o
wn
ed
by
Beth
Ha
wth
orn
an
d R
ob
ert
Stu
de
r, w
ith t
he
po
ten
tial t
o b
uild
an
d s
ell
pa
rt o
f a s
tra
ta d
up
lex
HO
USI
NG
: Tw
o 1
,600
sq
ua
re-f
oo
t st
rata
ho
me
s a
nd
exi
stin
g s
ing
le fa
mily
ho
me
ZON
ING
: Sm
art
Fa
rm (
See
Ap
pe
nd
ix)
PRO
POSE
D L
AN
D U
SE: M
ulti
-bu
sine
ss s
ha
red
sp
ac
e, r
etr
ea
t c
en
tre
, ka
le c
hip
m
an
ufa
ctu
ring
FAR
M/G
AR
DEN
: Ka
le, m
ixe
d b
err
ies,
ve
gg
ies,
eg
gs
– R
eve
nu
e Y
ea
r 1 $
64K,
Ye
ar 3
$92
K
CO
ST O
F D
EVEL
OPM
ENT:
$52
6K c
on
stru
ctio
n +
$10
3K fa
rm a
nd
pro
du
ctio
n in
vest
me
nt
FEA
SIBI
LITY
: Co
nst
ruc
tion
an
d s
ale
of t
wo
resid
en
tial h
om
es
pro
vid
es
eq
uity
to
inve
st in
fa
rmin
g a
nd
ka
le c
hip
pro
du
ctio
n o
n t
he
site
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
MA
PT
he S
MAR
T F
ARM
Pro
ject
T
he S
MAR
T F
ARM
Pro
ject
CASE
STU
DY
4Lo
cky
er R
d, R
ob
ert
s C
ree
k4.
67 a
cre
s
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct
FLUME CREEK
Roof
-wat
er
Stor
age
Tow
er
Wel
l
HO
OPH
OU
SE
HO
OPH
OU
SE
PO
ND
PLO
T 1
PLO
T 2
PLO
T 3
PLO
T 4
PLO
T 5 Re
side
nce
Roof
Wat
erSt
orag
e To
wer
Expa
nded
Sep
tic
Fiel
d
Prop
osed
Driv
eway
Exte
ntio
n
Resi
dent
ial
Dup
lex
Roof
/ G
roun
d-w
ater
St
orag
e Ta
nk
Seco
nd W
ell
Pack
ing
& St
orag
e Ar
eaM
ulti-
use
Spac
e
LOCKYER ROAD
PLO
T 6
21
Wh
at
did
th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
Pro
jec
t te
ac
h u
s?
The
re is
a g
row
ing
inte
rest
in t
he
Sm
art
Fa
rm c
on
ce
pt
fro
m in
div
idu
als
with
div
ers
e b
ac
kgro
un
ds
an
d
mo
tiva
tion
s. L
oc
al g
ove
rnm
en
t, re
pre
sen
ted
in t
his
pro
jec
t b
y th
e S
un
shin
e C
oa
st R
eg
ion
al D
istric
t a
nd
Va
nc
ou
ver C
oa
sta
l He
alth
, is
rec
ep
tive
to
th
e id
ea
of s
ma
ll fa
rm c
o-h
ou
sing
an
d w
illin
g t
o w
ork
w
ith p
rop
on
en
ts. A
ll fo
ur S
ma
rt F
arm
ca
se s
tud
ies
are
fea
sible
fro
m b
oth
a p
lan
nin
g a
nd
e
co
no
mic
/se
lf-su
ffic
ien
cy
pe
rsp
ec
tive
. Wh
ile t
he
co
-ho
usin
g c
om
po
ne
nt
pre
sen
ts t
he
mo
st c
ha
l-le
ng
es
an
d c
om
plic
atio
ns,
it is
a n
ec
ess
ity in
all
ca
ses
to c
ata
lyze
(a
nd
ca
pita
lize
) th
e fa
rm o
pe
ra-
tion
s .
Re
co
mm
en
da
tion
s a
nd
Op
po
rtu
niti
es
We
wo
uld
like
to
off
er t
he
follo
win
g g
uid
an
ce
for t
ho
se s
ee
kin
g t
o e
sta
blis
h o
r su
pp
ort
Sm
art
Fa
rms:
1.
ESTA
BLIS
H A
SM
AR
T FA
RM
CO
LLEC
TIV
E
tha
t w
ill a
llow
yo
u t
o le
vera
ge
co
mm
on
reso
urc
es,
red
uc
e d
up
lica
tion
of e
ffo
rts
an
d p
rovi
de
pe
er s
up
po
rt.
2.
CO
LLA
BOR
ATE
WIT
H O
THER
STA
KEH
OLD
ER O
RG
AN
IZA
TIO
NS
in
yo
ur a
rea
wh
ose
miss
ion
s a
re c
on
gru
en
t w
ith t
he
Sm
art
Fa
rm c
on
ce
pt.
3.
CO
ND
UC
T O
UTR
EAC
H A
ND
RES
EAR
CH
up
fro
nt
to d
ete
rmin
e w
he
the
r th
ere
is a
ma
rke
t a
nd
ap
pe
tite
for
lo
ca
lly g
row
n fo
od
an
d a
ne
ed
for a
ltern
ativ
e h
ou
sing
or l
ifest
yle
op
tion
s.
4.
WO
RK
WIT
H P
RO
FESS
ION
ALS
to d
eve
lop
initi
al f
arm
/de
sign
pla
ns
an
d t
o s
et
up
th
e le
ga
l str
uc
ture
for t
he
pro
jec
t. It
is t
ime
an
d m
on
ey
we
ll sp
en
t.
5.
ENG
AG
E LO
CA
L G
OV
ERN
MEN
T
to d
eve
lop
loc
al z
on
ing
th
at
ca
n in
teg
rate
th
e S
ma
rt F
arm
co
nc
ep
t e
ffe
ctiv
ely
into
Off
icia
l Co
mm
un
ity P
lns
an
d A
gric
ultu
ral A
rea
Pla
ns.
LESS
ON
S LE
ARN
ED, L
OO
KIN
G F
ORW
ARD
This
sm
art
farm
pro
posa
l pr
ovid
es m
any
exam
ples
of
how
we
can
mak
e it
eas
ier
for
peop
le t
o co
llab
orat
e w
ith
like
-
min
ded
indi
vidu
als
and
wor
k to
geth
er t
o
live
the
ir d
ream
of
a fu
lfil
ling
rur
al
life
styl
e.
-Bria
n Si
lve
r
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 16
/17
The
Ro
le o
f Fu
nd
ers
The
Sm
art
Fa
rm P
roje
ct
wo
uld
no
t h
ave
be
en
po
ssib
le w
itho
ut
the
fin
an
cia
l su
pp
ort
pro
vid
ed
by
the
Re
al E
sta
te F
ou
nd
atio
n o
f BC
, In
vest
me
nt
Ag
ricu
lture
Fo
un
da
tion
an
d o
ur o
the
r sp
on
sors
an
d
fun
de
rs.
Mo
vin
g fo
rwa
rd w
ith t
he
Sm
art
Fa
rm P
roje
ct,
th
ere
are
co
ntin
ue
d o
pp
ort
un
itie
s to
en
ga
ge
fun
de
rs
wh
o a
re in
tere
ste
d in
su
pp
ort
ing
inn
ova
tion
in la
nd
use
an
d lo
ca
l fo
od
pro
du
ctio
n.
It w
ou
ld b
e o
f va
lue
to
co
nsid
er w
ha
t th
ese
op
po
rtu
niti
es
are
be
yon
d t
he
ob
vio
us
inve
stm
en
t in
th
e c
oo
rdin
atio
n
of a
Sm
art
Fa
rm p
ilot
an
d c
on
tinu
ed
do
cu
me
nta
tion
of t
he
de
velo
pm
en
t p
roc
ess
.
In a
larg
er a
nd
bro
ad
er s
en
se, w
e a
lso s
ee
po
ten
tial f
or t
he
fun
de
r co
mm
un
ity t
o p
lay
a ro
le in
e
sta
blis
hin
g a
reg
ion
al S
ma
rt F
arm
str
ate
gy
or m
ove
me
nt,
su
pp
ort
ing
ac
tiviti
es
suc
h a
s a
dvo
ca
cy,
o
utr
ea
ch
, ca
pa
city
bu
ildin
g, a
nd
ed
uc
atio
n.
Beth
Ha
wth
orn
22
For c
om
ple
te A
pp
en
dix
or t
o a
cc
ess
dig
ital s
up
po
rt m
ate
rial
ple
ase
visi
t: w
ww
.de
erc
ross
ing
the
art
farm
.org
/sm
art
farm
You
are
fre
e t
o s
ha
re.
Ple
ase
se
nd
a li
nk
to y
ou
r lo
ca
l go
vern
me
nt
an
d s
tart
th
e
dia
log
ue
for a
n in
itia
tive
like
th
is in
yo
ur r
eg
ion
.
For m
ore
info
rma
tion
co
nta
ct:
C
ha
d H
ers
hle
r c
on
tac
t@d
ee
rcro
ssin
gth
ea
rtfa
rm.o
rg
No
vem
be
r 201
3
Sara
De
nt
The
SM
ART
FAR
M P
roje
ct |
pag
e 17
/17
WA
NT
MO
RE D
ETA
ILS?
Che
ck
out
our
Ap
pe
ndix
for:
•C
on
sulta
nt
bio
s
•M
ark
et
Re
sea
rch
•Le
ga
l Ove
rvie
w
•Fe
asib
ility
An
aly
sis
•A
dd
itio
na
l Fa
rm N
ote
s
•A
dd
itio
na
l De
sign
No
tes
An
d in
-de
pth
an
aly
ses
fro
m o
ur c
on
sulta
nts
o
n a
ll fo
ur S
ma
rt F
arm
ca
se s
tud
ies
23
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 4, 2014
TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014
FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development
RE: Planning and Development Department Work Plan 2015
RECOMMENDATION THAT the General Manager, Planning and Development report regarding the Planning and Development Department Work Plan for 2015 be received. BACKGROUND Attached is the draft Planning and Development Department work plan for 2015. The format for this year’s work plan is different from previous years, where the work plan was included in the standard budget proposal format. As the majority of departmental work involves staff resources as opposed to monetary expenditures for projects, it was felt that a more narrative format would be more useful.
The work plan is arranged by service/function as follows:
Regional Planning [Function 500] Rural Planning [Function 504] Economic Development [currently funded under Function 500] Hillside Industrial Park [Function 540] Building Inspection [Function 520] Bylaw Enforcement [Function 200]
Other services such as Electoral Area Economic Development, Animal Control, Heritage Protocol Committee support and Smoke Control carry out defined activities that rarely involve work plan level projects.
Additionally, the work plan for each function has been laid out with the Board’s Strategic Plan Initiatives first, work plan projects, other Board directed work items and collaborative processes (i.e. staff participation in work lead by or in partnership with others).
This is the first time that non-work plan Board directed items have been listed in the work plan. The reason for inclusion is that many of the work items involve substantive staff time and can have an effect on the time available to work on other projects. Providing this information along with strategic and work plan initiatives provides the Board with a more complete picture of the ongoing work of the Department.
ANNEX C
24
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 2 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
ATTACHMENT A Planning & Development Department Work Plan 2015 Regional Planning [Function 500] Strategic Plan Initiatives
1. To finalize the shíshálh engagement protocol agreement. 2. To initiate a memorandum of understanding on Crown land/rural community
interface issues on the coast (mining, forestry, fishing, drainage, fire concerns, etc.)
3. To agree on the short term priorities from the Regional Integrated Transportation Study and develop an effective lobbying approach to achieve their implementation.
4. To adopt a joint set of sustainable land use principles to guide future development decisions on the Coast
5. To support the increase of locally grown and produced food on the Coast [through implementation of the Agricultural Area Plan].
6. Fringe Area Agreement(s) - Establish a policy framework to identify potential issues with interjurisdictional ramifications - designed to facilitate the resolution of issues both within and outside municipal boundaries, as well as other issues which have not yet been identified, through consultation and collaboration.
Initiatives Completed 7. Agriculture Area Plan
Work Plan Projects 8. Control and Eradication of Invasive Plant Species - Work with community groups to
facilitate the formation of a Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee. Develop MOU with Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding invasive plants.
