Engineers and regional staff explain decision on Zoning Bylaw No. 66
Northern Rockies Engineering and Northern Rockies Regional Municipality (NRRM) staff provided a memo to council September 14th, commenting upon the public’s response at a meeting, Monday, September 10th regarding the Zoning Bylaw No. 66.
Residential Multiple
Family Zoning (RM_1)
The controversial RM-1: Residential Multiple family recommendations and changes were noted from the previous Bylaw No. 729. Single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings were no longer permitted unless as a Bare Land Strata development. However, there currently exists a significant number of single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings within Fort Nelson which are located in the RM–1 zone, creating a “legal non-conforming use”. This was not the intention of the provision. There was a major concern expressed by residents, prior to the public hearing, regarding their ability to insure their homes and other possible negative effects on property values, the memo noted.
In the current wording permitted uses under 6.7.2.1. are: a) Multiple Family dwellings; b) Two Family Attached dwellings (Bare Land Strata); or c) Single-Family Detached dwellings (Bare Land Strata).
The memo points out that the proposed wording for section 6.7.2.1 would include a) Multiple Family dwellings; b) Two Family Attached dwellings; c) Single Family Detached dwellings; or d) a Modular dwelling on a Permanent Foundation.
The proposed wording clearly spells out each of the permitted uses within the RM-1 zone and makes permitted use identical to Zoning Bylaw No. 729, passed in 2008. No one would be put into a “lawful non-conforming” status.
Following the concerns raised regarding a large number of lots which would become ‘legal non-conforming’, it is recommended that the RM-1 permitted uses be amended to allow single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings to remain as permitted uses.
BARE LAND STRATA
The memo describes the definition of the Bare Land Strata as described in section 4. An amendment to the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 (Official Community Plan) was recommended by the planners such that single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings are allowed as permanent principal uses in the RM-1 zone, in addition to being permitted as a Bare Land Strata development. During the public hearing, significant discussion and question arose regarding the term “Bare Land Strata”. It became clear that the term was not clearly defined. It was therefore recommended that a new definition for Bare Land Strata for the RM-1 Zone Bylaw No. 66 is as follows: Bare Land Strata means a form of property ownership, as regulated by the Strata Property Act SBC 1998.
HOME OCCUPATION AND HOME INDUSTRY
Another concern arose at the public meeting related to home based businesses. In the existing Zoning Bylaw No. 729 there are two definitions, “home occupation” and “home industry”. The titles and uses and were changed to “home based businesses” and “home based businesses with outdoor storage”.
Other changes in the definitions were as follows: the old bylaws stated that: Home Occupation – means any occupation, trade, profession or craft, including a bed and breakfast carried on by an occupant of the residential building as a use secondary to the residential use of the building which does not change the character thereof or have any exterior evidence of such secondary use and does not employ a person other than occupants of the dwelling unit in which home occupation is carried out (see Section 4.8).
Proposed bylaw No. 66 states this new wording: Home-based Businesses – mean any occupation, trade, profession or craft carried on by an occupant of a residential building as a use secondary to the residential use of the building (see section 3.13).
The old bylaw states that: Home Industry – means a use that is accessory to the residential use on the lot and may involve limited retail activity and outdoor storage including, but not limited to, trucking contractors, trade contractors, construction contractors, oilfield service contractors, repair and storage of contracting equipment, welding shop, portable sawmills and small-scale manufacturing and fabricating industries, and not including auto wrecking or salvage operations (see section 4.10).
Proposed bylaw No. 66 will change this to: Home Based Business with Outdoor Storage – means an occupation, trade, professional craft, carried out by an occupant of a residential building as a use secondary to the residential use of the building which may involve limited retail activity and outdoor storage (see section 3.14).
It was noted that the 15 regulations for a home-based business are unchanged. Three definitions for a home-based business with outdoor storage are unchanged from the present five. Only the need to have a valid business licence has been added.
The key issue is the deletion the definition of a home-based business with outside storage thus: “including, but not limited to, trucking contractors, trade contractors, construction contractors, oil field and service contractors, repair and storage of contracting equipment, welding shop, portable sawmills and small-scale manufacturing and fabricating industries, and not including auto wrecking or salvage operations.”
These businesses were not included in the new zoning bylaw for two reasons; first, each of these businesses would need to be defined further. For example, what is a trucking business? What type of the trucking business would be allowed? How many trucks could a home-based business have?
Second, the home-based business (HBB) subcommittee discussed at length what constituted an appropriate home based business but chose not to define what is and what is not an appropriate home-based business, as different members have different perceptions on this matter. Instead, the committee focussed on how to effectively regulate the (HBB) sector”.
