District of Lantzville Agenda for the Regular Meeting of Council of the District of Lantzville to be held on Monday, February 24, 2020, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 2 nd Floor, 7192 I.antzville Road, Lantzville, BC Meetings Recorded by the District ofLa.n'tzvi.lle may be Viewed at www.lantzville.ca PageNo. 1-3 1. ADOPfION OF THE AGENDA THAT the regular February 24, 2020 Council meeting agenda be adopted, as presented.
2. RECOGNITION - Nil
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT (Member may announce, ifknown at this time, intent to make a declaration during the meeting per section 100/101 ofthe Community Charter) 4. PUBLIC AND STATUTORY HEARINGS 4-282 a) "District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw No. 180, 2020" - Notice of Public Hearing - Public Input
5. INVITED PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC DELEGATIONS - Nil
6. PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD (Persons recognized by the Chair to speak must.first state their name and address for the record, may speak once for up to 2 minutes (unless Council resolves otherwise), and are limited to providing comment regarding items listed on the Council agenda for this meeting (excluding public hearing topics). Comments must be directed to the Chair, are not to be directed to individual Council members, stqffor the audience and must not include personnel issues.
7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Nil 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES START OF CONSENT AGENDA 9. CONSENT AGENDA (Note: Council members may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda, or prior to the vote, may request an item be removed for debate, discussion and a separate vote. Items that present a Conflict ofInterest for a Council member must be removed and considered separately.) THAT the recommendations listed for item 9a) to 9c) in the Consent Agenda be approved. 283-287 a) THAT the February 10, 2020 regular Council meeting minutes be approved, as presented.
28-299 b) Bylaw No. 223 THAT "District of Lantzville Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 26, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 223, 2020" be adopted. END OF CONSENT AGENDA
10. BYLAWS 300-335 a) Bylaw No. 141 THAT District of Lantzville Council Procedure Bylaw No. 141, 2020 be given first, second and third readings.
P1 District of Lantzville February 24, 2020 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of3
b) Bylaw No. 180 Background: January 27, 2020 agenda report Recommendation, subject to public input: THAT "District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw No. 180, 2020 be given third reading and adopted.
11. CORRESPONDENCE - Nil
12. REPORTS a) Mayor & Councillors - Verbal Updates
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Security Camera Rebate Program Councillor Proctor's Recommendation (Notice of Motion Given 10 Feb 2020): THAT staff prepare a report outlining the feasibility of Lantzville developing a security camera rebate program similar to the one offered in Parksville.
NEW BUSINESS a) UBCM Community Emergency Preparedness Fund - Emergency Operations Centres 2020 Grant Application THAT the submission of the District ofLantzville grant application, by the March 13, 2020 deadline, to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Community Emergency Preparedness Fund for an Emergency Operations Centre grant for 100% project cost of up to $25,000 for the purchase of equipment and supplies (chairs, white boards, EOC bins/supplies, and computer), be approved; AND FURTHER THAT support for the current proposed activities and willingness to provide overall grant management, be acknowledged. b) Temporary Shelter Regulation Mayor Swain's Recommendation: WHEREAS the BC Supreme Court has provided direction to municipalities on how to regulate overnight camping in public spaces by people who are homeless; AND WHEREAS local governments cannot enact an outright prohibition on overnight accommodation on public lands by people who are homeless; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT staff be directed to research temporary shelter regulations and develop a bylaw for Council's consideration. c) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program - Grant Application for Water System Expansion - Wmds Residential Area THAT staff submit an application for grant funding for the Winds Residential Area Water System Expansion Project through the second intake of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and that Council supports the project and acknowledges that the level of senior government funding is at 73.33%; AND FURTHER THAT the District's share of the project cost will be subject to the establishment ofa local area service Council initiative - subject to petition against; P2 District of Lantzville February 24, 2020 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of3 AND FURTHER THAT if the District ofLantzville is notified that it is unsuccessful in obtaining grant funding for the Clark Drive Area Water System Expansion Project through the first intake of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, that the District of Lantzville reapply for the Clark Drive Area Water Expansion Project as the first priority project for the District of Lantzville.
15. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS 16. NOTICE OF MOTION
17. PUBLIC CLARIFICATION /INPUT PERIOD (Persons recognized by the Chair to speak must.first state their name and address for the record, may speak once for up to 2 minutes (unless Council resolves otherwise), are limited to asking clarification questions or providing comment regarding business discussed by Council at this meeting (excluding public hearing topics). Comments or clarification questions must be directed to the Chair, are not to be directed to individual Council members, stqffor the audience and must not include personnel issues. 18. MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC THAT Council closes the meeting to the public, pursuant to section 90(1) (e), (g) and 0) of the Community Charter, for the purpose of considering: • whether dealing in public with a matter relating to the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and if Council determines that such harm might reasonably be expected, the meeting be closed to the public for the purpose of considering the disposition of land or improvement of land by the municipality; • litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; • discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report]. Following adoption of the above motion, the meeting will be closed to the public. MEETING REOPENS TO PUBLIC
19. ADJOURNMENT THAT the Council meeting be adjourned.
NEXT SCHEDULED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING: Monday, March 9, 2020 @ 7:00 pm
P3 District of Lantzville Notice of Public Hearing
The District of Lantzville Council will hold a Public Hearing at the regular Council meeting on Monday, February 24, 2020 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall located at 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC to receive and consider input on proposed "District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw No. 180, 2020".
The purpose of the proposed Bylaw is to regulate the use, development and subdivision of all land and the surface of all waterbodies within the boundaries of the District of Lantzville. The proposed Bylaw and background information may be inspected on the District's website at www.lantzville.ca or at Municipal Hall located at 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC, Monday to Friday (except statutory holidays), 8:00 am to 4:00 pm until February 24, 2020.
If you believe your interests will be affected by the proposed Bylaw, you will be afforded an opportunity to be heard in person or by a representative at the Public Hearing, or by written submission. All written submissions: • Must contain your name and civic address and will in their entirety become a part of the public record. • May be presented at the Council meeting or, for those not attending, must be submitted to the Director of Corporate Administration prior to 2:00 pm, February 24, 2020 • May be submitted by hand delivery or by mail (District of Lantzville, 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0), by fax (250.390.5188), or by e-mail ([email protected]). Submissions cannot be received following the closure of the Public Hearing.
Please contact Kyle Young, Director of Planning, at 250.933.8083 or [email protected] if you have any questions.
P4 Kyle Young
From: Kyle Young Sent: August-26-19 1:03 PM To: ian savage; Mark Swain; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Savage Cc: Trudy Coates; Ronald Campbell Subject: RE: Secondary Suites Attachments: Attachment #7.pdf
Categories: Filed
Councillor Savage:
The revisions I made to the draft OCP, including adding secondary suites and carriage houses as supported uses in the land use designations, were generally outlined in my staff report to Council (see attached).
The draft OCP was inconsistent because it identified secondary suites and carriage houses as supported land uses and indicated that we would update the zoning bylaw accordingly with appropriate regulations. The OCP explicitly supports secondary suites and carriage houses. However, in order to put in place appropriate regulations, the land use designations should identify these as supported uses, which they didn't.
Having said that, the recommendations for zoning regulations would be the same regardless (with the wording in the previous draft or the wording in the adopted OCP). The difference now is that an OCP land use designation amendment is not required.
Council will need to decide how they wish to apply this policy in the new Zoning Bylaw. Secondary suite and carriages house regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, including the Issues you noted below, will be discussed in the staff report to Council.
Sincerely,
Kyle
Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250~933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] l~~;\ '; .h I, '\.~ {)1),-i ~Qt{~\'Ww This email end any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confid~ntlal, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other 1,1se of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited, If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, ;my attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system.
From: ian savage
1 PS Councillor Geselbracht
Good morning Kyle,
Re the new zoning bylaw. It appears there was a change made to our new ocp, shortly before it was approved in June.
The change was added to sections 5.2.5 (#4), 5.2.6 (#4), and 5.2.7 (#1): Secondary Suites and Carriage Houses became a permitted use in Residential, Estate ~esidential, and Rural Residential land designations.
Before May 2019, the only ocp statement I can find regarding secondary suites was :
"7.2.3 Secondary Suites
1. Secondary Suites can play o potential role in providing more affordable housing alternatives. The District supports the development ofsecondary suites Internal to residential buildings and carriage houses, with consideration of provisions to ensure neighbourliness in parking, privacy separation, standards of maintenance, and related issues. (The term "related issues" has been removed.)
2. The District shall create a set of regulations for secondary suites and carriage houses which will be added to the Zoning Bylaw."
My question Is, am I correct this change was made, and what are its Implications regards the new zoning bylaw ?
The concern Is, there was not a position developed on the ocp committee, as to how many total secondary suites, in what areas, and under what criteria. Nor was there such a position taken on the previous council or this council.
This was a discussion to take place some time in the future, which has yet to happen. The reason I didn't look for any changes made to secondary suite policy in the final ocp draft, was council made no motions to make such changes.
Thanks
Ian
Ian Savage 2503901958
2
P6 V!Hage C;,mmerc-.lal Co-re Is no.longer a- land use designation. The former draft OCP The draft OCP referenced 'VIiiage Village Residential has been defined and Village Residential' and 'Village Commercial Core', identified that Map SA showed the boundaries N/A Commercial Core has been changed to Village which were carried forward from the but It did not show the boundary. In the Primary Commercial Core to align with the SPA. previous OCP. definitions, this area extended to St. Phillips Church but this is inconsistent with the SPA boundaries. Added the word "approximaten for each bullet: "the approximate location... "
Added ".-ove r a period of at least S years" to 2 Section 1.2 first bullet. Consistency with the Locol Government Act.
Added " .. present and proposed... " to second bullet.
3 Section 1.3, Figure l Removed The timeline Is Incorrect and the graphic is not editable. In a municipality, the Council establishes 8 Section 1.4.1, definition of bylaw Replaced "community" with "Council" bylaws. Rare and/or fragile ecosystems that are at risk Section 1.4.l definition of environmentally This definition more accurately describes 8 from development and require speclal sensitive area ESAs. protection measures. Add definition of greenspace: "areas In a development that contain natural and planted 9 Section 1.4.1 vegetation, including forests and treed areas, Clarity soft landscaping, parks, rainwater management areas, and olanted boulevards." Previously undefined, which could cause 9 Section 1.4.1 Add definition of Village Residential confusion.
"'tJ I\) ....., .i:-. "'U -...J Section 1.4.1 definition of Intensive A development Involving Sor more housing 9 Coundl Motion residential units. Revise to: "or within a single building such as 9 Section 1.4.1 definition of Mbced Use dwelllng units above ground floor commen:lal Clarity uses". Add definition of mufti-unit residential: "a bulldlng containing two or more dwelling units, 9 Section 1.4.1 Including a two-unit dwefflng(duplex), Council Motion townhouse, rowhouse,apartment or supportive housing." Add definition of rowhouse:"means a building containing at least three attached dweHfngunits sharing common party wafts, whether 9 Section L4.1 subdivided from each-other or not, where each Council Motion dwelling unJt·has a separate ground-oriented entrante from the exterior of the bulldlmf' Revised to "There are two community use Section 2.1.5 ''There Is also a communityhall 15 bu1ldlnp In the Vlllase, lncludlnB Costin Hanand Clarity - Costtn.Hall-ln the Village• the nefghbourlnaformer church bulldlna."
18 Section 2.1. 7, operating capacity of Seavlew Changedto 298 Consultation with NLPS
The ALC's Is not to have minimum Revised to "_desfgnated Resource -Agriculture preference parcel areas that create an expectation of 41 Section 5.2.1.2, minimum parcel area and must not be further subdivided, except approval. Any subdlVlslon in the ALR requires where the District... • District and ALCa I. Section 5.2.1.3, reference to parks, Parks and recreation usesare not permitted In 41 recreation and ut1Utlesbeing permitted in Removed the ALR.The ALCspedftcaffy Identified this theALR poffcy as an Issue In the draft OCP. Section 5.2.1.3, reference to ALR Use, Revised to •ALR General Regulation and AlR 41 Leglslatlon was recently amended Subdivision and Procedure USe Regulation Revisedto "Addltlonal dwelllnp for farm labour Under the revised leglslatlon, a maximum of 41 Section 5.2.1.4, maximumtwo dweUings may:be supported for active farmlng·operatfons one dwelftng unit ls-permitted. Any second subject to· District and ~c approval. A dwellinR requires an ALCeoncatfon. It Is
;g ut ""C CX) maximum of one attached secondary suite Is unlawful for the ALCto approve a second supported." dwetllng for anything other than· farm labour. Revised to • -be spedflcal1y appmved under the 41 Section s.2.1.s ALCAct, Regu1attons,or by an order of the Consultation with ALC. ALC." Add new polk:y: "The District wmconsider 44 Section 5.2.3 establlshJng a Future Old Growth (FOG)tone in Councfl motion some parkland." The OCPsupports secondarysuites and coach Added secondary suites and coach housesas houses subject to addressing parking and 44 Section 5.25.3 permitted uses. privacy, but these uses were left out of the oollcv framework for land used · -~ons. The OCP supports secondary suites and coach Add a new policy: "'Secondary suites and coach houses subject to addressing parking and 45 section ·S.2.6 houses are supported" privacy., but these uses were left out of the pc,llcy framework for land use desllnatlons. The OCPsupports secondary suites and coach Added secondary suites and coach houses as houses subject to addressfng parking and 46 Section 5.2.7 .1 permitted uses. privacy., but these uses were left out of the polity framework for land usedesignations. - 46 Section 5.2.7.4 Deleted Council motion
56 section 7.1, third bullet Deleted secondsentence Cound1 motion Revised to • •..shall not be included In the To be consistent with change to density 57 Section 7 .2.2~3 maximum number of new IIDusfngunits." summarytables. Added access and servicing as rand use Additlonal clarity reprdln1 land use S8 Section 7.2.3.1 .. considerations. considerations Addednew polfcy: "11,e Foothffls Comprehensive Development Plan Area Is an 58 Section 7.2.4 Councl1motion aru that-requires further plannlng and land use analvsls."
~ 0)
"1J CD 64 Section 8.4.1 Removed DAI Councnmotion Revisedto "Base density In all areas In the same as current zoning. Density bonuslng wlff be Coundl motion 67 Section 8.5, third paragraph considered on a case-by-case basis through the rezontnaprocess." Coundl motion to remove prescriptive density bonus for partcland. ESAprotection, housing choice and Innovation required as part of all 72 Sections 8.5.5, 8.S.6 & 8.5.7 Removed new development. DAIA.requlrements part of new DAIABylaw. The remaining items wlD be captured In a community amenity contribution pol1cv / Ost. At the request of NLPS. NLPSsees this as 83 Section 9.2.7.7 Removed more of an operational Issue rather than a land use Issue. Revised housing-terms to be consistent with 91-114 Housing terms Council motion remainder of OCPand other designations. lhls Is just a statement of fact and Is not a 91-114 "DPAguldellnes also apply." Deleted pollcy. 93-114 Density SummaryTables Replaced with land use summary tables Council motion There was a single poHcy section for both the village commercial core and vfDagemixed use speclal plan areas. The vlllap mixed use SPA 91-94 Section 11.1.1 poffdes were extracted-and amalgamatedwith Council motion the vlllase south and vfllage lowlands SPAs. The pollcfes were adjusted so they make sense In the context of the amalaamatfon. 95-97 Section 1L1.2 Incorporated Into new Village South SPA. Councilmotion Coundl motion to delete prescriptive density Deleted density bonus for ESAprotection and Section U.1.4.3 bonus for parkland. ESAprotection required 101 parks. as nart of all new development. Cound1 motion to delete prescriptive density Deleted density bonus for ESAprotection and bonus for parkland. ESAprotection required 104 Section 11.1.5.3 parks. as nart of all new development. lbe Image does not Identify SPA and is 105 Flgure&B Removed Image dlfficult to interpret. Council motion to delete prescriptive density Deleted density bonus for ESAprotection and 107 Section 11.1.63 bonus for parkland. ESAprotection required parks. as nart of all new develoDment. Coundl motion to delete prescriptive density - Deleted density bonus for ESAprotection and 110 Section 11.1.7.2 parks. bonus for parkland. ESAprotection required as aart of all new development. The Image Is of the Interior of a vet cllnlc and 112 Ftaure71 RemovedImage does not really contribute to the SPA. Vet clinic was addedas an exampleuse In the SPA. Certain types of Development Permits are 116 11.2.1.4 Added "Coundl or delepte" delegated to staff. 117 11.2.4 Added 3 new DPAs Coundl motion
119 11.3.3.4 Revised references to out-dated legislation To be consistent with current leslslatlon
AddedRAR exemption for fanning adlvltles In the ALRthat are consistent with the Farm 119 11.3 PracticesProtedion Act andthe Ministryof Requestedby the ALC Aarfculture's Riparian Factsheet for watercourse setbacks. In 2011, this was determined by the BC Removed Fisheries and Oceans Canada 11.3.7(a)(b) Supreme Court to be an unlawful process · 119-120 'variance'/ approval process. (Yanke vs Citv of Salmon Arm) To group environmental, hazard lands and 122-128 DPAorder ChanaedtheorderofDPAs general DPAs.
~ CD .....-u" ..... Add new Gutdellnes to increase ecological 126-128 DPA emphasis and require greenshores approaches Council motion to shorellne protection. Added "The entire District Is designated a Development Approval Information Area,in accordance with Section 485 of the Local The lqlslatlon requires the designation to be 148 Section 11.14 Government Act, for the purpose of requiring part of the OCP. development approval Information as part of zoning bylaw amendment, temporary use ·permit, and development permit aoaftcatlons". All maps were updated to reflect most recent Maps All maps To be current cadastral with Foothills parcel lines Typically,If there is a single map feature that Combined into a single Map 4. Previously, Is the subject of the map (e.g. Special Plan Maps MapsSA&SB there was no Map 4. Areas) it would anbe on one map unless the map becomes too cluttered. Previously, there was a single map containing Maps Map10 Separated DPAsinto different maps. all DPAsbut with the addition of three new DPAs,the map became too duttered.
~
-'8...... I\) Kyle Young
From: Kyle Young Sent: August-29-19 3:48 PM To: Councillor Savage Cc: Mayor Swain; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Wilson; Will Geselbracht; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: Zoning Bylaw
Categories: Filed
Councillor Savage:
The text in blue is my response to your questions. Your remaining questions will need to be discussed at the September 5th in-camera Council meeting.
Question 1
1.3 Rural Zone
Current zoning New ocp Proposed zoning Dwelling 1 unit for 4.94 acres or less 1 per 2.47 acres (see below) 1 unit for less than 1.98 units 2 units for more than 4.94 acres per parcel acres 2 units for 1.98 acres or more Animal care Permitted in Rural 2 zone Dog kennels not mentioned Dog kennels permitted in Only on lots 4.94 acres or as a Rural zones, no minimum bigger permitted use (see below) lot size given
Question - Is this correct, the proposed rural zoning deviates from the new ocp in the following ways: a) 2 dwellings are proposed to be permitted for lots 1.98 acres or more, rather than the ocp's 1 dwelling per 2.47 acres. We can increase the threshold to l ha but the OCP does not state that the density is 1 unit per l ha. The designation establishes a minimum parcel area for subdivision at l ha and separately indicates that 1 house and either l suite or carriage house is permitted b) dog kennels are permitted on rural zoned properties with no restriction on lot size. That's correct. There are no Rural 2 zoned properties in Lantzville. There is one Rural 3 zoned parcel in lantzville that permits animal care - it does not specify a minimum site area and allows kennels to be within 8 m of a parcel line where the parcel is greater than 0.4 ha and withm l m where the parcel is 0.4 ha or less in area. Both setbacks are insufficient. Setbacks are a more appropriate regulation for kennels than parcel area because using area alone doesn't take into consideration parcel configuration (e.g. large parcels that happen to be narrow). A setback of 30 mis recommended. Once you establish what you believe is an appropriate minimum setback, the actual parcel area becomes irrelevant. With respect to supported land uses, I would consider a kennel to be a type of home occupation in a rural setting. I separated this from other types of home occupations or home businesses given the potential land use impacts and the need to establish larger setbacks.
Question 2
P13 1.3 Estate Residential land designation
Current zoning New ocp Proposed zoning Currently appears to be zoned 1 unit per acre. Such land Rural zoning RS1K which allows 1 unit per acre may be given a rural zoning in the zoning bylaw. Minimum parcel 1 acre 1 acre (see below) 2.47 acres area
Question - While this is permitted in the ocp, what is the reason to give Estate Residential a Rural zoning designation, with a minimum parcel size of 2.47 acres instead of 1 acre ? Unlike the Rural designation, the OCP does not specify a minimum parrel area for the Estate designation. The recommendation is to set the minimum at 1 ha in order to discourage, rather t han encourage, rural subdivisions. Despite the zoning, without municipal wat er, 1 ha would be minimum parcel area at the subdivision stage required in order to meet Island Healt h's standards. The supported density could be in t he form of a second dwelling (either strata-t itled or not).
Question - If zoned Rural, does this mean a dog kennel would be permitted on any property designated Estate Residential in the ocp ? Ye s, it would be permitted but subject to t he 30 m setback, which would generally preclude smaller parcels.
Question 3
1.8 Village Commercial Zone
Current zoning Newocp Proposed zoning Front setback 8 metres 0 to 8 metres to be determined 1.5 metres During Development Permit process Permitted uses Micro-brewery Micro-brewery not listed as a permitted Use, but is a permitted use in light Industrial Height No minimum It appears there is not a minimum Minimum height 2 stories on north side, height height policy in the new ocp? 3 stories on south side.
Question -Why does the 1.5 m front setback contradict the new ocp? Ocp pg 164, Section 11.10.5 # 58 stipulates the front setback can be 0 m to 8 m to be determined during the development permit process. It states "Storefronts should be undulating" ... "a strong street wall is not preferred." The 1.5 m front parcel line setback does not contradict the OCP. The OCP does not state that t he "front set back can be Om to 8 m" The policy you are referencing states that "While buildings may locate near the front of lots (not farther back than 8 metres, to be determined at the time of development permit) ..." . Some zoning bylaws do specify a Om set back for commercial zoning. The objective is to foster a greater interaction between store fronts and the sidewalk and public space. One of the issues that I have found with no setback is that weather protection elements (canopies) end up over public property, which requires encroachment agreements. The recommendation is for a 1.5 m setback to allow for a small amount of separation for canopies and potential landscaping/flower box elements If a developer wants to build closer than 1.5 m, they could request a variance from Council as part of their Development Permit application.
2
P14 To give further clarity, the June 11, 2014 minutes of the Village Improvement Committee state "The setback be Oto 8 metres determined at the time of Development Permit. The vote passed with one member opposed."
Question - Why is there a minimum height requirement? Why could not a business build a one or two storey business on the south side, or a one storey business on the north side ? Most current businesses would not be in compliance with this policy. The minimum height on the south side of Lantzville road identified in the Village Commercial Zone b 2 storeys so they would be able to building 2 storeys if they wish. A 1 storey building would be an under-utilization of land within the village core. New or amended Zoning Bylaw regulations do not apply retroactively to existing development.
Question - Does the proposed zoning bylaw allow the following in the Village Commercial Core? -Craft beer micro- breweries - (the ocp permits it} Yes -new pubs in addition to the current pub Yes -Gas station No -Auto repair No -Food and beverage processing Craft beverage processing only, and bakeries and butcher shops (we can look at adding others but should also carefully consider the appropriatPness for a village commercial setting) -Public market (as opposed to just "market" in the proposed bylaw Ves, this is permitted under 'market'. Zoning bylaws cannot zone for public vs. private uses -Night public market during the warmer months, with lots of people and noise Yes, permitted under market -Noisy businesses like a woodwork or metal artisan, a bar or restaurant with live music until closing time, outdoor night bingo for seniors with a microphone calling out numbers, night time dance studio with loud music, or outdoor busking ... In other words noisy night time activities to make the village vibrant in the warm months These types of issues will be dealt with through the good neighbour bylaw, not the zoning bylaw. Woodwork or metal artisan is not permitted.
Question - What is the reason for a minimum parcel area of only 600 sq m (6458 sf) ? This would generally be the smallest area needed for a commercial development on a commercial property. However, subdivision would be subject to the discretion of the Approving Officer and the applicant's ability to prove the viability of the parcel (e.g. building footprint, setbacks, access/egress, onsite parking).
Question 4
1.10 Light Industrial Zone
Question - Is Heavy Equipment Display still a permitted use in proposed bylaw? Yes Or big truck related businesses ? Not sure what this would be. Are there any currently permitted uses, which would be disallowed in the proposed bylaw ? No, but there are uses taking place in the industrial park now that are not permitted under the current zoning bylaw.
Question 5
1.12 Golf Course Zone
Question - ls this the same zoning as existing zoning? Essentially, yes. However, campground 1s not a permitted use in the Golf Course zone. Does this effect a pending development application ? No, the
3
P15 application received by the owner is to rezone the whole property from either the current zoning or the proposed zoning, whichever is in place at the t ime the bylaw proceeds to Council.
Question 6
Future Old Growth Zone - Can a Future Old Growth Zone be included in this proposed zoning bylaw? Further discussion is needed to understand t he intent and application. The zoning bylaw likely isn't the right place to establish t his.
Sincerely,
Kyle
Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: kyoung@ lantzville.ca
This emall and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information ond Proteciion of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is s1rictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system.
4
P16 Kyle Young
From: Kyle Young Sent: August-30-19 2:46 PM To: Councillor Savage Cc: Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates; Mayor Swain; Councitlor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Wilson Subject: Zoning Bylaw - Future Old Growth Zone Attachments: Future Old Growth Zone.pdf
Categories: Filed
Councillor Savage:
Further to our meet{ng, thank you for providing the attached Information. To summarize, your intent is to create a Future Old Growth Zone as part of the Zoning Bylaw project but that is separate from the actual Zoning Bylaw. This zone would then be applied to a portion of the Foothills Park and/or other areas of Lantzville and added to the Zoning Bylaw at a later date once there is land to which to apply it. I advised that you may wish to address this at the September 9th Council meeting, should the Zoning Bylaw be presented publicly at that meeting.
Sincerely,
Kyle
Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] ,,~~ _JP L{(ttti,\'tiffe This email and any attachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and may be confidential, priviteged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other we of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by retum email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system.
P17: Future Old Growth (FOG} Zones
Intent - to restore some of BC's old growth forests, most of which have been logged.
Method - Zone certain forested park areas "Future Old Growth Zones" which means the primary use is to become an old growth forest. Obviously tree removal would be highty regulated. However, these zones could still allow secondary uses of all the typical recreational uses of a park.
My suggestion is to have such a zone under 1.16 Park Zone. Just like RS1K is a type of zone within a residential zone, the Fog zone would be a type of park zone, within a park zone. Just like the ALR zone preserves agricultural land, the FOG zone preserves old growth forests.
• One aspect of this zoning is marketing and branding. lantzville will be the first community to have such a zone. It gives a special feel to a common second growth forest.
• The other spinoff is it will hopefully set an example for other areas in BC to do the same, so we can reverse the trend of depleting more and more of these very limited forests.
• Timing is of the essence, as we want such zones in place before we transfer the Foothills park to the Regional District. And we want one of the terms of this transfer to preserve these zones.
P18 Kyle Young
From: Teresa Mc:Gorman
Categories: Filed
Hello,
I want to write in support of the work being done by the District of Lantzville in regards to legal secondary suites.
Secondary suites that are properly planned and managed can ensure that Lantzville has the ability to remain a multi generational community. They can facilitate co-housing options for family members and enable multi-generations to live and support each other allowing a level of independence for everyone.
We are a young family, who are building and investing in this amazing community. The opportunity to have a legal suite in our new home will provide a lower cost housing unit which will be inviting to an other young family to move into this community, or a comfortable space for an older couple that wants to remain in the community. In the future, a suite will also give our parents, who are long-time Lantzville residents, an opportunity to have their own independence and space yet close to us for support, when the time comes for them to down-size.
The opportunity to have secondary suites is essential for a complete community.
This is a time of change and we are excited to see the growth and development of this amazing community.
Regards, M. Ryan and Teresa McGorman
l P19 From: [email protected] Sent: September-10-19 11:45 AM To: Kyle Young Subject: foothills secondary suites
To whom it may concern, It has been brought to my attention that the Lantzville foothills area is not being considered as part of Lantzville's plan to allow carriage homes or secondary suites. As a 10 year resident in upper Lantzville and currently building a home on Spence's way I am very much in favor of secondary suites and carriage homes for properties that fall within the guidelines. As the foothills development continues to grow there will be many larger (half acre plus) lots available and there should be no reason that a legal suite or carriage home cannot be built if the land suits it. This would be a massive mistake on the councils behalf if they do not allow such a large part of our growing community to allow secondary accommodation. Regards, Dustin Layzell
Top 100 Re/Max Team Western Canada 2015- 2019 #1 Re/Max Team on Vancouver Island 2015, 2016, 2017 #1 Re/Max Team in British Columbia 2017 #3 Re/Max Team in Western Canada 2017
DUSTIN LAY2EH L~ /\ { . t. l LA ... Dru GE A ...A. I,"/;. L 1 0 ~.
lsLANoHoMEGRour.coM
P20 Kyle Young
From: Ronald Campbell Sent: September-09-19 2:44 PM To: ian savage; Mayor Swain; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Savage Cc: Kyle Young Subject: RE: Draft Zoning Bylaw
Categories: Filed
Good afternoon Ian,
With regard to item 1 of your email below, the proposed bylaw is on the agenda for information only. The intent is to make the document public so that the community has time to review it and provide input. Once the public process is completed all information will be provided to Council at which time Council will have as much opportunity/time as needed to review the document, the public input and provide staff with direction.
Kyle will be providing responses to the remainder of your email sometime this week.
Thank you.
Ronald campbell, CLGM I Chief Administrative Officer District of l.antzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8080 F: 250.390.8080 E: [email protected]
Make every second count!
This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you arc not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, Is strictly prohibited. If you received this me5sage In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system.
From: Ian savage
In preparation for tonight's meeting:
1
P21 1. In the rezoning bylaw staff report, under "Next Steps and Timing'' it recommends Sept 10 - 13 ''Revise the bylaw should Council wish to provide specific direction at this point." What opportunity does council have to provide specific direction ? Are you suggesting it be done at tonight's council meeting?
2. Have you an answer on those Estate Residential designated properties which have a current zoning of RSlK, RSll, or RSlM, as indicated by the highlighted zoning map I gave you. All 3 of these zonings give the right to have minimum parcel sizes smaller than 2.47 acres, but the new proposed zoning bylaw would take away these rights and impose a 2.47 acre minimum parcel size. Is this correct?
RSlK - 1 acre, no water or sewer, 1 acre with community water - subject to VIHA regulations. RSlL • 1 acre, no water or sewer, 1/2 acre with community water - subject to VIHA regulations. RSlM • 1 acre, no water or sewer, 1/2 acre with community water • subject to VIHA regulations.
3. In the staff report, re secondary suites, there is only reference to existing houses. Would the draft zoning bylaw also allow every newly built house to have a secondary suite or carriage house, subject to the listed conditions ?
Thanks Ian
Ian Savage 2503901958
2
P22 Kyle Young
From: Kyle Young Sent September-09-19 2:18 PM To: Councillor Savage Cc: Mayor Swain; Will Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Wilson; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: RE: Future Old Growth zone
Categories: Filed
Councillor Savage:
Council has not provided direction to prepare a Future Old Growth Zone.