9. BURNCO Environmental Assessment (EA) - Participate in the EA working group to (a) advise the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) about issues related to the proposed project’s assessment from a regional and local community perspective and (b) help to assess the adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures.
10. Eagle Mountain-Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment (EA) - This EA is in conjunction with the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility at Woodfibre, Squamish. SCRD participation in the EA working group will be to (a) advise the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) about issues related to the proposed project’s assessment within the SCRD boundary (Hillside); (b) to provide input to the process from a regional and local community perspective and (c) help to assess the adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures.
25
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 3 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
11. Cumulative Effects Framework/ Management Plan for Howe Sound - Participate in the development of a comprehensive management plan for Howe Sound that facilitates a coordinated land and marine use planning process between First Nations, senior and local governments, and other local bodies to ensure ongoing recovery and responsible land use planning within Howe Sound.
12. Local Area Plan for Mt. Elphinstone - Seek alternative funding sources and options, including consideration of First Nations possible funding options. Participate in a Crown-Land planning process to address land use conflicts involving resource uses (forestry, gravel extraction, mushroom harvesting, commercial / industrial water licences), recreation (parks and trails), domestic water licences and First Nations cultural uses.
13. Habitat Conservation Strategy - Identify sources of information (e.g. Ruby Lake Lagoon Society, provincial mapping, etc.) and undertake a scoping exercise in consideration of a region-wide strategy for habitat conservation, with a particular focus on under-recognized habitats.
14. Sechelt Inlet Coastal Strategy Update - Discussions with stakeholders to determine interest and commitment to the project, collection of background information, identification of information gaps and development of a Terms of Reference. Review and update coastal management strategy for Sechelt Inlet.
Other Board Directed Work Items 15. Provide a report regarding a work plan for establishing an Agricultural Area Plan
Steering Committee 16. Develop a Protocol Agreement with the Private Managed Forest Land Council for
lands in the Regional District. Collaborative Processes 17. Support the Housing Committee in completing the development of a coast wide
affordable housing strategy 18. Support the development of a food sustainability strategy 19. Develop a work plan for an SCRD staff person to be assigned as a liaison to the
Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project
26
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 4 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Rural Planning [Function 504] Strategic Plan Initiatives
1. To produce a an initial draft of the revised Egmont/Pender OCP 2. To complete the review of the Twin Creeks OCP and to include the West Howe
Sound area north of Port Mellon in an OCP 3. To examine the barriers and opportunities to support innovative construction
approaches to housing and to facilitate change where appropriate/achievable.
Initiatives Completed 4. Halfmoon Bay OCP review 5. Comprehensive review of the Egmont/Pender OCP initiated 6. Review of the Twin Creeks OCP, including the area of West Howe Sound north of
Port Mellon, initiated 7. Protocol with MoTI regarding subdivision drainage in place.
Work Plan Projects 8. Amend the Roberts Creek OCP - to incorporate revised and additional
Geotechnical DP areas and to address some minor matters raised at the public hearing and to undertake a text and map amendment of Zoning Bylaw 310 to implement OCP recommendations and map designations, as appropriate.
9. Review of Zoning Bylaw 310 with respect to agriculture and the sale of farm products - Consideration of a new Agriculture zone to clearly identify permitted uses in the ALR and limitations appropriate to farm activity; examine issues such as appropriate setbacks, enclosure siting and appropriate auxiliary agricultural uses to residential use.
10. Comprehensive review and update of 1989 zoning bylaw - Restructuring and technical amendments. Include review of transition house zoning provisions, signs and landscaping provisions.
11. Geotechnical Hazard Assessments – Twin Creeks and Egmont/Pender Harbour OCP areas - To provide improved precision in mapping of lands subject to hazardous conditions - To provide expert technical advice in conjunction with Development Permit guidelines for avoidance and mitigation of potential hazards in DP areas.
12. Review Riparian Area Regulation Policies - Review of regulations and definitions as amendments to OCP's and Tree Cutting Bylaw 350. Adjust DP language and amend Elphinstone, Egmont-Pender Harbour, Hillside and Twin Creeks OCPs.
27
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 5 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Projects completed
13. Integrated Storm Water Management - To collaborate with the Ministry of Transportation to implement the Integrated Drainage Report; to update SCRD Servicing Bylaw with respect to drainage; work with Building Department. Prepare amendments to Plumbing and Building Bylaws to include drainage provisions.
Other Board Directed Work Items 14. Review W1 (Water One) zoning in Bylaw 310 for enforcement and protection of
eelgrass forage and shoreline ecological issues. 15. Prepare a report regarding the use of Independent Power Project's (IPPs) Amenity
Funding Agreements including a draft policy for standardizing the development of community amenities funding agreements related to Independent Power Projects (IPPS) in the Regional District.
16. Prepare a report regarding how applications within the SCRD that have a wider multijurisdictional applicability and impact can be handled to ensure full consultation and notice to all parties affected.
17. Develop policies and regulations that would guide the SCRD in wind turbine applications in the future, including bylaw provisions relating to clearances from property lines and potential damage to surrounding properties.
18. Revise the Planning Department webpage to include a section outlining the difference between the Board of Variance process and Development Variance Permit Application process for public information.
19. Prepare a draft Zoning Bylaw Amendment regarding permitting the sale of eggs in Electoral Area B and D only.
20. Report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.
21. Provide a report regarding “No Parking” signs on Carmen Road. 22. Staff review how lighting control measures could be undertaken by the SCRD in
relation to the revised BURNCO project proposal. 23. Consult with Chief Building Inspector regarding the requirement of building permits
and floor space limitations for portable (shipping) containers and prepare a report to all Electoral Area Advisory Planning Commissions for comment.
Collaborative Processes 24. To acknowledge and work with the shíshálh Land Plan for effective joint planning. 25. To work with the Squamish Nation on their proposed land plan for the Nation’s
Sunshine Coast territory.
28
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 6 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Economic Development [current activities are under Function 500] Strategic Plan Initiative To support the development of a coast wide economic development strategy that enhances year round economic activity, increases local employment; encourages investment and reflects the values expressed in the “We Envision” document.
Work Plan Projects 1. Completion of the Regional Economic Development Charter.
Projects Completed
1. Sunshine Coast Economic Development Charter based on discussions at three Regional Economic Development Workshops for elected officials
Other Board Directed Work Items Collaborative Processes
29
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 7 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Hillside Industrial Park [Function 540] Strategic Plan Initiatives 1. To develop and implement a plan for ocean access which ensures appropriate
environmental protection. 2. To attract marine service industry 3. To continue to analyze business opportunities and market the Industrial Park 4. To undertake an analysis of Hillside Industrial Park to create a consolidated
information package on assets, asset ownership agreements and responsibilities, easements, road agreements and SCRD and owner responsibilities
Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 5. Report on the progress and status of a Road Use Agreement for access to
properties off the McNair Creek Forest Service Road. 6. Develop a plan to work toward the Hillside debt repayment. 7. Report to the Round One budget meeting with a budget proposal for a consultant
to develop a business plan for Hillside. Collaborative Processes
30
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 8 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Building Inspection [Function 520] Strategic Plan Initiatives Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 1. Investigate the comparable figures for fines, level of activity and other aspects
relating to the implementation of the BEN system in other regional district rural areas.
2. Prepare additional fine amounts related to different offenses and set out where the offences fit on the matrix under the BEN, MTI or alternative system.
3. Develop a Board policy on survey requirements for building permits including an appeal process.
4. Review the applicability of SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597 as it pertains to the revised BURNCO project proposal.
Collaborative Processes 5. Update Bylaw No. 687 (Building) to include Sechelt Indian Government District area. Projects completed 6. Building permit process amended to not accept incomplete permit applications
rather than propose amended fee schedule for incomplete applications.
31
Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 9 of 9
N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Planning\2014-12-18 2015 PDC report re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx
Bylaw Compliance [Function 200] Strategic Plan Initiatives Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 1. Review the applicability of SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597 as it pertains to the
revised BURNCO project proposal. Collaborative Processes 2. Update Bylaw No. 376 (Dog Regulation and Impounding) to include Sechelt Indian
Government District area.
32
N:\Planning & Development\6535 Community Sustainability Plan\6535-30 Sustainability Plan Components\Community Food Security\2014 PDC Report KPU Funding Request Dec 18.doc
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3rd, 2014 TO: Planning & Development Committee (PDC) – December 18th, 2014 FROM: Gregory Gebka, Planner – Planning & Development Division
RE: Request for Funding - Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) THAT the report entitled “Request for Funding - Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project” be received;
(2) AND THAT a funding contribution in the amount of $5000 be forwarded to
Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Institute for Sustainable Food Systems subject to approval of the 2015 regional planning budget;
(3) AND THAT up to 40 professional staff hours be allocated in the 2015 regional planning budget for as a SCRD staff liaison to the project in 2015.
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of October 23rd, the Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation:
Recommendation No. 1 Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project
THAT the delegation materials from Kwantlen Polytechnic University regarding Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project be received;
AND THAT the SCRD endorse the Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project;
AND THAT a work plan be developed for an SCRD staff person to be assigned as a liaison to the Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project and report to the October work plan review meetings;
AND FURTHER THAT the Director of the Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project be requested to provide a funding proposal for the First Round 2015 budget process.
DISCUSSION:
Following a presentation to the October 16th PDC meeting, the Director and Project Lead for the Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project, Dr. Kent Mullinix, recently submitted a request for funding contribution towards the project (see Attachment ‘A’). The letter provides a project budget and funding plan overview along with a request for contribution of up to $30,000 - over multiple years if preferred. Following receipt of the letter, staff corresponded with Dr. Mullinix who assured that any funding contribution would be greatly appreciated.
ANNEX D
33
Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee – December 20th, 2014 Request for Funding - Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project Page 2 of 2
As discussed by the PDC at its October meeting, a funding contribution towards the project should be in line with other contributions made by similar local governments and tax base. The delegation materials received in October (reproduced for convenience as Attachment ‘B’) indicate the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District contributed $5000, and the District of Squamish contributed $6000. In line with these contributions, staff would suggest a similar contribution of up to $5000.
Following the Board’s requested for a work plan to be developed for an SCRD staff person to liaise with the project representatives, it is noted that the delegation materials submitted in October (Attachment ‘B’) indicate staff will be requested to attend a 2-3 day event in early 2015, which will bring together stakeholders to explore different scenarios for a bio-regional food system, including creating a design and vision around how communities will be feeding themselves in the year 2050. There will also be workshops conducted in the spring to establish next steps, policy recommendations and other tools to “bring the project design to life”. Staff may also be asked to participate with the project advisory committee and engagement team, both of which will provide opportunities to give feedback on project methodology and strategy. The project lead recently confirmed that no more than 40 staff liaison hours would be required for all staff liaison requirements over 2015.
___________________________ Gregory Gebka, Planner Planning & Development Division GG/
34
Funding Request to the Sunshine Coast Regional District to support the Southwest British Columbia Bio-Regional Food System Design Project
Submitted by: Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Kent Mullinix, Director and Project Lead [email protected] 604-612-1252 Submitted to:
Greg Gebka, Planner
Sunshine Coast regional District
Date:
Oct. 27, 2014
Background:
Researchers at Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Institute for Sustainable Food Systems (ISFS) are
leading an unprecedented project to explore and elucidate the economic, environmental stewardship
and food self-reliance potential of a bio-regional food system in Southwest BC (SWBC). The team is using
a computational model to understand the relationship between factors in the food system and
understand the how different decisions will impact its outcomes and impacts in the future. Working with
stakeholders we will use information from the model and other sources to create a Bio-Regional Food
System Design for 2050. It will be accompanied by an action plan and recommendations. The project
will produce a wide range of information and tools that can be used by municipal and regional
governments, food system advocates, farmers and agriculturalists, Indigenous communities,
entrepreneurs and many others to advance local agriculture, food systems and related economic
activity. See the accompanying project briefing document for further detail.
The Sunshine Coast regional District has officially endorsed the project.