With the lack of a definition, it is appropriate to not include the businesses listed in the previous definition of a “home industry”. It is difficult to specify some but not all businesses that may be appropriate home-based businesses. By removing the businesses it does not limit what business is possible for a “home-based business with outside storage”. As long as the four regulations are met, the use would be appropriate for basically any business. This could be viewed either negatively or positively depending on what people envision as a ‘rural lifestyle in our community.’
In addition Council guidance, at the August 8th, 2011 in-camera regional council meeting, stated that: “further, it was resolved that from a planning and development perspective that the home-based business/industry information and regulations be strengthened and enforced in NRRM bylaws to ensure that business/industry do not open in areas that are not zoned for this type of business, to lessen the tax inequities that currently exist, and ensure that further cases do not continue to appear.”
The recommendations from the NR Engineering and NR regional staff is that no changes be made to the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 regarding home-based Businesses and Home-based Businesses with Outdoor Storage.
The change of the titles and definitions of these uses do not alter the way that these uses are regulated, and therefore the changes are not in opposition to the home-based business (HBB) subcommittee recommendations.
PENALTIES
There a proposed stiff penalty for persons who violate any provision of this zoning bylaw and these impose a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 plus the cost of prosecution and a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. Each day any violation, contravention, or breach of the zoning bylaw continues shall be deemed a separate offense and that the enforcement of this bylaw by the NRRM is through the Community Charter. An enforcing officer or other officer of the regional municipality are designated to enforce the zoning bylaw.
The memo continues: this policy is intended to provide a range of possible fines should the courts determine the land-use infraction has occurred. Should the property owner refuse to take any action to correct any such infraction, then the regional municipality may seek a remedy from the courts in order to require the property owner to take remedial action.
“There is a concern that the range of fines is too severe. We believe that there is no right or wrong here. If the number is viewed by the community to be too high and therefore ‘offensive’ it can certainly be changed. The penalty of $10,000 was discussed with our legal reviewer, Christine Reed of Young Anderson. The penalty of $10,000 is common but there is a wide variation in the numbers published. There did seem to be a correlation between the older the bylaw and the lower penalty. Regional staff is not aware of anyone in the regional municipality ever being fined for zoning bylaw infraction.”
The level of the fine would be dictated by the courts based on the guidance provided by section 1.7 of the zoning bylaw.
The memo further states that if a lower minimum is more appropriate then this could be changed by Council.
The recommendation of NR Engineering and Municipal staff is that no change be made to the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 regarding the penalties policy.
However, it is stated that should council determine this policy still to be too severe they could remove the minimum penalty amount and have only a maximum penalty amount. Otherwise, they could decrease the minimum amount to $1,000, or to some other amount determined by the regional council. Additionally, they could reduce the penalty range to a minimum $1,000 or the maximum $5,000.
15 metre lots for duplexes.
Another issue discussed was section 6.1 residential single-family and duplexes. Concern has been raised regarding the ability of two-family dwelling duplexes to be built on a 15 metre wide lot; as this is perceived by some residents to be too small for typical two-family dwellings. However, this proposed size lot is only a minimum dimension, not a requirement: larger sized lots are permitted. In addition, in order to respond to public concern regarding the new ability for two-family dwellings to be developed on existing 15 metre lots, a new zone was developed, which does not allow two-family dwellings.
The proposed minimum size lots with duplexes of 15 metres is entirely consistent with other northern communities as well as other local governments in BC. There are good examples of duplexes on 15 metre lots. It must be stressed that the 15 metre frontage for duplexes is a minimum only. This provides maximum flexibility to develop both single-family homes and duplexes by allowing a minimum lot width of 15 metres. The memo noted that minimum size lots throughout BC are trending downwards due to the high cost of serviced land as well as sustainability issues.
Northern Rockies Engineers are constantly reminded in Fort Nelson of the high cost of land, servicing and building construction. The zoning bylaw provides maximum flexibility to develop in this high-cost environment. In addition, the engineers currently have only one duplex built on a 15 metre lot but it is a large corner lot property.
They recommended that no changes be made to the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 regarding this matter are.
PARKING AREA
The report notes that it is perceived by some residents that 40% of the required front yard area is still not enough area for driveways. The current wording of the bylaw relating to driveways is that for single-family detached dwellings and duplexes the total area utilised for driveways and off street parking areas may not exceed 40% of the required front yard, and no off street parking space shall be located within the required front yard except in the driveway. This 40% is an increase from the present zoning bylaw which 33%. The report states that a survey of driveways in Fort Nelson would appear to show a 50% area will be more appropriate and cover most situations. However, they were trying to balance the need for reasonable sized driveways with aesthetics, storage, drainage and permeability issues.