Sincerely,
Kyle
Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzvllle I 7192 lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] ",}A·. .i Lt: From: ian savage Hi Kyle, Also wondering, is the Future Old Growth Zone going to be publicized soon? I understand it won't be part of the zoning bylaw, yet, but would be standing by when land is available. Thanks Ian Ian Savage 2503901958 l P23 I From: Vicki Erickson Hi Kyle, thank you so much for the time you took to explain the new proposal for subdivision in our area of Lantzville. I am impressed. Allowing a second dwelling while restricting lot size to one hectare not only preserves the rural atmosphere we value but also allows homes for our elderly and young to be developed. It allows people like ourselves, who can no longer maintain our larger property to downsize and stay in the community we love. This appears to be a well thought out plan in keeping with the request of Lantzvillagers. Thank you, Vicki Erickson P24 From: Grant Lansdell We reside at 6905 Rosalyn Cres., Lantzville. We support the proposed Carriage House proposal that is before council. Our property is a one acre property. Best Regards Grant Lansdell 250 3904114 250 230 2462 Sent from my iPhone P25 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: September-13-19 3:03 PM To: Councillor Savage Cc: Mayor Swain; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Geselbracht; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: RE: Draft Zoning Bylaw Categories: Filed Councillor Savage: Yes - a secondary suite would be permitted within an existing house, a new house on a vacant parcel, or a replacement house (i.e. rebuild). However, there may be situations where an older, existing house is designed in such a way that would preclude the installation of a suite given the BC Building Code requirements. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] ~~ ar-..~~;, _l Lm1ti-Vif& This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review. retransmission, printing, copying. circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictlv prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: Councillor Savage Thanks for your reply. And is a secondary suite or carriage house, a permitted use (subject to the proposed conditions), in all new houses? ------From: Kyle Young 1 P26 Councillor Savage: Subdivision is not a right. Owners are not entitled to subdivide simply because they have zoning with a minimum parcel area that would allow for it. Regardless of zoning and minimum parcel areas, the Approving Officer may refuse to approve a subdivision. The draft bylaw does not take away any rights from these land owners. The zoning bylaw must be consistent with the OCP and in staffs view, the zoning bylaw is consistent with the OCP. The Estate Designation supports 1 unit/ac. The zoning correspondingly allows for 2 units where the parcel is at least 2 ac. The Estate Designation supports applying a Rural type zoning, which we have done. The Estate Designation states that the minimum parcel area is 1 ha where there is no Municipal water or sewer. The zoning correspondingly establishes a 1 ha minimum parcel area. This is also consistent with Island Health's subdivision standards. I would like to point out that the same policy that establishes the 1 ha minimum also states that "In no cases shall minimum lot size be less than 4,000 sq.m. (1 acre) without community water and community sewer being in place". The areas you have highlighted are not within the sewer service area, which means that this criterion will not be met. Once those area are serviced with water, owners could apply for a zoning amendment to allow for a 1 ac minimum parcel area and the District will review those proposals to ensure consistency with the OCP and the District's sustainability objectives. As stated in the report, "approximately 1,400 properties that are not currently permitted to have a suite or carriage house may be permitted to have a suite or carriage house". Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, M.SEM, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] (' LQ.Mtz,Vi/&, This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Prhlocy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, clrculatlon or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: ian savage In preparation for tonight's meeting : 1. In the rezoning bylaw staff report, under "Next Steps and Timing" it recommends Sept 10-13 "Revise the bylaw should Council wish to provide specific direction at this point." What opportunity does council have to provide specific direction ? />!.re you suggesting it be done at tonight's council meeting? 2 P27 2. Have you an answer on those Estate Residential designated properties which have a current zoning of RSlK, RS1L, or RSlM, as indicated by the highlighted zoning map I gave you. All 3 of these zonings give the right to have minimum parcel sizes smaller than 2.47 acres, but the new proposed zoning bylaw would take away these rights and impose a 2.47 acre minimum parcel size. Is this correct? RSlK -1 acre, no water or sewer, 1 acre with community water· subject to VIHA regulations. RSlL - 1 acre, no water or sewer, 1/2 acre with community water - subject to VIHA regulations. RSlM - 1 acre, no water or sewer, 1/2 acre with community water - subject to VIHA regulations. 3. In the staff report, re secondary suites, there is only reference to existing houses. Would the draft zoning bylaw also allow every newly built house to have a secondary suite or carriage house, subject to the listed conditions ? Thanks Ian Ian Savage 2503901958 3 P28 VVILLIAMSON & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS 3088 BARONS ROAD, NANAIMO B.C. V9T 485 PHONE: (250) 756-7723 emafl: [email protected] September 17, 2019 District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Road Lantzville, B.C. VOR 2HO Attention: Kyle Young, Director of Planning RE: District of Lantzville Draft Zoning Bylaw Review Dear Sir, We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft version of the new District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw. We have extensively reviewed the draft and have itemized our comments, questions and recommendations below. Should you wish to discuss any of these items in more detail, we are available at your convenlence. Throughout the draft bylaw, the draft distinguishes Lanes from Highways as per the definition of highway In the Land Titles Act. Please see our comments below under Part 3: Definitions for more information on this. It Is our recommendation that the Conversion Quick Reference on Page 3 be removed. Computers, Internet search engines, and calculators provide accurate precise conversion between imperial units and SI units. Quick Conversion Tables are outdated and no longer necessary. Part 1.2: Residential Zone Maximum Height should change based on the slope of the primary roof structure. For example, City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw uses the slope of 80% of the roof surface area (In plan view) to determine whether single family homes are allowed to be 7m or 9m tall, with 7m height applying to homes with roofs that are flatter than a 4:12 slope. Our professional opinion Is that the minimum parcel size for the residential zone is massively wasteful. As this is In-line with the OCP, we recognize that there is no changing this lot size in the zoning bylaw at this time. Part 1.4: Foothills Zone Why are suites and/or carriage houses not allowable In the foothills zone? It is our recommendation that parcels over 2,000 m2 be allowed to have suites or carriage homes to be in~line with the residential zone. Part 1.S and 1.6: Future Special Area Plan Zone and Future Study Area Zone We disagree with the approach of creating these zones and requiring land owners to provide comprehensive development plans and a rezoning application for property that is currently developable. P29 ! Part 1.11: Agriculture We recommend that large parcels in this zone be allowed to have two separate dwellings (carriage house or second home) but restrict from subdividing or creating a strata. This would allow large farm properties to have a second dwelling for farm staff or family. The zoning map shows part of Winchelsea Golf Course partially in the Agriculture zone (the golf course zone in this area is not contiguous). Was this an oversight or a carry-over from the old zoning map? Part 2.1: Suites and Carriage Houses In your policy document, it states the District of Lantzville has concerns about shoddy driveways potentially servicing additional dwelling units, hence this section of the bylaw prevents a// lots with common driveways from having suites. We assume that this Is a concern with respect to general access as well as emergency access. We recommend that suites be allowed on lots under the condition that there is a District of Lantzville approved constructed common driveway. Part 2.4: Fences More clarification is needed to define the main structure of a fence? We recommend that the height maximum should be to the highest point of the fence (typically the post caps). How is the fence height determined if the fence Is built on a retaining wall which is less than 1.2m tall? Is the fence height the added height of the wall and fence? Why is this not the case for walls over 1.2 metres tall? We recommend that where a fence is built on a retaining wall, the combined height is the fence height and where the two structures are separate, that the heights are not combined. The challenge with fence heights to natural grade Is if there is disturbance of the grade (and no topographic survey Is done prior to the fence construction), how do you determine what natural grade was and whether or not it applies to the fence height? Part 2.5: Retaining Walls We have noted that the definition of a retaining wall is that it is a structure. We also that this bylaw does not allow for retaining walls to be built in the setbacks (fences are allowable in the setbacks under section 2.4). We recommend that Section 2.5 should be revised to allow retaining walls under 1.2 metres in height to be built within the setbacks similar to fences. Part 3: Definitions Apartment: The definition restricts an apartment to those with an Internal common hallway. Does this definition need to be restricted by using the word "internal"? How would this bylaw handle a multi-storey, multi.. unit building (mixed use or wholly residential) that uses a common, external walkway? Floor Area Ratio: The diagram included in this definition is ambiguous. In the top illustration, it shows a recess of the building where the external decks are, but in the bottom illustration, it does not show the same recess. This seems to imply that decks (which are external to the exterior walls) are part of the Floor Area Ratio P30[ ! calculation? The definition of Gross Floor Area specifically says "all floors in a building" which we believe to mean that decks are not to be included. Highway: Throughout this bylaw, the term highway is used in contradiction to the definition in Part 3. Highway Is provincially defined in Land Title Act as "includes a public street, path, walkway, trail, lane, bridge, road, thoroughfare and any other public way". We recommend that highway as defined in this bylaw reflect the provincial definition, and that the bylaw be revised so that the term "street" or "road" be defined and used instead of highway In most instances. For example, using the current definition of highway, a Front Parcel Line would be any property fronting a road, lane, or walkway because lanes and walkway are "public ways''. We further recommend that you review the City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw definitions for some guidance in this. Height: Firstly, there is a typo in the definition. This definition will need to be expanded or a policy document available to the public would need to be prepared to define "outermost corners of a building or structure". As it is currently defined, surveyors, architects, designers, and planning staff could all interpret this definition differently. The City of Nanaimo height guidelines works well and we recommend that they could be adopted here. The benefit is that it is consistent in this geographic area (local surveyors, architects and designers know these standards) and they have been in use for some time and few misinterpretations. Lane: In other municipalities, a lane differs from streets as being specified as narrow. You may wish to add this to the definition. Mixed Use Building: This definition should be revised to remove the term "apartments" and it should be replaced with "dwelling units" (please see your definition of apartment). Natural Grade: Existing state prior to disturbance is hard to determine if there is no measurable or observable stop date. In the City of Nanalmo, natural grade Is as per January 1st, 2004 as they have 1 m contours available for that date for the entire municipality. It would be nearly impossible to state if ground with undisturbed and natural if changes were made 20 or 30 years ago. If the District of Lantzville wants to use this, there needs to be some publicly available data to use to compare existing state to verify that it has not been disturbed. Note that even forested sites could have been disturbed and reforested, and could appear to be natural and undisturbed in the span of a few decades. If no topographic data is available to establish a stop date, we recommend adding to the definition "with the assistance of a Geotechnical Engineer should the Surveyor deem it necessary''. Parcel Area: We recommend that the area of a panhandle be included in Parcel Area. Retaining Wall and Structure: The definition of a retaining wall is that it is a structure. The definition of structure includes retaining walls over 1.2 metres in height. The conclusion is that there is a conflict in these definitions. Is a retaining wall under 1.2 metre in height a structure? Top of Bank: The definition includes an illustration of a ravine bank. The illustrated slope shows the run being smaller than the rise suggesting that the slope measure is 3V:1H. The worded definition says "flatter than 3:1". Does this mean 33% (18 degrees) or 300% (71 degrees)? The definition should be clarified. We also noted that Top of Bank is not used anywhere in this bylaw. Why do you have this definition in this bylaw? Watercourse: This definition includes all ditches. This would mean that no development could occur within 15 metres on any property that has a road side ditch. This needs to be reviewed and revised. We recommend thatno,ditch be included in this definition. P31 We hope that these comments and recommendations are beneficial to you and council. Should we have misinterpreted anything or missed anything pertinent, please let us know and we can revise this letter accordingly. We again thank you for the opportunity to review this bylaw and provide our opinions. Regards, Williamson & Associates Professional Surveyors TylE.l~ ~ . From: Bob Hoffstrom Hi Kyle I have looked at the proposed new bylaw and background comments on the DOL website and would like to comment on the proposed F-SA zone, particularly in the Owen Road area. It is proposed to allow what could be double the density in this area based on permitted additional carriage houses or suites. Although it is unlikely that every existing property will take advantage of this provision, I am concerned that an increase in density at this time will result in further depletion of the aquifer for those properties that are on wells, and potentially create sewage disposal, and drainage issues. With the increase in density typically comes more site development ( carriage house roofs, landscaping, driveways, and on-site parking), which in turn increases runoff, water demand, and reduces the ability for groundwater recharge. Further, much of this area geology includes sand and gravels which can render proper sewage treatment of septic fields tricky due to high infiltration rates. Recent house renovation and development activity in this area appears to have demonstrated little or no attention to these issues. One example includes what is effectively a new "duplex'' on Owen Road complete with full lawn, swimming pool, and irrigation system. This appears to be a trend with newer residents who want and expect all the amenities of a city in Lantzville where full services are not available. Your background to this proposed zone indicates that applicants must prove sufficient well and sewage treatment capacity, however, there is no mention of the impact on the aquifer of this increase in density, nor increased runoff/reduced aquifer recharge, and increase in sewage discharge to ground. The proposed zoning bylaw therefore is premature in my opinion, until the proper engineering studies can be done to determine the long range impacts of an increase in density for this area. I would be happy to give you a neighbourhood tour and provide further discussion on this at your convenience. Bob Hoffstrom 6880 Nestor Way, Lantzville P33 From: Bob Ea kin Hello Kyle - I have been waiting for carriage house options - my use is for eventual care giver use so I can remain In my res longer. Had a quick spin through the draft -your comment please to help me better understand is I am at 6671 Elm. Over an acre, still on well and out own sewer treatment but I understand as new development across tracks On Clark might see us able to connect to town water and sewer in reasonable? Near future. Anyway appreciate your comment specific to Elm road applications. Thanks Kyle Bob Eakin [email protected] 250-714-4664 C P34 District of Lantzville Councillors, CAO, Planning staff, members of Economic Development and Sustainability Committee and Residents. September 23rd 2019 Re: Draft New District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw, B. Blood 1. The proposal to allow the construction of the secondary detached dwellings euphemistically referred to as "carriage houses" on the majority of Lantzville properties is not congruent with previously received information from residents on the values of our neighborhoods. Our attitudes to our comfortable properties are sometimes described as "wasteful", "complacent" or "environmentally unsound' by those who seek to increase densities. For residents of these neighborhoods, who form a majority of our population, the values that always top the satisfaction surveys are "privacy", "treed", "commodious", "peaceful" etc. These are the values that sustain the identity of Lantzville as a community. If we enable the near-doubling of our densities by allowing secondary detached homes in the existing densest neighborhoods - old Lower Lantzville, Pederson/Leland, Winchelsea and the Winds (when they get sewer)-we will lose the above-mentioned values. When we become just like the other North Nanaimo neighborhoods what is the point of carrying the burden of independent municipal government? 2. On a procedural note; the inclusion of the secondary detached dwellings in the proposed bylaw is baffling. How and why did they come to be included when it has been consistently demonstrated that we like our existing neighborhoods the way they are? The attempt by some councillors to double the densities in the existing neighborhoods by amending the completed OCP last year was defeated. This proposal mirrors that attempt by allowing two detached dwellings on each property instead of allowing their subdivision. Where does this relentless pressure to fundamentally alter our neighborhoods come from? Not from us. Only a handful of residents have asked for this. For this provision to remain we need it to undergo a more thorough public vetting process, ideally including a referendum. A proposal that could so fundamentally change the nature of our comfortable neighborhoods deserves nothing less. 3. The need to regulate suites is compromised and confused by linking it to "carriage houses" in the proposed bylaw. Suites, though controversial, need to be studied. I suggest the striking of a citizen task force to examine and advise on the need for auxiliary suites in existing homes. Suites are less intrusive in existing neighborhoods than the transformative "carriage houses" would be. Unregulated suites already provide some housing alternatives that meet the needs of seniors, singles, and young people; P35 those most identified as needing housing alternatives. Some unregulated suites have become problematic for neighbors so the decision to allow and regulate auxiliary suites must come from citizens; those who will be impacted by them. Many other jurisdictions that have broadly allowed auxiliary suites have experienced a regulatory nightmare, an inability to enforce regulations and some very angry neighbors. If we are going to meet this housing need, let's take the time to get it right. What is the rush? 4. Please consider allowing the "small hotel" designation to be extended to waterfront properties of an appropriate size, particularly the problematic low-lying waterfront parcels. The ever-increasing base height requirements and the costly engineering they entail can more easily be met by commercial investment for the tourist accommodation industry than by individual homeowners. It is only a matter of time until these residential properties begin to fall in value given the environmental and regulatory attempts to deal with rising sea levels and with the insalubrious effects of the rising water. Commercial investment can be recouped in revenues within the SO to 100 year window of opportunity. Up to 20 rooms in a high end boutique hotel, buffered by landscaping from neighboring residential properties could be successfully applied. The waterfront is the ideal location for tourist accommodations. Our shores and beaches are our major attraction and a handful of boutique hostelries would be an economic driver through the initial stages of sea level rise before these properties are overwhelmed. It would offer an economic alternative to current low-lying waterfront property owners faced with inexorable flooding within a few generations. It may seem like fiddling while Rome slowly burns but what else are we going to do and who will pay? 5. Please also consider the creation of an intermediate zone of development surrounding the CBD that buffers existing residential neighborhoods from the busy-ness of an enhanced commercial zone. This buffer zone could be used to diminish densities (residential and commercial) as the commercial zone approaches the existing neighborhoods so they merge more seamlessly. All zoning changes need to respect the existing satisfactions and values of the residential neighborhoods as they are. 6. I suggest that the idea of building heights in the CBD be re-considered. First, that the 3 story limit on the south side of Lantzville Rd. and 2 stories on the north side be reversed. The current rules now make no sense and I say this as one of the 'OS Steering Committee members who originally proposed this feature. If the respective height profiles were set up to protect views from the upper side of the "Lantzville Projects" lands they do nothing on that score. Now that the cleared land allows us to actually look at the CBD from that vantage, 3 stories on either side of the road makes no difference. Why I suggest shorter buildings on the south side is for light and shadows. Even 2 stories on the south side will cast some shadows onto the re-envisioned streetscape, especially in winter. Higher buildings on the north side will mostly shadow their own parking areas. P36 They will form an onshore wind barrier and, more importantly, create a sun trap for the proposed park-like amenities along Lantzville Rd which should be clustered along the north side of the road. Otherwise, all commercial building heights should not exceed 2 stories where they will cast winter shadows on existing residential neighborhoods. This is particularly important for residents on the north-facing downhill slope on Lancrest and Dickinson where an increase in building height in the CBD would leave them shaded and damp for much of the winter. It should be kept in mind that the bulk of the "Lantzville Projects lands will have little or no sea views at all with even two story structures in the CBD. Take a look. Thank you for reading and considering this critique and suggestions for the proposed zoning revisions. Respectfully, B Blood P37 From: Leona Skovgaard Hello I read the Proposed New Zoning Bylaw with interest and I intend to read it again more thoroughly. Obviously a lot of thought has gone into this and a lot of good things are on the way. However, one unfriendly thing did jump out at me. The District of Lantzville categorically denies anyone the opportunity to live on the water. That seems wrong. Why are people restricted to living on land? Some people I am certain would be more suited to living on the water and that could be offered, arranged and managed in a way that would enhance the community. Best regards, Leona Skovgaard P38 From: Ruth Abramson Hi Kyle, I've read the bylaw and while overall it looks good, I'm very concerned about the pet regulations. I live in what used to be a rural area and now seems to be classified as residential (Sebastion Rd.) I have 2 mini goats which I was planning to bring down to live at my property once our maintenance and sewage work is done. Mini goats are less invasive than dogs, don't stink up a place like chickens, and don't even make noise. Please confirm that the bylaw will be grandfathered for residents who already own properties which we have been allowed to keep pets such as these on before. My neighbour's property used to keep horses on it was well. I am concerned about this thrust for Lantzville to become the city. Thanks, Ruth Abramson P39 September 26, 2019 District of Lantzville PO Box 100 7192 Lantzville Road Lantzville, BC V0R2H0 Attention: Kyle Young Dear Sir: Re: Draft Zoning Bylaw The current Lantzville zoning bylaw is basically the original RON Bylaw 500 that has been slightly modified to become the District of Lantzville's zoning bylaw. The current bylaw is badly outdated and due to the fact it was originally an RON bylaw, it is more than overdue to be revised. As you are aware, zoning bylaws are complex documents. When changes are made to these types of documents, sometime the changes can have unintended consequences. One of the challenges with this exercise in developing a new zoning bylaw is aligning the zoning with the OCP, especially with legacy zoning in place. Overall I believe that most of the changes are positive, however there are a number of items that I would like to provide comments on. My comments and some potential changes for consideration are as follows: 1. Suites and Carriage Houses a. The legalizing of suites and carriage houses is long overdue with a large number of "illegal" suites already in the community. Following the process outlined by the Regional District is a positive solution which will not severely impact existing suite owns but will ensure that new suites being constructed will meet appropriate standards. b. If legally possible the bylaw should only allow suites and carriage houses where the owner lives on the property. . c. Carriage houses should only be allowed on properties that meet a minimum parcel size (ie ¼ acre or 1,000 sq m) d. Suites and Carriage homes should be allowed in the Foothills development. The public feedback during the OCP process supported this use in all areas of the community. With new construction underway in this area, owners will be constructing suites regardless of the zoning. It is far better to have the suites built to code and properly inspected at the time of construction versus owners constructing unapproved suites. e. Parking seems too often be an issue regarding suites. The problem is exacerbated by the small road frontages of panhandle lots in cul-de-sacs, which limits on-street parking. A 6898 Harwood Drive/ lantzville1 BC VOR 2HO / 250. 714.3063 / [email protected] P40 Page 12 solution to this would be to not allow (by covenant) suites on cul-de-sacs in new developments. Property purchasers would be aware at time of purchase that this is not an allowable use, as the covenant would be registered on the property title. 2. Residential Zone a. The minimum parcel size in this zone is 2,000 sq m(l/2 acre). Fully serviced lots (water and sewer) should be a maximum size of 1/3 or ¼ acre. The capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs for the community of such large properties would be extremely costly. b. The front yard setback is being reduced to 6m from the current 8m. Some large trucks are over 6m in length. For these large properties there is no need to reduce the setback or reduce the setback to the home to 6m but leave the setback for the garage at 8m. c. Exterior side yards are currently Sm and the proposed setback is 3m. This setback typically applies to comer properties. With the larger parcels the setback should remain at 5m or at the most be reduced to 4m. d. The side yard setback is currently 2m from the edge of eaves or other protrusion from a building. The new bylaw proposes to change this setback to be measured from edge of foundation, which is simpler to measure for contractors and owners. The change though effectively reduces the current setback to 1 .4m. A better solution would be to increase the side yard setback to 2.5 m which would allow the simpler method of measurement but effectively keep the setback the same for these larger properties. e. The new bylaw proposes to impose a minimum parcel width of 25m. Currently there is no restriction on parcel width other than the road frontage must be a minimum of 10% of the perimeter of the property unless relaxed by the Approving Officer. There does not appear to be any issues with parcel width in the community so this restriction seems unnecessary. 3. Rural Zone a. The one specific use, other than residential (and associated uses), that is specifically identified as an allowable use is kennels. While many residents are pet owners, allowing what is usually a controversial use for all properties in this zone will be problematic. Uses such as kennels should require a public process to be located on properties in this zone. b. The new bylaw proposes a minimum parcel width of 50m. As per the previous comments for the Residential Zone, this seems unnecessary. c. A number of properties in the Superior Road area that currently are zoned for 2,000 sq m or 4,000 sq m (½ or 1 acre) minimum lot size will have their properties downzoned to Iha (2.5 acre). There is a high probability that sewer and water lines will be installed immediately adjacent to these properties. These residents will be negatively affected by this change. P41 Page 13 4. Future Special Area Plan Zone a. Downzoning these properties to a 10 ha parcel size from their current½ acre (2,000 sq m) zoning appears to be punitive to these property owners. The intent to encourage comprehensive development on these sites is understandable but downzoning may not be the best strategy. 5. Future Study Area Zone a. Downzoning these properties to a 10 ha minimum parcel size from the mostly ½ acre (2,000 sq m) zoning seems punitive to these property owners. The intent to encourage density greater than ½ acre parcels is understandable, but without a definitive time frame to complete the study, this change doesn't appear to be fair to these property owners. Their properties will be somewhat in limbo until the study is complete. 6. Village Commercial a. The increase for all properties to a Floor Area Ratio of 1 is a positive move. b. The increase to 50% parcel coverage will make redevelopment of the Village more viable. c. Restricting hotel usage to a maximum of 20 units may discourage this type of development as a project may require more units to be economically viable. 7. Agricultural Zone a. Parcels less than 0.4 ha size in this zone are allowed to construct 15m (5_0 ft) high buildings. This is the same maximum height as the larger parcels in this zone. A better solution would be to reduce the maximum height to 8 or 9 m for these smaller properties. b. Fencing is not addressed in this zone. The ALR may not allow fencing restrictions but if it is allowable for the District to include a maximum height, it may be worth considering a 2.5m (8 ft) restriction to allow protection from deer but regulate the overall height. 8. Golf Course a. The proposed zoning for the golf course does not include the portion of the golf course that extends into their ALR parcel. The portion of the golf course that extends into their ALR lands under the existing zoning is currently zoned recreation. It would appear that this portion of the golf course should be zoned Golf Course under the proposed zoning. 9. Home Business a. For property owners to operate a Bed and Breakfast they should be required to go through a public approval process so that neighbours are aware of the proposed use and can have input. Many residents, especially those who are older, can find it uncomfortable to have different vehicles arriving and departing at all hours from a neighbouring home. b. If legally possible, Bed and Breakfast operators should be required to live on the property. P42 Page 14 10. Parking a. The new bylaw proposes one parking stall per bedroom for all types of housing. This is excessive. The maximum number of on-site parking spaces required for any type of home should be 3 spaces regardless of the number of bedrooms. b. Overall the commercial parking appears to be on the higher side. With increased density and hopefully better transit these parking requirements should be able to be reduced. c. The requirement for covered short term bicycle storage appears excessive. Bicycle storage may better be dealt with as a Development Permit item for commercial development. 11. Setback Projections a. Open decks, porches and verandas should be required to be within the building setback areas and not a reduced setback. Often these structures are on the second storey of a home which will overlook adjacent properties affecting their privacy. b. Provisions for reduction of the setback area by 0.Sm should apply to Bay Windows and Fireplaces as setbacks are proposed from the foundation not the current edge of eave. 12. Farm Animals a. Due to odour issues, some communities don't allow swine or hogs on non-ALR parcels. The District may want to consider this restriction. b. Larger parcels may be able to support more than 2 animals, particularly horses. 13. Other Observations a. The golf liquidation property is being downzoned from a commercial zoning to Rural. This would make the property legal non-conforming which will probably be problematic for the owner. b. The zoning doesn't address Air BnB or VRBO or other short term rentals in residential zones. This should be explored through the consultation process. c. Utility use should be included as a blanket use for all zones. d. The definition of "structure" includes heat pumps. This would seem to indicate that a building permit is required for a heat pump. e. The definition of "yard" indicates that it is between property line and the setback. A better name for this would be "setback area". Most residents would consider yard to be the area of their property that is not built on. f. The definition of "height", especially with the recent increase to the Foothills and proposed increase for some of the new zones, should specifically address flat roofed homes. With the increases to 9 m (9.5m in Foothills) it can potentially allow three storey flat roofed homes. The City ofNanaimo has additional restrictions on flat roofed homes to prevent three storey buildings. The additional height above 8m in most zoning bylaws is to allow the steeper 9/12 - 12/12 pitched roofs on many of today's modem homes, while still limiting them to two storeys. P43 Page IS If you have any questions, or require further clarification on any of the above items, please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, ~------Dave Scott cc District of Lantzville Council P44 i7 fa ~ :.,;;\- d ~ ; ~ ~ c,.rw.) 0. ~ l.....,J h 1> 6- 40\A_ cq 7C-t32.. Arvi)fl.£A tt'lES. , ~, Ov.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~. Wvt ~c!\ ~ .A-1) ~~ ~ 6-" c_(W\...,:~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~- .5-L.,...__ ~ _u, <>-\ ~ ~~. \,._iL""-'. ~ v-MM-J._ ;.,_ ~ 1, A.._ ~-V- 2~} B-1,~ ~S-... ~J ~ ~ . (t.~Jl~ R,c.µA .1-f l lg> ~Lf" lf-W v(l. N c\ N 'i ;o-- 1{" - D8 D \ P45 From: ian savage I would like to please request the following factors be considered in the economic analysis of development scenarios, for our Nov 4 meeting. 1. Secondary suites and smaller second houses are being promoted for new and existing houses. This proposed vast increase in the renter population will raise service costs - parks, roads, transit, bylaw officers, police, more staff. However, renters don't pay property taxes. Such rental suites are somewhat tax exempt, as they only marginally increase the tax assessed value of the property. Nanaimo is building innumerable rentals in the Woodgrove area, which makes them somewhat unnecessary here. These renters will work in Nanaimo at businesses which pay commercial taxes to Nanaimo, so Nanaimo benefits. Lantzville receives no such benefits from suites/second houses, just the costs. 2. Also, in rental apartment buildings the owner pays property taxes for each unit, because each unit is fully accounted for in the property tax assessed value. This is not true for houses with suites/ second houses, which only marginally increase the tax assessed value of the property. And only if BC Assessment is aware of the suite. Hence, the most economically beneficial rentals for Lantzville will be rental apartment buildings, or rental houses where it is the sole dwelling unit on the property. 3. The more dwelling units (including these proposed suites/second houses), the faster we reach population 5000. At that point we pay a police cost increase of at least $462 000 per year. Each year we delay this, can be viewed as a savings of this annual amount. A Duncan councillor recently said they are keeping their population under 5000 to avoid what he anticipates to be a $500 000 annual police cost increase. It takes the property taxes of many houses just to pay this increase every year. 4. The more dwelling units (including suites/second smaller houses) the more Nanaimo water we will use. Nanaimo water will increase costs for all water users : a. A portion of user fees will go to Nanaimo to pay for bulk water. This will cause a shortfall in water operational cost funding, which qepends on user fees. Increased fees will be needed to cover the shortfall. b. We will pay for the Nanaimo water which leaks. We currently do not pay for leaked Lantzville well water which is free in the ground. c. The cost of bulk Nanaimo water is slated for increases. 5. The development amenity of land/neighbourhood public greenspace, has the highest economic benefit of all development amenities. It endures over time, and appreciates in value. It mitigates water runoff, air pollution, and highway noise. It provides recreation, protects wildlife, and enhances lifestyle. There is no replacement cost, its economic life is unlimited, and P46 maintenance costs are low if it remains in a somewhat natural state with trails. Development acquired public land can also be used for future municipal infrastructure. Such land is cost prohibitive to buy. 6. Re density, the higher the ratio of buildings to greenspace, the more rainfall drainage problems are created, which require expensive solutions. 7. Other nearby cities/towns with high density, don't have lower property taxes than Lantzville. The extra income provided by high density gets eaten up by ever increasing operational costs. This seems to be human nature - operational cost increases, like hiring additional staff, keep pace with new development income. 8. The promotion of endlessly increasing or subsidizing the density of South Vancouver Island, hurts the economy of Canada where the north needs more population. 9. There is value in quality of life.The proof of this is people left big density, crowded, stressful communities to come to Lantzville, with few services. If we tum Lantzville into a "like everywhere else" place, then Lantzville's lifestyle is downgraded. Some extra annual tax money, which usually doesn't find its way into current residents pockets, and a few extra services, is not adequate compensation. The best economic analysis of development options is looking at the economic reality of other communities. Every community is perpetually short on cash. So Lantzville's choice is, do we want to preserve a great lifestyle and be short on cash ? Or do we want to lose our lifestyle to too much density, and still be short on cash ? For me, the only reason to support substantial increases in residential density in new development, is to acquire maximum public greenspace. If high density development produced an ongoing cash surplus, we'd see examples of it elsewhere. a. The best reason for compact development is to create public greenspace. b. The second best reason for compact development is it saves costs on the installation and maintenance of services. c. The worst reason for compact development is to vastly increase the number of dwelling units and profit for each development Points b and c above, often are wrongly conflated. The best way forward is points a and bin combination. Thanks Ian On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:57 AM Ronald Campbell Good morning, P47 The subject meeting has been confirmed with all Council members indicating their availability. Please update your calendars accordingly. Many thanks. Ronald Campbell, CLGM I Chief Administrative Officer District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8080 F: 250.390.8080 E: ronaldcampbell@lant zville.ca Make every second count! This email and any attachments are for t he use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete t his message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. Ian Savage 2503901958 P48 October 6, 2019 To Lantzville Council, This email requests that Council members give further attention to the impact of the new Zoning Bylaw on the Lantzville community. Some of the changes our community should expect if the new Zoning Bylaw is passed without modification: • Higher population density. • More cars on the streets. • Increase in light and noise pollution. • Reduction in green space and wildlife. • Reduced privacy. • Increase in a transient population of people residing in short-term rentals and air B&B's. • Increase pressure on resources and services water, sewer, electricity, city staff, public spaces, roadways ... • Increase in crime. Reduction in the safety of our streets and open spaces. This will have a huge impact on the children growing up in this community. Undeniably there is a need for more affordable housing in Lantzvi11e especially for seniors. There is also a desire for income to Lantzville that the higher taxes bring. However, I believe that the new Zoning Bylaw allows for too much, too soon. All residents of Lantzville may be negatively impacted by the problems that come with rapid development. Over the long term the quality of life in Lantzville will diminish significantly and irreversibly. The solution is to move forward slowly with development of community as a priority. Please consider restrictions on the total number of Cottage houses and Suites. Discuss the percentage of rental suites and carriage homes allowed in existing areas and in proposed developments. How much increase in density do Lantzville residents want? Are they willing to accept the impacts of this Bylaw on their lifestyle and that of future generations? A plan that limits our growth could preserve some of the Lantzville we love. Resources could be put into a plan for a smaller city that Lantzville could be proud of - a plan that values community and the environment. Thank you all for further attention to this Bylaw which affects us all. Joan Jones 7255 Ellesmere Drive Lantzville P49 From: Brock Williamson - Williamson & Associates Mayor and Council, District of Lantzville, Please find attached our letter setting out our concerns about the prohibition of suites in Phase 1 of the Foothills and on all lots in Lantzville with common driveways in the draft zoning bylaw, and our rationale for allowing them. Original letter to follow by hand. We will be in attendance at the open house tomorrow and at the public hearing to discuss this matter with you and answer any questions you may have about the letter. Sincerely, Brock Williamson and Wendy Smitka, 7530 Copley Ridge Drive. 