Project Budget and Funding Plan Overview:
This is a three year, $1.4 million project (see attached project budget summary). In-kind contribution
from collaborating universities (for salary) amounts to $546,000. We have been very successful
garnering project funding and to date have secured $617,000 of $895,000 cash required. We expect to
secure the remaining $278,000 required over the next year through grants and local government
contribution. We have requested contribution from every municipality and regional district in the study
ATTACHMENT A
35
region as delineated in the Proposed Local Government Funding Strategy (attached). To date local
governments have contributed $65,000.
The vast majority of cash funds support project staff salaries. A small portion is used for supplies and
stakeholder engagement. None goes to overhead.
Funding Request of the Sunshine Coast Regional District:
Per our original local government funding request plan (attached) we respectfully request that the
Sunshine Coast Regional District consider contributing up to $30,000 (over multiple years if preferred).
We would however be appreciative of any level of financial support the SCRD deems appropriate.
All funds contributed by the SCRD will go to project staff salaries.
36
Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design Project
Envisioning a Regional Food System for 2050
Project Overview September 2014 Researchers at Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Institute for Sustainable Food Systems (ISFS) are leading a project to explore the economic, environmental stewardship and food self-reliance potential of a bio-regional food system in Southwest BC (SWBC). The team is using scenarios to understand the relationship between factors in the food system and understand the how different decisions will impact the future of our food system. Working with stakeholders we will create a potential Bio-Regional Food System Design for 2050. It will be accompanied by an action plan and recommendations. The project will produce a wide range of information and tools that can be used by municipal and regional governments, food system advocates, farmers and agriculturalists, Indigenous communities, entrepreneurs and many others.
Why a Bio-Regional Food System? Climate change, rising oil costs, and the degradation of the environment are creating uncertainties in global food production. In Southwest BC we are losing our capacity to grow food for local consumption. Farms are being lost and small lots in the ALR are at risk of development. Local processing capacity is nearly absent. Development and expansion of southwest BC’s food system will help to build local resilience and adaptive capacity. It is estimated that residents of Southwest BC spend over $6 billion
1 per year on
meals; a Southwest BC food system could capture an increased share of this spending for regional economies. The team is using a bio-regional approach to create a potential Design for an integrated food system that respects the boundaries and leverages the opportunities of an ecological and cultural region beyond the conventional delineations of municipal and regional boundaries. Our planning horizon is 2050. What is the potential for a revived and re-localized food system in BC; how many jobs can a bio-regional food system support and how much can it contribute to the regional economy; what kinds of ancillary businesses can emerge and how can this kind of food system reduce GHG emissions and address serious environmental concerns? These are some of the questions the ISFS team is trying to answer.
Project Highlights
Relevant, applied and community-based research that will provide useful information and tools to farmers and food system businesses, policy makers, planners and others.
Endorsed and supported by the Agricultural Land Commission and a growing list of major municipalities and other organizations. Funded by the Real Estate Foundation, Webster Foundation, Vancity Community Foundation, and a growing list of municipal supporters.
Scenario approach to explore the dynamics of the food system in an uncertain future.
Systems thinking approach focused on as many elements of the food system as possible including: agricultural inputs, agricultural production, storage, processing, distribution and consumption. Data and research limitations will be considered throughout the project as the team moves forward.
A project advisory committee, Indigenous advisory committee e and academic advisory committee provide advice on methodology, research and engagement for all aspects of the project.
Southwest BC Bio-region
ATTACHMENT B
37
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 2
Project Timeline and Current Status
Phase Achievements to Date
Phase I – Baseline - Compiled a team of Research Associates and Partners. The team includes economists, Planners, agriculturalist scientists, ecologists and a stakeholder engagement and communications specialist. See a full list of the team in this package
Complete
- Drafted a set of objectives and indicators to guide the modeling and design of a SWBC bio-regional food system
Complete
- Baseline research: collected data to inform the modeling process and collected information on the current state of the Southwest BC Food System. Baseline research and data collection will continue through summer 2014 as the team moves into the modelling and Design phase
Complete
- Secured funding and endorsement from over 35 organizations and counting
Ongoing
- Launched project website and social media Complete
Phase I – Baseline Next Steps
- Phase I stakeholder workshops Complete
- Phase I baseline and stakeholder workshop reporting Complete
Phase II – Modelling and Design
- Refine model and develop scenarios based on baseline research data and consultation results
July – December 2014
- Scenario and Design event(s) with stakeholders January 2015
- Visualization and description of Design February-May 2015
Phase III – Action Planning
- Action planning outreach and workshops May –June 2015
- Project completion September 2015
What is a Bio-Region?
Bio-regions are areas that share similar topography, plant and animal life, and human culture. They are
alternately referred to as a Life Place. They are largely based on eco-regions but incorporate human
settlement and activity patterns and can take political boundaries into consideration.
The bio-region for the project includes: Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley Regional District, Sunshine Coast
Regional District, Squamish Lillooet Regional District, and Powell River Regional District. The bio-region
also includes the traditional territories of the Coast Salish Peoples.
The characteristics most commonly used to delineate bio-regions are watersheds and biogeoclimatic zones,
landforms, and vegetation assemblages. The Southwest BC Bio-region was delineated using a combination
of regional watershed boundaries, Level 3 Ecoregional Classification zones (that reflect similarities in
climate, geography and biological communities) and municipal and regional district boundaries. The
overlapping boundaries of ecoregions, watersheds, landforms, and Indigenous territories offer a valuable
contextual and historical reference points for deepening our shared understanding of how to “live in place”
in the present day.
38
Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design Project
Envisioning a Regional Food System for 2050
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 3
Indigenous Food Systems Paradigm Research
Overview:
The mission of the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems is to advance regional food systems through applied research and outreach. In this process we are committed to working with Indigenous communities to understand, describe and position Indigenous priorities, perspectives and paradigms in food system research, design and planning.
To guide us in this work we have a hired a full-time Research Associate, Dawn Morrison, and assembled a 14-member advisory committee. Their work on the SWBC Bio-Region Food Systems Design Project will achieve three key goals:
Work with the research team to weave Indigenous epistemology and narrative into project communications.
Research and describe/characterize Indigenous food system thinking/paradigm and identify the points of entry; complementarity; intersection and contention between it and sustainable food system thinking based on published literature and key advisors characterizations.
Assess the SWBC Bioregional (Agri-food) Food System Design to see how/if it incorporates the points of entry;
complementarity; intersection and contention between Indigenous food system thinking and sustainable food system
thinking (including identification of project or data gaps).
This work will be instrumental in generating a body of Indigenous food system knowledge and research. It will lay the foundations for future work and strengthen the Institute’s ability to integrate Indigenous food systems thinking into future research and projects. It will also identify an array of potential research work to address research and data gaps.
Project work to date:
The project team has established a set of eight objectives and sub-objectives for the project that describe the desired conditions to
be achieved as a result of activities taking place in the food system. Each objective has a set of indicators which establish how the
team can measure whether the objective is being achieved. The research team has identified objectives in the project that represent
key points of intersection between the Indigenous food system paradigm and the agri-food system being designed in the project.
These include:
Objective Sub-Objectives 1.0 Increase self-reliance in agricultural production
Optimize agricultural land use
Reduce water use in agriculture production and processing
2.0 Minimize external inputs and optimize soil, water and air quality
Optimize soil quality
Improve Water Efficiency
Improve Nutrient Cycling
Reduce use of Synthetic Fertilizers
3.0 Increase Biodiversity Increase number of crop and livestock types in the bio-region
Increase genetic variety of crops and livestock in the bio-region
Protect indigenous food harvest (need to confirm with Sean)
Increase wild bio-diversity of animals and plants on agricultural lands
Increase the connectivity of non-agricultural habitat within agricultural lands
39
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 4
Project Benefits
By supporting the project, partners can access the expertise of a unique multi-disciplinary team as well as access data and tools relevant to policy development, business planning, community development and much more. As the project evolves the team will work with partners to seize emerging opportunities for data sharing and for transforming research into relevant and timely tools for a variety of stakeholders. We encourage all potential partners to learn more about the research being conducted in their area of interest and to contact us to explore opportunities. Examples of current deliverables from the project include:
1. Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design
The Design will paint a picture of what a bio-regional food system could look like in Southwest BC in the year 2050. The
document will include a detailed description of the economic, environmental and food self-reliance outcomes and benefits
of the Design. It will describe challenges and opportunities and provide policy recommendations and other tools to help
stakeholders create a climate that supports this Design and brings it to reality. The design and action plan will be the result
of our work with stakeholders and will include documentation about stakeholder outreach during the project.
2. Economic Development & Diversification
SWBC Farm Enterprise Budgets: Farm business planning templates for 30 crops and livestock suited to SWBC
Revenue Projections: Projections for increased revenue resulting from farming of under-farmed land in the Southwest BC
region. May be able to provide information by municipality where data permits.
Job Creation Potential: Estimates around the potential for job creation and diversification from farming, processing and
distribution businesses in the Southwest BC region.
Study of Food Processing, Agricultural Input Suppliers and Distribution Methods in SWBC: Gather baseline data about the
existing system and identifying strategies for overcoming challenges and seizing opportunities.
3. Policy, Planning & Governance
Local Government Policy Inventory: For each municipality, an inventory of existing local policies and strategies, and
assessment of their ability to aid in the creation of a comprehensive regional food system design and plan.
Local Government Policy Cross Jurisdictional Best Practices Review: An inventory of best practices and innovations in
municipal food system policy.
4. Research Briefs
Ecological Footprint Analysis of the Current Food System
Scan of Southwest B.C. Municipal Food System Planning and Policy
Economic Status of the SWBC Agri-Food Sector
Food Self-Reliance Capacity of Southwest B.C. Healthy Food Basket Costs and many others
5. Indigenous Perspectives and Paradigms Our research team is working with an Indigenous Research associate and advisory committee toward the goal of positioning
Indigenous priorities, perspectives and paradigms in food system research, design and planning. On his project we will:
Describe and characterize the Indigenous food systems thinking paradigm and identify the points of entry;
complementarity; intersection and contention between it and sustainable food system thinking
Assess the final project to see how these dimensions have been incorporated and what gaps and opportunities exist for
future research.
40
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 5
Project Overview
Three key phases of work will be delivered by the team over the course of three years. The project started in September of 2012. The methodology presented below describes how the project team is approaching the work of envisioning a 2050 food system for southwest BC. The team is developing a mathematical model using food self-reliance and agricultural production as a starting point. The project is based in an understanding of the food system in its broadest sense and ecological, economic, food self-reliance potential. Indigenous priorities and perspectives are being considered and applied throughout. The mathematical model is only a starting point for exploring the potential of a bio-regional food system. The design and action planning phases will allow the team to incorporate broader elements of the food system into the project.
Phase I – Baseline Phase IIa – Modeling Phase IIb – Design and Mapping Phase III- Action Planning
ISFS will work together with stakeholders to establish objectives and indicators to guide the modelling and creation of the Food System Design and gather baseline data to inform the modeling and Design process.
ISFS will develop a mathematical model to estimate how much and what kinds of food could be grown within the SWBC bio-region in the year 2050. The impact of ecological and economic constraints on potential food production will be explored through various scenarios. The post-production (processing and storage) capacity needed to support the modeled food production will then be estimated and quantified.
The team will gather stakeholders to discuss and refine scenarios to create a vision and Design for a 2050 bio-regional food system. Once the Design is complete the team will bring it to life with a description of its food production, economic, environmental and community potentials.
The team will work with stakeholders to develop a roadmap and action plan.
Production
Model
Post-Production
Model
Model Output
Calculations
Business as Usual Food
System Future
(Typical and Alternate
Farming Methods)
Bio-Regional Food
System Future
(Typical and Alternate
Farming Methods)
Phase IIb – Design and Mapping
Scen
ario
s
Establish
Objectives and
Indicators
Phase I Baseline
Research
Data Collection
and Analysis
Phase IIa – Modeling
Objectives and
indicators
Workshops
Selected Scenario
Design and Mapping
Scen
ario
Wo
rksh
op
s
Final Visualization and Description of
Design Potentials
(Food Self-Reliance, Economic
Contributions, Environmental
Benefits, etc. )
Phase III –
Action Plan
Best Practices Research, Mapping and Data Collection, Indigenous Food System Research
Working with
stakeholders to
develop a plan for
next steps.