For duplexes, the engineers recommended a maximum driveway width of 6 metres per side of the duplex.
“It is somewhat unique to have this restriction in a zoning bylaw. In other jurisdictions it is under the Subdivision and Development Servicing bylaw and in some cases, drawings that go with it. We recommend leaving it in our zoning bylaws since it would be seen as hiding it in another bylaw if we moved it now. It should also be noted that 50% coverage of front yards with driveways and off street parking is a maximum, and developers/builders may choose to have lesser areas indicated thereto.”
The report recommended that for single-family detached dwellings, the total area for driveways and off street parking may not exceed 50% of the required front yard area and for duplexes may not exceed 50% of the required front yard area or 6 metres in width whichever is the greater. No off street parking space shall be located within the required front yard except in the driveway.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping regulations will apply in all zones, unless otherwise specified. The report notes that: All plant material and installation shall be to BC Landscape Standards published by BC Landscape and Nursery Association and BC Society of Landscape Architects Standards.
No invasive species are to be planted anywhere. The new section was added to provide guidance on what types of trees and shrubs grow well in Zone 2 plant hardiness zone.
The policy was not removed during the development of Proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 has changed significantly in wording since the first draft. Policy was intended to provide guidance regarding the types of plant materials that are appropriate and will last.
However Northern Rockies Engineering and municipal staff recommend that the requirement to comply with BC Landscape standards be removed.
Municipal staff note that the landscaper can work with municipalities to develop a list of particular trees and shrubs that can survive well in the Fort Nelson area and that are not wildlife attractants. Staff can provide this as part of the department permit guide.
IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS
The memo recommends a change to the irregular shaped lots section and proposes to change it to read: for non-rectangular lots, the required front yard, interior side yard, exterior side yard and rear area may be reduced, subject to the approval of the regional municipality, during the building permit application process. The intention of this is to lessen the hardship on property owners who have difficulty developing their lot’s irregular shape and not to impose additional cost and process time of a variance to the property owner.
AGRICULTURAL ZONES
The report makes the recommendation that no changes be made into the Proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 66 with regard to accessory uses in agricultural zones. The reason for this is that it is not within the jurisdiction of the regional municipality.
HIGHWAY SETBACKS
C–2: highway commercial setbacks. This change was recommended during peer review because it is the norm for highway commercial zoning use e.g. hotels, restaurants, etc. Concern was raised by council that imposing setbacks now would create varied sightlines along the highway commercial area. The potential exists for this in our current zoning bylaw as the setbacks are minimums that few developments build to, most choose to locate some distance from the highway. In addition, it was felt that setbacks were a waste of valuable commercial space. The new setbacks do vary what is already in place for some existing buildings. Such an example is the recent construction of Robin’s Donuts where the principal building is well set back to allow for parking on-site. The memo states that based on recommendations provided during peer review it does not recommend a change to the setbacks in C-2 zone.
NO REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE SUBMISSION BY MYRNA BLAKE
Chief Administrative Officer, Randy McLean, advised the regional council that there is little or no new information contained within the information packet submitted by Myrna Blake, as a 68 page comment form on the proposed bylaw, and as such, no response to these comments has been provided in the report.
FUEL STORAGE
Concern has been raised that allowing the Tank Farm as a principal use in M-1 could be confusing. The zoning permits a tank farm use in the M-1 zone that can be used for storage and distribution of petroleum, other organic gases, or material subject to section 3. 21. In addition, the provincial regulation of the BC fire code dictates the type and quantity of chemicals stored on a property.
It was noted that Fort St. John’s 2012 zoning bylaw and several other zoning bylaws do not list Tank Farms as acceptable uses. Fort St. John does permit bulk fuel installations and storage of oil, gasoline and other petroleum products as well as industrial, commercial and agricultural chemicals and feeds on the M-1 light industrial zone.
In summary, Jack Stephenson, Director of Planning, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, and David McWalter, Northern Rockies Engineering, responded to the concerns raised at the public hearing with the recommendation that council review the points made. The final bylaw will then be updated and thoroughly reviewed before being uploaded to the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality website. “We can advise the public, the changes have been made to the bylaw based on comments during the public hearing and request any further comments be addressed in writing to Northern Rockies Regional Municipality,” they said.
Follow
Recent Comments