250-758-7175 P50 Brock Williamson Wendy Smitka 90 White Eagle Terrace Nanaimo B.C. V9S 6C8 October 8, 2019 His Worship Mayor Mark Swain & Council, District of Lantzvllle 7192 Lantzville Road P.O. Box 100 Lantzvllle, BC VOR 2H0 By Hand & Electronic Copy ([email protected]) Dear Mayor & Council: Re: Proposed Zoning Bylaw That Excludes Secondary Suites & Carriage Houses (Suites) From the Foothills (FH} Zone and the Prohibition of Suites on Lots Serviced by a Common Driveway. The purpose of this letter is twofold. Firstly to request that suites be allowed in Phase 1 of the FHl zone, and secondly, that all lots in Lantzville serviced by a properly designed, constructed and approved common driveway in conjunction with sufficient off street parking be allowed to have suites. The draft bylaw prohibits suites in all of the FH zone, and puts a blanl To address our first concern, we questioned Mr. Young the Planning Director as to why suites were permitted in the Residential ( R) zone except the FH zone when they are supported by the OCP. We were advised a), that It was because they had not been contemplated in the original development concepts put forward for the Foothills, b) that the Foothills Comprehensive Development Plan does not explicitly Identify suites which will be addressed in an anticipated forthcoming Phased Development Agreement (PDA) for the Foothills and c), and that it is unclear how suites will impact the density for the overall Foothills development. \ +-' To address of each of these points in turn: 1 ! a) Excluding suites based upon dated planning concepts that did not foresee the housing affordability problem is an oversight in our opinion. We have not reviewed these early planning documents; only the 2005 OCP which was Influenced by the Foothills planning process. The 2005 OCP is srlent on suites in the Foothills, but comments on the emerging affordability problem and contemplates allowing suites in some areas of Lantzville in a future OCP. The OCP we have now is that future OCP which supports suites and does not exclude them from any residential area. b) We agree that addressing suites as part of a comprehensive PDA for the Foothills project has merit, though with Phase 1 being registered and a "done deal" so to speak, It will not be subject to a PDA. Phase 1 would have to be rezoned separately (and we expect concurrently) as an "appendix" to the PDA so that it is consistent with the PDA insofar as suites or other land use regulations are concerned to get it consistent with the remainder of the Foothills development. Page 1 of 3 P51 Mayor & Council, District of Lantzville October 8, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Our concern is that this PDA and "appendix" rezoning may be a long way off. We understand phase 2 has just been delayed (cancelled?), we suspect due to market conditions, which does not bode well for the owners in Phase 1 who would like to plan for or build suites in their homes now. The planning process is uncertain. We propose that suites be allowed in Phase 1, with the PDA to address suites in the remainder of the Foothills when that time arrives. c) With respect to Mr. Young's concerns upon how suites will affect the overall density in the Foothills. In our view is that this is really a broad brush land use and density concern that applfes to all of Lantzville - not just the Foothills - and can be re-phrased "do you want suites In Lantzville or not?". The OCP says you do, with no restrictions as to area. We can give Mr. Young a sense of what the density of suites will be in Phase 1 (where we propose they be allowed) relative to the R zone, which permits suites. The min. parcel size in Phase 1 is 1000 sq. m, with the average lot size being 0.29 ha (0.71 of an acre), which is very low density for single family housing. In the R zone in lower and upper Lantzvllle, the min. parcel size is 0.2 ha (1/2 acre). It. is our opinion that allowing suites in Phase 1 of the FH1 zone will result in lesser suite density than in the R zone due to 1) the larger Phase 1 lot sizes and 2) the much more difficult terrain Phase 1 has than the R zone within which driveways and access wilt have to be built to accommodate suites. Property regulated and approved suites make housing more affordable no matter the residential zone they are located in, and hence make It more likely that more wilt be built to Improve affordability. As stated earlier, suites were contemplated in the 2005 OCP, and in our opinion, were rightly adopted in the new OCP without restriction as to area due to the increasing affordability problem. Personally, we are presently building our retirement home in the Foothills, and have designed and are rn the process of constructing our home. The design includes the potential of putting a suite in it so that we have the option available to us to supplement our income, house family or friends in need, or provide a residence for a caregiver for aging in place. We are obviously disappointed to see suites L. potentially excluded from the Foothills as we want to have the ability to construct our suite should any ; of the aforementioned needs arise. With respect to our second concern, the draft bylaw also disallows any suites on lots serviced by a shared common driveway. The rationale that Mr. Young provided for this is that there are currently deteriorating substandard common driveways in Lantzvllle servicing multiple lots. The District does not want to add density to these lots to ma.ke a bad access situation worse. We agree with this, but believe it is an over-reaction. Prohibiting all lots with common driveways from having suites due to a few bad situations is punitive for the lots that have properly designed, constructed and functioning common driveways. We would suggest that lots making application for legal suites have their access driveways approved in conjunction with the off street parking requirements as a condition of permitting a suite. Driveway access and parking are integral to how a site functions and both of these can be reviewed concurrently when an application is made for a suite. P52 Mayor & Council, District of Lantzvllle October 8, 2019 Page 3of3 We have a personal Interest In this restriction as the home we are building is being serviced by a common driveway. Our driveway was designed, constructed and approved as part of the construction of the overall works and services for the Foothills subdivision. The driveway functions well in conjunction with sufficient off street parking for the primary dwelling and a potential suite. We had designed and will be building off street parking in anticipation of being allowed to construct a suite should we require it, as the potential suite parking is integral with the overall site development. We respectfully request that you revise the draft bylaw to allow suites in Phase 1 of the FH zone, and to allow suites on lots serviced by common driveways as long as the driveways in conjunction with the required off street parking are properly designed, constructed and approved. Sincerely, Bro .-;? -·,J'.,,,. ,..,,· ,,, .. ,-· \....._ ...... ·· Wendy Smitka ec: Mr. Kyle Young, Director of Planning, DOL Mr. Allard Ockeland, Lone Tree Properties Ltd. P53 From: Mike Lane - why would Rural zone be included in the no container rule - can understand when small lots but not when there is acreage involved. Could be provisions for siteliness, but not all out not allowed. - there are currently many containers on Lantzville properties; are they going to be sought out ordered removed? - is there any provision for converting to building via a permit. Thank-you in advance for your response. Regards P54 October 10, 2019 Mr. Kyle Young Director of Planning District of Lantzvilfe 7192 Lantzville Road Lantzvilte, BC VOR 2HO Dear Kyle, Re: Draft Zoning - 7197 Lantzville Road / Lantzville Pub Thanks again for taking the time to meet with us. We are excited about the draft zoning changes and proposed revitalization to the downtown, we would like to weigh in on the draft parking requirements. As we anticipate having access to our new development by way of Ware Road (round about) and the laneway from the school, we see a great opportunity to create a pedestrian connection from the st reet to our project and the lands behind. We understand parking is a major concern, we all know the economics of development have to work. The proposed parking requirements as we understand them are too onerous and could lead to a deal breaker. We understand both sides of the equation, if we can all work together to create a pedestrian friendly environment we could alleviate a lot of the stress brought on by the costs of onerous parking requirements. To the extent we may even be able to look at the possibility of golf cart access within the combined communities to minimize parking requirements. We will be working towards replacing our street parking with underground on the front of the property to service the pub/restaurant and surface parking for the balance. The extent of the parking will be dictated by the cost as it relates to the buildable square footage, and will do what we can to maximize but it will be tough to meet the proposed guidelines. As for the lands behind us, we are conscious of the fact that we have a lot of retired and senior folks moving into the area, and parking should not be as critical as in some of the more outlying areas where commuting is a priority. We are in full support of the pedestrian friendly environment throughout the new downtown, and feel that less parking can actually stimulate a more user friendly community. .. ./2 P55 Page2 You may of heard of Mayor Mick Cornett, who became well known when he put Oklahoma City on a diet and they collectiveJy lost over 1,000,000 pounds. During that time he led the charge to pass MAPS 3, a $800 mUlion investment in parks, urban transit and wellness centers to reshape Oklahoma City and enhance the quality of life of its residents. And in doing this, the city became tar less reliant on vehicles and much more reliant on pedestrian traffic. We realize Lantzville is not a major City, but it's a testament to reduction in vehicle traffic. We also realize that there can be a direct correlation between affordable housing and excessive parking requirements being an expensive burden. Sincerely, P56 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would Include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, , '· Address of Slgnee: /J:lr52-. /Jltid P57 I support a new land use bylaw In Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _...;;;;c.;;...·..;..~__;__,;z;_~:..,.._..;..N..;..a_~(_a_·_;-r_)'---,;,~ __ 'Y\__ . .:..;.N..;..:....K __ _ Signature: ____C3____ 1___ · ______ Date signed: _ _.:::;0:::;;...::::if~_·...... :....\'-'_-....,./~\ :z....L-~ ______I P58 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __L~v----/ _e...=--_r;_-_i _t\__ fs-______ Signature: _ L_,,,,,__...... ,,.&i,~-~------Z-'-...;;-.=-x.;;::;=-:_;..:..'--'.a:✓ A:______7 Address of Signee: _fo_1_b_6___ :3 ___.J_._v_~_"-·_·E_d._. _i.k_-h-v_ ;I f-e__ , 73 C . VO'e2-M-D Date slgned: __~_~ __ ._i_O_ ..... /,;_{'i..;... ______ P59 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would aUow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for lantzville. Thank you, Signature: 'fb co"" Date signed: f)c_lr- \ t) f \ ~ P60 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties: I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and en~ironmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _ __,iR~u~Oi.:.a..C\...__:&~·~..;::;..u---,.l~ Signature: ----ili~~~11r--~-~------ Address of Signee: 7ta1C.a Fernroac ~ Date signed: _____fu-=-+-•f------=f oc...,../_9d,,_,___f_vf_._ ____ f P61 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Address of Signee: _....-.-4-z--.(ti,,,,£,-'fi---=--.l,_"""'"__._E-e__...... (-£.Q...... ,.._.m~a~c-ecr_· ---- Date signed: _-=Cc~f---s/~D--1-/-=-Ji.~)._/C,,______l P62 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and smal.l engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would Include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for lantzville. Thank you, WrittenName: ~\et,Y\0,. \:-10;:Qe\ \ Signature: _OJx'{)______~------·------ Address of Signee: 7 b~cs- Super, or \<.cad Date signed: Oc± '& o} 0 \ C?\ P63 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: C;_ ::(, "'t;;Ll ,,. Signature: --G~~r.1-,:"-'~-/_,______ ,1 I "2 Address of Signee: _ _;t_,q _--_:l 1 ___ --J", .. ___, c.t:..S r-ii,,.,______. _ Date signed: _ _::0:.C..;;:':...::t_€"_._./:..-/_'/ ______ P64 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would Include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzvllle. Thank you, 1 Written Name: ____/,,_,·_-~ ...... · :_~--\_.J_· t_· __\_. __ f,___-_)_N_~ 1 ______ Signature:"-·····---~ ~~-..~-----~--c..------ Address of Signee: --=L__ 9'_T3 _____ :J9<-:zr::;....,...· ·-· J:._l _<;___ ,.t..,.-D__ . ______ Date signed: __(__ .'C:1 ______~ _i,...}_,,,__7:___,.;.-- .J-~ I J_--1-· c ______I PSS I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name:_X>-1\,,,-..c-.a...l..:;.aM""""'<-((l__=;...__s~--{=~---:Cj,_.d-L-.....:. _____ Signature: __1BSt::-sr...c::z;.;..._..;.;:· L-..--- _-_-_-_-_-_-______ Address of Stgnee: 7-sq~ ~s,kr~ \JCQ.{_,+zu ,(Lr._ Date signed: _-=CJ;__(...--i±L..-s__,1,-....::;.d_.;;;;;o;..,_/--'7-·----- P66 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitat~ons on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: Signature: AddressofSignee:_~__...... &_/_;£_/_,j._a.._b_eJJ?__ bJ__ °t)-+---. _/4...::..:..n-fzv/ /(/; .B (_ , Date signed: __C__ 1u~ ...... '4-+/2 ____ 9 ______ P67 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _\~.J~e-~~j ~\o~\4;;)-=-t-t-~fL- Signature: '..__,P+o-C_Y~...... ~...._...,. A-#-- ______----+r-fto~..... Address of Signee: _7,__3~t{,..w..J-:~~~s~~;...+11,i$C,;.------.O:....a::J~:'2.-l_(,cJ\,___._.klfi l ~ Date signed: _____0i,.;a::;,.t.}___,.__g,._____,,,,,d:_o ___ l9-t--- ___ P68 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ' ' - ·f .ic, I\' ...( Written Name: • '~ v i ) l '- t::" I I ,-- ' "( ( ~-"i Address of Signee: - 7 .J J1 tr r nr: ·___ ~\ ,, 1 0 Date signed:_('~\__ ) __(rt_,._·- ....,0'~--....------;' 1- 0 I 9 P69 I support a new land use bylaw in lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, slgnage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulatfons allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ' /L. ..i. Signature: _/_~_,_) __\_-_-~\V_··_'-51_.L_\ ______ / t 1 Date signed: -~'v'"-:~---~ .....--~·-'....;..- _·.. _, 1______ P70 I support a new land use bylaw in LantzviUe that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, /~ 1 Written Name: Vvt ,t= 1:~~ZZ?..A ,, 1 ~/ // ...., Signature: -◄l....·--::i:.-· _,""'u....:.a.':_.•a~..:;;~~------ Address of Signee: Date signed: __?.... ".l..... t' ____ 7 __ '2:~--·~-'/ __ ?_· ______ P71 I support a new land use bylaw in LantzviUe that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. t acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The citv of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzvifle. Thank you, rr"~-· /. ,.. · Written Name:~--·-··-· ___, "--...::~~ 1 __,::;_"_..:.•.::.=>_r ..:.',..;.l:Ji.:iG,c.."'....;);.,______ . t .. ·.,/ .. / S1gna ure: L••• _. >' ,., .• .... Address of Signee: -, ~) :,. 1 Date signed: _.;::(==-'J~\!--!-T_·_.:;..Y___;,/-=;j:;...._0_1_·9_·. ______ P72 I support a new land use bylaw In Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: \l 1(2. s M !J lri/1.0(ZJ\ 0 Signatur~ ·' \ ' AddressofSignee: 3-5\\·-l fE1?1JrJ\~ RD LI\.J ]Z VILLC IS ( voie~tt Date signed: _o_c_ID_____ Bff_---- ______6__,)_l_~-t------ P73 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. 1acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ·1 . ...---...'-..,.....-,, --·· ·-. ··, Signature: _____._. .., ______·•... ._, ______ ,,. f ~--, -, - ,,,,., Date signed: _...;;\..:;..._,;;'. < ___ ~ ..J..- _____. (. .:- '":....______ P74 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of NanaJmo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: TC\ \"'n m ~ \)\Ck·, 1'\ ::,c, ""' lt -"L 0. ~ i:;- Address ofSignee: ___7 ~L_~ ______M R u -s., p \ \., _ Date signed: ------0C"' P75 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvilte that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, -1 fVI Address of Signee: ___~____ Jr?::/> 6;_.._,_ 1_ ll""'\. n,,~______~.~_'-- _____ LZv\_ ku\\~, ~( · .-,C?c·a Date signed: ------1~---~o~-r, 9. / ___ _!____..__...._ ___ P76 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: ilX\\u,11'\ 4 b{H n Signature: cJ Address of Signee: Datesigned: __():;__," ...... 1_9 __ a_o ...... \_cJ ______ P77 t support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and smal1 engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, rl 1 •, I I • 1 1 4 1 W r itten Name: ____J_, ...'· ,_._1. -~ _..../j, , ...... , •.-_--.., \ ...... ,:, ___ ,\ .... ~ ____\ {.,> ______ ,,-,._ ... • t _,,/, ' I / ,', ~ S1gna ure: ____.. ,,,...... i•....,..J~' ,, , __, -.:.'•-~_...... ,..______ 1 Address of Slgnee: _~__, _(-=-1...;:.(-,_· --1-',...-__.,..:...· _ .. -...., ,.1__ \ __A __ ·_\t_v.._.1-..J ___ ,v_·· \...... •l _··_t _.J___ ( _.___ _ Date signed: __1 _· .;_"_i ....;;.' __ \_· -'~\-+-/.;o../...1.,)_,_J_,_<.·_, ______I P78 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Address/ of Signee: _____Lt ___ .A"..._7_Yt,v/ ___ ~_'()_ ..... /)A __ ?,rµ,--=- ...... fM t,J 8 C Date signed: 'j ({)4 J!z/,4rti / P79 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, i ~· / Written Name:(!I,,_.-..:..~_·...,.:;.••~....,- ,_I _J,~-'-/_._/4..... t_f~C"_+-C---;"" ______I.- - f.-f- , Signatur~: ---~<~·:"':..;.11,;,•..,.<-,,.,,~/-' t,h....,&.,,::,:-z-:;;.;<-..;;.;;-...~ ~;;..- _r______I Date signeU,J 1 P80 1support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, 1 . -. l , ) ) .' 1 ·1·· ll Written Name: -.;.•----...... f_· _· __,) ..___ ,/·_...,.,2 _____ --=L._.. _·-,_.,__1,_ ....h_ .. _ _.1_, ◄-' _____ · I I Signature: -~_.,_____ ,,,___ :)_ ..._,._._·/_;{_, ______ P81 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adppt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ,,:-·., Signature: ______, _" ..... ··-----'--•. ✓_'-_·~------ Address of Slgnee: _.,.J;:t,.,...L).. :....c'..::.1-'<"~· 1::...f:~,-~ ·~ .. ,::.:;· r...;.·'I_A..;;: 1i-;....______ Date signed: C,it.:?: 9 ,;le ,r P82 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvi11e that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations aUow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: ___.,/.__ ,_· ____ .· .... -._ ... __ l __ J_. __ ,._._, __ ·...,. •. ______{ . /' Signature: __·-_.-_.-:-_t" __l_- /-~-·~~--....-._--.<--~------,,.,, .,.. *" Address Of Signee ·. __v_<..L.-:J_,:;..·=_72.. {.. · ____ .. .:;..~-~ ------.------,t:.., S 'j /,c~ t-1 e 0 Date signed: __(__.,_~_<..'_~~-'----~-/,,_./_./ /_ ,,_, ______;' . P83 I support a new land use by1aw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties, The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _....,(Y\__ .__ fY\ ___ ...... \ ~----C)-~ __ C6...... ,. ______ Signature: ~ Address of Signee: ~ ~~ tf Date signed: Qc..-k- L{ ( \°l P84 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ... Written Name: 45, ::tU..(A.v -1-- 6 U... VYt. fY"\ l -e_, b $ Signature. n: Address of Slgnee: js ~ Date signed: ~ '-f ( ( Ci( Pas 1support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _ __,,r<)---=_..___,,;::t,lL.m~-=-----;..;;.N\.....;,_....1l .... ~------ ~ Signatu~~o Address of Signee: 9~43':::\ Date signed: Ok+ ':t / \. °' P86 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns-to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to OA te auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt simila laws for Lantzville. Thank you, 1 1 Address of Signee: _-_1_(_·"'.,_s_·t_ ... __4 ...... · li_,_>~_- A_'_{_y__n_1-_rf_··__ Date signed: __c_• 1_) C_-;;_~_f' ____ t_·-_. ___·J-_J~_,. _J_l_·:, ____ P87 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ./ . Written Name: --:~~~0:t,..'!,,>,:::11.·~ .. \:,_'C.~~-\.-,~_?:--__-;,t'....:aaa:;...:..R~UJ""--, J..-1_· ------ Address of Signee: __.;...7_i_ .. ·_:/;___~~;_)~,~;._· .i..i.r...;q_.,,_e_:.;...~_~_I .__~_<::_~ __ ,_~_,_;{ __ P88 I support a new land use bylaw in lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: Je())') t te ;.r l OC ~1 ('~ I ,, ~°" r Signature: -,-,·r~-· ~l=---~\'J-..a.:\2~'...;.'"..;,;l./______.. Address of Signee: 7 lf] ! t\c: \/ 'Ll'.. \./ ~,. Date signed: ______L°'C·+ x\_,__-?~"'""' .' , ...... :i...l ·t1-'______ P89 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __vrt;______f; 1 1 i':t ~ t ~ t'l______-t I / _ Signature: _--t=;,t_:::'9..;J../l_Yi_·.1_·e "' ~i,~.1,&;- --___;/0.,, ______ l ~ l-- ,r ~,-~ ! C' t· Ri Address of Signee: ------~------7 c~ s Date signed: _ ___;1,..::;....:'-";;__r. r + __ ~...;.______/ I 'l _ P90 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include fimitatfons on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Date signed: ~\ cf ~ / 1~1 P91 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: --='~11.lie;~~::;..I·.•--=-•'-..:.....-fu1:.:,:,~~·_.;;;.s.)....:J~C-:!.,.,1(~------~ ·, 1 . I <= Signature: ~------ '"-7,..,'"' . Date signed: _\J,,.;,f____..... · ..L-J....A.---"""'"""'-~~....;._.J...~~------11ol?' ~ P92 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulatlons allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for LantzvUle. Thank you, Written Name: ___l) ___ j ...... t.. __ -- __,- _____,v';...... ;;'c...~-----M----~4-K ...... 6 , __l _4_L.....,L=---- Oj o Address of Signee: cl R 1 P93 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanalmo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _\~Cl~\A:...:<...;;..._,;::ea=-=-.....i-_.;\J_U_a,~n._.11rjc....+-____ Signature: -ci0~:e...u.:iA~lJna~...... O...... _....._.L~lil(~rJ.~.------ Address of Slgnee: B:>:t ~ ~'-ew fun:. D . LC\.V\\"'l::Vi \~ {'f( . P94 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw woutd include limitations on parking, signa~e, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and smaU engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: ___&=- ___ro.... ______$__ U_fV\_CV'"\_e.._rs ______ Signature: -~--6,,-..____ ,li_....,Uh'l...... _ .....~ ____ -=-______ Address of Slgnee: vi I e. 'i,f9-:f- :&.11 rrew Patt_ lK_ 1 /,.q n-fz. f Date signed: ___()__ tk~t:e~r ___ l_~_+_._go _____ J_C( ______ P95. t support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, .~ Written Name~ ---6....+-~-•_...-_.__ h_~_-_C:=s._e_:J ______ Address of Signee: ___{,c....q_4_]___~ ___ ....;;..\c_k_"_~_'>_i_:t ._,_i(_ft_j__· _. ____ Date signed: _/c_cSJ_.. _'~_-_· _( _q__ ,. ______ P96 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvllle that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for lantzvllle. Thank you, Wrttten Name: Gee-eit..,J Signature: 0·•----~~ Address of Signee: ©()o ~ Sn rt1/f U//'IWJ Date signed: c:1-z /..,-/rf).o { '} I I P97 I support a new land use byJaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations aUow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __7...;_r_, s:,__L.~_..;_ __S...;4~0~0:..a.:~~\ ______ Signature: ______.~_,___._ ~----_ __.""------ Address of Signee: __1_, ....;, l__,;w::.;;;...,.;...l)..:.:S:uA..;:;o;.;..~;;.._,1,..c~~' ------ Date signed: __....;;:;o_c._t_s-.;;...... :./...;:::~;__o__;._l9...;;... ______ P98 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, , ✓--) : Written Name:_,..,./...·~-' .. _:· I_I J_l_~____ {_, ,.._i"_,_"'_~_(_l_t<- ______ 1 -··-... ) ' Signature: ,,__ ___v_· _f_'"_' _' _"_(_(_,_l______ r :"' j ) . , } ' Address of Signee: _ _.d._· -~....- ,_.,_l ·_, _r'__.a,,.t_'-_(+-f-L __,f_ .. __, __ J ______..... r-1.... ~ __, __ f( __ (..._1,_._·v-1( ...... _ I Date signed:_,...,'·-~-•{_'·....;./_·_;~/-/..... ·_i;.a,{_-·~ .... l_(_-j_· ______I pgg I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: ____A..-:.-V\...;J_v-~(_•'-~_=>_~_._k._"_·wt_'-_' _h,______ o·.17 , r- - Signature: ___l-zi.,,:.~:..~~.;;;;._~:..-J.):....r,/4.;;...t_~e~~-a_· ______ Address of Signee: _..,::g':...3ac....=.~...1.l__.lt~0r..::,1-,:V...a,l..:,0-C.z,;w~f>_e._r~_-__))-_,v_( ____ _ Date signe d Of _.::::;--...;.._-=-_.J,._.)·- '2-"I~ ______=--...J~',1-· ~- 1 P100 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvllle that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ) Signature: ---cia1---1... ~'--....-_.....~:;__------ Date signed: __\o___.,\_<.._..\ ... lo}_,______ P101 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. , acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and envlronmenta, concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzvilte. Thank you, ' Written Name: _~,_..;....c.:._,·_· _..:.U~{ ...\.-<~l_· ______ Signature: _.;.;.···.;-./,_._. __.\..... ·~LJ~/o~i~.....;~:...· ______I'- ~ Datesigned: 0(.\ 6 /f°I P102 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw_would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, . ) 1\ ... / Written Name: ------: - ✓· t . f · ",,I / 7 I ,. Signature: .,,.._,'/.._· _....,.... ___~_··_· _.1-·_✓_---_✓_-_· ______/ <...·7 5~ I (3.5C.\. ) 0 e w Address of Signee: ______3 ~.,._\: .. ______ Date signed:_C_)_<_f_/_/_,..-__/___,9 ______ P103 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvllle that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: r1 (. )\, °'- e \ G- Address of Signee: )1° .:) 3 I J) '"-;' I,' I:::! v-· ·\' l\ ;- h Date signed: 0 c::s ::S: / :)_ 0 / C/, P104 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzvllle that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, 1 Written Name: _i--_,:~·_o_~_,,.,_~--~-i_~_..... P_../______ 0 Date signed: __(i_ry-_,. _o_S_. _2__,_4_.------ P105 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: n s ~ l f e- uh h6zv S~nature: 11-J t /!t,/J/c{/L Address of Signee: Cf-1). _2..- ., Ci'f ,.:->Y Ba lf tl,·eu.1 /1,1k. tJ,,t,.l? I Date signed: ~-~-1 __ 5_~..,..,_d_· _D_f) ______a...... ::-; I P106 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, / / Signature: Q I~=---·-~ c·7 .-, Address of Signee: 0 ? 1 ~ P107 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ,-,,-:· Written Name:· ,f 1 , ff /} Jc/ (:, 1'(,/.. Slgnature~-'V--/ D:•- " ◄ J t> Address of Slgnee: (1/'{.,t LI.I-A l::~e. · Date signed: __L_., (_·{_$,;__ . .;;..~_0...:./...i:"f...;,. ______ P108 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __~__ -i,_rn __ ;Y)_o_· _c.. _.~-~------ Signature: _""_·--~-i' ·.....l1/ ...... \ __ /__/ ___'y{&..__.. __ '3_\X._.• ______ Address of Signee: t, ..Jy 2 l. I t.. ./~ t. r,:.....J ~ . L-1~ f'~vJ L-«vi;_, Date signed: __,_,_t_·~_,- __,.,._(:_-'_._~ __ ,_7_' ______ P109 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based bus1ness to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __·_·~_\ ...... '.... )_c_\ _,,._, _,ke,.-,.. __+l-rt'iw) ...(,\,_. _v_J ______ Address of Slgnee: ~ Date signed: ----1-C-}~J;....,____~--, _·2..,...... c...... 1...... c, ______ P110 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, /i Written Name: J CL ,n e 5 Signature: -~:l~.. c,_·Mk~-~C~l&-...A_~___,;...._r"_-,,_.,_.-·-_ .. -·· ___ y Address of Signee: ~) 7-c, 1341 vi,rv: f?qrlr Dr Date signed: ----1111:C~JC~/ t---==-s_· ----~D------.1~1 ___ P111 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. 1acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanalmo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, 1 Written Name: b G Q, />, 4 f'B £. L h Slgnatu~: DV:J Cl-~ µ ( Date signed:-=5-~~--·--=d:;__,~'D--'--Jq-..L-· ______ P112 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, 1) . Written Name: ------b-+-C___· x_~ ___· l_t ...... n_,_,_t_f __·)_(L_L ___ J_) ___J(_ ___ . ~---- f __ ..... ' Signature: ___v_/ · ...... ·) _6-_L_c _i_l _/L,_f_\.(.__~f-·1.__.' l_L _J}_1 ...... :, ~~J- 1 1 Address of Slgnee: >; :;-7 L B·· n/ ~· k LL Th.r &' J)r rV , • ·' _, ,, Date signed: _____l __ .: ...... ('__ j_•L_- .. /._:)._(r__ ~...... ,,-'J.._·C_' _/ ..,..C[_·-- P113 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: 1,/; ~:..""·-A J c.:i •" -=) 1 Address of Signee: _\.-=· _-,.___ (,_'"f_..;.( _~'..... e"::::M='ti,~"r.....:.'-'\-=w--- ....Y...,t"- ...... ~.... \:------ Date signed: _...... ;::<..,;:;..;:\~_!__ '!:9;;;...... a/..a.,~!l.------ P114 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _____;; __, __c __•• /,_J ___ -+e.....1"'_, 1..:.l" ____ .:t~'-1-";...;~--·1_.,. ______ ,· ~·~ .. ~ .. , , Signature: ----..,...._-:..-_-:..------··...,.·.------ Address of Signee: _ ....ti ...--=-)--·_,_( __. 6 __> --1-/3~,_,.>o.,, 7 __·1, ___ ,_· '"- ✓____,,,f-A:;;..:;··~-+-tf_·_....,.cz.-,,,;.,_.,.....;.~_.;"t';;....__ Date signed: --\:..11:r•" __),_,.. __·-t_· __~_,_.,_" __ Z_c_J __ /_··..,.7 ______ P115 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Date signed: ---l.(_·(.:::...):._;-:.._.-:J_'i _1._j...J.....,j~ ~~-· -~ 1_}_:'JI.:....~v-+j ______I \, P116 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Address of Signee: _-: ___7_l l_.s_..~{__-; ____ t_"-- (__l ...._t ___{_( ___ \~l-;f_/_:_r __ /_~·-· '(_: ___ _ P117 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, .,,--, .. ' __,.,..·:,' f- .. ' ,... : (; I ~ I I ' ,,'/ Written Name:-~./_·_...... :..._·_·_"..:_ ___:____:':.,.,.----'·------ Address of Signee: __....;______._· _· __~- _- ...;.,,_·i_· _··_·_' _-· _;--~--' L __ ) ...... , ( -'.. .. , .' , ., ' '·. :·/ 1 Date signed:-~-·...;;'-______;.;.-~_-·_, .:...f_ __.;.,_. ______ P118 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzvllle. Thank you, ·• ' --., Written Name:....,..._,__~ Q_\_..ffi ...... e--~---tn.~f' .... e __n...... ______ Signature: (/~~'-/'- :::::::::.. Address of Signee: _7i__lo.....__3.....::5 ____ .....,8_o""'l-f>£...... f' __ \'_c __ s:_Js ____ o __ o..~d ______ Datesigned: QC,f c,:; {i0\9 P119 I support a new land use bylaw in lantzvHle that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these 'businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RDN land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, f\ I ,~1 \.. Written Name: ----:l::W:...-.~y_, __f:_1,_,_l,'\,.._...;:'-~-- - \ ____It ~: ______/ _ Signature: _--.,,1A...... &..kJ,_· -=~~- .....------ Address of Signee: --'-l_..t).,,_1""""-'"A~___./_,,...... ,._\ ~..,r.:l,A.~--=~=-lV\....:...;:<.,=------ Date signed: 0( t f;-1\ P120 I support a new land use bylaw In Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: __:-_i_c_,-e_. ____h ___ ...,.'_...... l_\.(_n _'i______ ,/~ Signature: _...,_.:------/ I Address of Signee: L D r t\ L,, s~ L, .. ~ Date signed: _ _...... ,..C_,-0 I ____$1'- , ..... 1...... o...... t'j ______ P121 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise al)d environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: ~Jtc;; ph a YJ ·, (7 Tu rs by . . n_ c...) Address of Slgnee: ?,3 ?>?. -:Fa 4v I t\..Jld( k O (\ l) 0 hz1i'l '3'-~ri.L LO . Be . vo R a. HO Datesigned: ~- f Q dC:UCJ · P122 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, -~. 8 Written Name: XL,,), ·15,-1 RS Y Address of Signee: ~tf._.. .s_~_a ....~_"'F..:..4.;.., ..... v...;..1,,_,_' i-=~~w~~.,_· ,&,,,j.l&.:~_lr ___ JJ~g. __ /11..,.I,;:;...." M;;tf'_.-- 0 Date signed: ___fJ--~--f;:...... ,S-..:l.....&..,1..&,,9, ______ P123 I support a new land use bylaw In Lantzvlllethat would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would Include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, fl Written Name: --==J._l_._·i\__ ~,I,,,;;~ ..... ,· &..1V\...:..t:4i_.d __ , _cl_.------ \ C . ~.,~ll'. ~. I\ A Signature: ___\_..,~~~)~(.L....._· r .,.....a;-;,·_.1 _.... \-.t ·... ~ ___ v_\ ___ )_· ______ Address of Signee: G'Y :, <; l?X-v \; l -el._, Id~. k ~l)t I wl ~ Z \1 \ lil.. Date signed: .~~'& ~ S I\ ('f P124 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanalmo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, ,/·, 1' 1 Written Name: ____L_J_' ( ___)_...~ f_._ l_< ____,l_e ..... 11_\J_,-,~~ ...... !!-i----i)~------ ~.-, Signature: -4...... ii~------ 1 1 Address of Signee: _~_/J_?_~_j )_-_+#-i_,~-~...... l•_1;_i ___ J __ pfii-_· .,_., /!:_·· __,.,{).,._l'-_·_.__ Date signed: _l_{J___ J __c 1 _)_-_,,/_,___ ..."_,_1 ______~ I P125 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, I ,, I • . (_ / I J/1/.") Written Name: _.·:..,..__;...:.•;;...... ;..C.._-;_,-_·1AL4 _':-;;:;;;-;::;.;;;(_.-,. ...;.(_/_ ·"'------ ') I Address of Signee: _·-.:..7___ ~.;:..;,_!.,ij_;_.:,,_· ___,)~,~)~(_: _··...:.::_,,_<""'".!1-·_l~_-·_. 1 __ _::;t:...;•-;:;.::;,;...:1.:...:::,·;;....· ·--- ~ I' / ,/ •• • / / /'. . . ,·, .· ..,_ .' -, .. '"/,· J '/ - ,~, / I ✓/ Date slgned: __l __ ,,'-=l_. ;.../ _____.;., ______L. { _ P126 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would Include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, Written Name: _._----_l..;..v..,..+,\k=' ..... ( ____ [:a-,;'(.,=-· r ...... ~....,w..l .....·~.,_! _'· _::::::,. ______,~4- ~1.µ:' Signature: -----~If--~------ ·1. ·-2.J( I., '1 I .- Address of Signee: ____-, __ ....;':...T-~~-L-{..,/_(._/_ ..,_, ... t:_-_·~ ___ tl_' _L-_;..__ r_· --- ,,,-~~- . . r·C}C ·.-': l{. .··t !.._~.. :._·•.,,,e.-· ~..1-----l._._..::u_...... !.1.::·· cq Date signed: __ "-;;;:.£-~' --- .l-'--...1-~..,.Lii:;....\,o_~1...i.--;;.J,I ___ ~-- P127 I support a new land use bylaw in Lantzville that would allow home based auto repair and small engine repair shops on rural properties. I acknowledge that this bylaw would include limitations on parking, signage, noise and environmental concerns to name a few. I acknowledge that our surrounding communities allow these businesses to occur already on rural properties. The city of Nanaimo and the RON land use regulations allow a home based business to operate auto repair and small engine repair on rural zoned properties. I ask that this council adopt similar bylaws for Lantzville. Thank you, •~-.., • ,- r ...., i )'\ \ Written Name: ' -t..' .i \ ' '-- 1 \ l- L \ r \ I ' . J .,--~_.,,-/ Signature: _,__,.___ c.______ 1 Address of Slgnee: _7_,__~....::,__ ._½_C __ ..::~;_,1;_\~/..;.\.._ _-._.--"~,)_r .... "'.;,_· ______ ·',: L\ 17 Date signed: _,.:.._-~---J-4-~----=~:;____,!.,_+,1...------U h <· ;.. cf P128 From: Ronald Campbell Sent: October-15-19 7:28 AM To: Kyle Young Cc: Trudy Coates Subject: FW: Summer 2019 - Kelowna Air B&B Regulations FYI From: Councillor Geselbracht Garry Thank you for providing your thoughts on this subject. I will not only forward letter to the rest of council but will make sure this topic is discussed in our deliberations on the new zoning bylaw Will Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Garry Gaudet /.-lappy thanks9ivin9 weekend, Coun· Will - Since there is no mention of "Short term Rental" ( aka 'fJir 8&8') zonin9 in the draft bylaw currently bein9 considered, I hope you will 9ive the rapidly evolvin9 situation your attention· Some Canadian municipalities have i9nored the development to their 9reat discomfort, and I hope that l-antzvil/e will not soon find itself awash in these unruly issues· You may find these 2079 regulations of interest and value, since Kelowna is a city quite experienced in tourism and in explosive 9rowth· the re9 1s seem to respond to many residents' concerns about their development and presence in SR7 residential P129 neighbourhoods, which larger centers (Toronto, Vancouver included) were very slow off the mark to get under control! https://www.kelowna.ca/business-services/permits-licences/business licences/short-term-rentals Warmest thanks for your consideration - Garry P130 From: LYLE FINK Hello Ken I talked to you at the Open house on October 10th about bylaw number 2.17 RV and watercraft making a word change. Currently the bylaw proposal reads: 'Storage of up to one recreational vehicle and one small watercraft is permitted on each parcel.' I suggested to you to change the word "small" to ''trailered". By changing this word you define the meaning of small and follow the already maximum trailer length of a watercraft allowed on the highways. That trailer length goes by the weight of the boat and trailer and the boat would be about 28 feet. Yours truly, Lyle Fink 6966 Beliveau Road Lantzville, BC P131 From: ian savage Categories: Filed Yes, I thought that was the idea - that no one need be held up if they want to subdivide, they just apply for a rezoning. I think the idea is to create more interesting developments with an opportunity for more benefits to the community, including more public greenspace. As opposed to just standard subdivisions with little benefit to the community. This has the potential to be more beneficial to the landowner, as well. Thanks Ian On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:33 PM Kyle Young Councillor Savage: Yes - based on the draft zoning bylaw, these properties would need to apply to rezone prior to subdivision. Rezoning applications are dealt with by Council on a case-by-case basis. The District is obligated to consider a rezoning application that is submitted, regardless of whether there is a comprehensive plan in place. Staff are anticipating being able to undertake the planning analysis for this area (identified in the OCP) next year {2020). Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] P132 This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information ond Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by ret urn email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: ian savage Hi Kyle, Re Will's question about the East Lantzville future study area, is it the case that any subdivision applications will be required to go through a rezoning process ? And that any rezoning applications will be dealt with on a case by case basis? Or is it the case no subdivision nor rezoning applications will be processed, before a comprehensive plan for the whole area is complete? Thanks Ian Ian Savage P133 2503901958 Ian Savage 250 390 195.8 P134 From: Susan Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Susan Sent: October 16, 2019 11:31 AM To: kyoung@lantzville Cc: [email protected] Subject: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Dear Kyle Young: The following are my initial comments concerning the proposed zoning bylaw: 1. Requires approval under section 57 of the Highway. This has not been included. 2. Conversion table not necessary. 3. Residential zone - should include other secondary buildings such as sheds, garages, studios under Second~ry uses to provide clarity in as to the permitted uses. 4. Rear setback under Residential for House use - currently 2 metres, proposed to go to 6 m. This could result in many houses becoming non conforming. What is the rationale for this proposed change? 5. Generally - Exterior side setback - should at least be to Provincial ministry standard of 4.5 metre. What is the rationale for the proposed reduced setbacks? 6. Secondary structures are currently 6 metres - dropping to 5 metres will create a lot of non-conforming structures. Suggest staying at 6 metres. 7. Under Rural and Agriculture zones suggest that Kennel use be removed. This is a contentious use and should be considered by Council through the zoning amendment application process. 8. Keep minimum setbacks for parking and loading zones in the bylaw. As an example, a property owner storing their RV along the front property line makes it difficult for site visibility for driving or seeing someone walking along a street. The setback will provide a provision for ensure things like this do not happen. Also does this mean that a derelict vehicle can be at zero lot line? Parking setback work well with density provisions and should remain in the bylaw. 9. Setback change to be measured to foundation. This means buildings will be closer to the property lines as the current practice is to measure from the outer most portion of a building or structure. Suggest it stay this way. Helps with view corridors, fire smart measures. P135 10. Recommend that a fence built on a retaining wall be measured to includethe retaining wall, not the full height of a fence on the retaining wall. This would create a tall barrier from the lower side. Also, would a building permit be required in this situation? 11. Under subdivision section, recommend that the word 'unattended' be added before the word 'utilities' under section 2. {a}. 12. Under Subdivision, what about the situation where 2 parcels are being combined and do not meet the minimum parcel size? Suggest this be included. 13. Suggest section 2{d} be removed. 14. Panhandle parcel provisions have been removed from the proposed bylaw. Does this mean that panhandle lots will not be permitted although there is a definition of panhandle lot? Recommend putting this provision back in the proposed bylaw. This will ensure no structures or uses other than access will be in a panhandle portion of a lot. Also, what about the existing panhandle lots? Will property owners be able to have buildings in the panhandle portion which is intended for access only. 15. Under Subdivision, suggest minimum parcel size for both a section 514 parcel and the remainder parcel be included. 16. Curious to know why temporary accommodation could be in a watercraft while someone is building a new house under section 2.17 2. Does this include a canoe?I 17. Under section 2.18, what about the situation where someone is proposing to build a house by converting shipping containers? Is this consistence with current practice? 