Policy
recommendations
actions for
business, non-
profit, farmers,
government and
others.
Fin
al P
rod
uct
41
Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design Project
Envisioning a Regional Food System for 2050
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 6
Project Objectives
Strengthen the regional economy by:
Identifying ways to retain more of the “local food dollar” and position the agri-food sector to contribute directly to the regional economy;
Identifying opportunities for small to medium sized businesses; and,
Identifying the potential to create rewarding, satisfying jobs that will appeal to a new generation. Support agriculture and food provisioning by:
Connecting agriculture with key elements of the food system (processing, distribution, sales);
Providing regionally appropriate information for current and future farmers; and,
Identifying opportunities and strategies for expanding the regional food sector.
Promote environmental stewardship and health by:
Proposing strategies to mitigate environmental degradation and lessen overall ecological footprints associated with food and agriculture;
Proposing strategies to contribute to regional greenhouse gas emissions reductions; and,
Identifying means to integrate ecologically sound agriculture with natural landscapes. Foster food security and public health by:
Exploring how we can diversify our food supply by building our bio-regional food system;
Proposing strategies to make healthy, fresh, foods more accessible
Strengthen communities and build social capital by:
Building capacity within SWBC communities to engage in agriculture and the food system;
Working with Indigenous communities of focus to identify points of intersection and opportunities for integration of an Indigenous land and food systems perspectives and priorities; and,
Bringing together diverse communities by catalyzing action around mutual goals and shared food system values
42
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 7
Project Support and Endorsement
Project Funders Municipal Endorsements Communities that support the project through allocation of staff liaison
Industry Endorsements Letters of Support
Real Estate Foundation - $300,000
Webster Foundation - $120,000
VanCity Envirofund - $75,000
VanCity - $50,000
Individual Donations - $7200
SWBC Municipal Funders to Date
City of Burnaby - $12,000
City of North Vancouver - $12,000
District of Maple Ridge - $12,000
Township of Langley - $12,000
City of Langley - $6000
District of Squamish - $6000
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District-$5000
District of North Vancouver
District of Mission
City of Pitt Meadows
City of Port Moody
Village of Pemberton
Corporation of Delta
City of Abbotsford
Bowen Island Municipality
Resort Municipality of Whistler
City of New Westminster
Resort Municipality of Whistler
Sunshine Coast Regional District
Small Scale Food Processor Association
Delta School District
Whistler Centre for Sustainability
BC Agricultural Land Commission
BC First Nations Agricultural Association
Farm Folk City Folk
Invest North Fraser
White Rock Surrey and Naturalists’ Society
The Surrey/ White Rock Food Action Coalition
The New Westminster Community Food Action Committee
Fraser Health
Richmond Food Security Society
Langley Environmental Partners Society
Surrey Board of Trade
Vancouver Food Policy Council
Bowen Agricultural Alliance
Food Matters Chilliwack
Langley Community Farmers Market Society
BC Food Systems Network
Many thanks to the British Columbia Agriculture Council and Metro Vancouver for supporting the project proposal to Real Estate
Foundation.
Stakeholder Engagement The Institute for Sustainable Food Systems is an applied research institute. We believe research must respond to community need and provide solutions for real world challenges. Stakeholders across the food system will be engaged in the project in several ways.
1. Participation in the design and action planning of a bio-regional food system. a. June 2014 – Stakeholder workshops were hosted across the bio-region to gather input and priorities on the
objectives, sub-objectives for a bio-regional food system and the associated indicators that will be used to measure progress and success.
b. Early 2015 – A 2-3 day design event will bring together stakeholders to explore different scenarios for a bio-
regional food system and creates a design and vision for how we will feed our communities in 2050.
c. Spring 2015 – Workshops will bring stakeholders together to establish next steps, policy recommendations and
other tools to bring the design to life.
2. A project advisory committee was selected and assembled and began meeting in July 2014. This committee provides
feedback on project methodology and strategy.
3. The engagement team meets regularly with City Councils, Agricultural Advisory Committees, Community Organizations and
interested individuals to provide updates on the project and opportunities for input and feedback.
43
Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design Project
Envisioning a Regional Food System for 2050
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 8
Phase I - Food System Objectives and Indicators (DRAFT – May 2014)
Food System Objectives Food System Indicators
1 Increase self-reliance in agricultural production
1.1 Degree to which locally grown food contributes to total food consumption and satisfaction of nutritional requirements
1.2 Quantity of under-farmed land
1.3 Quantity of agricultural land by land quality
1.4 Quantity of water used in food processing
1.5 Quantity of water used in crop and livestock production
1.6 Degree to which agricultural inputs (seed, feed, fertility, and stock) are regionally produced
1.7 Capacity of storage and processing facilities to support year-round supply of regionally produced foods
1.8 Total amount of agriculturally viable land on Indian Reserves
1.9 Types and values of alternative regional marketing channels
2 Minimize external inputs and optimize soil, water and air quality
2.1 Changes in soil carbon stocks in agricultural land
2.2 Number of soil cover days for agricultural land
2.3 Total quantity of water used in food processing
2.4 Total quantity of water used in crop and livestock production
2.5 The percentage of crop nutrient demand met or exceeded
2.6 Risk of nitrogen contamination to water
2.7 Quantity of agricultural ammonia emissions
2.8 Quantity of synthetic fertilizer used
3 Increase biodiversity 3.1 The diversity of crop and livestock types in the bio-region
3.2 The diversity of crop and livestock varieties in the bio-region
3.3 Capacity of agricultural land to provide wildlife habitat
3.4 The connectivity of non-production habitat
4 Minimize non-renewable energy inputs and optimize energy efficiency
4.1 Quantity and types of energy used throughout the food system
4.2 Fossil fuel share of total energy use in the system
5 Reduce and Remove Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.1 Tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels (system wide)
5.2 Tonnes methane emissions from cattle, manure and waste disposal
5.3 Tonnes No2 emissions from manure management and application; fertilizer application
5.4 Net terrestrial carbon stocks: soil organic carbon; hectares of forest/woody vegetation available for carbon sequestration
6 Reduce the ecological footprint of the food system
6.1 Ecological Footprint of land based agricultural food production in SWBC
6.2 Ecological Footprint of food consumed in SWBC (local plus imported foods)
7 Strengthen and Enhance Local Farm and Ancillary Business
7.1 Number of farms and farm types
7.2 Characteristics of farm operators
7.3 Farm profitability in the bio-region
7.4 Initial farm capital costs in the bio-region
7.5 Number and location of food processing operations in the bio-region
7.6 Types and values of alternative marketing channels
7.7 Retail and farm gate price and quantity comparison of selected food commodities
8 Contribute to the Local Economy 8.1 Gross domestic product (GDP) of the agri-food system sector
8.2 Number of farm employment opportunities and total farm employee labour income
8.3 Number of ancillary business employment opportunities and related labour income.
44
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 9
Southwest British Columbia Project Team
Principal Investigator Dr. Kent Mullinix- Kwantlen Polytechnic University-ISFS
Collaborators Project Methodology Advisors Dr. Rebecca Harbut - Kwantlen Polytechnic University,
Sustainable Agriculture
Dr. Jan Thompson - Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Dept. of Geography
Dr. Herb Barbolet - Simon Fraser University-Centre for Sustainable Community Development and Centre for Dialogue
Professor Patrick Condon - University of British Columbia
Dr. Eduardo Jovel - University of British Columbia
Dr. Aleck Ostry - University of Victoria
Dr. Bill Rees - University of British Columbia
Dr. Alejandro Rojas - University of British Columbia
Research Associates
Supply Chain Team Lead - Dr. Kent Mullinix
Kwantlen Polytechnic University-ISFS
Caitlin Dorward Kwantlen Polytechnic University- ISFS
Economy Dynamics
Lead - Dr. Wallapak Polasub Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Caroline Chiu Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Ermias Afeworki Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Planning/Policy/Governance
Lead: Dr. Cornelia Sussmann Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Co-lead: Caitriona Feeney Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Rebecca Kilford Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Indigenous Communities
Lead – Dawn Morrison Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Rebecca Kilford Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Ecological Systems and Climate Change Adaptation Lead - Dr. Sean Smukler
University of British Columbia, Land and Food Systems
Greg Harris Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Dept. of Biology
Anna Rallings Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Ecological Footprint Analysis and GHG Mitigation
Lead - Dr. Meidad Kissinger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Cornelia Sussmann Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Food Security Dynamics
Lead - Dr. Lenore Newman Canada Research Chair in Food Security University of the Fraser Valley
Community Health/ Nutrition
Lead - Katie Robinson, R.D.
Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
Registered Dietician
Collaborator - Dr. Christiana Miewald Simon Fraser University
Stakeholder Engagement
Lead: Sofia Fortin Kwantlen Polytechnic University - ISFS
45
Southwest BC Bio-Region Food System Design Project
Envisioning a Regional Food System for 2050
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems |www.kpu.ca/isfs 10
The Institute for Sustainable Food Systems
Directed by Dr. Kent Mullinix, the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University is based on Kwantlen’s
Richmond campus and operates in conjunction with the Sustainable Agriculture program. The Institute’s applied research, extension,
and education programming focuses on regional-scale, human intensive, ecologically sound food systems as foundational to
sustainable community. Our past and current work falls under two categories: MESA projects and Bio-Region Food Systems projects.
Through our MESA (“Municipally Enabled Sustainable Agriculture”) projects, we have worked with municipalities in south-west BC
to investigate the direct economic, environmental, and social benefits that could result if municipalities supported small scale
agriculture in their communities through policy (such as bylaws allowing urban farming and farm gate sales) and programs (such as
education programs and demonstrations). Our work has demonstrated significant potential for increased food security, a reduction
of farmland loss to urban sprawl, job creation, and wealth generation.
In our Bio-Region Food Systems projects, we are working to evaluate the potential for a food system sector organized and operating
at the eco-region scale and comprised of low input, human intensive, and ecologically sound supply chain components. This eco-
regional scale food sector complements the current food system, to improve food self-reliance, minimize environmental impact,
improve economic viability of farms and ancillary businesses, contribute to the local economy, create opportunity for the
development of small and medium sized businesses and strengthen communities. We are currently working on bio-regional food
systems projects in Southwest BC and in Yukon Territories.
For more information about the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, please visit us online at http://www.kpu.ca/isfs
Kwantlen Polytechnic University has been serving the Metro Vancouver region for 30 years, and has opened doors to success for
more than 250,000 people. Four campuses—Richmond, Surrey, Cloverdale and Langley—offer a comprehensive range of sought-after
programs, including business, liberal arts, science, design, health, trades and technology, apprenticeships, horticulture, and academic
and career advancement. Over 18,000 students annually have a choice from over 200 programs, including bachelor’s degrees,
associate degrees, diplomas, certificates and citations.