18. Under section 2.19 General uses, (a), tail should be trail; Parks should be Park land 19. Under section 2.21 Prohibited Uses, why allow even 1 derelict vehicle? It could be parked on a property for years. Suggest no derelict vehicles. 20. Under Definitions Development {a} removal, alteration, disruption, or destruction of vegetation, - does this mean a land owner cannot trim trees, plant new trees or shrubs, etc. without a development permit? This needs to be clarified - suggest this be removed. 21. Are there minimum setbacks from zones boundaries on split parcel lots? I may have missed noting this provision, but recommend setbacks apply from zone boundaries. 22. I do not think that generally we should be pre-zone parcels. The zoning amendment process allows for public input and this would be missed if parcels are pre-zoned. 23. Section 2.9 Future Highway Allowances have you confirmed with the District's solicitor on this section? 24. Agree with the Home Base Business section. Would uses like gyms or yoga studios be allowed? These uses often create traffic and parking issues in a neighbour. 25. Has the District solicitor reviewed this proposed bylaw? If not, suggest this be done. 26. There are a number of incorrect or missing punctuation marks throughout the document. Suggest this be corrected. I feel this process is being rushed and the public is not getting enough opportunity to fully review and provide comments. It would have been appropriate to have comment sheets at the public house meeting to provide another avenue for residents to provide comments. I do not P136 know if Council is aware of every proposed change and the rationale behind every proposed change. I hope that Council will be made aware of fil!_changes to the existing bylaw. Sincerely, Susan Cormie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 P137 From: Ross McKeever Hi Kyle We spoke at the OCP open house last week in Lantzville. Thanks for hosting the information session. You had many colourful conversations at the event I'm sure. I' m a resident of Lantzville (Sebastion Road) but am contacting you professionally regarding the discussion we had around residential use within the proposed Forestry Zone. Our company, Mosaic Forest Management, manages forestry zoned lands within Lantzville on behalf of Island Timberlands and TimberWest. I noted at the open house that the proposed Forestry zone does not include residential as a permitted use. The current Lantzville OCP encourages 1 single family unit per parcel on Forestry designated lands. Omitting the residential use creates an inconsistency with the OCP and goes against supporting the forestry use on both a large and small scale in Lantzville. I don't believe this is the intended consequence of the draft zoning. Holding forestry land for a timber cycle is expensive. A forestry zoned land owner should be permitted to build a dwelling and live on that land as one aspect of supporting the forestry resource land use. Forest zoned residential use can then be controlled by parcel size and site density. Any changes to the current RMl zone will affect the attributes our properties currently possess. I'm happy to discuss this zone in further detail if you wish. Best regards, Ross Ross McKeever FORESi MANAGEMENT Director, Real Estate Development & Sales T 250-716-3750 IC 250-618-3011 E [email protected] P138 From: Sean Reilly Hi Kyle the mailout for the Draft zoning bylaw stated you want community feedback for the new zoning bylaw, here are some of my concerns I have with the draft zoning bylaw, 1. Minimum lot size for secondary suites and carriage houses. I think these lot sizes at 450 and 600 m2 is too small. I think there will be a problem with parking. The draft zoning states that onsite parking will be provided. This wont be the case as there won't be enough space for the primary residents' two vehicles and the suite's vehicles if the lots are 450m2. I think more time is required to look at best practices not just take information from a developer who has a financial interest in this change. More transparency and study is required to ensure that Lantzville doesn't make the same mistakes that Nanaimo or other municipalities have made with suites. Take a look at Nanaimo, in areas that have small lots and suites in the houses, these neighbourhoods have a clear lack of parking onsite as a result, the streets aren't drivable as they are too narrow and the is excessive on-street parking to accommodate the suites and extra vehicles. The trend in Nanaimo seems to be smaller lots. That shouldn't be the vision in Lantzville, of small lots with secondary suites, will create a driving nightmare for residents and not reflect Lantzville's culture. 2. I think the riparian area protection description in the new draft zoning bylaw is too ambiguous. The previous bylaw had slightly more explanation at three pages but was still lacking. Wetland areas are not being protected, The property owners (developer) has already run their excavators and tree trimming machines through sensitive wetland areas, home to environmental sensitive flora and fauna. For example, as was pointed out during the information session for the lower ware property, there are water issues there as well with wetland marsh areas which promote the absorption of surface water and prevent flooding downstream. With the upper ware section that is rezoning, the wetland marsh appears to not be a concern for either the developer nor the district, this property while treed acted as a sponge to reduce the winter storm impact on Bloods creek, after its been logged there has been noticeable erosion in the ravine as the property doesn't have this buffer to retain water. 3.1 have an issue with the rezoning of RSlL to F-SAP. The issue with this is the OCP for these areas is too unclear. The proposed density is not clearly outlined, In the Draft OCP survey, residents said they wanted a mix of housing. While still be dominated with single-family housing. In the adopted OCP for these new special area plans, it outlines small tracts of highly varied housing types. This is still too vague, based on the developer rezoning application for the Ware and Clark Dr properties, it seems to be dominated by large tracts of varied housing (cluster and compact) with little to no buffer to the existing neighbourhoods. No amenities or gathering spaces (open park space) for these new communities. I did not see much benefit other than more costs for residents as a result of this proposal. P139 If this property is rezoned from RSlL to F-SPA. It appears that the OCP intended to have small pockets of smaller housing options. As outlined by the developer's vision for this property it appears to be dominated by small scale housing. It appears the developer is going to put the cart before the horse. The town will see the error in this too late and Lantzville and its residents will be left with the blot that doesn't conform to Lantzville's small-town rural village feel. With no community amenities to help create the connection within the development. No open space for kids to play, or neighbours to meet. Thank you for taking the time to review my feedback, I would appreciate your comments of my concerns. On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:07 AM Kyle Young Sean: We do not have a public hearing date scheduled. We are tentatively aiming for a date in December. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confident ial, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information ond Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not t he intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and att achments from your system. P140 From: Sean Reilly Good morning Kyle, Could you tell me what the time table is for the new draft zoning bylaw. Specifically when the public hearing will be? P141 Council, District of Lantzville Re: - proposed zoning bylaw I am concerned about a several items in the proposed zoning bylaw. Specifically, I am drawing attention to a "study area" reference for the Owen Road area. While this area may need some detailed planning, this study should be done as soon as possible and not be put off for any length of time. Council could easily include the funds needed in the upcoming budget and put a time limit on the proposed review. In a discussion with Director of Planning, Mr. Kyle Young, he believed a small budget would cover the study. Obviously, the need for the proposed study seems to result from the several large ,·acant acreages on Owen Road, which were ignored in both the 2005 OCP and the current OCP. However, these along with many smaller properties (zoned RI) could lose their residential zoning, if this designation is removed, as suggested in the zoning document. I bet few, if any, of these property oll·ners are aware of this action or the impact it might have on their properties. Many property owners built their homes to one side of their lot in \\'hat would appear to be the desire to subdivide one day. Of course, nothing could really happen without sen·ices. However, if and when they wished to subdivide, if servicing was available, they would find themselves applying for the very same zoning that they currently have. Council could actually refuse their subdivision that would be permitted under the current zoning. I do not see the need to down-zone anyone's property and believe it is truly unfair. Does council have a legal opinion on these proposed changes? No subdivisions will take place in this area until there are senrices in place. This would seem to negate the need to downzone this area. In conclusion, I would emphasize the need for a planning budget for the Owen Road study area and set a timeline for completion of the study. However, I not support the down zoning of property in this area and the current zoning should be left in place under the new zoning bylaw. Youn~ . Brian Dempsey 6930 Owen Road Lantzville, B.C. VORlHO P142 Lyrvtl.Ct¥tCOC ~ MA B.F.d, LR.AM., LT.CL, LSDA Writer Photographer Lectw-er Travel Consultant Mayor and Council, District of Lantzville, 7192 Lantzville Road, Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 October 11, 2019 I wish to inform you in response to your query that Iams· rongly NOT in favour of your proposed bylaw to change my zoning from CMlL (Commercial Residential) to Rural because it will lower my property value. Are you also lowering property taxes as a consequence? My husband and I bought this property in the late 1990s because he wanted to move south from the NWT where he had a business as a carpenter and because this property was zoned CMlL and the Remax realtor TOLD US IN WRITING that it was one of the few properties on Vancouver Island which allowed such double zoning. The realtor told us that made this property more valuable if ever we wanted to resell it. My husband and I subsequently divorced, in fact t-e never lived here. But I always remembered what the realtor told us about the valLc of the property and as I approach old age (I am now 81) I was happy to know that if old age causes me in the future to sell it in order to move to a retirement home I would have the money to pay for it (writing doesn't make enough to live on) and if/when I die the more the property can sell for, the more I will be able to donate to various charities as that is where my estate is now currently willed as I have no children. My most important charity is the Anglican Church because St. Philips by the Sea church in Lantzville is an important beauty spot in our revered village despite the recent horrible removal of its background of trees. Yet with the continuing worldwide trend in dying congregations, it is facing its demise - a terrible loss for Lantzville. It needs money. So I protest changing my property zoning from commercial/residential to rural. Lyn Hancock at her Artist's Dream Retreat, another book some day. ~-~ 8270 Sabre Road, Lontzville, British Columbia, Canada, VOR 2H0 Phone (250) 390-9075 Fax: (250) 390-9074 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lynhancock.com www .youtube.com/LynHancockwriter P143 From: Darryl & Jenny Callewaert Importance: High Hello Kyle, please find attached our letter of Objection to the Petition requesting addition of Automotive Repair Shop to the RU (Rural Zone) Land Use Bylaw. Please note that our letter is specifically addressing the RU (Rural Zone) because of the proposed change to the land use designation. However, for clarification, it also applies to the current Land Use Bylaw for Estate Residential, which is what it is currently designated as. Should you have any questions or concerns about our letter, please contact us by phone at 250-390- 3699 or return email. I would appreciate confirmation that you have received this email and that it will be presented to Council at the meeting on Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7 pm for review with the Petition. Thank you. Sincerely Darryl and Jenny Callewaert P144 Page 1 of2 Sent by Email to Kyle Young ([email protected]) th October 20 , 2019 District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Road, P.O. Box 100 Lantzville, British Columbia VOR2HO Attention: Kyle Young, Director of Planning Subject: Objection to the Petition to change Land Use RU {Rural Zone} designation to include Automotive Repair, as proposed by Clint Smith, owner of 8377 Bayview Parle Drive, Lantzvllle. Dear Mr. Young, Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing this letter to be included with the Petition presented by Clint Smith, of 8377 Bayview Park Drive, Lantzville, requesting that the new proposed Land Use Bylaw designation of RU (Rural Zone), include the use of Automotive Repair Shops. As mentioned, we were away when the Public Hearing was held and the new bylaw proposal was th unveiled. Our first opportunity to read through the new proposal was Friday, October 18 , at which time I called you and was then informed of the above noted Petition. st Thirteen years ago, on December 1 , 2006 we took possession of our home at 8371 Bayview Park Drive, Lantzville. At the time we purchased our home, the Land Use Designation was Estate Residential and as of today, is still Estate Residential. However, the new proposed Land Use Designation changes our property and the other current Estate Residential properties to RU (Rural Zone). Where our property was Estate Residential when we purchased it, it will now be reclassified and combined with the existing Rural Residential Properties, under one designation being RU {Rural Zone), taking away the designation of Residential. We would like to have a better understanding for the reason behind this proposed change. It is our understanding that the change in the designation does not change the Land Use Bylaw for either property, so again wondering the reason for the change? We are concerned about this change. Our property, as well as many other properties In this area, including a portion of 8377 Bayview Park Drive, is on Environmentally Sensitive designated land. P145 Page 2 of 2 When we purchased our home1 we did our Due Dillgence prior to finalizing the purchase. We made sure that we knew what could and could not be built on the side of the mountain and around our property. An Automotive Repair Shop, most definitely, was not allowed and is still not allowed. Had an Automotive Repair Shop been allowed in this area, we would never have purchased our home. Our home is our investment, one we made, once we knew everything about the land and surrounding area. An Automotive Repair Shop not only affects that investment, it also affects the land and surrounding area. There Is a waterfall that starts at the top of our neighbors property beside us, it flows down and across their land and across our land, down beside 8377 Bayview Park Drive, under Bayview Park Drive road, down a ravine and eventually out to the ocean. The homes in this area are on Well Water and Septic Systems. Even though It won't affect our property in particular, in that regard, there are other properties closer that could be affected. How does an Automotive Repair Shop factor into that? Oint Smith purchased 8377 Bayview Park Drive about 2 years ago+-, launched the opening of his Automotive Repair Shop on Facebook in May 2018. He opened an Automotive Repair Shop on a property that is not designated for that use, a property that is designated Estate Residential. As you know Kyle, we formally complained about it and sent all the information we gathered from his Facebook Page and Twitter Page, along with numerous photos proving that he was operating an Automotive Repair Shop1 he was finally shut down. Supposedly he is working his business as a Mobil Business now. He still has the shop set up on the premise and continues to do the occasional work in his shop; the lights are on in the evenings and weekends. The property is a mess. It is un-kept an~ looks like a junk yard. We can only imagine what it wtll look like if the RU (Rural Zone) Land Use designation Is changed to include Automotive Repair. We shouldn't have to put together a Petition to ask that our home, our property, that we purchased 13 years ago, knowing that we were purchasing a Estate Residential Land Use designated home and property, to be safe from an Automotive Repair Shop being able to open beside us. We are asking that you take our letter into serious consideration in denying the Petition to include Automotive Repair in the RU (Rural Zone) Land Use designation. Sincerely, Darryl and Jenny Callewaert 8371 Bayview Park Drive, Lantzville, BC. P146 Oct 21, 2019 Request to Council - Re Zoning Bylaw: To - Village of Lantzville Mayor and Council Re. Agenda item 13 = proposed COW Meeting re. Draft Zoning Bylaw - Your Worship and Councillors, The new proposed Draft Zoning Bylaw contains no regulation, description or even mention of "Short Term Rentals (STR's), "Vacation Rentals" or "Air B&B"s". I urgently request that this Council not consider passing the new Zoning Bylaw, until issues around "Short Term Rentals", a.k.a. "Air B&B"s, have been studied and addressed. We DO already have perhaps two dozen STR's in Lantzville - quite possibly some in your own neighbourhood. There are at least 2 in our Block Watch area of 46 homes. One is capably run within a conventional B&B operation. Another ls emphatically not. The City of Montreal struggled for years to finally get a wave of improperly located, unregulated Air B&B's under control in every part of the city. Toronto after a full year of appeals and wrangling, still has not passed its Bylaw regulating their STR's. A City lawyer states "short-term rentals raise multiple challenges, from land use conflicts, to affordable housing issues, to the destabilization ofestablished residential neighbourhoods." The city is experiencing tenant pushback in various residential neighbourhoods to 'renovictions' - conversion of long-term suites into more profitable "STR's". Here in BC, Kelowna, Vancouver and Victoria all recently passed STR regulations that require business licences and appropriate zoning, in the host's "Principal Residence". Vancouver's Bylaw Office is currently chasing down literally hundreds of unauthorized and unlicensed "Air B&B's". Other communities including Nanaimo and the Nanaimo RD, are currently developing regulations. 1 P147 I hope that our Council, whose members reported great satisfaction and benefit from networking at the recent UBCM Conference, might check with fellow councillors in Kelowna, Vancouver and Victoria, to review the development and impacts of "Air B&B's in their communities. Under our draft Zoning Bylaw, owners of all single-family detached homes in established Lantzville residential neighbourhoods would be allowed to suite up to 40% oftheir living space as potential rental accommodation, subject to a few basic conditions. If many of these households choose to "Air B&B" their homes for anticipated higher profits, their rental secondary suites would not meet the needs of any potential long-term tenants seeking 'affordable housing' here. The Air B&B organization that collects and distributes Air B&B revenues has been paying PST and regional district taxes to BC for the past year - since October of 2018. So it appears a curious allocation - STR servicing and policing costs and administrative headaches for the municipalities, while their tax revenues pass to the province. Would non-renting Lantzville household neighbours resent seeing constant flows of changing strangers wandering their communities? Might Lantzville's cherished 'livable, semi-rural community' be.destabilized, leaving its neighbourhood Block Watches unmanageable and irrelevant? I hope you agree with me that addressing the issue within the new Zoning Bylaw deserves your prompt and careful attention, along with circulating public information and accepting input to Council. Thank you most sincerely for your consideration. d~rJt~r- Garry Gaudet 7056 Tweedhope Road, Box 47 Lantzville 2 P148 sutton group- west coast realty .,,INOEPEIC>EHTMEMHR IIROIW< Webs lie: www.suttonteam.ca Chris Sutton Sutton Group - West Coast Realty 7547 Cambie Street Vancouver BC, V6P 3H6 OC1 'l. 3 20i~ 778.223.2327 I [email protected] October 17, 2019 Kyle Young District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100 Lantzville, BC, V0R 2H0 Re: Preliminary Rezoning Draft Dear Mr. Young, Further to our discussions, I write to you on behalf of my Client, Mr. Thanh Le who purchased the subject properties, Lots 3&4 Lantzville Rd in 1998 as an investment property for his retirement. The PU1 zoning he purchased the property with allows Personal Care, Public Assembly and Schools. Mr. Le has chosen to hold the property and has paid considerable property taxes for the last 20 years based on the zoning he purchased the property with despite the property not having septic and water services. The property has been a key part of his retirement plan. We believe the current PU 1 zoning already fits within the goals of the OCP. Further, development of this property would likely involve a rezoning application to fit within the new OCP in any case, but this PU1 zoning provides a base level of value for the property that the owner has invested into all these years. The owner is now at the age of retirement and should he need to sell the property, he will face hardship as any potential buyers will only not put much value on the potential for development as there are no certainties in achieving approval for an economic viable development. While we believe the intent of the lanzville East Special Plan Area in the OCP is progressive, it has the following critical issues: 1. The Anticipated Number of New Housing Units is too low - In order to attract the good development characteristics mentioned such as trail networks, green space, innovated designs, etc., there must allow higher density development. In addition, in order to attract a diverse population that includes young families, there must be more affordable units that can only come with density. For development to be economically viable there, there needs to be density sufficient to warrant bringing the sewer service which has been estimated at approximately $800,000. 2. The 3 story maximum height restrictions should be at least 4 stories - There is mention of underground parking which is generally encourage for good urban design. Underground parking is usually only cost justifiable for buildings 4 stories or higher. 3. A 30m buffer along the northem boundary Is too large - The buffer is an unreasonably large setback for buildings from the property line and is a poor use of land. The current trail network is sufficient for .providing a park-like trail and buffer the properties to the North. 7547 Cambie St. Vancouve r BC, V6P 3H6 tel: (604) 322-3000 email: [email protected] P149 sutton group- west coast realty M IH!lEPeHOCHflolfMIIERIAOl(fJll Website: www.suttonteam.ca ------·------ For these reasons, we are requesting the following actions be taken: 1. Leave current PU1 zoning on the subject property 2. Addre" the issues in the OCP with the Lanzville East Special Area Plan 3. Develop a zoning definition that fits with the goals of the OCP Following the proper course and taking the time to develop a zoning definition for the area that is consistent with the goals of the OCP will attract good development, provide a more equitable realization of resale value for all current property owners regardless of their political influence or financial ability, and save tax payer dollars by reducing the load on the Planning office. Please contact me if I can provide anything further. Sincerely. Chris Sutton r_c Thanh Le 7547 Camble St. Vancouver BC. V6P 3H6 tel: (604) 322-3000 email: [email protected] P150 Kyle Young From: ian savage < [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:1S PM To: Ronald Campbell; Kyle Young; Mayor Swain; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor, Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson Subject: Zoning Bylaw Draft Attachments: Secondary suites and a second smaller house.docx It will not be possible to properly cover, in just one cow meeting, all the issues inherent in the proposed zoning bylaw. So I've attached, for information, some aspects of secondary suites/ carriage houses for consideration. Thanks Ian Ian Savage 2503901958 l P151 Secondary suites / Second smaller houses fcarriage houses) It's important to know there was limited dialogue with residents specifically about secondary suites/ carriage houses throughout the ocp process. Near the end of our term, there was an ocp committee meeting in October, 2017, which was video recorded. There was a brief 4 minute discussion on secondary suites/carriage houses, with no votes or consensus, wherein the District Planner stated "On that note, one of the things I have In the budget is a review of the zoning bylaw. So once we get through this (ocp) process we'll review the zoning bylaw ... but part of that budget will include reviewing the provisions of suites. I'm expecting there'll be outreach to the community and get better feedback specifically around suites and what size (muffled) Is for folks. n This community dialogue has yet to occur. Oak Bay began a public process in 2018 to see if the public wanted authorization of secondary suites. As of summer 2019 the process was still ongoing. Recently Saanich had a lengthy public process to measure the appetite for allowing more second small houses on properties (garden homes). This produced 139 pages of residents' comments. It's also important for residents to know there are negatives to suites and second smaller houses. The proof is the continual complaints in areas where such rentals are common. Below are some points to consider, and at the bottom are some examples of Saanich residents complaints. Benefits of suites/second houses 1. Some current residents/existing houses would like the extra income provided by a suite or second house - or would like independent accommodation for a family member. This is a benefit to the resident who does this, but there can be negatives to other homes in the neighbourhood, especially if this practice becomes widespread. 2. Suites/ carriage houses in new development. have no benefits for current residents - only problems. Some negatives to consider of suites and smaller second houses in New Development 1. This is a back door way of Increasing density. If a developer proposes 300 units, it can really mean 425 ... 450.•• 475 •.. units, because secondary suites and smaller second houses will not count as units in the overall density numbers, but in fact they are dwelling units, replete with vehicles, pets, people. The Clark Dr/Ronald Rd rezoning application intends to have such rental units, which amounts to tax exempt free density. 2. Throughout the ocp process the majority of residents stated they did not want too much density, culminating in a December 2017 survey where they voted for the lowest density option in almost all locations. The election results showed the majority wants the moderate, limited development density prescribed by the new ocp, coupled with generous amounts of greenspace. It is a settled issue. Yet, the campaign for maximum density continues. P152 3. These suites and second small houses will pay either no property taxes., or an insignificant amount. The only taxes produced are if the assessed value of the property is marginally increased by having a suite. We are in the process of trying to make Lantzville more economically viable, but promoting such a large amount of suites/small second houses completely undermines this effort. All these tenants will consume our services - roads, parks, beaches, bylaw enforcement, policing etc. - but the suites/smaller second houses pay little or no taxes. The negative financial implications of this will cancel out hard won gains in other areas. 4. If we must have rentals, rental apartment buildings are the most economically beneficial for Lantzville. Each unit is fully accounted for in the property tax assessed value of the building. And such buildings will be contained in a limited area, avoiding the conflict found elsewhere in owner occupied neighbourhoods. 5. The minimum lot size requirements in the draft zoning bylaw are far too small. Suites can go on lots as small as .11 acre. Small second houses can go on lots as small as .15 acre. This is obviously aimed a new development as current homes don't sit on such lot sizes. This makes new development far less appealing, and even more of a financial negative. 6. As evidenced elsewhere, there are no fail safe solutions to the inherent problems, and there is not the manpower in Lantzville to enforce. The only proposed solution in the bylaw is designated on site parking. We don't have the manpower to enforce this, and when tenants have visitors/guests/gatherings, which is their right, the guest parking will fill the street. This requires a 4 lane road city-like subdivisions. Designated parking spots hasn't alleviated all the problems elsewhere. 7. Rental secondary suites are minimal here, so many residents may be unaware of all the problems they have caused elsewhere. We represent residents, and It is our duty to reveal these negatives to residents. 8. The draft bylaw proposes a second house can be 968 sf. But it can also be on top of a 968 sf detached garage, forming an imposing 1936 sf second building on the property. The garage could be used by the tenant as a basement or living area extension, thus increasing rent. This would be an unauthorized use, but Lantzville has little manpower to police such things. Landlords can be very creative in increasing income. 9. New housing with suites/second houses on small lots, will have little green space on the property. It will be mo~ly asphalt for extra parking, and buildings. This creates more runoff and drainage problems - bringing another city problem to Lantzville. It's environmentally unsound, to replace nature with so much hardscape. P153 10. There will be more cars, more exhaust in the air, more people, less parking, less space, more noise, and a more transient community with all the rentals. The very reasons many residents left their former homes_ to come to places like Lantzville. 11. Property investors are attracted to houses with suites, increasing the odds such houses will become rental houses, with 2 rental dwellings, which have more problems than owner occupied houses with a suite. 12. Suites/second houses can be turned into short term rental Air B and B's, which can be converted back to monthly rentals. They are two sides of the same coin. 13. All renters can vote after living here for 30 days. This lessens the influence of residents who own property and pay property taxes. 14. All these tax exempt rentals will cause the population to more quickly reach 5000. That's when we get a permanent increase in police costs. The previous CAO estimated the increase to be 462 000 per year. The town of Duncan studiously keeps its population below 5000 to avoid this huge increase. A Duncan councillor said he estimates the cost increase to Duncan would be a 500 000 increase per year. Property owners, not tenants, will have to pay this increase. 15. A proliferation of suites/second houses produces more water consumption, which means more Nanaimo water will eventually be consumed. Nanaimo water use will increase costs to all water users, because 100 % of the Nanaimo water user fees go to Nanaimo, diverting funds from our water operational costs. Also, water users will pay for all Nanaimo water which is leaked. Currently, they don't pay for leaked Lantzville well water. Leaking is common in water systems. Being cavalier about allowing so many suites/carriage houses , means being cavalier with our limited well water. For decades the District has denied even one new water connection to anyone, including for a suite. Now suddenly, it's ok to allow unlimited suites or second houses at existing homes, and an untold number at new homes. 16. Will all these yet unknown number of suites/second houses, be considered in the sizing of our new reservoir? And If so, what total number of suites/ second houses are being put in the calculation? 17. We are increasing density with no public greenspace in return. We are degrading our environment with more cars, more exhaust/air pollution, losing private greenspace to more buildings/parking pavement ... and are getting nothing in return - except problems. P154 18. Linyard Road, Nanaimo - the most recent 22 sales/listing records showed 20/22 houses with suites. So if the trend is big houses with suites on small lots, this could be the formula for lantzville. Linyard Rd, Nanaimo. This is what small lots with big houses look like. lot sizes average around 6500 sf with a range from 4038 sf to 7341 sf. Prices are in the 700 000 to 900 000 range. They are not affordable even with suites. The draft zoning bylaw allows 4843 sf lots to have suites, and 6458 sf lots to have a smaller second house. 20/22 of recent listed/sold homes on Unyard had suites. That seems to indicate builders of new homes in Lantzville may want to go the same route - most of the homes will have suites. Subdivisions with suites like this, would make Lantzville indistinguishable from Nanaimo, the opposite to what the majority of residents expressed in the ocp process. P155 Possible Solutions A. Do not allow any suites or smaller second houses in any new development. These would be a burden for current residents, with no benefits. B. For existing homes as of 2018, all secondary suites/smaller second house applications should go through a streamlined rezoning process. The recent Harper Rd rezoning for a smaller second house was quick and easy. This will keep control over volume and quality of location. This approach would allow us to measure successes or problems as we go. By allowing them everywhere in a zoning bylaw, we give up control. Only existing residents should benefrt from a suite or carriage house. There is no reason to let developers only marginally profit from these, leaving us with a new and permanent problem. C. For existing homes as of 2018, have a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre for a secondary suite or second house. D. There are other cities with "Suite Zones" which allows one to target limited areas. These solutions are more prudent/measured than the radical step of giving up control and allowing suites/ smaller second houses at almost all new or existing residential properties. Saanich residents survey- negative comments on allowing more rental garden homes There are positive comments but it is the negative comments which illuminate all the problems. They show there is definitely a negative side to suites/ second houses. This is for the benefit of those who deny there are real and serious problems. '7ransient renters destroy the concept of a neighborhood. How can you block watch when there is a continual change of who lives here. Our neighborhood Is already suffering from secondary suites in which was zoned single family when we bought, and paid a premium price for. Street parking is already out of control due to basement suites. Currently "legal" suites are not properly managed. Houses are being bought as investments to be used as student "motels" and the owners neglect to manage them. Bylaw enforcement Is slow and lax, which causes much frustration for the neighbours. Until problems with the current suites have been resolved, no new suites of any kind should be added to single family dwelling zoned properties. The university should take the responsibility of housing their students. We bought in a single family neighbourhood and would prefer it stayed that way. We are adamantly opposed to backyard residences. Too many people on single family lots, it's getting too crowded in my neighbourhood.already with all the suites (legal and Illegal) parking all over the boulevards and green spaces under oak trees. Bylaw does nothing about parking ...... P156 Increase in pets and the noise they make and needs they have. The attractive nature of most neighbourhoods in which secondary suites have been allowed has been negatively impacted i.e. Multiple number of cars parked willy-nilly on property, trees/lawns removed to increase parking "spots'~ increase in traffic on narrow neighbourhood roads which were not and cannot be designed for such increase, reduced sense of security as difficult to know whether or not people entering property belong, unkempt look, etc., etc. Overcrowding of single family neighbourhoods/ New "tenants" and friends constantly changing. Noise of their slamming car doors. Number of cars added to a neighbourhood overall, one or two extra cars per property impacts not just a single lot or street but the entire neighbourhood. Privacy of neighbours - Impact. Parking, Noise and light pollution. After hours bylaw enforcement Is essential, especially concerns with noise. Should not have to report incidents to police! I NoAirbnb Even if there Is a provision of on-site parking, most people will park on the boulevards as they do now. There should be a limit of how many garden suites are allowed in a neighbourhood on one particular street. Otherwise, the street wlll be filled with vehicles from the main residences and the garden suites. Our neighbourhood Is like that now because of the secondary suites. Furthermore, homeowners with secondary suites should not be allowed to have garden suites. My concern is with the NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES and HOW THEIR GARDEN SUITES might affect my PRIVACY and QUALITY of living. Is the BYLAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF going to be able to manage the potential increased work load? Are the GARDEN SUITES going to be REGISTERED or UNREGISTERED as is the case with many SECONDARY SUITES in single family homes and in zoned duplexes that ore actually 4-plexes? There Is no way Saanich wlll be able to have a basement suite or garden suite bylaw. People wlll find a way around it. There needs to be a better way of enforcing the bylaws then the system already in use. Loss of neighborhood community sense when residents are tenants and not owners Increased traffic on residential streets. You don't enforce illegal suites now and garden suites will just make congestion and noise worse. By increasing, retroactively, the density and composition of a neighbourhood, you potentially change the character of the neighbourhood that existed when existing home owners located there. Access, traffic patterns, demand for services, neighbourhood demographics (and relationships) immediately change (rather than gradually change}, and noise level all change, often in ways that detract from existing neighbourhoods. This is not theory.. .it's becoming increasing real and evident with the proliferation of secondary suites. P157 Not in favour at all. There is already a parking problem with the legalization of basement suites. If this goes ahead it will only make this area more desirable for investment speculators with the ability to purchase a house and have a basement suite plus a garden suite. Impact on the house assessments of surrounding properties. I know there Is potential for home suites and garden suites, since I've already seen them at the same home. This for me, is too much. Our bylaws aren't enforced now. What makes us think it will be different. When the landlords rent homes, suites and garden suites yet don't live nearby, it leaves the neighbours to concern The removal of too much "green space" from residential neighbourhoods. Increased road traffic with higher density housing. You talk about issues here for creating regulations, the simple fact that the municipality hos never really dealt with the required regulations for secondary suites makes this page a joke. 10096 against this Increase In density without improving infrastructure such as water, sewer and transportation corridors All of the above and more. Soon/ch has no control over what is being constructed right now... before new regulations. This will only lead to at least 3 units on a lot with a new build on it. Accessory buildings are already dwelling units In Saanich and more are being approved with no regulations. Let's not fool ourselves about reality. People ore building accessory buildings and then converting them to dwelling units now. I do not support garden cottages until Saanich enforces current secondary suites bylaws including parking and owner occupy This ;s absolutely silly, we certainly do not need more people and more noise I didn't buy a million dollar house because I wanted tenants as neighbours. Bear Mountain is a prime example, the crime and noise complaints ore over the top because of all the suites" P158 WISH-SHA M.H. PARK LTD. OCT 2 4 2019 P.O. BOX 112 NANAIMO B.C. V9R-SK4 Owners: Jim & Kathleen Russell 2320 Arbot Road, Nanaimo BC D Council O C1rc. To Staff October 18, 2019 D Mayor D Public Works ~ CAO. ~ Planning 0 Director of Finance O Fire Dept. Mr Kyle Young 0 Corp.Admin. 0 Other ___ _ D Agenda __3...... , i oO-..=--.;...::' 'U)=-,,_,l....,.©"--O_ 7192 Lantzville Road Lantzville B C VOR 2HO Re: Block 179 Nanoose District I am unhappy with the proposed zoning of this land to forestry. We are bordering on the north boundary by the Foothill development. The zoning for the foothills is what we would like to see on our land. We have a registered access road through the woodlot on wiggles road.We have owned this parcel since july-18-1973 and are unhappy with this proposal of forestry zoning. Please contact Jim Russell address above Phone: 250 754-7945 P159 Kyle Young From: Susan Cormie Hi Kyle Please just put them with Council info. Thanks, Susan On Mon., Oct. 28, 2019, 1:51 p.m. Kyle Young, Susan: Would you like me to respond to the comments made in your e-mail or would you like me to simply include your e-mail as public lnput to Council? Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] lhls email and any a1tachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and mav be confidential, privileged and subject to disdosure under the Freedom of lnformotion ond Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, ts strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: Susan Hello Kyle The following sets out comments in addition to those sent to you in a previous email. 1. Suites and Carriage Houses - I have a number of questions: How will the District keep track of and administer these uses? , Will there be extra charges (I.e., water, sewer, garbage) applied to properties with a carriage house or suite as there · will be an impact on services? There are numerous unlawful suites in Lantzville - How will these be dealt with? Will these suites become legal? How will the District know if they meet all building codes, electrical codes, and safety standards? Will building permits be required to authorize their use? What about properties that are not connected to sanitary sewers, will they be allowed a suite or carriage home? What about properties on private wells? What about testing wells for possible impact of draw down of well and impact on aquifer and surrounding wells? How will It be assured that VIHA requirements will be met in the case of a private well serving more than one dwelling? Is there a checklist for suites with respect to separation concerns with the dwelling unit, i.e., fire separation, separate smoke alarms, shut off valves for water, separate heating, etc.? Has the Ministry of Health be consulted concerning secondary suites and carriage house proposed use? It may be smart to slow this process of introducing carriage house and secondary suites to ensure all measures are in place to properly administer. Maybe just open some properties I.e., residential over 4000 m2 or rural zoned parcels - just a thought. 2. Under the Rural zone, subsection 4., why this setback reduction on the Rural zoned property especially if it is 1.0 ha or larger in size? 3. 3. Definition of Agriculture- what about the raising and keeping of animals?- definition is not clear on this. 4. Agricultural buildings are proposed to be subject to height restrictions - what is the rationale for this change? S. Subdivision Regulations - minimum parcel size is not shown based on available community services - Is this criteria found in another bylaw and if so does it cover all minimum parcel size with or without the levels of community services? 2 P161 6. Minimum parcel frontages- why not use the 10% rule as per the Local Government Act? What about cul•de-sac lots and frontages - do not think proposed frontages will work well. 7. Park Model Units-are they included the Building Bylaw as a dwelling unit? 8. Marine Zone - the maximum, height of structures has been removed -why? 9. Farm Animals - I think manure storage and farm animals uses are currently a 30 metre setback - What is the rationa1e for the reduction in this setback? 10. Watercraft storage - does this mean outside storage? What about canoes, kayaks- are they Included as watercraft? Kayakers usually have more than one boat. 11. Artisan Studio - says 'and sale of art' -what about and/or sale of art? Not everyone sells their art from their studio. I think another public open house with revisions to the bylaw may in order. Sincerely, Susan Cormie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 3 P162 ~ THE FOOTHILLS LANTZVILLE, BC October 28, 2019 District of Lantzville PO Box 100 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC, V0R 2H0 Attention: Kyle Young Dear Sir: Re: District of Lantzville Draft Zoning Bylaw We are writing to address the clause in the draft zoning bylaw that prohibits the construction of suites and carriage homes in the Foothills. It is our understanding that the decision to not allow suites/carriage houses is due to the fact that it is not specifically identified in the Foothills Development Agreement. When the Development Agreement was written, suites/carriage houses were not allowed to be constructed anywhere in the District and therefore were not an allowable use within any zoning designation. Lantzville' s new OCP recommends that suites/carriage houses be allowable use in the community. There is no mention in the OCP of restricting construction of these types of units from any area of the community. By excluding them from the Foothills, this would appear to be contrary to the OCP. If suites/carriage houses are not allowed in the Foothills, as outlined in the existing draft zoning document, some owners will still construct suites/carriage houses, similar to the many illegal suites that have been constructed throughout the community. The District has an opportunity with the new homes being constructed in the Foothills. By allowing suites/carriage homes to be constructed in new homes that desire them, the District can ensure that the suites/carriage homes are constructed properly and meet all health and safety codes. We encourage the District to revise the draft zoning bylaw to allow for the construction of suites/carriage homes within the Foothills. Yours truly, Allard Ockeloen CEO/Director Lone Tree Properties Ltd P163 Kyle Young From: Darryl & Jenny Callewaert Importance: High Good Morning Kyle, Please find attached an additional letter to be submitted with our previous letter to the District of Lantzvllle Council th Meeting to be held on October 30 , 2019 at 7 PM. We are away right now but could drive back to be at the meeting. Would you please explain, once more, what this meeting is about and if there is a benefit to us attending it? Would you kindly confirm that you received this email and were able to open the pdf file. Thank you. Sincerely, Jenny Callewaert 1 P164 Page 1 of4 Sent by Emait to Kyle Young ([email protected]) th October 29 , 2019 District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Road, P.O. Box 100 Lantzville, British Columbia VOR2HO Attention: Kyle Young, Director of Planning Subject: Addition to letter ofOctober 2tl", 2019 Objection to the Petition to chonge Land Use RU (Rural Zone} designation to lndude Automotive Repair, as proposed by 0/nt Smith, owner of 8371 Bopiew Parle Drive, Lantzvllle. Dear Mr. Young, 1 Further to our letter of October 20 \ 2019 that f have asked be presented to Town Council at the th meeting on October 30 , 2019, we would also Uke this letter to be included. In addition to our concerns regarding the Petition to change Land Use RU (Rural Zone) designation to include Automotive Repair, I would like to bring to your attention the picture below and the comment made by Clint Smith on his personal Facebook Page. This picture and comment1 in our opinlon1shows the attitude of Clint Smith and his disregard for the condition of his property and zoning Bylaws. The property has looked like this for 5 months! If the newly proposed Land Use changing our Residential Estate Land Use Designation to RU (Rural Zone) allows the operation of an Automotive Repair shop, this is an indication of what we can expect. This will affect our property value and our neighborhood. As mentioned in our previous letter, we did our due diligence when we purchased our home December 2006, and had an Automotive Repair Shop been allowed, we absolutely, would not have purchased our home. In addition to this concern, we spoke with the BC Assessment office today and asked about the land assessment affect this change will have on the value of our land. I was told that as far as they are aware, there are not going to be any significant changes to the existing Bylaws, and that the biggest change In discussion was regarding land subdivision; however, we noticed in the new Bylaws that a Kennel will be allowed In RU (Rural Zone), where it wasn't in the existing Bylaws and Land Designation. We asked what having an Automotive Repair Shop beside our property would do to the value, and we were told that there is no way of determining that until it was open and if It affected the property sales in the area. In our opinion, that's seems too late I P165 Page2of4 As mentioned In our previous letter, other concerns are the impact on the Environment. This Is not an industrial or commercial type area, where Automotive Repair Shops are typically set up. There is a running waterfall and the watercourse flows down along side of this property and there are Wells 1n the area. Once again, we ask that you please, seriously consider everything that we have submitted regarding the Petition to allow an Automotive Repair Shop In the RU (Rural Zone), or Residential Estate or Rural Residential Zoned Land Designations. Darryl and Jenny callewaert 8371 Bayview Park Drive, Lantzville, British Columbia Phone:250-390-3699 P166 Page 3 of 4 Clint Smith's Facebook Posting of June 21'', 2019 =:;,-;_ Clint Smith added 2 new photos. ... June 21 · '3 I can almost feel the bitchy neighbor up the hills phone lines vibrating. This ought to make her head spin like Linda Blair. It's my truck. My property. She can suck it. ~i-~-~~:.:·,. ~·_;,.\11 ~~· .. * ~ .~ ,1.r·./. \_:-; ., -,~f~:-tJ1- . . .- . '-° .. . , f. ~ . . ' P167 Page 4 of 4 rd These two pictures were taken on October 23 , 2019, the day after I saw the above post on Clint Smith's Facebook page, which is dated, June 21' 1, 2019. This is how the front part of the property looks today. The motor has been moved into his Automotive Workshop, on the other side of the property. ~. -f .- ...... , -- ... . :.. ~ " ::.-.: ., - ,... - .-'1 .. -:, ... --.. ;. _ -:;;-:-r- -::. .~ :.--".:- , ~ :~_: '.;., ; v - • . . . ..~ - :,...... ;;c,;:;:,!.' I~...:-• - "• .::::--:~f-'~- :.~ -··· ·- -..: ...... ,._. . .: , ;_/f;i_;ti -·- _,;;~-~~~);: .. ·-~~- -- ~-~ -~ P168 Kyle Young From: John Philip Good morning Kyle. I was surprised to learn that the Diistrict of Lantzville council was moving away from the concept of allowing Carriage houses and suites. I am fully in support of the proposed bylaw regarding Carriage Houses and Suites. We were planning on incorporating a carriage House into our new home plans but because of the uncertainty we will not be proceeding with this idea. It is unfortunate, as I believe the concept of carriage houses would address the ideas of increased density and affordable housing. Yours truly. John Philip 1 P169 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 201910:12 AM To: Trudy Coates; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Mayor Swain; Fred Spears; Jamie Stater; Neil Rukus; Ronald Campbell Subject: RE: CORR: Ron and Brenda Hais (5 Nov 2019) re The new zoning bylaw Mayor and Council: The only point of clarification I would offer on the e-mail below is that the subject properties are currently zoned Rural. To zone these properties Residential, as requested below, would require an OCP amendment. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. ---Original Message--- From: Trudy Coates -----Original Message- From: Brenda C Hais [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, November S, 2019 9:25 AM To: District Public Mayor, Mark Swain and Council This is a letter to the Mayor and council of Lantzville concerning the downgrade in zoning to my property at 6717 Harwood Dr. As well as my neighbours who are currently zoned Estate residential and are now facing the prospect of being zoned Rural.These properties at present are in the water service area and have sewer service fronting them.There 1 P170 are currently 2 mainline stubs coming off the sewer line that are there for sewer supply to these properties.With full services currently fronting our property and being surrounded by residential on three sides I feel our properties should also be zoned Residential as this would infill an area that will soon see a huge increase in traffic to the residential properties in the foothills. These properties have had zoning changed in the past and I feel should be changed to residential at this time. My property and my neighbours property have in the past each sold 1 acre to the district for 1 dollar In order for the extension of Aulds Rd. to provide access to the properties at the end of Aulds road.In the 24 years we have lived here we have been told many times that once sewer comes in we would be able to subdivide.These properties are not Rural by definition and are located with amenities on our frontage. One property is .60 of an acre with one house. I am hoping council will reconsider this proposal of changing us to Rural and we can be zoned Residential which would be in line with our many neighbours who are zoned residential. There is a chance to right this now and follow a natural path forward in the sense of the growth in our great community. Please take this formal request and reconsider the zoning for our properties. Thank you Ron and Brenda Hais 6717 Harwood Drive 2 P171 00 C!:ltirdl D C•rc Tc Staff r 6685 Harwood Drive 0 l.1ayl)r D Public Works ISICAO P3 Plann,ng NOV O 7 20!5 Lantzville 0 Oirecror nf Finance D F,re Dept. D C.mp ,:,:J:11i11 , D Orhe, _____ D /1 genu:1 _____._,.. T"i'r_.,..,..--,,,,""?--,.,:::.-- ·..z.t , / {'(' ·.....i i'- ' t l•· f... ', Mayor and Council, District of Lantzville. Re: 6685 Harwood Drive Lantzville, Lot 2 Plan 39218 -Land use category/designation. This letter is to request Council to remove the Rural designation in the draft Zoning bylaw and reinstate the land use to residential as it was prior to downzoning before 2003; and in keeping with adjacent Winchelsea and Foothills developments. Background. Prior to 2003, our property was zoned residential for½ acre lots. In accordance with this zone our property was subdivided, by the previous owner creating lot 1 [0.6 acre] 6683 Harwood Drive, and lot 2 [5.2acres) both plan 39218. Winchelsea and the Foothills, to the north, east and south. are zoned residential½ acre. • Our property is connected to municipal water, but not sewer service. However; recent construction of the Foothills sewer line includes sewer stubs for future extension to these lands. Therefore, we request that our properties also be included in the sewer service area. It makes economic sense for the District to encourage connection to municipal utilities to increase user contribution towards costs. • The newly constructed and twinned Harwood Drive is the main and only access into the Foothills subdivision. There has been a significant increase in construction and traffic, and our peace and enjoyment have been disruption for almost 15 months. As further phases are developed, traffic volumes will increase. We are no longer on the edge of residential development; we are within it. • The draft Zoning bylaw shows our land as Rural. Our research suggests that Rural applies only to remote and large acreages without infrastructure. A full range of Infrastructure; Sanitary sewer, water, Hydro, Cable, Gas, streetlighting, garbage collection and bus service are immediately available to us. Clearly rural does not apply. • In addition, Lantzville's population is greater than 1000, and its proximity to Nanaimo [a medium and soon to be large urban population center] is another factor suggesting that Rural is an inappropriate land use designation. At best Lantzville is more sub-urban. We understand these factors exclude it from the rural classification according to Canada's 2016 population classification. In closing, we request that Council recognize the downzoning in the past; the recent adjacent land use and the available infrastructure; and restore our property to residential ½ acre with sewer access. We request fairness and believe that this is an opportune time to 'right a past wrong'. Respectfully Graham and Brenda Savage, Lindsey and Douglas English. f t/.v~ ,.:,r/;.;,cpe I /./ P172 To: Kyle Young Director of Planning District of Lantzville From: Jackie and Jack de Jong 6935 Dickinson rd. Lantzville BC VOR2HO Greetings, Subject: draft District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw No. 180, 2019 GENERAL This is for your consideration and evaluation in the developing process for the proposed Zoning Bylaw. We are supportive for the proposed simplification of the existing by]aw. The zoning now in place is difficult to understand, administer, confusing and sometimes unfair. However, we have some concern that the creation of a Future Study Area {FSA) zone is too open ended and not in the interest of the sma11 land owners in the area affected. The OCP objective was always to allow for more in building and limited growth. The FSA designation without defining the objectives and timing conveys the impression we are putting these RS 1 zoned properties in storage for an undefined period and purpose. The District has always steered clear of downzoning but lacking a definition for FSA we must assume this is a downzoning. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES The yellow FSA designation displayed on the proposed zoning map includes some 70 contiguous properties extending from Schook road in the eastern boundary to Cai11et road near the village core. To the best of our knowledge all are zoned RS 1 and assessments and taxation over the last 25 years have reflected this higher value zoning designation. The land area enclosed represents 70 parcels on 120 acres. Individual parcels vary in size from 0.21 to 11.37 acres. The 20 larger parcels which may have some subdivision potential, are generaUy interspersed within the 50 smaller parcels. (See attached table for details This fracturing through previous historical subdivisions makes it difficult if not impossible to impose new zoning and infrastructure requirements without introducing serious financial challenges for the present owner and possibly substantial loss of revenue for the District. The proposed FSA has a combined assessed (2019) value of $61 million. ($39 million land $22 million buildings) and represent a substantial investment for the owners. Any P173 zoning revisions that introduce uncertainty and could potentia11y affect property values should not be taken lightly. Exclusive of parcel taxes these RS l zoned properties contributes 6 to 7% to the District's annual revenue requirements. (Note this is considerably higher than the properties under the foothills or Lantzville Prop. Inc. umbrella.) PROPOSED FSA ZONE MAP COMMENTS Without knowing the motivation for the FSA designation the proposal seems unilateral and arbitrary. We do not remember during the extensive OCP discussion that Lantzville would create an FSA zone. Arguably, it seems the District is constraining its own financial revenue requirements and possible senior government infrastructure grants for this area, by limiting in building and increasing the density for an undefined period. An analysis of the FSA map shows large areas bordering the highway and Schook road are excluded; Seaside Terrace, now strata titled is excluded; sub dividable P174 waterfront properties in the area are excluded; the Mobile home park is excluded; yet they a11 form part of this important East Lantzvi1le residential area. On the other hand small O.21 acre parcels on Caillet rd. with limited or no connectivity to the area and little or any development potential are in the new proposed FSA zone. As stated earlier we do not object to a comprehensive study of the area but strongly suggest this be done aside, in a separate time frame, without the future designation and some clear objectives. Substantia11y changing existing zoning and subdivision infrastructure requirements will be very difficult as no single land owner can economically justify to fund such a project. We believe the combined interests of the few larger parcels are just too small and far apart both geographically and timing to have a reasonable chance of success for a privately driven water and sewer construction project. It doesn't make economic sense. The District would be better positioned to apply for infrastructure grants if the density could be gradua11y increased through supportive in-building in the general area. With regards Jackie and Jack de Jong Cc copy Mr. Ronald Campbell CAO Lantzville District Mayor Mark Swain Councillor Will Geselbracht Councillor Karen Proctor Councillor Ian Savage Councillor Jamie Wilson PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED FSA ZONING 2019 ASSESSMENT LAND ADDRESS LAND BUILDINGS TOTAL AREA Owen Rd 04-350-08150.350 1,423,000 0 1,423,000 11.370 Lantzville/Owen 04-350- 08145.300 1,096,000 0 1,096,000 10.070 6917 Owen rd. 1,423,000 41,000 1,464,000 9.000 6930Owen rd. 600,000 371,000 971,000 4.950 6935 Dickinson rd. 780,000 418,000 1,198,000 4.570 Dickinson rd.04-350-08134.515 912,000 912,000 3.850 6888 Strong rd. 839,000 247,000 1,086,000 3.790 P175 Lantzville 04-350-08146.500 709,000 0 709,000 3.500 6995 Dickinson rd. 870,000 263,000 1,133,000 3.400 7055 Caillet rd. 650,000 128,000 778,000 3.050 6928 Strong rd. 510,000 148,000 658,000 3.000 6910 Owen rd. 801,000 1,154,000 1,955,000 2.430 6925Owen Rd 627,000 356,000 983,000 2.013 6979 Dickinson rd. 616,000 163,000 779,000 2.000 6973 Dickinson rd. 657,000 174,000 831,000 1.950 6966 Jack's rd. 581,000 273,000 854,000 1.900 6980 Jenna dry 524,000 200,000 724,000 1.800 6940 Jack's rd. 562,000 468,000 1,030,000 1.740 Dickinson rd. 04-350-08132.200 582,000 4,800 586,800 1.712 6958 Jack's rd. 461,000 197,000 658,000 1.400 6970 Jenna dry 479,000 529,000 1,008,000 1.380 7060 Lantzville rd. 354,000 87,900 441,900 1.120 6989 Owen rd. 530,000 453,000 983,000 1.117 6970 Rosalyn cry 490,000 885,000 1,375,000 1.106 7010 Jenna dry 446,000 398,000 844,000 1.062 7000Jenna dry 446,000 624,000 1,070,000 1.060 6990 Jenna dry 445,000 626,000 1,071,000 1.057 6885 Nestor way 480,000 340,000 820,000 1.017 6880 Nestor way 479,000 399,000 878,000 1.011 6902 Strong rd. 480,000 269,000 749,000 1.003 6840 Wayne's place 476,000 281,000 757,000 0.990 6881 Rosalyn cry 476,000 266,000 742,000 0.990 7040 lantzville rd. 380,000 399,000 779,000 0.989 7030 Owen rd. 457,000 631,000 1,088,000 0.989 6943 Dickinson rd. 380,000 102,000 482,000 0.988 7010 Owen rd. 514,000 320,000 834,000 0.988 6950 Rosalyn cry 476,000 576,000 1,052,000 0.988 6920 Rosalyn cry 514,000 370,000 884,000 0.988 6910 Rosalyn cry 514,000 423,000 937,000 0.988 6861 Wayne's place 552,000 370,000 922,000 0.988 6860 Wayne's place 476,000 186,000 662,000 0.988 684S Schook rd. 476,000 427,000 903,000 0.988 6861 Schook rd. 476,000 302,000 778,000 0.988 7020 Owen rd. 495,000 592,000 1,087,000 0.988 7000 Owen rd. 495,000 659,000 1,154,000 0.988 6994 Owen rd. 514,000 702,000 1,216,000 0.988 6931 Rosalyn cry 476,000 534,000 1,010,000 0.988 6905 Rosalyn cry 476,000 310,000 786,000 0.988 6891 Rosaalyn cry 476,000 361,000 837,000 0.988 7068 lantzville rd. 474,000 116,000 590,000 0.980 6981 Jenna dry 471,000 417,000 888,000 0.960 '6971 Jenna dry 433,000 543,000 976,000 0.960 P176 6985 Rosalyn cry 469,000 564,000 1,033,000 0.948 6975 Rosalyn cry 469,000 345,000 814,000 0.948 6951 Rosalyn cry 469,000 602,000 1,071,000 0.948 6983 Dickinson rd. 521,000 283,000 804,000 0.926 6979 Owen rd. 460,000 271,000 731,000 0.894 6938 Jack•s rd. 369,000 152,000 521,000 0.830 6987 Dickinson rd. 462,000 350,000 812,000 0.780 6950 Jack's rd. 415,000 103,000 518,000 0.500 7071 Caillet rd. 508,000 317,000 825,000 0.480 7075 Caillet rd. 508,000 207,000 715,000 0.480 7085 Caillet rd. 508,000 105,000 613,000 0.480 7091 caillet rd. 508,000 92,200 600,200 0.480 7097 caillet rd. 508,000 99,600 607,600 0.480 7103 Caillet rd. 508,000 131,000 639,000 0.480 7079 CailJet rd. 508,000 111,000 619,000 0.448 6980 Owen rd. 400,000 326,000 726,000 0.440 7107 caillet rd. 438,000 104,000 542,000 0.210 6976 Jack's rd. 339,200 94,100 433,300 0.210 70 properties 38,696,200 22,319,600 61,056,800 121.068 P177 Kyle Young From: Councillor Proctor Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:51 AM To: Ronald Campbell; Kyte Young Subject: Fwd: Draft Bylaw Proposal to allow Carriage Houses & Suites Attachments: Rentals.pdf; A TT00001.htm FYI. I see that this wasn't sent to you. You learn something new everyday, I had no idea that Gary and Brian were friends. K Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Janice Perrino" One of our neighbours dropped off the attached letter at our door today. The person who dropped it off at our home. was going around the neighbourhood to ensure everyone had a copy. So there may be 10 copies out there, there might be 100 or even a 1,000 which is what prompted me to speak up against the letter. Having spent twelve years at the council table myself, I recognize a NIMBY letter very quickly and while the gentleman who dropped off the letter is a wonderful person, I can promise you, his worries are over inflated and unrealistic. In a community of just shy of 12,000 residents, my own council agreed to carriage housing and secondary suites and the community barely noticed the difference. These are what I would suggest as realities: • very few people will want strangers living in their home, even for a short period of time - so there won't be a rush of new folks to take this on • Ifs very expensive to build a home today, with big mortgages, most people won·t be able to afford to add an addition to their home • the increase in traffic per street is so minimal, no one will notice it • carriage houses and suites tend to attract one or two people not a whole family so the extra movement of people is minimal • the increase in water and sewage is minimal and the home owner pays for the water anyway - Ifs their problem to pay for the extra water use • in most cases, carriage houses are for extended family members, adult children, parents of children in their later years, family members caring for elderly or frail family members. This is a huge help to families 1 P178 What other reasons are important to consider: • this is very similar to duplex housing which has been proven to be very successful in land use • this is a much more effective way to reduce housing costs for the secondary person, couple or even small family • families are able to stay in their homes longer due to the small extra income to help subsidize the rising cost of owning a home • this can make a significant difference to people living in crisis providing adequate housing at a reduced rate Land use is a major issue all over the Island. Do we continue to take down forests to open up more land for housing, can ·t we at the very least slow down development. It is common sense to allow more density for better land use. Thafs why apartments, condos, townhouses, duplexes and other multi housing units are so popular. It seems silly to have to suggest it, but it is far better to build in areas already developed versus going onto barren land. You of all people, know the incredible costs associated with road development, sewer and electricity expansions. carriage housing is minimal, none invasive in the neighbourhood and is a much better way to allow families of different generations to stay in their homes and possibly have an additional small income. If you believe this will bring a lot of new problems you might be surprised to know this is already going on, all over Lantzville. We know several families with suites of various types of housing for extra income and the convenience for family members. It's time to make it legal, it·s time to move Into the 20th century. While I respect this gentleman ·s point of view, I hope you respect our opinion as well. You were elected to make difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions for Lantzville future. Within two years, no one will remember you even made the vote. No one remembers that my council made the move forward, but for the families affected the most, it was good and ifs good for the future of the community. I sincerely hope you feel the same about Lantzville. Thank you Janice Perrino 2 P179 HOUSING IN LANTZVILLE - YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS INVITED District CouncU has temporarily set aside a Draft Bylaw proposal from the District Planner that could allow a suite or carriage house on your property, your neighbor's property and 9096 of existing residential lots In Lantzvllle. Council will be considering this proposal in December. Agroup of volunteers seeks your opinion to convey to Council. "carriage House" describes a second, smaller home built on an existing residential lot. A "secondary suite" is a separate living unit of up to 40% of the space within an existlng home. St nee these proposals would Involve all properties in our canvass area and almost every household in Lantzvllle, residents are strongly encourased to participate This survey Is being offered to all voting-age adults In the neighborhoods generally known as "old Lower Lantzvllle" to provide a sample of opinion on the issue. For authenticity of the survey and to eliminate fraud, names and addresses are requested but will remain confidential. PJease circle the response which best reflects your preference and add any comments In the space on _the reverse. Thanks for your participation. SECONDARY SUITES 1. Should single suites be allowed In all existing owner-occupied homes? Yes No 2. If approved, should single suites be allowed in rental properties? Yes No 3. Do you favour the status quo which prohibits suites? Yes No 4. If approved, should single suites be allowed only with the approval of all contiguous neighbors? Yes No s. Should suites be required to pass inspection for municipal standards for health and safety? Yes No 6. Should existing "unregulated suites" be brought into compliance with any standards and fees set for new suites? Yes No CARRIAGE HOUSES 7. Do you favour a blanket zoning of your neighborhood to allow carriage houses? Yes No 8. Do you favour the status quo which prohibits carriage houses? Yes No 9. Sheu.Id carriage houses be allowed only with the approval of all contiguous neighbors? Yes No 10. If carriage houses are allowed should there be a minimum lot size of½ acre for approval? Yes No. Cont'd on reverse ...... P180 LICENSING, FEES AND SHORT-TERM RENTAl5 11. Should suites that HpJggyback" on existing water and sewer connections be required to pay separate license fees, tolls and/or taxes? Yes No 12, ·1f carriage houses are approved should they be required to have separate connections for-water and sewer with appropriate Dees, tolls and taxes? Yes No 13. Should suites or carriage houses be allowed to operate as short.. term "tourist" (Air B&B style) rentals? Yes No 14. Should short.. term rentals require District "bed and breakfast" licensing, regulation and Inspection and pay an accommodation tax to recoup costs? Yes No 1S. Should suites and carriage houses be required to have and use off street parking? Yes No 16. Should the district allow suites and carriage houses to operate under a Temporary•Use Permit enabling cancellatlon for nuisance factors? Yes No 17. Should nuisance penalties be higher for properties with suites or carriage houses? Yes No Please return to Garry Gaudet at 7056 Tweedhope Rd. or Brian Blood at 7075 camet Rd by Nov ~m~ . or scan and email to [email protected] Name ...... Address .•...•.••..•..••...•...... •...... •.....•...... •..... Contact ...... Please use space.below for addlt1onal comments or advice to council P181 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 2:34 PM To: Ronald Campbell; Kyle Young Subject: FW: delegation request From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 10:1S PM To: Trudy Coates th Hi Trudy. Garry Gaudet and me would like to appear as a delegation at the cow meeting on Dec 4 • If delegations are only allowed at regular meetings then we would like to appear at the following regular meeting. The purpose is to present our data on resident feedback which we will have collected and collated by that time from the questionnaire we have distributed to residents in the old Lower Lantzville neighborhood on suites and carriage houses. We have targeted this neighborhood only as a sample for logistical reasons and because we live there. We believe the questionnaire is neutral and will svpply good valid data. I will forward a copy In a separate email. We have distributed the questionnaire to every home from Bloods Creek to Tweedhope Rd between Lantzville Rd and the sea. We have made a form available to every adult in each home. Returns are coming in now and we have a cuttoff date th for returns of Nov 29 • That will give us a few days to collate the data for presentation to Council. We will only be using data from questionnaires that include the name and address of the returnee in order to ensure the veracity of the data set. We will provide the completed surveys to a DOL senior staff member to prove this in order to validate the data sample. We have promised confidentiality so will insist that the staff person inspecting the returned forms for validity also respect that confidentiality and return the forms to us for their destruction. I realise there are forms for applying to be a delegation but I have been unable to find them on the website. Could you help me with this. I could come to the office on Monday to pick up a paper copy. Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. Brian Blood 1 P182 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:27 AM To: Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Mayor Swain; Fred Spears; Jamie Slater; Kyle Young; Neil Rukus; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: CORR: Stephen and Marcia Crowley (26 Nov 2019) Blood survey ----Original Message- From: Steve Crowley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 7:13 PM To: District Public Hello, Please forward this to the appropriate person at the District. Mr. Brian Blood is circulating a petition regarding opinions on a potential future draft bylaw proposal regarding suites and carriage houses in Lantzville. Although I am happy that people, such as Mr. Blood are engaged in community issues, we are strongly against an informal survey of this kind. I do not wish to share my personal views with anyone, especially someone known to have strong opinions in the community, in a non-confidential manner. We refuse to participate. Not only that, the questions are not all clear. So this kind of collection of data has to be viewed as a of little value. I hope that council will choose to Ignore any so-called results. I have to put my faith in elected members to study these issues, then put the questions out to the community after defining the actual questions and then receive input by the community members only then, and not put much emphasis on a flawed questionnaire administered in this fashion. Sincerely, Stephen and Marcia Crowley 7052 Myron Road Sent from my iPhone P183 Kyle Young From: Brock Williamson - Williamson & Associates Dear Mayor & Council, Please refer to the email trail below between Mr. Young and myself for context. for further background, myself and my partner Ms. Wendy Smitka were the couple who wrote you the letter of Oct 8 2019 petitioning for suites to be allowed in the Foot~ills in the forthcoming Zoning Bylaw, and that lots serviced by properly designed and constructed common driveways be permitted to have suites. We were obviously very disappointed with the direction the discussion took at the Oct 30 Committee of the Whole meeting with respect to suites. It seems suites are now tentative in the entire District - let alone the Foothills - despite what the OCP states. The points made by Council at the meeting to defer adopting suites in the draft bylaw were: • Lantzville is a rural area not an urban area like Nanaimo (as much as we like Nanaimo) and we want to keep it that way. Suites will make it more dense and hence less rural. Look at the parking congestion situation in Nanaimo now due to tenants parking on the street. • Suites are imposing a cost burden on the District (water, sewer, roads) disproportionate to the tax revenue received from the properties that have them. • Policing costs will go up as the density goes up. • They will impose an administrative burden on the District. Our response to all of these concerns is that they appear to us rationalizations to delay having to deal with suites. like it or not you have illegal suites now (a reliable source estimates 30% of existing residential SFDs have suites), and you have to deal with them sooner or later. The way to deal with them is to first allow them (per Kyles comments below) and then properly regulate them. Here are our comments/ suggestions in response to your concerns above: • The existing small residential lots in Lantzville are on average much larger than a typical residential lot in Nanaimo (typically double in size), and hence easier to accommodate suites with respect to parking and massing. You can't compare Lantzville to,Nanaimo. lfthere are concerns about numerous carriage houses being built and the resultant increase in building massing, they could be restricted by taking into account the massing of existing buildings to limit proposed massing. In house suites are not an issue. We understand there is minimal parking congestion problems now even with the large number of illegal suites. This would be due to double the frontage Lantzville lots have over Nanaimo lots. Legalizing suites will give you the enforcement tools to get any problematic existing illegal suite parking off the street. New suites built under permit would have to have their parking off the street. o Water use is metered and a house with a suite will use more water. Set your residential water rates to cover your residential water and sewer costs. When suites are legalized, notices go to the Assessment Authority via Building inspections and the property is valued accordingly with a corresponding increase in tax revenue to the District. We have been advised by an Appraiser the typical lift in value for a house with a suite vs. the same 1 P184 house without one is 30 to 50 K. Council can always choose to increase the mill rate for houses with suites if it feels they are not paying their fair share with this spread in value, keeping in mind an unfair increase in the mill rate for suited properties will just result in more illegal ones. Illegal suites are not captured by the Assessment Authority hence removing them from your bylaw - as you are contemplating - will predude you from realizing any revenue from the conversion of illegal suites to legal suites. Again, Illegal suites are in Lantzville, dealing with them now will at least get the revenue flow started from the illegal ones as they convert to legal. We would suspect it would be the "problem child" illegal ones that would convert the soonest in order to get the bylaw infraction notices off their titles and hence ease the administrative burden on the District. o The OCP supports suites for increased affordability, and density generally with its support of mixed housing types, meaning increased policing costs as density increases. Either you support the OCP or you don't. o Building Permit fees can be set higher for houses with suites to cover the increased inspection costs. WRT other costs (Bylaw complaints, etc.), see our comments under policing costs. Either you support the OCP or you don't. You will get increased admin costs with more people, but properly managed they should be covered by fees and taxes. To close, we wish to advise that we chose upper Lantzville to build our retirement home for the rural feel it offers, and we do not want to see it subdivided into "cheek by jowl" lots. We also support density/ affordability, and the only way we can see to reconcile "larger lot rural" with increased density is with suites. In-house suites get more people living in the same home with no impact on massing, and properly regulated carriage houses add character to larger lots. Both forms of suites are a more efficient use of existing infrastructure with the net result being a lowering of the cost of housing and hence increased affordability, an OCP goal. Sincerely Brock Williamson and Wendy Smitka 7530 Copley Ridge Drive Lantzville BC From: Kyle Young (mailto:[email protected] Sent: November 12, 2019 8:51 AM To: Brock Williamson - Williamson & Associates Brock: Under the current Zoning Bylaw, in order to proceed with compliance, the required first step is a Zoning Bylaw amendment application. Addressing other typical zoning regulations - e.g. parking - and life/safety requirements cannot occur until the zoning permits the use. If the zoning permits the use, we can work towards ensuring other requirements are met. From an enforcement point of view, it is preferable if the zoning simply allows for the use. This would mean that it is more likely that people will choose to go through the appropriate process, and we can be certain that the suite complies with the BC Building Code. For existing unlawful suites, this allows a local government to proceed directly to addressing other key regulatory issues. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of LantzvHle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] 2 P185 This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, prlntlng, copying, clrculatlon or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: Brock Williamson - Williamson & Associates Hi Kyle, Thanks for your comments yesterday re. suites. Subsequent to our conversation I watched the Oct 30 Committee of the Whole meeting and at 1:17:08 you state that it is more difficult to regulate suites without them being allowed in the bylaw versus being allowed in the bylaw, but you do not elaborate further. Is this because with the zoning bylaw being silent on them there are no specific suite related rules for the DOL to police (off-site parking for instance), and hence harder for the District to police and stop. With illegal suites being harder to regulate, more and more of them are created as time drags on - falling under Division 14 of the LGA- exacerbating the enforcement problem when they are finally allowed in the zoning bylaw as who knows to what standard they have been developed. I suspect the reason you did not want to say this in public is because deferring suites altogether (which looks like what will happen) will just encourage people to get their illegal suites up and running faster under Div. 14, and hence Increase your enforcement problems until they are finally allowed. To summarize, Council is putting their heads in the sand by not addressing the issue in some manner as soon as possible. Is this correct? Brock Williamson B.C.L.S. ~ WILLIAMSON & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS 3088 Barons Road, Nanaimo B.C., V9T 485 Phone: 250-756-7723 Fax: 250-756•7724 Email: [email protected] From: Brock Williamson - Williamson & Associates Sent: November 6, 2019 12:20 PM To: 'Wendy Smitka ([email protected]}' ·. https!//vimeo.com/371224529 Brock Williamson B.C.L.S. 3 P186 WILLIAMSON & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS 3088 Barons Road, Nanaimo B.C., V9T 485 Phone: 250-756-7723 Fax: 250-756-7724 Email: brock@>vlbcls.ca • P187 November 25, 2019 District Municipality of Lantzville RECEIVED 7192 Lantzville Road NOV 2 7 2019 Lantzville, BC DISTRICT Of LANTZVILLE VOR2HO Attention: Mayor and Council Dear Sir; Re: Proposed Draft Zoning Bylaw I am writing to express my opinions regarding the proposed Bylaw 180 in its current preliminary draft form dated October 2S, 2019, particularly where it impacts the Owen Road residential area, identified within Area BW in the Water Master Plan. This area includes existing parcels of approximately 1 acre, plus some larger, undeveloped parcels. The 1 acre lots were developed over 25 years ago, and a very attractive neighbourhood has evolved. We built our home approximately 20 years ago. All the developed parcels are on wells, and septic sewer systems. The current zone for the subject area is RlL The proposed zone under the draft bylaw is SF-A (Future Study Area). Items of concern Increase In Proposed Density The current zoning limits development to one dwelling per parcel. The draft bylaw designates this area as a ,,Study Area", however Section 1.6.2 allows for 2 dwelling units per parcel, limited to one house and either a carriage house, or 1 suite. This effectively could double the number of dwelling units in the subject area. The draft bylaw "background notes" suggest that In order to add a carriage house or suite, it must be proven that the well and septic system has enough capacity, and that additional access and parking be provided. The main concern is that although a single parcel could satisfy this criteria, cumulative impact on groundwater from more similar development could result in problems with existing wells. Further study, including a comprehensive hydrogeological investigation and evaluation wm be needed in order to assess whether there is any interference or Impact on other wells in the area since many wells could share the same aquifer. Further, the area has been evolving demographically, particularly over the past 5-10 years. As the existing residents (older generation) are downsizing and moving out of the neighbourhood, many younger families are moving in, and generally bringing more urban life-style expectations, P188 including in-ground automatic irrigation, more water dependant landscaping, and other uses elevating water demands in the area. These elements along with potential effect of climate change (longer, drier summers) is expected to have an impact on the aquifer(s) without the increase in density provisions of the draft bylaw, and could also be contributing elements of further study. Therefore, it is premature to adopt a bylaw to increase the density without fully understanding the impact on existing water wells in the area, some of which are currently marginal. Part 2 General Regulations This section sets out general regulations of the preliminary draft bylaw, incorporating elements including fences, height exemptions, farm animals, retaining walls, setback Projections and related Items. It has been my experience that this is where particular attention is needed to avoid the potential for issues which could burden the District, including: 1. Regulations that will burden District staff and Council to deal with items that do not quite fit a regulation, but need to be dealt with via a variance process. 2. Regulations for things that have rarely been a Lantzville issue In the past, but have been lifted from a bylaw elsewhere, and inserted "just in case" it may happen here. 3. Regulations that would render many existing conditions in Lantzville "non conforming", but really of no consequence, since they have been existing for many years without harm. 4. Regulations relating to cosmetics that may be a umatter of opinion" but of little consequence to the overall benefit to Lantzville. 5. Regulations that are difficult to enforce outside of a building permit or development permit, thus requiring additional enforcement staff or further burden on existing staff. One example of a General Regulation of concern is Section 2.8 "Setback Projections". In my opinion, many of the provisions are arbitrary, and difficult to justify. For example, what significant consequence is there regarding the location of rain barrels and cisterns? I suggest that there are many existing rain barrels and cisterns that would end up "non conforming". Further, what damage or harm would result from the item being within a 6m setback? These items are not governed by building permit, could end up as "non conforming'', ultimately burden staff with enforcement, and trigger an onerous and costJy "variance" process for the resident, with little or no real benefit. Typically, significant setback items can dealt with during the building permit process, but Items such as rain barrels, cisterns, wheel chair ramps and heat pumps should be excluded from the bylaw, since they are no.t typically BP items for residential construction, and rarely considered an issue. P189 Summary Recommendations 1. Leave the maximum number of dwelling units per parcel in the Future Study Area (F-SA) as 1, until further studies are completed, Including a comprehensive hydrogeological study proving that no negative impact will result on existing wells, or until community water supply is provided. 2. Amend the General Regulations to eliminate rain barrels, cisterns, heat pumps, and wheel chair ramps from the "maximum permitted projections''. 3. Critically examine all the General Regulations and other bylaw provisions to ensure that unwanted burdens on Council and staff are not being created. Consider the above 5 issues in the examination. The above observations and recommendations do not address the full preliminary bylaw document, but highlight some specific items, including those that will have an impact on at least the Owen Road area residents. I have attempted to solicit opinions of some of my neighbours in the short time available, and have found common ground on the issues noted. I trust that these opinions are taken in a positive light, and will assist in the development an effective, streamlined "Made in Lantzville" zoning bylaw. Neighbourhood Participants: Ve. Bob Hoffstrom P190 Kyle Young From: Darryl & Jenny Callewaert Hi Kyle, I am attaching a copy of the Petition Recap I discussed with you during our meeting. I would appreciate it being added to the notes for the council meeting tonight. I know that the Automotive Repair Shop is not on the books to be added to the new Bylaws, but thought it would still be good to have this on hand, in case it is raised again in the future. Please confirm by return email that you received this. Thank you. Sincerely, Jenny callewaert 1 P191 P192 Breakdown of Petition (3 pages total) This Petition is based on changing the Land Use in the new RU proposed Land Use designation for District of Lantzville; stating that an Automotive Repair Shop is allowed in the RON and City of Nanaimo, under RU Zoning. This statement is not accurately correct. It is not allowed in City of Nanaimo and only In certian areas of RU, under specific conditions, is it allowed in the RON. 72 Total Petitions Signed 24 Properties are signed by people with the same last name in one house 19 Signed Petitions Total WITHIN the Estate Residential or Rural Residential that will be affected out of the 204+- properties throughout Lantzville, that will be affected with the change to RU 21 Total Properties within the Residential Zone; therefore not affected by the possibility of an Automotive Shop opening near their property 1 Industrial Manufacturing Zoned Property; therefore, not a resident. Petition Name Address Zone Page l Sara Summers • Wife of Petitioner 8311 Bayview Parle Drive Estate Residential 195 2 M. Mikolas Same Address 8384 Bayview Parle Drive Estate Residential 184 3 Stuart Gammie Same Address 8384 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 185 3 M.Gammie Same Address 8384 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 186 4 Kevin Bowles 8399 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 192 5 Die-Ane Marshall 8389 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 193 6 Lauren Ward Estate Residential 194 6 Darren Ward 8376 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 210 ~ 7 Andrea Sakamoto Same Address 8361 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 200 7 Steve Sakamoto Same Address 8361 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 201 8 KerfOxkr ?? 8543 Bayview P.~rk Drive Estate Residential 202 address doesn't exist-all ~ayview Park Drive c1ddresses are in the 8300 series 9 Danny Gilbert 8331 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 203 9 Michael Gilbert 8331 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 204 10 Robert Kemp 8356 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 205 1 Desiree Webber Same Address 8392 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 206 1 David C. Webber Same Address 8392 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 207 12 D.G. Campbell Same Address 8370 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 212 13 James Clements Same Address 8370 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 211 14 Roseanne Baines Same Address 8370 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 213 15 Norma Jones Same Address 8364 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 214 16 Stephanie Barsby Same Address 8386 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 222 16 Jim Barsby Same Address 8386 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 223 ~ 17 Jen Reinhard Same Address 8395 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 224 - 17 Geoff Reinhard Same Address 8395 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 225 18 Joanna Proracki 8360 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 199 18 Rob Proracki 8360 Bayview Park Drive Estate Residential 214 t-'19 3 19 Adrienne Miller Same Address Lot A Lisa Lane Rural Residential 220 19 Joe Miller Same Address Lot A Lisa Lane Rural Residential 221 20 Terry Moore Same Address 8442 Lisa Lane Rural Residential 208 20 Tom Moore Same Address 8442 Lisa Lane Rural Residential 209 - 21 Larry Barth Same Address 8515 Lisa Lane Rural Residential - 21 Christine Barth Same Address 8515 Lisa Lane Rural Residential 182 22 AIVoung 8475 Lisa Lane Rural Residential 183 23 Roy cardinal 6852 Mart Road Industrial Manufacturing 157 24 catherine Fink same Address 6966 Beliveau Road Residential 158 24 Lyle Fink Same Address 6966 Beliveau Road Residential 159 24 Byran fink Same Address 6966 Beliveau Road Residential 160 25 Ryan Staton Same Address 7646 Fernmar Road Residential 161 25 Dayna Staton Same Address 7646 Fernmar Road Residential 162 23 Nonie Moran Sarne Address 7514 Femmar Road Residential 169 23 KirsynMoran Same Address 7514 Femmar Road Residential 173 24 James Bolton ? Same Address 7514 Fernmar Road Residential 172 25 Alesha Mosdell Same Address 7635 Superior Road Residential 163 25 Evan Mosdell 7635 Superior Road Residential 190 26 Jaime Pearen Same Address 7635 Superior Road Residential 219 27 Daniel P. Fortin 7613 Superior Road Residential 188- 28 CJ. Kelly Same Address 6973 Jacks Road Residential - 29 Lance Flint ? Same Address 6973 Jacks Road Residential 165 30 Bruce Forsyth Same Address 7342 Rossiter Avenue Residential 166 30 Wendy Forsyth Same Address 7342 Rossiter Avenue Residential 168 30 Tyler Forsyth Same Address 7342 Rossiter Avenue Residential 227 31 AshtonSolm Same Address 7342 Rossiter Avenue Residential 226 32 Laura Visser/Lynn Ridler 7481 Elizabeth Way Residential 167 33 Marth Foster Same Address 7917 Northwind Drive Residential 170 33 Dale Foster Same Address 7917 Northwind Drive Residential 171 34 Chris Mellois Same Address 7962 Southwind Drive Residential 174 34 Ashleigh Mellois Same Address 7962 Southwind Drive Residential 178 35 Gerald Perrier 8002 Southwind Drive Residential 197 3S James Perler 8002 Southwind Drive Residential 179 36 ?? Gregor/ Green? 7969 Southwind Drive Residential 180 37 Rhianna Green 7463 Clark Crescent Residential 177 38 Neil Thordson ?? 7656 Harley Drive Residential 187 .39 , Jennifer Locn ?? Loon ?? 7671 Harley Drive Residential - J- 40 Catherine Bridger 7628 Harley Drive Residential 191 41 Alan Fraser 6942 Dickinson Road Residential 196 P194 42 Trisha Sannes 7111 Winslow Road Residential 198 43 Tammy Dickinson Same Address 7438 Mrus Drive Residential 175 43 Steven Dickinson Same Address 7438 Mrus Drive Residential 176 . 44 Chris Whitford Same Address 7430 Mrus Avenue Residential 216 44 Terance Whitford Same Address 7430 Mrus Avenue Residential 228 45 Shannon Bowley Same Address 7430 Mrus Avenue Residential 217 46 ??? Bob ???????? ????? 218 P195 P196 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11 :06 AM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Suites and Carriage houses From: Mayor Swain Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:02 AM To: Trudy Coates Sent from mv Samsung Galaxy smartphone. ----- Original message -- From: GRAHAM SAVAGE Suites and Carriage houses were identified in the OCP, which council have adopted. In order to follow communities wishes as expressed in the OCP, I suggest that suites in all residential zones be included within the zoning bylaw and that the RON suite regulations be adopted for Lantzville. I suggest an advisory committee be formed to research and advise Council on regulation/ requirement for carriage homes before inclusion within the zoning bylaw. Graham Savage Sent from my iPhone 1 P197 LyndaBluck 6972 Saxon Cross Road PO Box418 Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 (_QJ5o) 3c;o•--3~oc; December 9, 2019 Mayor and Council of the District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO Dear Mayor and Council: RE: Support for allowing carriage houses and suites in Lantzville It has recently come to my attention that the Council has been debating whether or not to allow the construction of suites or carriage homes on residential properties in Lantzville. This was only brought to light by a survey passed around by an individual whom I understand to be opposed to this measure. I. and all residents I have spoken to, were not even aware this matter was under consideration until this survey was passed around last week. I have been a resident in Lantzville for nearly 40 years. As a person with disabilities, I am finding it increasingly difficult to manage my home on my own as I age. It had always been a family plan that one of my children would take over the main home while I would move into a suite or a carriage house on my property. If the measure allowing for suites and carriage homes does not go forward, the Council will effectively be forcing me out of my home. In my discussions with other residents, it would appear that many other aging singles, such as myself, share this concern. Before the Council makes a definitive decision on the issue of suites and carriage houses, I would strongly suggest that a proper public consultation be implemented so that all residents can be a part this discussion, rather than allowing this issue to be hijacked by a few well-informed and affluent naysayers. Thank you for your consideration, LyndaBluck P198 To Mayor and Council, Lantzville December 11, 2019 From Garry Gaudet, 7056 Tweedhope Road, VoR 2Ho RECEIVED DEC 1 1 2019 SUBJECT: 'Suite Support' for Lantzville indicated in volunteer resident survey OISTRIC1 OF LANT1\11 1 l, Your Worship, Councillors: This is to report on a volunteer November citizens' survey of adult resident s of two settled Lower Lantzvllle neighbourhoods, comprised of all single-family homes in the area between Lantzville Road and the sea, from Tweedhope Road eastward to Bloods Creek. Longtime community volunteer Brian Blood and I circulated this survey in mid-November, to offer to Councillors concerned over a lack of resident feedback to the Draft Bylaw int roduced this Fall. We hoped in the process to stimulate more public feedback, since the zoning and housing regulations now being discussed will impact every part of the community and govern its evolution for years to come. Council removed " suites and carriage homes" from the bylaw review process at a September 30 COW meeting, agreeing to seek more public input on the Draft Bylaw. However, Council hasn't indicated how or when that would occur in a number of meetings since. Anxious to explore and convey public opinion within our own particular neighbourhoods, Brian and I developed the 17-question survey. In the two-week response period, 59 complet ed returns were received from an estimated 140 homes. The survey contains three sections; "Secondary Suites", "Carriage Houses", and a final section on "Licensing, Fees and Short Term Rentals", which could pertain to both of the previous categories. • Responses were invited from all adult household members and a specific time limit was included • Respondent identities of were required to prevent abuse of the forms • Respondents were guaranteed anonymity, to prevent possible conflicts over differing opinions • Respondents were promised t heir aggregate responses and comments would go to Council. • Original forms may be made available solely for non-identifying verification inspection. Documents attached: (MS Word) Complete Questionnaire with collated results (expressed in 'yes/no' totals and percentages) Council Respondent Comments (39) apart from 'yes/no' responses ~ 0 Circ. To Staff D Mayor 0 Pubhc Works Executive summary (Gaudet) CAO. m lil Planning 0 Director or Finance O Fire Dept. General Observations on the survey result s (Blood) 0 Corp.Admin. 0 Other (Excel) Bylaw Survey Tabulation Sheet 0 Agenda -~3~~ ~oo~-:::-,.J. o-;;.· 1s~~o:··== === We hope Council may find this information informative in indicating varying degrees of community support and opposition to particular it ems in the Draft Bylaw. Respectfully submitted - /A#(/~ Garry Gaudet 7056 Tweedhope Road, Lantzville VoR 2Ho P199 th th HOUSING IN LANTZVILLE- YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS INVITED (Collated results added - Survey conducted Nov 18 - 29 2019) District Council has temporarily set aside a Draft Bylaw proposal that could allow a suite or carriage house on your property, your neighbor's property and 90% of existing residential lots in Lantzville. A group of volunteers seeks your opinion to convey t o Council. "Carriage House" describes a second, smaller home built on an existing residential lot. A "secondary suite" is a separate living unit of up to 40% of the space wit hin an existing home. Since these proposals would involve all properties in our canvass area and almost every household in Lantzville, residents are strongly encouraged to participate. The survey is being offered to all voting-age adults in the neighborhoods generally known as "old Lower Lantzville" to provide a sample of opinion on the issues. For authenticity of t he survey and to eliminate fraud, names and addresses are requested, but will remain confidential. Please circle the response which best reflects your preference and add any comments in t he space on the reverse. Thanks for your participation. SECONDARYSUITES 1. Should single suites be allowed in all existing owner-occupied homes? Yes ... 39 (70%) No... 17 (30%) 2. If approved, should single suites be allowed in rental properties? Yes. .. 22 (41%) No ...32 (59%) 3. Do you favour the status quo which prohibits suites? Ves ... 8 (15%) No ... 47 (85%) 4. If approved, should single suites be allowed only with the approval of all contiguous neighbors? Ves... 22 (40%) No ...33 (60%) 5. Should suites be required to pass inspection for municipal standards for health and safety? Yes... 51 (89%) No.. .6 (11%) 6. Should existing "unregulated suites" be brought into compliance with any standards and fees set for new suites? Yes. ..48 (87%) No... 7 (13%) CARRIAGE HOUSES 7. Do you favour a blanket zoning of your neighborhood to allow carriage houses? Ves ... 21 (39%) No... 33 (61%) 8. Do you favour the status quo which prohibits car~iage houses? Ves ... 13 (23%) No... 43 (77%) 9. Should carriage houses be allowed only with the approval of all contiguous neighbors? Ves. .. 26 (47%) N o ... 29 (53%) 10. If carriage houses are allowed should there be a minimum lot size of ½ acre for approval? Yes ... 41 (76%) No... 13 (24%) LICENSING, FEES AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS 11. Should suites t hat "piggyback" on existing water and sewer connections be required to pay separate license fees, tolls and/or taxes? Yes ...25 (46%) No. .. 29 (54%) 12. If carriage houses are approved should they be required to have separate connections for water and sewer with appropriate DCCs, tolls and taxes? Yes... 38 (72%) No... 15 (28%) 13. Should suites or carriage houses be allowed to operate as short-term "tourist" (Air B&B style) rentals? Ves... 17 (33%) No ... 38 (67%) 14. Should short-term rentals require District "bed and breakfast" licensing, regulation and inspection and pay an accommodation tax to recoup costs? Yes ... 44 (77%) No... 13 (23%) 15. Should suites and carriage houses be required to have and use off street parking? Yes... 47 (84%) No.. .9 (16%) 16. Should the district allow suites and carriage housi;s to operate under a Temporary-Use Permit enabling cancellation for nuisance factors? Yes ... 35 (64%) No ... 20 (36%) 17. Should nuisance penalties be higher for properties wit h suites or carriage houses? Yes. ..29 (56%) No... 23 (44%) "1J I\) 0 0 Survey Respondent Comments: Fl NAL 59 completed returns P. 1 of 2 1. Increased density should be restricted to new developments. 2. Single suites should be allowed in all existing owner-occupied homes only IF they meet criteria/qualifications. 3. Note - Should meet or exceed newly Provincially-approved building code. 4. Short-term "tourist" Air B&B rentals only with specialized business licenses. 5. Nuisance penalties should be scaled based on length/nature of nuisance regardless of source. 6. Secondary suites, carriage houses have benefits to both owner & renter in providing affordable housing, properly regulated they can be a viable option for the District. 7. Question 1 - There should be a definite limit: No more than 1 suite per house. 8. Would say yes to Q. 2 IF no more than 2 suites (living areas) allowed per house. 9. Q. 11, 12 - Owner should be responsible for what happens with suite or C.H. and pay services in case of default. No way should C.H. become a separate independent entity. 10. Get commercial vehicle parking .off residential streets. 11. Adequate Qff.:._sjre.et parking must be provided, used. 12. Suites, B&B's & Air B&B's must comply with fire regulations. 13. Any carriage houses not already in existence, and/or additions to existing houses, must not impede neighbours' privacy or views. 14. Appropriate zoning categories overdue. Bylaw should distinguish between family homes and houses used as rentals, B&B's, Air B&B's or mini-motels. 15. Suites should meet all applicable codes, size minimums, be registered as rental property with proof of permits. 16. If a property is zoned or under a single family building scheme that is how it was vended and purchased. 17. What about enforcement, where people can not or will not park in their own yards? 18. If you want to live in a multi-family complex, purchase there, and don't park on the road there either. 19. Carriage houses should OQt wreck existing views/sight lines of ocean or mountain views. 20. Property owners should not be able to subdivide and build monster homes which could in turn devalue their neighbours' homes/property. 21. Taxes that piggyback existing sewer and water connections could have their taxes slightly increased for rental suites, but not for in-law or family members residing in suites. 22. I don't feel I should comment - I'm 91 and will probably be moving on. My views have not changed for the better. (This person left the questions blank) P201 P. 2 -Survey Respondent Comments: 23. People with existing secondary surtes and carriage houses rely on these to help pay mortgages. If these are not allowed there will be a lot of foredosures in Lantzvllle. 24. # 13 -Air B&B style rentals should only be allowed in owner-occupied houses. 25. Each lot needs to be Judged indfvidually, not only by lot size. There are many other factors that are important before allowfng carriage houses. There needs to be an approved process. 26. Councll must decide If community identity and well-being are put at risk by helter-skelter density applications. We became a munlclpalfty to hold the line on this kind of density which we saw enaoachlng from the city. All residents need to be involved In these kinds of proposals. 27. # 11 and 12 - Number of people using a property connection should be the detennrnrng factor. 28. (two responses)- Rentals - no dogs. Carriage houses - no dogs. 29. Unregulated suites should have no extra licenses or fees ••• they should be grandfathered In. 30. Carriage houses should be allowed by Individual application. Minimum lot size 1/3 acre. 31. Why don't you find out what has worked In other small munfdpalltles instead of Lantzville continuing to hire more high-priced employees to "reinvent the wheel"? We still have a small population. 32. Re. B&B short term type rentals - They should be allowed where the owner Hves on the premises and with dedicated parking 33. Off-street parking should be required for .all rentals adequate to accommodate all vehicles of resr dents. 34. Important to ensure that where property owners are making money from renters that the owners pay more than enough to cover any extra costs the commurity Incurs because of the extra residents (share of water/sewer/roads/polidng/school etc.). 35. Annual pennlts/llcenses with charges should be required for rental suites, with Income going to cover costs of inspection and bylaw control requirements. 36. No on-street parking In Lantzville - anywhere. 37. Parking along our street could become a problem. There are no continuous boulevards and shoulders are often taken up by trees and shrubs and open ditches. 38. I think a set of rules for setting up suites or carriage houses should be made as well as an hourly worker (not a CEO) to be In charge. An rnspectlon could be made on a yearly basis before a yearly permit is granted. 39. Re. #15 - There should be no parking in the lanes either. P202 OBSERVATIONS- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ON LANTZVILLE HOUSING BYLAW QUESTIONS secondary suttes: A large mafority of respondents (47-8) re[ected the existing prohlbftfon of secondary suits, by a ratio of 6-1. Well over 2-1 responses (39-17) approved secondary surtes being allowed In exfstfng owner-occupied homes. The largest majority of responses did prefer regulated fmposftlon of municipal health and safety standards for such suites, (51-6), and almost the same number of responses wanted a requirement that existing (unregulated) suites be brought Into compliance with standards and fees for new suites, 48-7 (7-1 ratio). A small but dear majority of respondents were opposed requiring neighbour approval for homes adding a suite (33-22). A sfmffar opposition level appeared to single suites being allowed in rental properties (32-22). carr1ap Houses: More than 3 to 1 respondents (43 v. 13) opposed blanket prohibition of carriage houses, while 33 responcleftts to 21 wete against tilanl Amuch more substantial mafority (41 v.13) wanted a minimum Macre lot size requtred for approval of such houses, white opinion was almost equally divided (26 yes, 29 no) on requiring approval of contiguous neighbours forspecffic carriage house approvals. Asubstantial number of respondent comments voiced concern that privacy, view lines and other factors of neighbouring homes should be respected when considering carriage house approvals. Regulating Licensing, fees and Short-IeDJJ Rentals -"SIB's": By a more than 2-1 ratio, residents wanted carriage houses required to have separate water and sewer servfceconnectfons. There was a nearly even split between requests that separate fees, tolls or taxes apply to suites that "piggyback" on existing resldentfal connections (25 yes, 29 no). Atwo-t~ne ratio (38-19) opposed allowing use of suites and carriage houses as STR's (Air B&B-style) rentals. Astill higher than 3-1 percentage (44-13) wanted any District llcensfng of such STR's confined to conventfonal Bed and Breakfast operations, with accommodation tax levied to recoup regulation costs. Requiring provision and use of off-street parking was deemed essentfal by more than a 5-1 ratio of survey participants, (47 yes, 9 no) for both carriage houses and secondary suites. A majority of respondents (35-20) approved of placing approval of suites and carriage houses under Temporary Use Pennfts (TUC's), enabDng cancellatlon for nuisance factors. Slfghtly fewer respondents agreed with setting higher nuisance penalties on properties with suites or carriage houses (29 yes, 23 no). P203 General observations on the survev results SUITES - There was solid support for allowing suites In all homes. A majority however (59'6 ), wanted these suites to be allowed only in homes that were owner-occupied. A solid majority (89") Indicated that suites should pass a set of munidpal standards for health and safety and that existing •unregulated" suites should be brought into comp If anee with standards and fees set for new suites (87")· There was an almost 50/50 split on requirins suites to pay separate fees, tolls and/or taxes. A majority (67") did not want suites used for short-stay (B&B type) rentals. Respondents Indicated by a substantial margin (779£) that if Council allowed short-term suite rentals that they should be subject to District reguladons fees and Inspection. The use of TUPs for suites and higher penalties than currently exist for nuisances saw mixed opinions. It should be kept In mind that residents who already have unregulated suites, and their tenants, are unlikely to favour regulation, Inspection or separate taxes or tolls and this may be reflected In the responses. CARRIAGE HOUSES-There was an almost 50/50 split on allowins carriage houses on any residential property, although a majority rejected the status quo ban (7796). A majority Indicated that if carriage houses are allowed they should only be allowed on parcels of M acre or more(7696) and a minority (4796) wanted the approval of all contiguous neighbors before a carriage house was allowed. If carriage houses were allewed a mueh la,ser maJMity wanted to see DCCs, tolls and taxes applled (72-H) than for suites. A substantial majority (849') wanted to see carnage houses (and suites) not only to have dedicated off street parking but be forced to use It. A majority (67") did not want carriage houses used for short-term rentals. A significant majority (77") wanted short-term rentals, if allowed by council, to be subject to "bed and breakfast" llcensins and fees. TUPs and higher nuisance penalties received mixed opinions for carrtase Houses as for suites. Suites received higher approval than carriage houses but the survey indicated that, If allowed, either usage should be regulated with fees. Anecdotally, this seemed to reflect the concern of residents that suites and carriage houses could represent addltional costs to the District. The questionnaires were developed and distributed by Garry Gaudet and Brian Blood to seek useful and verifiable data for Council members in their consideration of suites and carriage houses. Council separated these Issues from the general bylaw review at the meeting on September 30, to seek more public Input on suites and carriage houses. Our effort was ln response to that decision. We covered the neifhborhoods between Lantzvllle Rd and the sea from Tweedhope Rd to Bloods Creek. If residents were not at home, questionnaires were left. In order for their data to be Included, residents were required to identify themselves by name and address to eliminate fraudulent use or manipulation of the questionnaire. They will be kept by the canvassers for examination by any Coundl member who wishes to confirm the veracity of the survey data. P204 Lantzvllle Housing Draft Bylaw Questionnaire November 2019 Yes No Rnal results tabulated December 1 SECONDARYSUITES 1. Should secondarysuites be allowed In all existing owner-occupied homes? 39 17 2. If approved, should single suites be allowed In rental properties? 22 32 3. Do you favour the status quo, which prohibits suites? 8 47 4. If approved should single suites be allowed onlv with approval of all contiguous neighbours? 22 33 S. Shouldsuites be required to passInspection for municipal health and safety standards? 51 6 &. Should existing 'unregulated suites' be brought Into compliance with standards and fees set for new suites? 48 7 CARRIAGEHOUSES 7. Do you favour blanket zoning of your nefshbourhood to allow carriage houses? 21 33 8. Do you favour the status quo which prohibits carriage houses? 13 43 9. Shouldcarriage houses be permitted only with approval of all contiguous neighbours? 26 29 10. If carriage housesare approved should there be a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre for approval? 41 . 13 LICENSING,FEES AND SHORT-TERMRENTALS 11. Shouldsuites that 'playback' on existing water and sewer connections pay separate license fees, tolls or taxes? 25 29 12. If carriage housesare approved should they be required to have separate connections for water and sewer? 38 15 13. Should suites or carriage housesbe allowed to operate as short tenn 'tourist' (Afr BnB-style) rentals? 19 38 14. Should short term rentals require District 'Bedand Breakfast' licensing, regulation and Inspection and pay an accommodation tax to recoup costs? 44 13 15. Should suites and carriage houses be required to have and use off-street parking? 47 9 16. Shouldthe District allow suites and carriage houses to operate under temporary use permits, enabling cancellation for nuisancefactors? 35 20 17. Should nuisancepenalties be higher for properties with suites or carriage houses? 29 23 COMMENTS Boldedresponse numbers Indicate 2-1 or greater disparity In responses- Greatest disparity: 8.5/1 (Q. S) Fewertotal responsesto some questions becausesome questions were left blank on some returns Question 13 - Two respondents said "yes0 for carriage Houses, "non for suites. The offset numbers not tallied General respondent comments on separate sheets. Orlglnal confldentlal return sheets stored; may be viewed on request. Respondentanonymity must be respected -0 I\) 0 01 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:39 AM To: Mayor Swain; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Savage; Councillor Geselbracht Cc: Trudy Coates Subject: FW: Zoning Council: Please see information below regarding the Zoning Bylaw. If there are any questions or comments about this, please keep those for the next meeting when we are discussing the Zoning Bylaw. Thank you, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 2S0.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and .subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this me5sase and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: Kyle Young Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:34 AM To: Councillor Geselbracht Councillor Geselbracht: Just to summarize our meeting yesterday morning, you enquired about whether we could apply residential zones with different minimum parcel areas to different neighbourhoods in Lantzville (e.g. Winds, Peterson Road, Wlnchelsea). Yes, this is possible, but the minimum parcel areas need to be consistent with the OCP policies. I will need to share this with the rest of Council so they have this information as well. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO 1 P206 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 9:52 AM To: Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Mayor Swain; Fred Spears; Jamie Slater; Kyle Young; Neil Rukus; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: FW: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: Mayor Swain Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 6:48 PM To: Trudy Coates Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. ----- Original message------From: Annalisa Fipke Mayor and Council, First of all - thank you to you all for your contributions to our community. I posted on the Lantzville Community Page last month regarding my support of the work you all do and my support in raising our taxes. In fact, I think you should be raising the taxes even more. but that's another conversation for another day. I am choosing to write you all via email because social media is a breeding ground for trolls and I choose not to partake in these conversations with people that are very vocal and yet lack the education to understand the conversation. I am writing to you all because there are 3 topics that have been on my mind as of recently that I feel need to express my concern and frustration. 1. Public Consultation As a professional engineer and a municipal employee, I acknowledge the importance of public consultation. However, I also know how labour intensive it is. Note: social media is not a medium for consultation. In an age of transparency, consultation is key. HOWEVER, I believe that Council and Lantzville staff would benefit from being IAP2 trained (https://iap2canada.ca/). Not all projects fall into the categories of 'collaboration' /'involvement'/' consult' - in fact, a LOT of projects should have an emphasis on the "Inform" category. The role is to communicate; however, the public should not be weighing in on each and every decision and matter. The public should not be making decisions that relate to engineering best practise OR safety-related items. In fact, through giving the public too much say in the design, you actually discredit the education and responsibility of the professionals you hire. As a professional engineer, I am held to a high standard/responsibility to ensure that what I build meets national and provincial standards, industry best 1 P207 practises, and most importantly, am responsible for the safety and well being of the public. Furthermore, if consultation has already occurred (in the case of the OCP), then staff/council should not be going back out to the public to rehash what has already been decided. It wastes everyone's time and also delays projects, which in turn puts the municipality at a disadvantage when it comes to planning practices, provincial and federal grants, etc. The public is responsible for putting trusted individuals in Office, Mayor and Council are responsible for policy, and then staff and the professionals hired are responsible for the details. Everyone must stay in their lane for this to work efficiently and effectively- no one benefits from non-technical Individuals making technical decisions in the weeds. 2. Asset Management/Engineering Standards THANK YOU for acknowledging the need to increase taxes for asset management purposes. The majority of our roads are past the point of no return. When you witness alligator cracking (read: every road in our community) it's a sign of subbase failure. A mill & fill is no longer an option - we're talking replacing the structural integrity of our roads. Our lack of standards also has developers building asphalt sidewalks (ie. infrastructure that has a <20 year life cycle and more likely to heave with tree roots - instead of concrete sidewalks that have 50+ year life cycles). When I see posts on social media slagging off larger communities for their 'cookie cutter' standards, my jaw literally hits the floor. These communities have set high standards for their infrastructure because they know that once the developer is done and walks away, the community is left maintaining it forever and ever amen. Why is that we are accepting asphalt sidewalks, not concrete? And gravel shoulders instead of treed boulevards? Our lack of engineering standards has left us inheriting and maintaining substandard assets because of a select few that push for artistic and creative uniqueness. The Foothills are another example of sub-standard Infrastructure. They have installed flat curbs which 'help' with the structural Integrity of the asphalt, but provide zero storm water management drainage control. The development has gravel boulevards that cause the road to be covered in loose material - a maintenance nightmare. And to top it off there are narrow asphalt sidewalks that do not conform to accessibility and industry best practise. Lantzville is missing out on millions of dollars In grant funding year after year for not pushing for more active and sustainable infrastructure that would allow our kids to bike and walk to school. For example, this week the province just came out with their Active Transportation Grant money that would pay for 70% of our infrastructure improvement up to $500,000. My point is that council is doing the public a disservice when 'capital construction costs' of a project are discussed while neglecting lost opportunity costs and social value. Things only get more expensive and grant money disappears. Through delaying projects and designing the bare minimum, it ends up costing tax payers more. 3. Secondary Suites/carriage Houses The fact that we do not currently allow secondary suites literally blows my mind. Are we the last municipality on the island? I want to build a house with a suite for my ageing parents so that I don't have to ship them off to a home in a neighbouring community- they have lived here for over 35 years. I have heard that one concern that has been raised and is a sticking point for some people on Council is that secondary suites add to our population but not the property tax base, and therefore, it could result in the municipality having to pay higher rates for services such as policing. Seriously? I've also heard that this has been tabled as an item to go back to staff/public regarding whether It should be adopted into the zoning bylaw or not. The OCP CLEARLY reads (7 .2.3) that secondary suites should be adopted and added to the zoning bylaw. If you go back to the public to ask AGAIN, you are disregarding the years of consultation and input that went into the OCP. If some of our services end up costing more - so what? What about the social cost of not having secondary suites? How about the social value of providing affordable housing alternatives, or giving the elderly an option to age-in-place? By not supporting carriage houses and secondary suites in the zoning bylaw council is a) blatantly going against the OCP, b) disregarding the MANY social benefits (that are priceless), and c) being completely negligent in terms of public safety. It is a known fact that there are hundreds of secondary suites in Lantzville- by not including suites/carriage houses in the bylaw, Lantzville won't abolish them. In fact, the municipality is creating an unsafe scenario where people are illegally putting them in their homes without being forced to meet current building codes. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a topic that needs 'consultation'- this is a 'safety' issue. If Council opts 2 P208 to delete them from the zoning bylaw ..