46
Proposed Government Funding Request Plan
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Federal $10,000.00 Provincial $50,000.00 Regional Districts
Metro Vancouver $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 Fraser Valley $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Squamish-Lillooet $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Sunshine Coast $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Powell River $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Municipalities
City of Abbotsford $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 City of Richmond $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 City of Surrey $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 City of Vancouver $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Corporation of Delta $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
City of Burnaby $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 City of Chilliwack $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 City of North Vancouver $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 City of Pitt Meadows $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 District Municipality of Maple Ridge $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 District of Kent $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 District of Mission $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Township of Langley $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
City of Coquitlam $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of Langley $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of New Westminster $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of Port Coquitlam $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of Port Moody $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of Powell River $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 City of White Rock $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District Municipality of North Vancouver $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District Municipality of Sechelt $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District Municipality of West Vancouver $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District of Hope $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District of Lillooet $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 District of Squamish $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Island Municipality of Bowen island $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Resort Municipality of Whistler $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Town of Gibsons $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Village of Anmore $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Village of Belcarra $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Village of Harrison Hot Springs $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Village of Pemberton $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Village of Lions Bay $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
SUBTOTAL $304,000.00 $244,000.00 $244,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $792,000.00
47
In-Kind Cash In-Kind Cash In-Kind Cash In-Kind Cash
Supply Chain 66,727.50$ 3,328.59$ 68,727.50$ -$ 120,955.00$ -$ 256,410.00$ 3,328.59$ 259,738.59$
Ecology 62,500.00$ 38,026.75$ 37,500.00$ 3,328.59$ 37,500.00$ 137,500.00$ 41,355.34$ 178,855.34$
Economics 12,500.00$ 18,320.63$ 12,500.00$ 91,767.42$ -$ 109,096.00$ 25,000.00$ 219,184.05$ 244,184.05$
Community 12,500.00$ 15,532.00$ 12,500.00$ 17,497.60$ -$ 25,000.00$ 33,029.60$ 58,029.60$
Ecological
Footprint -$ 31,267.57$ -$ 42,793.01$ -$ 59,410.00$ -$ 133,470.58$ 133,470.58$
Food Security 20,000.00$ -$ 20,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000.00$ -$ 40,000.00$
Indigenous
Communities -$ 20,679.26$ -$ 57,227.29$ -$ 53,186.00$ -$ 131,092.55$ 131,092.55$
Planning and
Policy 62,500.00$ 22,130.05$ -$ 33,094.58$ -$ 57,002.40$ 62,500.00$ 112,227.03$ 174,727.03$
Stakeholder
Engagement -$ 7,454.72$ -$ 29,411.60$ -$ 5,000.00$ -$ 41,866.32$ 41,866.32$
GIS -$ 18,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$
Project
Coordination -$ -$ -$ 20,320.25$ -$ 41,574.00$ -$ 61,894.25$ 61,894.25$
Design &
Visualization -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000.00$ -$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Goods &
Services 11,932.42$ 48,430.39$ 10,000.00$ -$ 70,362.81$ 70,362.81$ Travel -$ -$ 5,000.00$ -$ 10,000.00$ -$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Total 236,727.50$ 186,671.99$ 151,227.50$ 348,870.73$ 158,455.00$ 360,268.40$ 546,410.00$ 895,811.12$ 1,442,221.12$
Domains/Items
Complete Project Budget (Year 1-Year 3)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TotalGrand Total
48
N:\Legal Matters\2280 Agreements - Government Protocol\2280-20 Agreements\2014-12-01 report re VCH SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement Version 2.docx
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014
FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development
RE: VCH - SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the General Manager, Planning and Development report regarding the Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) - SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement be received; AND THAT a representative of Vancouver Coastal Health be invited as a delegation to the January 8, 2015 Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND Across the Vancouver Coastal Heath (VCH) region, VCH has been formalizing its collaborations with the local governments with the goal to better support and plan for healthier communities and as a result healthier residents. Provincially the Ministry of Health is supporting this work through the Healthy Families BC Communities initiative. The purpose of the partnership, as described in the attached template agreement, is to promote the health and wellness of the community through:
a. Formalizing a collaborative relationship between VCH and the SCRD that achieves mutual objectives and builds on existing collaborations
b. To identify priority projects and work together to address mutual benefits. In order to set some initial priorities, possibly based on the outcome of the Health and Sustainability workshop held at the SIB Hall in Sechelt on November 25th, VCH has submitted the following possible areas for collaboration to provide the committee with some examples of what might be included in the protocol.
Topics that came up at the workshop, that VCH is well situated to support: • Early Childhood Development - at the workshop people talked about daycare as a
requirement for jobs but the work that we are ready for is a bit broader, based on the Human Early Learning Project (HELP) from UBC which measures early childhood vulnerabilities at a local level over time.
• Active Transportation Topics that didn’t come up specifically at the workshop, but VCH can support: • Healthy Built Environment (a bit broader than active transportation) looking at community
planning primarily
ANNEX E
49
Re: VCH SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement Page 2 of 2
N:\Legal Matters\2280 Agreements - Government Protocol\2280-20 Agreements\2014-12-01 report re VCH SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement Version 2.docx
• Municipal Alcohol Plans • Tobacco Reduction Other topics raised: • Economic development • Supporting care (seniors and daycare)
What VCH has to offer right now is the possibility of:
• Some small one time grants to support this work • Learning opportunities on topics of interest (Early Childhood Development or …) • Linking with other Plan H opportunities
If the Board is interested in pursuing the proposed collaboration agreement with Vancouver Coastal Health, staff recommend that a representative of Vancouver Coastal Health be invited as a delegation to the January 8th Planning and Development Committee.
50
Local Government logo
VCH Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement Template
Background
According to a 2009 report from the Canadian Senate, some 10% of population health outcomes can be attributable to our physical or built environment with an additional 50% being related to social and economic determinants, many of which are deeply interconnected with environments. Evidence has also shown that local governments currently provide much of the essential social and physical infrastructure necessary to support individual and community health and well-being. With the growing levels of preventable chronic illness such as diabetes and obesity, both our health care system and our local governments have an interest in reducing these preventable diseases to improve the quality of life for residents and stop the rise in health care costs. In 2010, the Ministry of Health launched Healthy Families BC Communities 1 to promote partnerships between the health authorities and the communities within their regions to improve population health.
Common Purpose
The purpose of the partnership agreement is to promote the health and wellness of the community through:
a. Formalizing a collaborative relationship between VCH and (XXX) that achieves mutual objectives and builds on existing collaborations
b. To identify priority projects and work together to address mutual
benefits.
Potential Priority Areas for Collaboration
� Healthy Built Environments - neighbourhood design, housing, food systems, natural environment, and safe and active transportation: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
� Food Security/Healthy Eating - community gardens, community kitchens, urban agriculture, farmers markets, food banks, food policy councils: _________________________________________ _________________________________________________
1 Plan H http://planh.ca/
ATTACHMENT A
51
� Physical Activity - access to recreation opportunities, active transportation, building guidelines for stairs, paths: ________ _________________________________________________
� Tobacco reduction- smoke free by-laws that include: parks, playgrounds, beaches, market and non-market housing, and e-cigarettes: ________________________________________ _________________________________________________
� Targeted populations - seniors, families with young children, new
immigrants etc.: ___________________________________ _________________________________________________
� Other(s) - ________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
Means of Communication, priority setting and reporting back
1. Regular meetings between Vancouver Coastal Health and Local Governments :
a. b.
2. Frequency of meetings _________x year 3. Other forms of communication:
a. b.
Staff Contacts
• VCH: Medical Health Officer ____________________ Director of Services ____________________
• Local Government (xxxxx): Chief Administrative Officer? ____________________ Other ____________________
Next Steps • Developing a 2 year work plan • Other:
Signed this XX day of XX Month, 20__;
_________________________ _________________________
(VCH Chief Operating Officer) (Medical Health Officer, )
_________________________
Chief Administrative Offier. ?
52
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014
FROM: Andrew Allen, Senior Planner, Stina Hanson Planning Technician
RE: Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.162 (Kimm for Bolognese – 7967 Raven’s Cry Road) (Area B)
RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee receive the report “Zoning
Amendment Bylaw 310.162 (Kimm for Bolognese – 7967 Raven’s Cry Road) (Area B)” dated December 3, 2014;
2. THAT a Public Hearing be scheduled for 7:00 pm, Tuesday February 3rd, 2015 at
Coopers Green Hall - 5500 Fisherman Road, Halfmoon Bay; 3. AND THAT the Planning and Development Committee recommend that two
members of the Board be delegated to be the Chair and the Alternate Chair for the public hearing.
BACKGROUND The SCRD has received an application from the owners of 7967 Raven’s Cry Road in Halfmoon Bay to amend the subdivision district of their property to allow for a two-lot subdivision. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24 District Lot 1624 Plan LMP12189 ELECTORAL AREA: B – Halfmoon Bay LOCATION: 7967 Raven’s Cry Road, Halfmoon Bay EXISTING OCP DESIGNATION: Rural Residential EXISTING ZONING: RU1A EXISTING SUBDIVISION DISTRICT: G (minimum parcel size 1.75 ha) PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DISTRICT: F (minimum parcel size 8,000 m2, average 1 ha) PARCEL AREA: 2.598 ha The subject property was originally created as part of the subdivision of District Lot 1624 and is adjacent to Sargeant Bay Provincial Park (see Attachment 1). An unnamed and undeveloped road allowance runs along the east side of the property and the surrounding properties are all zoned RU1A, in the G subdivision district and of similar size (around 2 ha). The recently adopted Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Bylaw 675 (OCP) designated the lot as “Rural Residential”, which provides support for an average parcel size of 1.0 ha. The Planning Division will consider OCP implementation, including a number of changes to Zoning Bylaw 310, as part of the work plan for 2015, which may include changes to the subdivision districts for a number of properties to ensure that they are compatible with the applicable OCP land use designation. The applicants have decided to pursue a rezoning application for their own property at this time as they are hoping to move quickly to the subdivision application if the rezoning is approved. The applicants are requesting a site specific zoning amendment to change their subdivision district
ANNEX F
53
Staff Report to SCRD Planning and Development Committee, December 18, 2014 Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.162 (Kimm for Bolognese) Page 2 of 2
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3600-20 310.162 Bolognese\2014-Dec-3 - PDC report Public Hearing.docx
from the “G” designation (minimum parcel size 1.75 ha) to the “F” designation (minimum parcel size 8,000 square metre, 1 ha average). The applicants currently have two homes on the property (permitted within the RU1A zone) and are proposing a two-lot subdivision for the purpose of redistributing family assets as the new parcel (with one of the existing single family homes) will be sold to the applicants daughter and son-in-law. The applicants have a productive vegetable and herb garden on the property and are looking at options for ensuring continued help with managing the property as they age and in providing for increased financial security for their children by allowing them to build equity through home ownership. The applicants have prepared a site plan showing the approximate dimensions of the two new parcels (see Attachment 2) and a development statement outlining their proposal (see Attachment 3). Referrals and Consultation Halfmoon Bay Advisory Planning Commission The Halfmoon Bay APC considered this application at their September 2014 meeting where they made the following recommendation:
Motion: That the APC takes no exception to the proposed two lot subdivision. Passed by Majority
One Opposed The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure MOTI has no concerns with the rezoning application and will deal with access to the new lot as part of the eventual subdivision application. shíshálh Nation The shíshálh Nation has requested an archaeological post impact assessment on the property. The applicants have signed a service agreement with the Nation and work on the assessment is ongoing. If further archaeological work or permitting is required this will be a condition that must be completed before the bylaw can be adopted. The results of the assessment will be incorporated into the public hearing materials. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority VCH has no objection to the rezoning to allow for the potential subdivision of the property. VCH will review the domestic water supply and onsite waste water disposal systems as part of the subdivision review process. Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing It was deemed that a public information meeting was not required due to the minor nature of the application, the recent adoption of OCP and the discussions of this proposal by the applicants during public hearings on the OCP. There were no comments or letters submitted that questioned the purpose or requirements of this land use designation. A public hearing is recommended to be held on Tuesday February 3rd, 2014 at 7:00 pm at Coopers Green Hall, 5500 Fisherman Road in Halfmoon Bay. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Development Statement
54
Date: 9/4/2014Path: I:\GIS\PIMS\Projects\PIMS_2014.mxd
LegendThis information has been compiled by the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) using data derived from a number of sources with varying levels of accuracy. The SCRDdisclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this information.
Subject Property
£¤
101
£¤101
Rock
yR
idge
Rd
Northwood Rd
Wildwood Rd
Tapp Rd
Redrooffs Rd
Eastwood Rd
LeaningTree
Rd
Alderwood Rd
Leaning TreeRd
Ravens Cry Rd
Location MapRZ 310.162
:
Lakes
Streams
Park
55
n ‘
I—
NO
RT
H
56
-
2%
\0
\‘
>
-
tf)—
Ii,I
3E
\
cSi-’
c)
---
57
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 11, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014 FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area
Designation for Form and Character (OCP Amendment Bylaws 600.4 – Area E and 641.3 -Area D)
RECOMMENDATION THAT the report dated December 11, 2014 and titled “Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area Designation for Form and Character (OCP Amendment Bylaws 600.4 – Area E and 641.3 -Area D)” be received; AND THAT Elphinstone Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 600.4, 2014 receive First Reading; AND THAT Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 641.3, 2014 receives First Reading; AND THAT a public information meeting be arranged at a venue in either Area D or Area E in January 2015 (date and venue to be confirmed subject to availability).