• whose conscious will it be on when a resident dies in a house fire due to insufficient firewalls? We have the opportunity now to regulate and improve the safety of a situation that is already widely occurring. I am a working professional with 2 young children (5 & 7) that cannot make it out to most events or council meetings, so thank you for taking the time to receive and read my concerns/frustrations. Annalisa Fipke P.Eng. 7457 Andrea Crescent Lantzvillian Born & Raised 3 P209 Kyle Young From: Councillor Geselbracht Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 11 :57 AM To: Kyle Young Subject: Fwd: Draft zoning bylaw Request from resident in rossiter area Will Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: nakalat Hi Will. Best wishes to you and family for the new year. Getting back to the draft zoning bylaw, and specifically my concerns regarding the proposed setback penetrations regarding rain barrels and cisterns, I should add some further comments for amendment: 1. Delete reference to rain barrels and cisterns from 2.8.1 11set back projections" 2. In Part 3 Definitions, it will be necessary to amend the definition of 11 structure 11 to exclude rain barrels and cisterns. Otherwise they could be deemed as structures, and therefore subject to the setback regulations. I hope that this is helpful and constructive for your deliberations and decisions at Council. If you have any questions, or comments, please let me know. Bob Hoffstrom Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. 1 P210 Kyle Young From: Kavita Maharaj < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 5:58 PM To: Kyle Young Subject New Zoning Bylaw Objections ... Dear Mr. Young, We are aware that council will be voting on the proposed new bylaws this week and would like to voice a few objections to be officially considered. 2. With the e,.,,:ceptio11 of m(Jt/il:t gr;rdn,ing cmd rhild wre, a home hm;iru,l!-: mw,1 on/}1 tokr: plou within a hou5e or permitted sE:r.ondar)' building. (.ti p h ! ; (: ' : : r 'i ~ t \';; \ .. :•: I '" '· ' u ' ' i ;'.' t I . t C· : t , f I~ I() I r ;: ' 'C." • • i 't · 'I~.(: ' : • I '; I : 1 ' I l : ; ' i ! 'i (.1 i '. '.. i i i k.: I >1 I· I C I . u: i (. , .. : i .; l Ii' r ·.:.',•i,dr · r:·;:.[,,F.:1r•;, hrt·r.t :ir.; :.Iii ,;qr:~. 1;,T! n.:\·. ~-nc(iP::,t>-;r,: .--.- : ;:·r( :' ·_1.,r,:ic,1,· uc, rc~!linivc 5. 1 he following 1egulat1on5 mu~l be rnet ;,nd rnaintainf:d by nn owner of a parn-.. 1fo1 a home bu~iness to be- permitted on o pare.el: Maximum Number of non-resident employeE:-s:.:. 1 (,hp·n:,1n: -:1-,i, r.~1c_1uki 1,,- :: ,(.:,-r:-·~•;u, r:1 i n:1;!{.','( € .·; • 1it i t1t'i·,,;,.lt 1; ::··, ·i i1:,1: r( :icif1:1,: r:·,:·,;(;\·r·: T:1:'; i1,1.l1.~lr,n o1 1 h\Ui,1r1!~•r:,.. v wdl ()!ie. ,1 \l,,r;,i1,g !ir,•1;(• :,1•~ii•I''.,·,!·! i:.1,•d(~U,·'.-:'.· 71:(•I'. :11J·,<{: f,,: ;. ,:,.:u-t, •.)f'.,l:ii',t~l:• jt,:-t ('c•:;(;' t·· i:t.!!'f\11 (I ~:,,c1,i(1 P,H: p,~,:~,1n ,,.. ,i1i!1• •1ri!: ;:.,i: ,-1:r:1, 1,:: ~:;~ fl"<:,.:,n, IH iJ:\ .--.r c.l k!I; 1,11 ~'. 1 .. i;d(1'/H- Lastly: 1 '..r:'!l·,1, W<~ w,~q- t1 I(' 11··.,,' 1il( .(• ''., ( ::;!:~i :,,· ;.• ',j;:1·t ~1,,.: ,.f; P' fl!·:n,(•!:'i 1 1 !,.j1111i 1:·vi;,\•" (,ff!t(:! lj• 'itlf- Lii:-,~·11.·i (,] L.,r(l,\11:!(• \f/(., c,i:;t'.<11(, 1lil': --~ V,,( r>h•\if• 1!:;'., ·~ Llfl\'.'i!!'i1nt••(') r-:1,d \','(,t:lc! fl·;,,.; ill c; !-:iftd,tiH,t ! :,,( 1p· W1 the f'~r:-.o:,;:I:;), ( ! L;n ,i ;,,,, l!t: ii~, ~, , 1q,di ·.c v, 11 ••~,1d1r 'i° ·, c " t ;iL.: ,., ;c L:{ 1;n((,- ~Ii ,)hit· l .. '.fl"'.( i:, 1t 1r 1 '-"~_1(1'-11: • i·.''., ;- 1.',·h~1!1" Thank you for your time and consideration. Namaste, Kavita Red Door Yoga 7282 Aulds.Rd l P211 Kyle Young From: Bob Eakin Hello Ian-was asking Kyle about possibility of 'care giver'/ 2nd res becoming an option in the new Bylaw considerations. Kyle has asked to be kept In any conversation I might have on the issue to explain why included. I don't want to formally present in front of council but asking for your comments about the Issue. If it is something you are already preparing to address then great, or if this memo serves as a gentle nudge then great also. If I absolutely had to present then I guess I might but I am not adequate to the task I feel. My purpose is not revenue motivated, want the option to offer free housing for care giver so can remain in the house longer as aging. Shovelling the snow this AM was a good reminder. On excess of 1 acre, well but plenty of water, would expect only a one person addition to the lot so reasonable considering many other lots already have that person number or more already. There would be no traffic impact so thinking how Nanaimo manages the same issue with a much lower threshold my thought is that the concept is more than reasonable. Again, I appreciate your time and comments Ian, thank you. Bob Eakin 6671 Elm Lantzville [email protected] 2S0-714-4664 c 1 P212 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:58 PM To: Councillor Wilson Cc: Mayor Swain; Councillor Karen Proctor; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Savage; Ronald Campbell Subject: Secondary Suites Councillor Wilson: This e-mail is a follow-up to your enquiry regarding whether or not other local governments (Parksville, Qualicum, Nana1mo, RON) in the region have additional charges for secondary suites. Water utilities are charged for the property based on consumption (i.e. there is no separate charge for the suite). Sewer is either charged based on usage or, in the case of Nanaimo, sewer utility charges are doubled for properties with suites. For garbage collection, charges are either doubled or the owner may simply purchase a larger container. There are no other charges or levies for secondary suites. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] Lqnti,~ This email and any attachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and may be confidential, privilesed and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, N!transmisslon, printfn& copying, Circulation or other use of this messase and any attachment, Is strictly prohibited. If you received this messase in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. 1 P213 Mayor and Council District of Lantzville Box 100, Lantzville B.C. V0R 2H0 Jan 21, 2020 Mr. Brian Blood Box 179, Lantzville B.C. V0R 2HO Dear Mayor and Councillors, The best way to keep taxes low is to be good neighbors. Please consider doing nothing at all regarding the regulation of suites. There are several good arguments for and against taking this stance. The recent canvassing of our neighborhoods, (added to the local knowledge we already had), led Garry Gaudet and I to estimate that 10 to 20% of homes In the old Lower Lantzvllle neighborhood contain a rental suite. The rest of the District is probably similar. If meeting a niche housing need is desirous, then we are already doing it. Why regulate for it? If regulation and bylaw enforcement is seen as a way to reduce annoyances to neighbors it should be noted that there are very few complaints when you consider the number of suites. Leaving suites technically unauthorised and therefore subject to closure if problems are brought to the attention of the DOL is surely a motivational factor for landlords and tenants to self-regulate. Self-regulation must be happening. What else would account for the low number of official complaints? A perusal of news venues on municipal issues is shockingly illustrative of the anarchy that prevails everywhere when civic authorities attempt to regulate suites. The problems are simply insoluble. Lantzville would be chasing its tail over an ever Increasing number of ambiguities that would require more than 2 ½ new positions and their overhead costs. Don't forget the legal budget. How does a bylaw differentiate and regulate the baffling array of suite-like residential venues that include; small-scale room and board, large multiple or extended .. family use of a home, in-law suites, some with shared bathrooms and kitchens, some not, self-contained maid's or nannie's quarters, and an interminable number of legally mind-bending alternatives, some with ethnic, cultural and even gender and marital components? It Is daunting enough to regulate the geography of a home, quite another to attempt the regulation of human relationships within ltl Good luck with that. It is defeating Toronto so it would be entertaining P214 but costly to watch little Lantzville attempt It. If you really need an employment programme for staff and lawyers, regulating suites is surely it. Take a look at Saanich (pop 112,000) which is taking the approach I suggest we at least investigate. Suites are technically illegal. Complaints still lead to bylaw enforcement which can lead to closure of the accommodation venue. Everyone keeps their heads down, taxpayers save a lot of money and a housing need is still being met. On the other hand...... in the past I have argued for jettisoning bylaws that are never or rarely used and then only by complaint. My example has usually been the bylaw that prohibits overnight parking on DOL road allowances. This bylaw creates technical lawbreakers out of probably 20 to 30% of District residents every night. Who cares? We all should care because we know that if some laws are meaningless it depreciates respect for all laws and we risk generating a public attitude that moves incrementally towards lawlessness. The "complaint" driven bylaw also creates opportunities for vendettas that have nothing to do with bylaw infractions. Maybe you could care less about a neighbor's car on the street all night or the fact they have a senior tenant or a VIU student In the basement but you harbour some personal grudge against the landlord or the tenant. (I will resist the temptation to illustrate examples from our colourful local history). The ban on overnight parking was created to mollify waterfront property owners who did not want anyone sleeping in RVs or any vehicles beside their homes overnight and reasonably so. Extending the ban to the whole district was a necessary legal expedient to deal with an otherwise very localised problem. We know who is served by the above parking regulation. Who would be served by the active prohibition of unregulated suites through an expensive and chaotic district policy of regulation, inspection and enforcement? Which is more dangerous to community well-being; the continued functional ignoring of a bylaw infraction or the attempt at creating regulation and local government intrusion inside our homes on a very large scale? It is a tough one that can be argued from both sides, as I have. Check out Saanlch. Maybe a Council member or two could do this and save on staff time. In the past, tasks like this were often undertaken by Council members and Trustees of the Improvement District before them. Also keep In mind when they advise you, that senior staff benefit in managerial status with its attendant pecuniary benefits when more Junior staff such as bylaw inspectors become employed. These are decisions that you need to make based on your own good judgement, life experience and being good neighbors yourselves. That is why we elected you. We did not elect staff. Sincerely. Brian Blood P215 Kyle Young From: Ronald Campbell Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:41 PM To: Mayor Swain; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Savage Cc: Kyle Young; Trudy Coates Subject: Secondary Suite & Carriage House Policy Good afternoon, With regard to the subject matter staff will be bringing forward a proposed policy for Council consideration at the February 10th Regular meeting. The policy will provide the public with guidance on how the Municipality will be addressing existing and proposed secondary suites and carriag_e houses. The Director of Planning referenced this policy in his September 9, 2019 Report /Recommendation and it has been discussed with Council on a number of occasions. If Council is supportive of the proposed policy it could be implemented by Council if the new Zoning Bylaw is adopted. Should you have any questions please call. Ronald campbell, CLGM I Chief Administrative Officer District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8080 F: 250.390.8080 E: [email protected] Make every second count/ This email and anv attachmenu are for the use of the Intended recipient ontv and may be confidential, privileged and subject to dlsdosure under the Freedom of Information and Protecffon of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, drculallon or other use of this message and any attachment, Is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. 1 P216 Kyle Young From: scott Andrews Hi Kyle, I am writing you as a concerned citizen of Lantzvllle. Some of the upcoming changes that being purposed under the new Zoning Bylaws are a bit ridiculous. Section 2.2 Home Business, the way I read this is if a owner of a construction or landscaping business would only be able to bring home Is hand tools but not a truck or machinery even if he is on acreage? Isn't this why they moved to Lantzville so they could park their equipment of their property? It seems like Lantzville is against small business. Section 2.16 states you can only have 1 recreational vehicle or personal water craft on the property. What about families that have both a travel trailer and a camper? Or a large Motorhome and tent trailer. There are a lot of families have multiple recreational vehicles in Lantzvllle. Section 2.17 states you can't have a shipping container as a storage unit. I bought a 20' one because it was cheaper and more secure then building a shed plus it's movable If needed. How can a storage container be any different then a person having a shed? Section 2.18 under 5 (e) only one non running vehicle allowed on a parcel of land. Do you know how many car enthusiast are in Lantzville that may have a couple project cars on the go? I currently have 2 myself and have no intention of getting rid of either of them. This was one of the main reasons I moved here, so I could build a shop to work on my cars. And now I hear you want to hire a bylaw enforcement officer to drive around to enforce these changes that are on the table. Very disappointing. Scott Andrews 1 P217 Kyle Young From: cliffandlynn Kyle, My name is Cliff Arneson and have lived at 7035 Arbutus Crescent for 30 years. I have operated my excavation business "Cliff's Contracting" from my home. I park my commercial truck and trailer on my property which is accessed off Aulds Road. In those 30 years there has never been a complaint from any of my neighbours. I am seriously concerned with the new restrictions proposed in the new zoning bylaw. I moved here and started my business from my home because of the rural nature of the area and also because I could operate my business as I have. I am strongly opposed to the changes and feel it is only reasonable that the District convene a meeting specifically for owners of home based businesses where you can present the proposed changes and explain them, from the District's point of view and receive direct input from those that will be most affected. I am confident that based on input from the home based business community the District's concerns can be addressed in a way that doesn't unduly negatively affect our businesses. If this new zoning goes into effect and I have to park my equipment elsewhere, it would put me out of business. Due to the large costs, inconvenience and lack security at an offsite storage facility. Years ago there was a referendum to join Nanaimo and I voted against It because I didn't want the same restrictive rules of Nanaimo and also wanted to stay a small community. Sincerely, Cliff Arneson 1 P218 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:31 AM To: Garry Gaudet; Councillor Proctor Subject RE: Request for clarification - New Draft Zoning Bylaw Categories: Filed Garry: I can appreciate your comments. I used the wording from the District ofTofino's short term rental regulations. The intent is that both businesses are not being operated at the same time. Administratively, It would be best if the owner chose one business type for the business licence cycle (1 year) because there are slightly different regulations for each. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2H0 T: 250,933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] Lem£ This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and mav be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom oJ Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission. printing, copylns.. circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, Is strlctly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: Garry Gaudet Dear Director Young, /-laving followed news reports in recent years regarding evolving regulation of the recent phenomenon of "SrR's", I note with relief that the New Lantz.ville Draft Bylaw has been updated to include Short 1erm Rentals within the category of 11/-lome Businesses" (pp 31, 32)· I also note that our draft regulations also rU1uire that both conventional "Bed and Breakfast" operations and "Short Term Rentals" will require both a propert!I 1 P219 owner's presence on the property, and an appropriate business license· llbsence o( these basic conditions with the recent appearance o( "fJir BnB's" produeed staggering difficulties, costs and complications for many municipalities including 1oronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and hlontreal• It's heartening and signilicant to see them in place here in Lantzville, well in advance of potential need (or 'tourist destination-oriented' accommodation· hly confusion is in the "Short term Rental" regulation wording, that "a Short 1erm Rental must not be operated on the same property on which a bed and breakfast is being operated"· /Ylay I suggest adding clarity with the concluding phrase "at the same time"• I understand the intent to be that the homeowners should provide only one or the other service, and NO, run both a 18&61 and an 'llirBnB' simultaneously· this also meets the principle of adding just one distinct separate rental "suite" or lodging area per 'single Family dwelling'· We already have a very small number of responsibly-run B&B operations, and it seems to me that some or all of these may wish to be able to optionally offer "flir BnB" style service - without the 'breakfast' component included - so clients may designate one service or the other· l-lowever the existing wording seems to suggest that if one service is offered, the other ma9 not be; that owners must stick with one or the other· I would very much appreciate your clarification on this point, and thank you for your ongoing work in shaping the new Bylaw• Garry Gaudet 7056 ,weedhope Road, Box 'l-7 - l4ntz.ville 250-390-3707 Copy - 8/oek Watt.h Captain Coun· Karen Proctor 2 P220 Kyle Young From: ian savage Excellent synopsis Fred - thank you. It sounds like you are recommending It ls best not to separately meter carriage houses - that it's already addressed more effectively, with the flat rate and the tiered rate capturing the cost of the extra water use of a carriage house. It1s also good to know a carriage house will use up one connection of the allotted Nanaimo water 50 connections per year If it uses Nanaimo water. Thanks Ian On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Fred Spears Good afternoon Council, After conversation at the meeting on Monday night, staff feel it should inform Council how the District captures properties with more than one unit on the property serviced with a water connection. Currently the District charges a flat rate for each resident/unit that is serviced from one water service. The number of units per property are identified as Residential Water Service Code 1 (RWCl)for one unit, RWC2 for 2 units etc. As an example, a property with 1 carriage house and a main house would be classed as a RWC2 and would see the District charge 2 flat rates on a quarterly basis and if the use went above 65.28 M3 per quarter, the property owner would be charged according to the tier rate reached. To comment on the viewpoint presented by Councillor Savage. If the District were to Install a separate meter in the plumbing of a private property, the District would require an easement from that property. As a meter is already installed at property line, installing a meter on the plumbing within the property would not be necessary. The Nanaimo Water Agreement identifies premises as per the following: 1 P221 "Premises" means each and every residential, commercial and all other lands and buildings that receive water from the Lantzville Water System, and in the case of lands and buildings with more than one permitted use, each · such use shall constitute a "Premises". The District of Lantzville Water System Bylaw 140 section 23 and 24 reads as follows: 23. Each parcel for which a water service is approved, other than parcels within a strata development, shall have its own service connection, which shall be installed by the District. 24. Each building shall have only one service connection, except: (a) when a separate connection is required for fire protection purposes; or (b) when a building expansion or zoning or use change makes the addition of a further connection necessary; or (c) where a separate connection is requested to service an accessory carriage house, and where two or more buildings exist on one parcel of land and where such parcel of land can be subdivided, each building shall have a separate service connection. As identified in the Lantzville/Nanalmo Water Agreement, each premises will constitute a connection and therefore be charged the $5,912.26, this would include carriage homes within the Water Service Area. Regarding the 50 connections per year, any carriage home constructed and connected to the Lantzville Water System in the Upper Pressure Zone only, as is identified on the map attached to the Lantzville/Nanaimo Agreement, would constitute one of the allotted 50 connections per year. Any carriage homes connected to the Lantzvllle Water System outside of the Upper Pressure Zone would not constitute a use of any of the allotted 50 connections. The Lantzville/Nanaimo Agreement could trigger section 24.b of Bylaw 140 however staff feel even though the Lantzville/Nanaimo Agreement identifies the carriage home as a premises that will require payment, it is not necessary to have a separate connection because the District captures those properties with more than one unit/premises/carriage home with a Residential Water Service Code. In some cases where there is one meter servicing more than one unit, the water use goes above the flat rate charged for the 65.28 M3 increasing revenue for the water system. In addition, there is a cost associated with capturing the water services asset value adding costs to the Asset Management Plan. Regards, 2 P222 Fred Spears, Director of Public Works District of lantzvllle, 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.2250 F: 250.390.S188 Email: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that anv review, retransmission, prtntlng, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete mis message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. Good morning Fred, With regard to the email below please provide a response to Councillor Savage and all of those who were copied on his email. Thank you Ronald Campbell, CLGM I Chief Administrative Officer District of lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8080 F: 250.390.8080 E: [email protected] Make every second count/ 3 P223 This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient ontv and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying. circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: ian savage One viewpoint might be, simply installing a separate meter in the plumbing within a property, is different than the definition of a selVice connection in bylaw 140 which is : "service connection" means a water pipe and the necessary valves and protective boxes, connections, thaw wires, meters and any other material necessary and actually used to connect a parcel or unit to the water main to a curb stop; Of interest, however, is if the Lantzville Nanaimo Water Agreement would interpret a carriage house as being an additional connection. This agreement's definition of Premises seems to indicate each permitted use on a property would constitute a connection, and would require a separate connection fee. Perhaps staff could darify this, as It certainly would effect the cost of a carriage house and would effect the so per year allotted connections ••• in cases where Nanaimo water was involved. Ian On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:20 PM Trudy Coates This email is provided: 4 P224 • As a reminder that all correspondence received by members of Council regarding the Zoning Bylaw (like the email below) needs to be forwarded to staff to be included in the public record, so it is included in the binder available to the public and at the Public Hearing as background. Regarding the topic of the input below (the amendment motion to amend Section 2.1, by adding a new clause 2.12 "A carriage house must have a separate water meter from the principal dwelling unit."), staff wanted to ensure that Council is aware that there is already a requirement in District of Lantzville Water System Bylaw No. 140, 2018: Individual Connections 23. Each parcel for which a water service Is approved, other than parcels within a strata development, shall have Its own service connection, which shall be installed by the District. 24. Each building shall hove only one service connection, except: (a) when a separate connection Is required for fire protection purposes; or (b) when a building expansion or zoning or use change makes the addition of a further connection necessary; or (c) where a separate connection Is requested to service on accessory carriage house, and where two or more buildings exist on one parcel of land and where such parcel of land can be subdivided, each building shall have a separate service connection. Trudy Coates I Director of Corporate Administration District of Lantzvllle I 7192 Lantzvllle Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8082 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, priVl!eged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing. copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. 5 P225 ------Original message ---- From: GRAHAM SAVAGE Date: 2020-01-281:15 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Mayor Swain Subject: Suites/ carriage homes. Good progressive meeting last night. I have a concern with the vote in support of requiring a separate water meter for a carriage home. In my experience, having worked for Nanaimo, Totino, Cumberland and Courtenay; its common practice for Municipalities to require only one water meter per property. This applies to duplex's, apartments, strata's, trailer parks and strata industrial sites. Requiring multiple municipal owned meters adds to municipal costs .••••. meter reading, repair/replacement, water leaks, billing, etc; Additional user rate revenue will be achieved through the added water usage from the carriage home/ suite via the one single water meter to a property. , Graham Savage. Sent from my iPhone Ian Savage 2503901958 6 P226 Ian Savage 2503901958 [email protected] 7 P227 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:31 PM To: Ronald Campbell; Kyle Young; Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Mayor Swain Subject: Questions about Zoning Bylaw Process This email is to respond to a few questions posed to staff by members of Council about the Zoning Bylaw process, including: Q: Will staff be posting a notice on the District's website about the February 24, 2020 Public Hearing? A: Yes. So far we have Just added the date in three spots (calendar, What's New on the home page, and on the new Zoning Bylaw page). The meeting/hearing date will also be in our February newsletter. In accordance with the Local Government Act, it is too early to publish the statutory notice. Q: What are the rules for public input? A: We do not receive verbal public input about public hearing topics during Council meetings, except for at the advertised Public Hearing. This ensures that the public hears the public input at the same time as Council, in a forum for which the opportunity was advertised. This also ensures that public input regarding the Bylaw is collected separately and not lost within other public input about other meeting agenda items. The District receives written public input at any time during the bylaw development process until the hearing is closed, and the written public input Is shared with Council and the public. It is important (so the bylaw process is not challenged) that any written input received by Council members also forms part of the public record (staff add it to a binder available to the public to review before and during the Public Hearing). Please forward correspondence to staff to be included. It is also critical that Council does NOT receive any written submissions between the time that the public hearing closes and when the Bylaw is adopted. Sometimes this is not a risk as it is at the same meeting; but sometimes it could be at a subsequent meeting. Q: What is the Public Hearing date? Did Council need to poss a motion to establish the hearing date? A: The January 27, 2020 staff report indicated that the Public Hearing will be at the February 24, 2020 regular Council meeting. Historically, Council would pass a motion to establish the hearing date; however, as this is not a requirement of the Act, staff have for some time only included the date in the staff report. Trudy Coates I Director of Corporate Administration District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8082 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] Lttn£ This eman and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information ond Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, Is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. 1 P228 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:21 PM To: Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Mayor Swain; Fred Spears; Jamie Slater; Kyle Young; Neil Rukus; Ronald Campbell; Trudy Coates Subject: Zoning Bylaw Public Input Graham Savage (28 Jan 2020) re Suites/ carriage homes. This email is provided: As a reminder that all correspondence received by members of Council regarding the Zoning Bylaw (like the email below) needs to be forwarded to staff to be included in the public record, so it is included in the binder available to the public and at the Public Hearing as background. Regarding the topic of the input below (the amendment motion to amend Section 2.1, by adding a new clause 2.12 "A Carriage house must have a separate water meter from the principal dwelling unit.n), staff wanted to ensure that Council is aware that there is already a requirement in District of Lantzville Water System Bylaw No. 140, 2018: Individual Connections 23. Each parcel for which a water service is approved, other than parcels within a strata development, shall have its own service connection, which shall be installed by the District. 24. Each building shall have only one service connection, except: (a) when a separate connection is required for fire protection purposes; or (b) when a building expansion or zoning or use change makes the addition of a further connection necessary; or (c) where a separate connection is requested to service an accessory carriage house, and where two or more buildings exist on one parcel of land and where such parcel of land con be subdivided, each building shall have a separate service connection. Trudy Coates I Director of Corporate Administration District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Bo>< 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2HO T: 250.933.8082 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended redplent only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to dis?osure under the Freedom of Information ond Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying. drculatlon or other use of this message and any attachment, Is strictly prohibited. If you received this messase In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. ----- Original message -- From: GRAHAM SAVAGE 1 P229 To: Mayor Swain Good progressive meeting last night. I have a concern with the vote in support of requiring a separate water meter for a carriage home. In my experience, having worked for Nanaimo, Totino, Cumberland and Courtenay; its common practice for Municipalities to require only one water meter per property. This applies to duplex's, apartments, strata's, trailer parks and strata industrial sites. Requiring multiple municipal owned meters adds to municipal costs ...... meter reading, repair/replacement, water leaks, billing, etc; Additional user rate revenue will be achieved through the added water usage from the carriage home/ suite via the one single water meter to a property. Graham Savage. Sent from my iPhone 2 P230 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:01 PM To: ian savage; Ronald Campbell; Mayor Swain; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Proctor; Councillor Geselbracht Councillor Savage Subject: RE: New items in zoning bylaw Categories: Filed Councillor Savage: These changes were made prior to Council considering first and second of the bylaw. The intent of a home business is that It is the owner conducting the business - it was pointed out to me that unless there is a regulation, this could be mis-interpreted. However, if Council wishes to expand home businesses to non-owners, you can make this change on th February 10 • The need for a business licence would only be initiated if the Municipality adopts a business licence bylaw. There is a similar provision in the current zoning bylaw. Council passed a resolution requiring short term rentals to have a business licence. In fairness, the same regulation should be applied to other types of home businesses. The regulation concerning the sale of goods at a fine woodworking shop is redundant and is already covered by section 2.2.11. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC VOR 2HO T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review. retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. ff you received this messase In error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. From: ian savage Good afternoon, Could you please confirm when were the following changes made to the Home Business Section of the proposed new zoning bylaw : 2.2.1 A home business must be operated by the owner of the parcel on which the home business is taking place. 1 P231 2.2.2 A home business is only permitted if the owner has a valid business license Issued by the Municipality for the home business. Fine Woodworking -The following sentence was deleted : ''The sale of goods at a fine woodworking shop Is permitted and Is limited to goods produced onslte." The Jan 27, 2020 agenda pg 110 staff report, did not list these changes. My concern is the only way a council member could have discovered these changes was to go through the 83 page Jan 27/20 version of the bylaw and compare it to the Oct 25/19 version. Today is the first time I've seen these changes. Please let me know if I've missed something in the process, as I may have done. My concern with 2.2.1 is it is common, a house is registered in the name of just one spouse, so technically there is just one owner. This would prevent the other spouse or any other member of the family from having a home business. Also, renters of the house would be prevented from having a home business, something as benign as tutoring or giving piano lessons. My concern with 2.2.2 is there has yet to be discussion/vote on council if there is support for business licences, what would be the cost, and what would be the comprehensive definition of a home business. Also there is no definition of business license in the bylaw, so I don't know what I would be approving. Thanks Ian Ian Savage 2503901958 [email protected] 2 P232 February 4, 2020 District of Lantzville PO Box 100 7192 Lantzville Road Lantzville, BC V0R2H0 Dear Mayor & Council: Re: Draft Zoning Bylaw The District of Lantzville Draft Zoning Bylaw has continued to evolve over the past few months. Most of the changes that have been incorporated into the new draft bylaw are positive improvements to a very technical bylaw. However, there are still a number of areas, particularly around setbacks from property boundaries that, in my opinion, still have some shortcomings. The comments and suggestions provided below regarding setbacks only apply to the Residential Zones in the zoning bylaw, which are generally larger parcels, and also represent most of the current residential properties developed in Lantzville. Additional zones that are added or properties such as the Special Planning areas that will have Comprehensive Development Zoning can develop appropriate setbacks for those areas during the rezoning process. The following is a list of items that should be further reviewed along with the rationale for implementing the included proposed changes: Residential Front Yard Setbacks 1. The front yard setback is being reduced from the current 8m to Gm. Large trucks are at least Gm long which would result in overhang into the road right of way. As the current residential zones are larger lots (especially the 2,000 sq m ones), I don't think this reduction is necessary. There aren't currently any problems with the existing Sm setback that currently applies to virtually all of the existing housing stock in Lantzville. 2. The front yard setback now allows items such as decks to protrude 2m into the setback area. This effectively further reduces the setbacks from the road of the proposed bylaw from Gm to 4m, which is half the current setback. 3. In existing neighbourhoods, a new home replacing an existing home could be built significantly closer to the street impacting the streetscape and even potentially blocking views. 6898 Harwood Drive/ lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 / 250.714.3063 / [email protected] P233 Page 12 4. If the setback is left at Sm, residents can still apply to the District for a Variance to reduce the setback if so desired. Rear Yard Setbacks Rear yard setbacks are being increased from 2m to 6m. While I am generally a fan of a larger rear yard setback, in this instance I have a number of reservations. The concerns are as follows: 1. As the new increased setback applies to hundreds of existing homes in Lantzville there is no information on how many homes extend into the new setback area. Any homes extending into this setback area would be non-conforming. a. Non-conforming buildings cannot be rebuilt if they burn down. b. Non-conforming buildings cannot have additions constructed. 2. Items such as financing or obtaining insurance can be more problematic for non-conforming homes. 3. One irony of the increased rear yard setbacks is that all other setbacks in the Residential zones are being decreased but the rear yard setback is being increased by 4 times the current setback for houses. However, secondary structures rear yard setbacks will actually be decreased from 2m to 1.Sm. Residential Side Yard Setbacks 1. The definition of side yard setbacks is being changed so that measurement is taken from the foundation where currently it is measured from the eaves. The current setback is 2m. I would suggest increasing the setback to 2.Sm to the foundation (eaves are about 0.Sm) so that the new zoning bylaw setback would be equivalent to the current zoning. The current residential zones are large lots and this increase shouldn't be an issue as it would be equivalent to the existing setback. 2. The current roadside side yard setback for corner lots is Sm. The new bylaw reduces it to 3m. Again with larger lots this shouldn't be an issue leaving the larger setback. As an example, with the changes using the foundation as the point of measurement, on a½ acre {2,000 sq m) lot with 100' frontage (32m), the eaves could be 2.Sm from the road. That is pretty close to the road! Secondary Structures 1. The rear and side setbacks are currently 2m for secondary structures and are proposed to decrease to 1.Sm. With the changes to where the setback is measured from as stated above, the eaves of these buildings could be lm from the property line. 6898 Harwood Drive/ Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 / 250.714.3063 / [email protected] P234 Page 13 2. Both the rear and side yard setbacks should be 2.5 m (allowing for eaves) which would be equivalent to the current bylaw of 2m. Minimum Parcel Width 1. I don't think this is necessary. There hasn't been a problem with lot width and Provincial legislation already requires that the minimum road frontage be 10% of the perimeter of a property. Height Definition 1. The definition of "height", especially with the recent increase to the Foothills and proposed increase for some of the new zones, should specifically address flat roofed homes. With the increases to 9 m it can potentially allow three storey flat roofed homes. The City of Nanaimo has additional restrictions on flat roofed homes to prevent three storey buildings. The additional height above 8m in most zoning bylaws is to allow the steeper 9/12-12/12 pitched roofs on many of today's modem homes, while still limiting them to two storeys. If you have any questions, or require further clarification on any of the above items, please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, Dave Scott cc Kyle Young, Director of Planning 6898 Harwood Drive/ lantzville, BC VOR 2HO / 250. 