BACKGROUND
With regard to the emerging approach to marihuana production facilities for Roberts Creek (Bylaw 310.156) and Elphinstone (Bylaw 310.159) there is a desire to allow for smaller scale facilities throughout each area on parcels greater than 1 hectare, where agriculture is a permitted use and with floor area limitations that reflect parcel size.
The current proposed floor area limits, based on parcel area are set out in Attachment A:
However there are aspects that are similar to industrial activity such as the need for an office, packing/distribution area, significant site security, internal climate control (requiring air quality equipment) and for an enclosed building (could include a glass enclosed greenhouse) that can have an industrial appearance.
The Local Government Act allows the establishment of objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial or multi-family residential development that are implemented via development permits. A development permit area (DPA) needs to be designated in the Official Community Plan (OCP); however the guidelines may be set out in the OCP or zoning bylaw.
The Board adopted the following resolution
523/14 Recommendation No. 18 Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area Designation for Form and Character (Areas D and E)
ANNEX G
58
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 2 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
THAT the staff report dated September 24, 2014 titled “Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area Designation for Form and Character (Areas D and E)” be received;
AND THAT the proposed Development Permit Area designation and SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310. 156, 2014 and SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310. 159, 2014 be referred to:
a. Area D and E Advisory Planning Commissions; b. Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee; c. Agricultural Advisory Committee; d. shíshálh Nation; e. Squamish Nation; f. Health Canada; g. Agricultural Land Commission;
AND THAT the Rural One (RU1) zoned land use designation be deleted from proposed Exemptions (b) and (c) as outlined in the staff report titled “Marihuana Production Facilities and Development Permit Area Designation for Form and Character (Areas D and E)”;
AND THAT staff attend the Area D and E Advisory Planning Commission meetings;
AND FURTHER THAT staff invite the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee members to attend the Area D Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION Consultation
Staff referred the proposal for a DPA to the Elphinstone and Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commissions (APCs), the SCRD’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) and the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (RCOCPC). Referrals regarding the DPA proposal and the zoning bylaw amendments 310.156 and 310.159 (to consider smaller parcels) were also sent to the following: shíshálh Nation; Squamish Nation; Health Canada; and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).
To date the following comments were received:
Elphinstone APC
MOTION That the APC agrees with the proposed bylaw and development permit area as presented, with the exception of extending the vegetative buffer from one metre to three metres. (Carried)
Member comments on the proposed bylaws and DPA guidelines included:
• Like idea of tying it to a license; it gives a level of control/enforcement more than what the Regional District could do. Concern about tying to a license if it doesn’t address all the issues we might be concerned about as a community. Put in what we are concerned with as a community. Make clear in the development permit what we do have authority to regulate.
• What are we really dealing with? In Area E, how many of these facilities are we looking at – a lot of facilities or nobody?
59
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 3 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
• Suggest that the OCP designate a DPA on any property that could support this use, but it would only apply on that use.
• The size of buildings causes me some concern; this size is not currently allowed. What happens if owner changes their mind, or shuts down the operation? We could be setting ourselves up for some larger buildings in the future. That could be addressed by the Board of Variance; we don’t have much input on that at all.
Roberts Creek APC
MOTION: The APC wishes to comment on the Staff Report. (Carried)
COMMENTS:
• Regarding Development Permit Area Guidelines (page 39, vii): Landscaping should be a minimum width of three metres rather than one metre.
• Regarding Waste Water: Effluent from marihuana production should be addressed, as outflow water will be contaminated with nitrogen and salt.
• Regarding Setbacks: Side setbacks should be 15 metres. A setback could be relaxed if it allowed the Marihuana Production Facility to be located farther from neighbouring houses.
• Regarding Community: Discretion has worked very well so far in medical marihuana production in Roberts Creek.
• Regarding Water Consumption: There was concern about how much water would be consumed by these facilities and whether rainwater collection should be mandatory. Others expressed the opinion that water metering would lead to efficient water use.
• Regarding Terminology: Cannabis would be a more accurate term than marihuana which is being used by the Federal Government.
Agricultural Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended that the following changes be made to the proposed bylaws and development permit area guidelines related to marihuana production facility use:
1. Development Permit Area Guidelines, Landscaping and Fencing: increase the vegetative screening buffer from one to three meters;
2. Remove “Visual Impacts and Design Requirements” section, with no controls on the exterior appearance of the facility (5 in favour, 3 opposed);
3. For marihuana production facility use, lot size should stay at 8-hectare minimum parcel size.
AAC member concerns and questions were raised in discussion, as follows:
• Lighting – Concern about impacts of lighting on the neighbourhood: lights from greenhouses, site parking, security lights, use of motion sensors. Staff noted facilities would be mostly enclosed, and that if there were a lot of glass in the building it could be shuttered in the evening. Different forms of setbacks could be utilized.
• Lot size – There was concern about crime, neighbours and “neighbours worrying about crime”. With a “smaller” lot, the operation could impact community ambience
60
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 4 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
and create angst in the neighbourhood. With an 8-hectare minimum lot size, there is enough buffer and space for people to get along, whereas with smaller lots there is the possibility of people having their personal property “violated by threats and violence”. There was concern that marijuana production facilities should not be on smaller properties and not in residential areas.
• Timing – Staff was asked if there was an urgency to pass the bylaws, in light of the pending court case on behalf of license holders under the previous regulatory system. Staff advised that the bylaw and OCP amendments had received first reading, and that the Board wanted this to go forward.
• Appearance of building – There was concern that restricting what the building looks like would be “opening up a can of worms”.
• Building size – Buildings would be permitted for this use that are larger than and in addition to what is allowed for floor space for an auxiliary building. What if someone changes their mind about producing medical marijuana after construction of the facility?
Agricultural Land Commission
The Commission has reviewed the First Reading editions of Zoning Amendment Bylaws No. 310.156, 2014 and No. 310.159, 2014 and the maps identifying private parcels that contain areas where agriculture is permitted by zoning (areas extending far beyond the ALR). The Commission will retain those maps in its files for future reference as needed.
The Commission has no other comment to provide at this time.
shíshálh Nation
shíshálh Nation staff confirmed receipt of the referral and a review is underway. The SCRD was requested to not make a decision regarding these proposed zoning bylaws prior to receiving the shíshálh Nation response.
SCRD Staff received comments from members of the public regarding the proposals reflected in Bylaws 310.156 and 310.159. These will be compiled and presented to the Board at a subsequent Planning and Development Committee in conjunction with the results of the public information meeting and referral comments.
Development Permit Area Designation (Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3)
Concerns about placing industrial style marihuana production facilities in or adjacent to rural/residential areas could be addressed by establishing a new development permit area for the form and character of marihuana production facilities. In response to the Board’s resolution and input received to date staff drafted bylaws to amend the Elphinstone Official Community Plan (Bylaw No. 600.4) and the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan (Bylaw No. 641.3). Copies of the bylaws are attached.
Staff consider that the input from the Area D and E APCs regarding a 3 metre rather than a 1 metre landscape buffer should be incorporated. Staff noted an incorrect reference in Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area of the Roberts Creek OCP and Byalw 641.3 includes an amendment to correct this.
At this point input from the AAC regarding removing the design elements is not incorporated. Keeping the option of design guidelines in the bylaws will allow for broader community input. This issue can be revisited prior to consideration of second reading.
61
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 5 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
SCRD staff note that comments from the First Nations were requested by January 19, 2015. However, it is desirable to gather public input for the OCP amendment bylaws. It would assist the public referral process if the Board were to give Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 first reading so that the public is clear that the new DPAs are acceptable in principle. While this is a decision by the Board, it is not the final decision and only furthers the consultation process.
Aspects of water use (including removal of contaminants) and how disposal of plant waste is achieved will be investigated. It will be provided at the information meeting and in the subsequent staff report.
Zoning Bylaw Amendments (Bylaws 310.156 and 310.159)
Bylaws 310.156 (Roberts Creek) and 310.159 (Elphinstone) set out the minimum parcel size and floor area limitations for marihuana production facilities in the Country Residential, Rural One, Rural Two and Rural Three zones for Roberts Creek and Elphinstone. These are set out in Attachment A for reference. The setbacks to all parcel lines is 15 metres and there is an 8.5 metre height limit for all buildings. The exceptions are for parcels greater than 8 hectares in RU2 and RU3 zones where the setback is 60 metres. The facility is to be used in conjunction with a dwelling. The bylaws clarify that on-site retail sales are not permitted, as set out in the Health Canada Regulations.
Bylaw 310.156 (prior to drafting separate Bylaws for Areas D and E) was the subject of a public information meeting on June 19, 2014; three people attended and the comments were provided to the Planning and Development Board.
No amendment to Bylaws 310.156 and 310.159 are proposed by staff at this time. This will be reconsidered after referrals and public consultation. Copies of the bylaws are attached for reference.
CONCLUSION The concept of a development permit area for marihuana production facilities has not been the subject of consultation with the wider Roberts Creek and Elphinstone communities. A public information meeting should be arranged early in 2015 to consider the proposed DPAs and to refresh the community as to where the bylaws are with respect to allowing facilities on smaller parcels.
Staff suggest that a single public information meeting be arranged at either the Roberts Creek Hall or the Frank West Hall, depending on availability.
Staff consider that prior to arranging the information meeting Bylaws 600.3 and 641.4 should receive first reading.
62
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 6 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
ATTACHMENT A Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek)
COLUMN I COLUMN II Where Parcel Area Is: The Maximum Permitted
Combined Gross Floor Area of all Marihuana Production Facility
buildings is:
For CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1A, RU1B, RU1C, RU1D,
(i) 1 hectare up to 2 hectares 200 m2 (ii) 2 hectares or greater 300 m2
For RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, RU3B
(i) 1 hectare up to 2 hectares 200 m2 (ii) 2 hectares up to 8
hectares 300 m2
(iii) 8 hectares or greater As per the maximum parcel coverage in the particular zone
Electoral Area E (Elphinstone)
COLUMN I COLUMN II Where Parcel Area Is: The Maximum Permitted Combined
Gross Floor Area of all Marihuana Production Facility buildings is
For CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1A, RU1B, RU1C, RU1D,
(i) 1 ha. up to 1.75 ha. 200 m2 (ii) 1.75 ha. or greater 250 m2
For RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, RU3B
(i) to (ii) as above (i) to (v) as above (iii) 1.75 hectares up to 8 hectares 250 m2
(iv) 8 hectares or greater As per the maximum parcel coverage in the particular zone
63
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 7 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
ATTACHMENT B SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 600.4, 2014 A bylaw to amend the "Elphinstone Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 600, 2007". The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Elphinstone Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw
No. 600.4, 2014". PART B – AMENDMENT 2. Elphinstone Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 600, 2007 is herby amended as follows:
a) In Policy B-1.1 Types of Development Permit Areas, amend 3 to read
“3. Where commercial or industrial areas are designated land uses, guidelines for the “form and character” of buildings, site and landscaping are provided for the issuance of building permits within Development Permit Area Nos. 4, 5 and, 6 and 7.”
b) In Policy B-1.2 General Policies on Development Permit Areas insert the following
after the end of 2 (h):
“(i) in Development Permit Area No. 7 only, if the development is adjacent to an industrial zoned property/industrial land use designation on all lot lines
c) Amend the title of Policy B-1.6 to read:
“B-1.6 Development Permit Area Nos. 4, 5 and, 6 and 7 – Form & Character Areas”
d) In Policy B-1.6 insert and the end of the section titled “Justification”: “(d) Development Permit Area No. 7 Marihuana Production Facilities
This development permit area applies to all lands in the Plan Area. The objective of the development permit area is to provide guidelines to ensure that a marihuana production facility is designed to fit into the neghbourhood with minimal visual impact.”
64
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 8 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
e) In Policy B-1.6 insert after section 6.3 the following:
“7. Guidelines Applicable to Development Permit Area No. 7 Marihuana Production Facilities
General Form and Character of Development Preservation of the established neighbourhood character will be achieved through:
Design
(i) Marihuana production facilities should be sited to afford maximum privacy to adjacent residential properties and minimize the impacts of noise, glare and shadows
(ii) Creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural or natural-like materials, and which is compatible with the scale and character of its surroundings;
(iii) In general, a variety of cladding and trim materials is permitted, provided that the materials have a natural or traditional appearance and are complementary to existing development;
(iv) Pre-fabricated industrial metal siding (such as “R-panels”) is not permitted; (v) Large, blank walls in excess of 6.0 metres (20.0 ft.) are not permitted unless
design elements such as faux windows are placed on the façade; Landscaping and Fencing (vi) Preservation of existing mature coniferous trees; (vii) Landscaping with a minimum width of three metres to create an effective
buffer around the development; (viii) Landscaping should include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plants
and/or trees which are suitable for the local climate (such as from the BC Naturescape plant list);
(ix) Provision should be made to conserve and supply adequate water to all planted areas, such as use of drip irrigation and/or rainwater barrels, and to maintain landscaping as approved ;
(x) Fencing adjacent to residential zoned parcels should be solid, unless combined with landscaping, and clad in wood, while also meeting Health Canada Security requirements;
Lighting (xi) Site lighting shall be directed downward to avoid “light spill” on adjacent
residential areas and designed following the Regional District’s Outdoor Lighting Standard;
(xii) Site lighting should be neutral in colour. High-pressure sodium (orange) lights are not permitted.
65
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 9 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
3. In D3 Interpretation and Definitions insert the following:
“marihuana production facility” means a facility used for the cultivation, processing, testing, destruction, packaging and shipping of marihuana as permitted under federal legislation.
4. Amend the Table of Contents as required 5. Map 2 (Development Permit Areas) of Elphinstone Official Community Plan Bylaw No.
600, 2007, is hereby amended by inserting the following text in the map legend: “DPA No.7 Marihuana Production Facilities applies to all lands in the Plan Area”
PART C - ADOPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 879 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND THE 10-YEAR WATER PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
Corporate Officer Chair
66
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 10 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 641.3 2014
A bylaw to amend the "Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641, 2011" The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Amendment
Bylaw No. 641.3, 2014". PART B – AMENDMENT 6. Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 641, 2011 is herby amended as
follows:
a) In Policy 16.3 insert the following:
“(i) in DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 8: MARIHUANA PRODUCTION FACILITY only, if the development is adjacent to an industrial zoned property/industrial land use designation on all lot lines
b) In Development Permit Area 6: Roberts Creek Village Commercial Core Area delete to
following: “CATEGORY: “e” Form and character of commercial development”
and insert:
“CATEGORY: “f” Form and character of commercial development” c) After the end of Development Permit Area 7: Agricultural Buffering insert:
“Development Permit Area 8: Marihuana Production Facility DPA8 applies to all lands in the Plan Area. CATEGORY: “f” Form and character of commercial and industrial
development JUSTIFICATION:
The objective of the development permit area is to provide guidelines to ensure that a marihuana production facility is designed to fit into the neghbourhood with minimal visual impact.”
APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES Development permits are required to regulate the form and character of development prior to the construction, addition or exterior alteration of a marihuana production facility.
67
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 11 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
Development permits issued for marihuana production facilities shall be in accordance with the following:
A) General Form and Character of Development Preservation of the established neighbourhood character will be achieved through:
a. Design
(xiii) Marihuana production facilities should be sited to afford maximum privacy to adjacent residential properties and minimize the impacts of noise, glare and shadows
(xiv) Creative building design that emphasizes the use of natural or natural-like materials, and which is compatible with the scale and character of its surroundings;
(xv) In general, a variety of cladding and trim materials is permitted, provided that the materials have a natural or traditional appearance and are complementary to existing development;
(xvi) Pre-fabricated industrial metal siding (such as “R-panels”) is not permitted; (xvii) Large, blank walls in excess of 6.0 metres (20.0 ft.) are not permitted unless
design elements such as faux windows are placed on the façade; b. Landscaping and Fencing
(xviii) Preservation of existing mature coniferous trees; (xix) Landscaping with a minimum width of three metres to create an effective
buffer around the development; (xx) Landscaping should include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plants
and/or trees which are suitable for the local climate (such as from the BC Naturescape plant list);
(xxi) Provision should be made to conserve and supply adequate water to all planted areas, such as use of drip irrigation and/or rainwater barrels, and to maintain landscaping as approved ;
(xxii) Fencing adjacent to residential zoned parcels should be solid, unless combined with landscaping, and clad in wood, while also meeting Health Canada Security requirements;
c. Lighting (xxiii) Site lighting shall be directed downward to avoid “light spill” on adjacent
residential areas and designed following the Regional District’s Outdoor Lighting Standard;
(xxiv) Site lighting should be neutral in colour. High-pressure sodium (orange) lights are not permitted.
68
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 12 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
IMPLEMENTATION: Regional District issuance of development permits by Board resolution prior to issuance of a building permit; Review of development permit applications by local residents, the Roberts Creek Advisory Planning Commission and Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee; Liaison with the Province and other relevant authorities.”
7. In Appendix C Definitions insert the following:
“marihuana production facility” means a facility used for the cultivation, processing, testing, destruction, packaging and shipping of marihuana as permitted under federal legislation.
8. Amend the Table of Contents as required 9. Map 5 (Development Permit Areas) of Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Bylaw
No. 641, 2011, is hereby amended by inserting the following text in the map legend: “DPA #.8 Marihuana Production Facility applies to all lands in the Plan Area”
PART C - ADOPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 879 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND THE 10-YEAR WATER PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 882 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
Corporate Officer Chair
69
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 13 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
ATTACHMENT C SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.156, 2014
A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987”. The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION
1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.156, 2014".
PART B – AMENDMENT 10. Insert Part 511 as follows:
“511 Marihuana Production Facilities 511 (1) In Electoral Areas D marihuana production facility is a permitted use in the
CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1B, RU1C, RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, and RU3B zones. Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek)
In Electoral Area D, provided that the combined gross floor area for the facility is calculated according to Table III where Column I lists the parcel size and Column II lists the maximum permitted combined gross floor area of all buildings that are part of the facility.
TABLE III
COLUMN I COLUMN II Where Parcel Area Is: The Maximum Permitted
Combined Gross Floor Area of all Marihuana Production Facility
buildings is:
For CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1A, RU1B, RU1C, RU1D,
(i) 1 hectare up to 2 hectares 200 m2 (ii) 2 hectares or greater 300 m2
For RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, RU3B
(i) 1 hectare up to 2 hectares 200 m2 (ii) 2 hectares up to 8
hectares 300 m2
(iii) 8 hectares or greater As per the maximum parcel coverage in the particular zone
70
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 14 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
Landscaping (3) a) All parcel lines on a parcel containing a marihuana production facility are
designated for the purposes of requiring landscaping to separate the use.
b) Landscaping, approved by the Sunshine Coast Regional District, of all land in a setback area abutting a parcel line shall be provided and maintained to mask or separate a marihuana production facility use on a parcel from adjacent parcels.
Height of Buildings and Structures (4) The maximum height shall not exceed 8.5 metres.”
Retail Sales (5) On-site retail sales of marihuana is not permitted
11. (Country Residential One – CR1) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1000.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1000.5 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
12. (Country Residential Two – CR2) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1000A.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1000A.4 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
13. (Rural One – RU1) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
14. (Rural One B – RU1B) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001B.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001B.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
15. (Rural One C – RU1C) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001C.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001C.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
71
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 15 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
16. (Rural Two – RU2) in Section 1011.1 renumber (7) to (8) and insert the following:
“(7) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
17. (Rural Two – RU2) Delete “1011.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility” and renumber 1011.6 through 1011.9 to read 1011.5 through 1011.8 respectively
18. (Rural Two – RU2) Renumber “1011.6 (2)” as “1011.6 (3)” and insert “with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares” to read:
“(3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
19. (Rural Two – RU2) Insert the following:
“1011.6 (2) with a parcel size less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
20. (Rural Two A – RU2A) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1011A.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001A.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
c) renumber 1011A.6 as “101A.6 (1)”
d) “1011A.6 (2) with a parcel size less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line”
e) “1011A.6 (3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
21. (Rural Three – RU3) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021.1: “(8) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
22. (Rural Three – RU3) Delete “1021.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility” and renumber 1021.6 through 1021.10 to read 1021.5 through 1021.9 respectively
23. (Rural Three – RU3) Renumber “1021.6 (2)” as “1021.6 (3)” and insert “with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares” to read:
“(3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1021.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
72
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 16 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
24. (Rural Three – RU3) Insert the following:
“1021.6 (2) with a parcel size parcels less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1021.8 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
25. (Rural Three A – RU3A) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021A.1: “(8) marihuana production facility subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1021A.7 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
26. (Rural Three B – RU3B) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021B.1: “(8) marihuana production facility subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 10021B.7 renumber “(4)” to “(3)” and insert “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 24th DAY OF JULY 2014
READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
__________________________
Corporate Officer
__________________________
Chair
73
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 17 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.159, 2014
A bylaw to amend the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987”. The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A - CITATION
1. This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.159, 2014".
PART B – AMENDMENT 27. Insert Part 511 as follows:
“511 Marihuana Production Facilities 511 (2) In Electoral Areas E marihuana production facility is a permitted use in the
CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1B, RU1C, RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, and RU3B zones. Electoral Area E (Elphinstone)
In Electoral Area E, provided that the combined gross floor area for the facility is calculated according to Table III where Column I lists the parcel size and Column II lists the maximum permitted combined gross floor area of all buildings that are part of the facility.
TABLE IV
COLUMN I COLUMN II Where Parcel Area Is: The Maximum Permitted Combined
Gross Floor Area of all Marihuana Production Facility buildings is
For CR1, CR2, RU1, RU1A, RU1B, RU1C, RU1D,
(i) 1 ha. up to 1.75 ha. 200 m2 (ii) 1.75 ha. or greater 250 m2
For RU2, RU2A, RU3, RU3A, RU3B
(i) to (ii) as above (i) to (v) as above (iii) 1.75 hectares up to 8 hectares 250 m2
(iv) 8 hectares or greater As per the maximum parcel coverage in the particular zone
74
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 18 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
Landscaping (3) a) All parcel lines on a parcel containing a marihuana production facility are
designated for the purposes of requiring landscaping to separate the use.
b) Landscaping, approved by the Sunshine Coast Regional District, of all land in a setback area abutting a parcel line shall be provided and maintained to mask or separate a marihuana production facility use on a parcel from adjacent parcels.
Height of Buildings and Structures (4) The maximum height shall not exceed 8.5 metres.”
Retail Sales (5) On-site retail sales of marihuana is not permitted
28. (Country Residential One – CR1) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1000.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1000.5 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
29. (Country Residential Two – CR2) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1000A.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1000A.4 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
30. (Rural One – RU1) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
31. (Rural One B – RU1B) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001B.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001B.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
32. (Rural One C – RU1C) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1001C.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001C.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
75
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 19 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
33. (Rural Two – RU2) in Section 1011.1 renumber (7) to (8) and insert the following:
“(7) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
34. (Rural Two – RU2) Delete “1011.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility” and renumber 1011.6 through 1011.9 to read 1011.5 through 1011.8 respectively
35. (Rural Two – RU2) Renumber “1011.6 (2)” as “1011.6 (3)” and insert “with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares” to read:
“(3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
36. (Rural Two – RU2) Insert the following:
“1011.6 (2) with a parcel size less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
37. (Rural Two A – RU2A) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1011A.1: “(6) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.” and renumber (6) to (7)
b) in Section 1001A.6 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
c) renumber 1011A.6 as “101A.6 (1)”
d) “1011A.6 (2) with a parcel size less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line”
e) “1011A.6 (3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
38. (Rural Three – RU3) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021.1: “(8) marihuana production facility in conjunction with a dwelling, subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
39. (Rural Three – RU3) Delete “1021.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility” and renumber 1021.6 through 1021.10 to read 1021.5 through 1021.9 respectively
40. (Rural Three – RU3) Renumber “1021.6 (2)” as “1021.6 (3)” and insert “with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares” to read:
“(3) with a parcel size parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares no building used as a marijuana production facility under Section 1021.5 shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line”
76
Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2014) Regarding Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 (Marihuana DPA designation Areas D and E) Page 20 of 20
N:\Planning & Development\6480 OCP Area E\6480-20 Official Community Plan\600.4 (SCRD marihuna)\2014-Dec-18 PDC Report re Bylaws 600.4 and 641.3 marihuana and design guides.docx
41. (Rural Three – RU3) Insert the following:
“1021.6 (2) with a parcel size parcels less than 8 hectares no building used for marihuana production under Section 1021.8 shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
42. (Rural Three A – RU3A) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021A.1: “(8) marihuana production facility subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 1021A.7 “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
43. (Rural Three B – RU3B) Insert the following:
a) in Section 1021B.1: “(8) marihuana production facility subject to Part 511 of this bylaw.”
b) in Section 10021B.7 renumber “(4)” to “(3)” and insert “(4) no building used for marihuana production shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line.”
PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 24th DAY OF JULY 2014.
READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR
__________________________
Corporate Officer
__________________________
Chair
77
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014
FROM: Andrew Allen, Senior Planner
RE: Parking on Carmen Road – Board Resolution 325/14 #6
RECOMMENDATION: THAT a letter be sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requesting the installation of no parking signs on Carmen Road in Electoral Area E: Elphinstone. BACKGROUND The following Board resolution was made at the June 12, 2014 Board meeting:
325/14
Recommendation No. 6 No Parking Report on Carmen Road
THAT a staff report be provided to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting regarding “No Parking” signs on Carmen Road.
Carmen Road is a frontage road parallel to Highway 101 and perpendicular to Veterans Road, in Elphinstone and extends west to a portion of King Road and east to Hough Road. It appears as though residents in the area are parking cars on the road allowance for the purpose of advertising them for sale. The SCRD does not have authority to regulate parking on streets within the electoral area boundaries through bylaw compliance action. However, a request can be made to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to install ‘no parking’ signs along Carmen Road, and subsequently monitor further infractions. The Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the sale of vehicles on a road without explicit consent of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. The following is a portion of Section 189 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which pertains to the sale of vehicles on a road allowance:
When vehicle stopping prohibited
189 (1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with traffic or to comply with the law or the directions of a peace officer or traffic control device, a person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle as follows:
ANNEX H
78
Request to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding ‘No Parking’ signs on Carmen Road in Elphinstone. Page 2 of 2
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5480 Parking Management\5480-01 General\No Parking Carmen Road 2014-Dec-04.docx
…(j) subject to subsection (4), on a highway for the principal purpose of (i) displaying a vehicle for sale,
(4) Subsection (1) (j) does not apply to a person acting under and in accordance with an authorization given under section 62 (2) or (6) of the Transportation Act.
Subsection 4 refers to the Transportation Act, which indicates that Ministerial approval is required for approval of Section 189 (j)(i). Essentially sales are not permitted, with the exception of when the Minister grants approval. It is not believed that Ministerial approval has been granted for parking use on Carmen Road. Local MoTI staff have indicated that with respect to enforcement of on-street parking, preference is given to safety and site line issues on a major road or highway over the inconvenience of cars parked on a secondary road for the purpose of being advertised for sale. As an example, ‘No parking’ signs were installed on the side of the Port Mellon Highway adjacent to the Langdale Ferry Terminal due to its proximity to a major intersection and turning lane down to the terminal. A letter from the SCRD requesting ‘no parking’ signs on Carmen Road could expedite installations of signs in this location. Enforcement of parking would be overseen by the Ministry and the RCMP and SCRD Bylaw Compliance Officers would not have jurisdiction to enforce this requirement.
79
SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014
FROM: Stina Hanson, Planning Technician
RE: Options for Ocean Beach Esplanade Road Closures and Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) (Area E)
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT the report titled “Options for Ocean Beach Esplanade Road Closures and Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) (Area E)” be received for information;
2. AND THAT the report be referred to the Area E APC, Ocean Beach Stewardship
Advisory Committee and Elphinstone Electors for comment;
3. AND THAT the report be referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and planning staff continue discussions with Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff regarding the public use of Ocean Beach Esplanade;
4. AND THAT the SCRD Board provide comments to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone), indicating that it does not support the application due to Policy B-10.5 of the Elphinstone OCP; however if the Ministry does support the application it should be done in a manner that protects the public use of the Esplanade and that the SCRD and the Ministry continue to collaborate on a long-term solution to the issue of structures that encroach into the right of way.
BACKGROUND At the November 27, 2014 the SCRD Board made the following recommendations regarding Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) located at 1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade: 558/14 Recommendation No. 14 Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone),
1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade, Lot 5 Block 1 DL 906 Plan VAP1342 (Area E)
THAT the report titled “Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) 1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade, Lot 5 Block 1 DL 906 Plan VAP1342 Area E)” be received for information; AND THAT a request be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for a deferral on the decision on this application pending a staff report on what process is required to address the needs of the various properties on Ocean Beach Esplanade that are in this same situation.
ANNEX I
80
Staff Report to SCRD Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014 Regarding Ocean Beach Esplanade and Application #2014-02231 (Bone) Page 2 of 4 Planning staff have contacted the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss options for a collaborative process that can consider the needs of properties on Ocean Beach Esplanade with development that encroaches into the right of way (there are approximately 13 buildings that encroach into the right of way between 1500 and 1980 Ocean Beach Esplanade. Ministry staff identified a number of potential issues with a process that attempts to either deal with all encroaching properties at one time (i.e. a coordinated road closure application) as there can be significant costs associated with these applications (both around required reports (geotechnical reports or other environmental assessments) and the potential cost of purchasing the land) that may require different timelines for different property owners and the situations of each property are likely to be unique, making a simple solution that can be easily applied to each of the 13 properties impossible. Ministry staff did comment favourably on the idea of developing a process or evaluation criteria that can be used for all future road closure applications on Ocean Beach Esplanade that can ensure the future operation and safety of the road is not compromised. They have begun this process through the evaluation of the current road closure application (File 2014-02231 – Bone) and made preliminary comments that reduced the amount of road requested as part of the application prior to sending the referral to the SCRD. A set of evaluation criteria has the advantage of allowing property owners to make road closure or redevelopment applications when it is appropriate for them. It also allows the Ministry to evaluate each application against a set of criteria that can prioritize the operation of Ocean Beach Esplanade and could also include a clause regarding the public use of the Esplanade. Planning staff are recommending this report be referred to MOTI and that discussions continue to ensure adequate consideration is given to the preservation of the Esplanade as a public use area during the evaluation of road closure applications. OCP Policy Respecting Ocean Beach Esplanade During the review and community consultation for the most recent road closure application (2014-02231 (Bone) located at 1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade) there were discrepancies between the recommendations of the three groups consulted (the Elphinstone APC, the Elphinstone Electors Community Association and the Ocean Beach Esplanade Stewardship Advisory Committee) and the OCP policy respecting the encroachment of privately owned structures onto the Esplanade (Section B-10.5) which states:
“Privately owned structures that are encroaching onto Ocean Beach Esplanade shall not be repaired or replaced if they are substantially damaged or destroyed. Further entrenchment of the private use of these public lands shall not be permitted.”
Each of the community groups supported the application, believing the road closure request was for the minimum amount of land possible and would not impact the future operation or public use of the Esplanade. Essentially, though an evaluation criteria was not provided, each of the community groups considered the application against a set of objectives for the Esplanade and not just against current OCP policies. The current policy severely limits certain property owners, like those at 1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade (File 2014-02231) that owing to the topography and potential impacts to properties located on the crest of the slope (that front Gower Point Road above), cannot safely redevelop
81
Staff Report to SCRD Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014 Regarding Ocean Beach Esplanade and Application #2014-02231 (Bone) Page 3 of 4 elsewhere on their property. This property is also unique in that there is approximately 20 metres of un-developed road allowance between the existing structure and the passable and constructed road allowance. Policy B-10.5 was changed from the previous OCP (Bylaw 297, adopted in 1987), which discouraged rather than prohibited the further entrenchment of private uses on public lands. It is clear that preserving public use and access to the Esplanade and the beach is of utmost community concern; however it is not clear that the approach of curtailing private uses will enhance or solidify public ones. A hallmark of great public spaces is often how they interact with or are defined by the private spaces at their borders. From increased public safety to points of visual interest there are number of elements that can support allowing road closure applications that support the redevelopment of existing properties, while enhancing the Esplanade as a community use area. Ocean Beach Esplanade Road Closure Criteria There are a number of elements that could be incorporated into criteria to evaluate road closure applications on the Esplanade including:
� Maximum amount of road area permitted as part of a road closure application
o This could be used to limit the road closure area to only that which immediately surrounds a building, plus a small buffer;
o This could also be used to limit successful road closure applications to residences that are partially located on the road allowance. If residences are wholly located on the road allowance any redevelopment would need to incorporate some of the parent parcel;
� Confirmation that redevelopment will meet OCP Development Permit Area
Guidelines
o Submission of any required geotechnical or environmental reports to determine that the property can be safely redeveloped prior to approval of the road closure application;
o Geotechnical or other environmental reports must confirm the road closure application is required in order to safely redevelop the property;
� Limiting road closure applications to properties with existing single family dwellings
o Road closure applications for auxiliary buildings, parking structures, retaining walls, patios will not be supported;
o Road closure applications (and the proposed accompanying development) should be designed to minimize the need for additional works on the road allowance including decks/patios, auxiliary buildings, parking structures, driveways or retaining walls;
� Preservation and enhancement of Ocean Beach Esplanade o Applications must enhance safety of all users of the Esplanade (cars,
cyclists and pedestrians). Building and landscaping elements should
82
Staff Report to SCRD Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014 Regarding Ocean Beach Esplanade and Application #2014-02231 (Bone) Page 4 of 4
consider visibility, the turning radius of vehicles, driveway slopes and limiting private parking areas on the right of way;
o Road closure applications should include a landscape/design plan illustrating how the application can provide positive design elements to the public and private realm fronting the Esplanade.
Next Steps Planning staff are recommending that the current dialogue with staff at MOTI continue to work on a potentially shared criteria that can be used to evaluate future road closure applications on the Esplanade. Depending on the results of these discussions (and additional community consultation) a process could be determined to allow SCRD concerns around maintaining the Esplanade as a community use area to be incorporated into MOTI evaluations of road closure applications. SCRD staff are also recommending the report be referred to the three community agencies that previously supported File 2014-02231 (Bone) to begin discussions around this criteria and whether or not it warrants an amendment to the Elphinstone Official Community Plan. Inserting an evaluation criteria for road closure applications would allow the SCRD to provide clear guidelines to property owners regarding future applications and could potential reflect the current attitude of the community, which based on recent referrals, has shifted from desiring a full prohibition on road closure applications. Since there is no clear timeline for these next steps, planning staff are requesting a recommendation on File 2014-02231 (Bone) (see Attachment 1) as MOTI has already extended their comment deadline twice. In light of the current Elphinstone OCP, planning staff are recommending that the SCRD Board comment that it does not support the application due to Policy B-10.5 of the Elphinstone OCP; however if the Ministry does support the application it should be done in a manner that protects the public use of the Esplanade and that the SCRD and the Ministry continue to collaborate on a long-term solution to the issue of structures that encroach into the right of way. Attachments: 1. MOTI Referral Application 2014-02231 (Bone - includes site plan, geotechnical
report)
83
Local District Address Sechelt Area Office
Box 950 Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0
Canada Phone: (604) 740-8987 Fax: (604) 740-8988
H1162-eDAS (2009/02) Page 1 of 1
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS REFERRAL
Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1 Canada
Applicant File #: eDAS File #: 2014-02231
Date: Aug/19/2014
Attention:
Re: Proposed Road Closure Approval Application for: 1952 Ocean Beach Avenue, Gibsons PID 014-837-064, Lot 5, Blk 1, DL 906, New Westminster, Plan VAP1342
Enclosed is a copy of a proposed Road Closure Approval Application regarding the above noted location(s) on 1952 Ocean Beach Avenue, Gibsons. It would be appreciated if you would examine this application package from the viewpoint of your operations, regulations and policies; provide us with your comments. If you have any questions please feel free to call Colin Midgley at (604) 740-8987. Please quote file number 2014-02231 when contacting this office.
Yours truly,
Colin Midgley Area Manager/District Development Technician
Attachment Geotechnical Assessment for Proposed Cottage 1952 Ocean Beach Esplanade Application Letter
Attachment 1
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