714.3063 / [email protected] P235 Kyle Young From: Susan Categories: Filed Mayor and Council: While I appreciate, the time and effort put into the drafting of this bylaw by staff, there are many small changes to the bylaw from the current bylaw (No. 60) that, with time, may result in a negative impact on the community as a whole. For example, Bylaw No. 180 removes the requirement that all off-street parking is subject to the setback requirements of the zone that applies to the parcel. This will result in parking being able to be located adjacent to any lot line including a lot line abutting a street. As an example, a carriage house use could have the parking adjacent to the road with no setback. This could Impact the availability of on-street parking as well as deter from the residential streetscape - where there could be landscaping, there will be vehicles. Another change is how minimum setbacks will be measured. Currently, setbacks are measured from the outermost portion of a building or structure, usually the overhang and eaves. Bylaw No. 180 changes this to measuring to the foundation with the overhang extending into the setback. As an example, in the case, where the minimum setback requirement is not changing, a building can be located closer to the Jot line. While this does not seem like a huge change, it could impact view corridors and possibly fire safety as well as creating a more urban setting in a community where residents value their semi-rural setting. Concerning the definition of height, this definition was amended last summer. This definition, while it works for new development on steep slopes in the Foothills, may negatively Impact other existing neighbourhoods in Lantzville as there wm be infilling and redevelopment of older homes happening, resulting in taller buildings and structures, thus impacting surrounding existing neighbourhoods. The maximum floor area requirement for secondary buildings in the Residential and Rural zones has been removed from this bylaw other than a maximum floor area size for carriage house and home business uses. Retaining a maximum floor area for all secondary buildings is an effective way of assuring that the principle use of residentially and rurally zoned parcels will be maintained. These are just a few examples of small changes to the current bylaw that, in my opinion, will have a future undesirable Impact on the community. As a result, the above noted provisions in the bylaw should be reviewed and amended as necessary to reflect community values. In addition, it is my opinion that the public consultation process has not be adequate in order to give property owners and members of the community the opportunity to fully understand this bylaw and changes proposed. It is recommended that additional public input be sought before forwarding this bylaw to public hearing, such as forming a resident technical committee to review the bylaw and hosting additional public information meetings. Sincerely, 1 P236 Susan Cormie Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ·2 P237 Kyle Young From: Nadine Merlet Categories: Filed Hi Kyle, I was just speaking with you. 70S7 Leland rd is our address. We are in favor of the bylaw supporting carriage homes in Lantzville. We have elderly parents and would find this to be a viable option for our family. Best regards, Andre & Nadine Merlet 1 P238 Councillors Geselbracht, Proctor and Wilson District of Lantzville Feb 11, 2020 Re: The old neighborhoods-density, "carriage houses" or subdivision? Dear Councillors Geselbracht, Proctor and Wilson. If you are intent on imposing higher densities on our neighborhoods against our will (which I will comment on in a moment) then please revisit the defeated "Colclough amendments" from the previous Council. If we can imagine for a moment that some higher authority is giving us an irresistible command to densify our existing neighborhoods then simple subdivision of existing properties (as envisioned in the defeated Colclough amendments from the previous council) is the most responsible and cost-effective way to do It. Traditional pride of ownership should not be treated lightly in any consideration of neighborliness but that is just part of the equation. Subdivision is inarguable when it comes to who pays what for which services: Yes, you must have separate utility services and payments; Yes, you must meet the requirements for building standards, setbacks and all the other rules for the single category of a "house" and not something lesser, something with a myriad of categories, something that must disguise itself with an ersatz name suggesting the elegance of a former era in order to sell itself. The term "carriage" house is as misleading as "mobilen home. The subdivision of our ½ acre on Caillet Rd for example, which we intend to apply for when hell freezes over but which could still happen, would allow for a house unrestrained by some diminutive size restriction -a restriction that mitigates against diversity not for it. The reduced land cost for a smaller lot would still allow for an economy of scale for first-time homeowners to build and own a modest home or not. It would still allow a property owner to subdivide, build a second house and rent it the same as if she built a carriage house on an unsubdivided parcel. A house on a separate lot is a single legal element with a transparent set of standards and fees, not an "unrecognised unit" or a "recognised unit" or a "fully compliant unit" with varying regulations and fees as you have proposed for carriage houses. Which is a simpler and cleaner way to achieve the goal of neighborhood densification - subdivision or carriage houses? Your categories in the policy for carriage houses are complicated and will cause inequity between those who are paying and those who continue to exist under the radar, (with garage conversions), and do not. It will be a divisive element for fair-minded taxpayers and the P239 problem will be yours or a future Council's. Resolution of the inequity will depend upon complaint, inspection and bylaw enforcement, sometimes including litigation. These neighborhood conflicts cast long shadows. Subdivision, though still controversial as a concept, will bypass all this with its clear regulatory package. I believe the move to support the dodgy carriage house concept was simply a response to the defeat of the Colclough amendments. The members of the previous council and the current council who believe that the established neighborhoods are not dense enough failed at the attempt at subdivision and have now latched on to the inferior carriage house vehicle to achieve the same density goal. In a nutshell; a minority on the last council failed to pass a better Idea and now a majority on this Council are succeeding with a worse Idea because of that failure. The relative merits of either approach to density enhancement aside, neither approach passes the litmus test of resident approval. The fact that the re-jigged OCP may allow for carriage houses does not reflect the will of residents any more than the Colclough amendments would have. None of the DOL's attempts through the OCP review process (or any other means) to quantify public willingness to densify the existing neighborhoods has shown anything remotely near majority support for the concept. That the OCP may contain words to support such densification was not the will of residents and cannot be proven to be so. Continuing to quote the OCP in support of such densification moves brings unwanted scrutiny to the flawed, top down, OCP Review process. There was no quantifiable majority support for the proposed density changes by means of subdivision or carriage houses; I challenge you to find It. There may have been majority support among the OCP Review Committee and its leadership, including staff, but nowhere has it been demonstrated that there was a public desire for such densification. Having said that, Council can do whatever it wants. If you Insist on forcing higher densities onto existing neighborhoods my advice would be to just do it and not risk using a false democratic gloss In doing so. Short statements of personal belief about the benefits of density would be less contentious. It may be possible that public opinion has changed or that a majority don't care. If that is the case it would be useful for Council to know. This can be done at fairly low cost through a simple mallout polling of residents. The potential doubling of densities in existing neighborhoods is a tronsformative endeavour for this community and should only be embarked upon with majority public support. To my knowledge none of you offered your candidacy on the issue of densification of existing neighborhoods. It is therefore ethically incumbent upon you to seek that majority public opinion from all of your constituents in a quantifiable manner or abandon the attempt to transform the existing neighborhoods. Anecdotal advice from a handful of friends and business associates is not good enough. P240 I have no dog in this fight. I am 72 and unlikely to experience the extreme downside of denslfication of my neighborhood in the time I have left to enjoy my home and garden and neighborhood. Additional traffic, noise, loss of privacy, loss of trees due to reduced property size and greater land coverage by buildings and all the other plagues of ancient Egypt will probably be gradual when compared with the faster mass-developments that will occur on the nearby development lands. I am more interested in seeing that deliberate transformative change only occurs with majority public approval; that the democracy we all pay lip-service to actually prevails. If a majority of residents say no to the proposed densification through any means then you must stop. If they show disinterest then you are free to innovate. If they indicate majority approval for one method of densification over another then you must listen. Since every previous poll of residents in the existing neighborhoods has indicated a high level of satisfaction with the treed, roomy neighborhoods and a rejection of the North-Nanalmo style of urban encroachment (that rejection being the reason we sought municipal status) then you must seek their renewed opinion before proceeding with these questionable density measures. You were elected by existing residents to serve their needs, not to serve the needs of other interest groups. If those needs of residents and other interest groups are congruent then that is another matter but you cannot know without finding out and if you fail to find out then you do not want to know. And if you do not want to know..... well, that is very dark indeed. Sincerely, Brian Blood 7075 Caillet Rd. Lantzville Cc Mayor Swain Cc Councillor Savage Cc former Mayor Haime Cc former Councillor Bob Colclough Cc former Councillor Coulson Cc former Councillor Haime Cc former Councillor Neary P241 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:41 PM To: Kyle Young Subject FW: Emailing: Climate change and the municipality - Copy.docx Attachments: Climate change and the municipality - Copy.docx -----Original Message----- From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:49 PM To: Trudy Coates Trudy. Please accept the attached a s a submission for the zoning bylaw #180. The sections directly related to zoning have been highlighted. Brian Blood 1 P242 Submission for zoning bylaw #180 (Zoning section highlighted ••. see below) Feb 2020 Climate change the municipality, adaptation and zoning B Blood The coastal communities of British Columbia, including Lantzville, face a threat from climate change induced sea- level rise which inland and higher elevation regions do not. This may account for the lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the Province and the Government of Canada for the costly mitigation that everyone knows will be required in the near future. There are four main reasons for this lack of enthusiasm. First; while the science behind climate change is sound, the prediction of sea-level rise is not exact. This allows the keepers of government purse-strings to minimise the rise and maximise the time-line while still quoting scientific figures and hoping for the best. Second, the focus remains on prevention measures aimed at halting and reversing climate change itself. These necessary and laudable measures have not worked so far but they have had the effect of crushing any discussion of adapting to climate change which has been portrayed as defeatist and counter-productive. Third, it is only coastal regions that will bear the brunt of ocean-rise and governments globally are reluctant to enflame regional animosity by taxing everyone to mitigate a regional problem even when the causes are shared by all carbon emitters everywhere. Fourth, the sheer magnitude of the budget required to mitigate and adapt to coastal flooding will exhaust government finances, locally, regionally and nationally. No elected officials want to even think about the cost of mitigation let alone what it might consist of. This head-in-the sand response is understandable when other aspects of climate change such as drought, fires, global population surges, food scarcity, and environmental degradation are also in the mix. What is a municipality to do in the face of these existential threats? In order to make decisions, including zoning changes, it would be helpful to know how much the sea will rise and how soon. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says between one and three feet over the next 80 years. The parent UN says three. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently modelled an eight foot rise in that time. Other scientists using logarithmic data from recent years and projecting it into the future come up with much higher levels and sooner. Unless the CO2 graph shows some moderation soon, the logarithm gurus will be right. The Antarctic and Greenland icecaps are P243 key and both are melting sooner and faster than predicted. The Province of B.C. stopped issuing predictions several years ago. It seems likely however, that today's Lantzville schoolkids will start to observe the destructive results as early as their 30s and 40s when they are raising their own children, trying to pay taxes, maintain households and cope with all the other aspects of climate change. Upland properties, escaping the encroaching flooding for the foreseeable future, will have the other climate-induced factors to deal with and, like upland folks in the rest of the country will not want to see a huge proportion of their taxes used to defend waterfront properties which will ultimately be lost anyway. There is only one practical, long-term strategy for a small municipality like this and that is a policy of strategic retreat. Strategic retreat will have costs but nowhere near the costs of seafront fortification, pumps, and the raising of homes. Nor will it cause environmental and recreational degradation of the beach that these huge public and private engineering works would. life in the intertidal zone and the natural life of ocean and land species that it nurtures will require the least human interference possible if the intertidal ecosystem is to survive its incremental creep inland. Strategic retreat could be seen as doing nothing but it is not as simple as leaving waterfront properties to natural forces and human resilience. lnsurability and property values will play a role and governments will be expected to at least take a passive regulatory stand by adjusting building codes and zoning as they have already started to do. The hardest decision for governments will be the eventual prohibition on construction or re-construction after flood damage. The most useful active planning that Governments could do would be to begin a programme of tax-relief for identified at-risk properties. This needs to be addressed by senior governments since tax relief for some of the most valuable properties in the district would cause a budget crisis. This underlines the need for addressing the Province of BC on this issue soon. The UBCM in September of this year will be attended by most municipalities and will receive media coverage and is the perfect venue for this. What the municipality can do is create a zone or zones for the waterfront properties that we can now predict will bear the brunt of sea-level rise. It will be controversial because existing property owners will resist being identified as at risk for future flooding. That zone should encourage any building or re-building to be placed at higher levels on the property where there is an upland slope. It should cap the ever-Increasing pedestal that waterfront buildings are required to use at current heights or some definite maximum otherwise water&ont homes will end up on concrete or metal towers surrounded by sea water. A future flood zone must recognise that eventually these properties will be uninhabitable. Such a zoning will create a demand for some kind of tax relief which is not an unreasonable demand for long term residents who bought properties or Inherited family land from a time when sea-level P244 rise was science fiction. If municipal tax relief comes into play for this proposed zone then there needs to also be a cut-off date after which anyone buying in is not ellglble so that speculators don't benefit from a known risk. It is only a matter of time until these values begin to drop on their own and new construction ceases as the sea rises and damage becomes more and more apparent. In the meantime the District needs to protect residents and the intertidal zone from vain attempts at holding back the rising sea. Several zones may be required for this purpose. Waterfront properties at the top of the clay cliffs will have a different type of risk as rising waters liquefy the lower diff face as they have done In the past in a geological phenomenon where sand and gravels find thelr"angle of repose" under new conditions, In this case water. Slumpage of these clay cliffs wlll occur and put some forward buildings at risk. A zone for these high waterfront properties must establish the future risk and require appropriate setbacks if there Is safety for building at all. This municipality needs to consider its own role in developing and maintaining waterfront Infrastructure both for recreational purposes and for its utilities. For example, is there a contingency for relocation of the sewer main currently located in the intertidal zone or can it function and be maintained once it is under deeper water further from future shorelines? Is there provision for relocating the Hammond Bay treatment plant which is likely to become a victim of sea-level rise? How does a municipality stage a retreat from encroaching sea water in terms of roads, water mains as well as gravity and pumped domestic sewer lines and waterfront pumping stations? Even lower sections of main roads such as Dickinson and Lantzville Rds will eventually need to be abandoned and/or relocated. How long a time-line of public-use justifies the expense of developing waterfront amenities for public recreation? The beach areas will gradually become littered with debris from destroyed seawalls and eventually homes and other structures. Will there be any attempt at restoration or cleanup as the process evolves because the beaches may otherwise be dangerous and unattractive for many decades, severely impacting the survival of intertidal life and precluding recreational use by residents. Most crucially, if we fail to force senior governments to seriously consider their responsibility to strategize and finance the response to rising sea levels, that responsibility will be downloaded on the affected municipalities. This is a can that will become increasingly dangerous If we simply keep kicking it down the road. If we don't begin to plan for these exigencies now; when? P245 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:41 PM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Emailing: Suites, to regulate or not to regulate ..docx Attachments: Suites, to regulate or not to regulate ..docx ----Original Message----- From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 3:31 PM To: Trudy Coates Trudy. Please include the attached letter re suites as a submission regarding the zoning bylaw# 180. I believe the content is very relevant to this bylaw process. Thank you. Brian Blood 1 P246 P247 Mayor and Council District of Lantzville Box 100, Lantzville B.C. VOR 2HO Jan 21, 2020 Mr. Brian Blood Box 179, Lantzville B.C. VOR 2HO Dear Mayor and Councillors, The best way to keep taxes low is to be good neighbors. Please consider doing nothing at all regarding the regulation of suites. There are several good arguments for and against taking this stance. The recent canvassing of our neighborhoods, (added to the local knowledge we already had), led Garry Gaudet and I to estimate that 10 to 20% of homes in the old Lower Lantzville neighborhood contain a rental suite. The rest of the District is probably similar. If meeting a niche housing need is desirous, then we are already doing it. Why regulate for it? If regulation and bylaw enforcement is seen as a way to reduce annoyances to neighbors it should be noted that there are very few complaints when you consider the number of suites. Leaving suites technically unauthorised and therefore subject to closure If problems are brought to the attention of the COL is surely a motivational factor for landlords and tenants to self-regulate. Self-regulation must be happening. What else would account for the low number of official complaints? A perusal of news venues on municipal issues is shockingly illustrative of the anarchy that prevails everywhere when civic authorities attempt to regulate suites. The problems are simply insoluble. Lantzville would be chasing its tail over an ever Increasing number of ambiguities that would require more than 2 ½ new positions and their overhead costs. Don't forget the legal budget. How does a bylaw differentiate and regulate the baffling array of suite-like residential venues that include; small-scale room and board, large multiple or extended-family use of a home, in-law suites, some with shared bathrooms and kitchens, some not, self-contained maid's or nannie's quarters, and an interminable number of legally mind-bending alternatives, some with ethnic, cultural and even gender and marital components? It is daunting enough to regulate the geography of a home, quite another to attempt the regulation of human relationships within itl Good luck with that. It is defeating Toronto so it would be entertaining P248 but costly to watch little Lantzville attempt it. If you really need an employment pr:ogramme for staff and lawyers, regulating suites is surely it. Take a look at Saanich (pop 112,000) which is taking the approach I suggest we at least investigate. Suites are technically illegal. Complaints still lead to bylaw enforcement which can lead to closure of the accommodation venue. Everyone keeps their heads down, taxpayers save a lot of money and a housing need is still being met. On the other hand...•.••. .in the past I have argued for jettisoning bylaws that are never or rarely used and then only by complaint. My example has usually been the bylaw that prohibits overnight parking on DOL road allowances. This bylaw creates technical lawbreakers out of probably 20 to 30% of District residents every night. Who cares? We all should care because we know that if some laws are meaningless it depreciates respect for all laws and we risk generating a public attitude that moves Incrementally towards lawlessness. The "complaint" driven bylaw also creates opportunities for vendettas that have nothing to do with bylaw infractions. Maybe you could care less about a neighbor's car on the street all night or the fact they have a senior tenant or a VIU student in the basement but you harbour some personal grudge against the landlord or the tenant. (I will resist the temptation to illustrate examples from our colourful local history). The ban on overnight parking was created to mollify waterfront property owners who did not want anyone sleeping in RVs or any vehicles beside their homes overnight and reasonably so. Extending the ban to the whole district was a necessary legal expedient to deal with an otherwise very localised problem. We know who is served by the above parking regulation. Who would be served by the active prohibition of unregulated suites through an expensive and chaotic district policy of regulation, inspection and enforcement? Which is more dangerous to community well-being; the continued functional ignoring of a bylaw infraction or the attempt at creating regulation and local government intrusion inside our homes on a very large scale? It is a tough one that can be argued from both sides, as I have. Check out Saanich. Maybe a Council member or two could do this and save on staff time. In the past, tasks like this were often undertaken by Council members and Trustees of the Improvement District before them. Also keep in mind when they advise you, that senior staff benefit in managerial status with its attendant pecuniary benefits when more junior staff such as bylaw inspectors become employed. These are decisions that you need to make based on your own good judgement, life experience and being good neighbors yourselves. That is why we elected you. We did not elect staff. Sincerely. Brian Blood P249 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:40 PM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Emailing: re; proposed new zoning - Copy (2).docx Attachments: re; proposed new zoning - Copy (2).docx ---Original Message----- From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:55 PM To: Trudy Coates Trudy. Please accept the attached document as a submission for the zoning bylaw# 180. It repeats some of the issues from previous submissions but contains some new ones too. Thanks. Brian Blood 1 P250 Zoning bylaw #180 8 Blood Feb 2020 1. The proposal to allow the construction of the secondary detached dwellings euphemistically referred to as "carriage houses" on the majority of Lantzville properties is not congruent with previously received information from residents on the values of our neighborhoods. Our attitudes to our comfortable properties are sometimes described as "wasteful", "complacent" or "environmentally unsound' by those who seek to increase densities. For residents of these neighborhoods, who form a majority of our population, the values that always top the satisfaction surveys are "privacy", "treed", "commodious", "peaceful" etc. These are the values that sustain the identity of Lantzville as a community. If we enable the near-doubling of our densities by allowing secondary detached homes in the existing densest neighborhoods - old Lower Lantzville, Peterson/Leland, Winchelsea and the Winds (when they get sewer) - we will lose the above-mentioned values. When we become just like the other North Nanalmo neighborhoods what is the point of carrying the burden of independent municipal government? 2. Please consider allowing the "small hotel" designation to be extended to waterfront properties of an appropriate size, particularly the problematic low-lying waterfront parcels. The ever-increasing base height requirements and the costly engineering they entail can more easily be met by commercial investment for the tourist accommodation industry than by individual homeowners. It is only a matter of time until these residential properties begin to fall in value given the environmental and regulatory attempts to deal with rising sea levels and with the insalubrious effects of the rising water. Commercial investment can be recouped in revenues within the 50 to 100 year window of opportunity. Up to 20 rooms in a high end boutique hotel, buffered by landscaping from neighboring residential properties could be successfully applied. The waterfront is the ideal location for tourist accommodations. Our shores and beaches are our major attraction and a handful of boutique hostelries would be an economic driver through the initial stages of sea level rise before these properties are overwhelmed. It would offer an economic alternative to current low-lying waterfront property owners faced with inexorable flooding within a few generations. It may seem like fiddling while Rome slowly burns but what else are we going to do and who will pay? P251 1 3. Please also consider the creation of an intermediate zone of development surrounding the CBD that buffers existing residential neighborhoods from the busy-ness of an enhanced commercial zone. This buffer zone could be used to diminish densities (residential and commercial) as the commercial zone approaches the existing neighborhoods so they merge more seamlessly. All zoning changes need to respect the existing satisfactions and values of the residential neighborhoods as they are. 4. I suggest that the idea of bulldlng heights In the CBD be re-considered. First, that the 3 story limit on the south side of Lantzville Rd. and 2 stories on the north side be reversed. The current rules now make no sense and I say this as one of the 'OS Steering Committee members who originally proposed this feature. If the respective height profiles were set up to protect views from the upper side of the "Lantzville Projects" lands they do nothing on that score. Now that the cleared land allows us to actually look at the CBD from that vantage1 3 stories on either side of the road makes no difference. Why I suggest shorter buildings on the south side is for light and shadows. Even 2 stories on the south side will cast some shadows onto the re-envisioned streetscape, especially in winter. Higher buildings on the north side will mostly shadow their own rear parking areas. They will form an onshore wind barrier and, more importantly, create a sun trap for the proposed park-like amenities along Lantzville Rd which should be clustered along the north side of the road to avoid shadowing and to take advantage of the sun-trap effect and the wind shelter. Otherwise, all commercial building heights should not exceed 2 stories where they will cast winter shadows on existing residential neighborhoods. This is particularly important for residents on the north-facing downhill slope on Lancrest and Dickinson where an increase in building height in the CBD would leave them shaded and damp for much of the winter. It should be kept in mind that the bulk of the "Lantzvllle Projects" lands will have little or no sea views at all with even two story structures in the CBD. Take a look. Thank you for reading and considering these suggestions for the proposed zoning revisions. Respectfully, B Blood P252 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:42 PM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Emailing: letter to Doi Council and Fire Chief re Foothills Aug 30 for Sep 9th mtg agenda - Copy (3).docx Attachments: letter to Doi Council and Fire Chief re Foothills Aug 30 for Sep 9th mtg agenda - Copy (3}.docx Categories: Filed -----Original Message----- From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 3:26 PM To: Trudy Coates Trudy. This letter was received by the DOL last summer but it contains information of relevance to the current bylaw review process. The highlighted pages Indicate the important segments containing bylaw information and advice for council's perusal in formulating, implementing and enforcing zoning bylaws including approvals. Please include it in the public submissions regarding elements of a land-use bylaw- zoning bylaw# 180 You already have the photos but if you can't find them I will have some more printed and deliver them. Thank you. Brian Blood 1 P253 ECEIVED-- FEB 1 2 2020 Mayor, Councillors and Fire Chief Kl(. T Uf L.ANTZVII l E District of Lantzville 7192 Lantzville Rd L Box 100 Lantzville BC V0R 2H0 Aug. 30, 2019 7075 Caillet Rd PO Box 179 Lantzville BC V0R 2H0 Dear members of Council and Lantzville Fire Chief. (Enclosed; 6 photos) I would like to share with you some afterthoughts on the Foothills development project and mention some risks to existing Lantzville taxpayers while there is still time to address them in future stages. The Foothills land-base came under the DOL' s jurisdiction via the Lantzville Restructure Committee which set the proposed boundaries for the municipal incorporation referendum. After incorporation, the OCP Steering Committee was assigned the task of negotiating with the Foothills landowners to achieve a balance of park amenity and subdivision density. I served on both committees and remain satisfied that the public input sought from residents was sufficiently comprehensive and accurately reflected in both the inclusion of these lands within the municipal boundaries and the agreements that were reached between the municipality and the landowner. On a personal note, I was opposed to the inclusion of these lands in the proposed municipality. I believed that the traditional recreational use and environmental values were more properly the responsibility of the Regional District and Provincial authorities. The bulk of the property was accessed from Pleasant Valley and recreational users from that area and the city predominated and still do which supports Council' s decision to turn the park over to the RON when acquisition is complete. Lantzville access has mainly been from the north slope of Copley Ridge, adjacent to the built-up areas of our District which underlines the gravity of the loss of the most popular and easily accessed recreational site from Lantzville - the Lower Lookout. There was no traditional Lantzville identification with the bulk of these private lands and it seemed like an over-reach for our little community to exercise responsibility for them, especially for fire suppression. Nevertheless, residents informed the committee through a valid public process and the committee drew the boundary we have today. P254 Once we became a municipality including these wilderness highlands to the south we had to weigh a new set of factors. Shortly after municipal incorporation there was a roughshod logging operation that degraded these private lands and it seemed likely that the next step would be subdivision. It was eerily similar to the more recent "clearcut" activity in the galvanising effect it had upon residents. Perhaps the "development community'' learned how to motivate us from this previous experience with trees! I wrote a piece in the Lantzville LOG newspaper urging our new Municipal Council to engage with the landowners to discuss a co-operative approach whereby we could get a public park amenity and the property owners could get a higher density subdivision. This was a compromise, but one that the fait accompli of inclusion of the lands within the municipality seemed to favour at the time and that is how it played out. The pre-existing zoning allowed only for very large parcels to be subdivided; 18 acre parcels on one portion and 5 acre parcels on another if memory serves me. The problems associated with these lands remaining eligible only for large acreage subdivision were threefold. First, these recreationally popular but private lands would not require a park dedication if they were subdivided according to the zoning in place. This meant that the long-standing public use could gradually be squeezed out. The second problem for the DOL, having just acquired jurisdiction, was in providing servicing to such a low-density environment with no public amenity for justification. Simply maintaining roads and providing snow clearance added to the fire suppression burden would be expensive for all taxpayers. The third problem involved wildlife and the natural environment. Ideally, the natural environment is best protected when it remains wilderness with minimal human activity. So, is this protection best achieved by large private acreages or by more selective development which would allow some parkland, more public access and more human eyes monitoring the health and well-being of the flora and fauna? A majority of residents in the OCP public consultation process favoured some development which would give them parkland and continued access. The OCP Steering Committee was delegated by Council to do the initial negotiating with the Foothills consulting group which was led by a UBC planning professor and some of his students. They had formed a private consulting body which worked independently of the university. I was impressed, as I think were a majority of our committee., with the fresh and balanced approach this group brought to the compromises required for a successful balance of development profitability, environmental protection and public recreation. We arrived at a 50/50 split of the property between development use and park dedication. That meant 900 acres for park and 900 acres for residential development. An enabling component of the agreement was that some of the 900 acre park designation was required to include the high-value recreational and environmental features that were identified by Lantzville residents In the OCP consultation process. These were ultimately described verbally in the OCP and illustrated on a map included P255 in that document. The consultants took this proposal to the property.owners. The Steering Committee presented it to the DOL Council. Both parties ratified it. There has always been the promise from mayors and councillors, that the public interest would be respected and public involvement welcomed, indeed sought, in the planning for these lands, particularly the park component. These verbal pledges have not been heeded in my experience. So, it is with some satisfaction that I received the June 2019 "news release" with the listed park features (minus the "Lower Lookoutn - already lost) and a promise of public involvement, In writing! I remain sceptical about the legal status of a personally unattributed news release, especially with future councils, so I will be submitting my copy along with this letter to the safekeeping of the historical society archives for future reference. I hope that this Council gets the major work done during its mandate. Only time will tell if the news release was just Mayor Swain, eagerly returning from his own metaphorical Munich, brandishing a piece of paper. Was It worth it to rezone the Foothills? The answer is yes if you consider the park amenity. If there was a goal in lassoing these lands for the municipality and allowing rezoning it was always to achieve a park amenity to serve residents for all-time. Since responsibility for park development and maintenance will reside with the RDN, financial costs and benefits to Lantzville taxpayers in future will proceed only from our new Foothills residential neighborhood. Since it is axiomatic that future development always costs existing taxpayers more, it is legitimate to ask; how much more? Revenue will accrue to the DOL both upfront and through ongoing tolls and taxes from new property owners. Any consideration of the value of the project to existing resident/taxpayers must be assessed In this light. On the one hand we will have access to a regional park of immense recreational and environmental value, and that is worth something, but there will be costs occasioned by this development that will cast a long shadow over any cost/benefit equation. I would like to point some of these out while there is still time to address them in future planning for this development. In a nutshell; the main feeder road is inadequate for future traffic; the location of power poles is hazardous; the bridge over the marsh was degraded; there is at least one piece of dangerous road engineering; the overall layout is extremely dangerous in the case of wildfires. All of these aspects should have received more attention from Council. These, added to snow clearance in this high-snow zone, will place a huge financial burden and risk upon existing taxpayers. The questions that follow are not just my questions. These questions are echoed by many residents. We need to have our Council address these questions publically. The main feeder road is narrow and inadequate to handle the thousands of daily trips that the ultimate build-out of the Foothills will occasion. [photo # 1.) Lantzvllle taxpayers will have to Improve this road in future to meet high-volume needs generated by the Foothills P256 development buildout. Why was this not anticipated by Council and built by the developer now? Why were the power poles placed so dose to the travelled portion of the roadway? Why are there, in the 21st Century, power poles at all in a new development with spectacular views? Municipalities have been found Hable through litigation for the hazard posed by the location of power poles no matter what the circumstances (e.g. Impaired driving) when automobiles collide with them. [photo fl 1.) There is a very narrow and steep roadway that takes a sharp turn at the bottom where a services (electrical?) box is located and any vehide sliding down the hill on Ice wJII collide with it. [photo# 2.) Recognizing this, someone has placed a concrete barrier In front of It that may or may not prevent a careening vehicle from having a worse outcome. You or the previous Council accepted this design. It seems to be in the area designated "strata". Even if the District may not be responsible for keeping this extremely steep roadway at the base of a north-fadng rock-wall clear of snow and Ice, it remains an accident waiting to happen - a series of accidents waiting to happen. Were any emergency service providers consulted on this feature before the DOL accepted It? At a minimum, our own fire department volunteers will inevitably be called upon to service the neighborhood at the top of this ''stratan hill In winter and to attend at acc1dents at the bottom. Any reasonable person familiar with the local dimate who looks at this site wlll conclude that this design should not have been accepted. Why was it? The concrete bridge over the marsh was bullt to the normal 75 year lifespan standards ...... if It had been sealed with pavement. It was not. It sat and weathered for dose to 15 years absorbing moisture and degrading. It has recently been paved and sealed but It cannot now be guaranteed to have a 75 year lifespan. Is it safe for the thousands of heavy vehlde trips during home construction in this development? Has the bridge been Inspected and tested by a professlonal engineer for deterioration? How much sooner than the normal 75 year lifespan can Lantzvllle taxpayers be expected to replace it? We now own It and will be responsible for liability, maintenance and replacement. [photo# 3.J The single most serious threat to life and property (and why I have cc'd this letter to the Fire Chief), may well be the bottlenecked and dead-end road pattem in phase one. To Illustrate the risk, I will relate a short historical anecdote from circa 1926; A wildfire escaped from land-dearlng near Superior Rd. It was driven by a fierce Northwest wind on a dry August day. It swept across much of what Is today's upper Lantzvllle In a few hours. My mother's family, the Copleys, all remembered that day. The wildfire swept around both sides of the Copley's cleared land at the foot of the ridge, singeing the edges of the P257 already mowed hayfields and sparing the farmhouse and buildings which were clustered in the centre of the fields. [photo # 4.) The family were actlvely extinguishing sparks when the flames reached the base of the ridge. The next moments were etched into their memories for a lifetime and oft.. repeated whenever the topic of forest fires came up. They all described the sound as suddenly being like that of a "freight train" as the winds pushed the flames against the ~onstriction of the ridge, forcing them up and fanning them "like a blacksmith's forge" said my irandfather. "Two or three minutes", they all recounted, was the time it took to burn to the ridgetops. [photo# 5. 1960s] [photo# 6. 2019) Two or three mlnutesl This is probably the least safe place in the local forest Interface for dwellings, especially with dead.. end roads, bottlenecks and drier, longer summers. With our experience of modern Interface fires, from Okanagan Mtn, aearwater, Fort Mac, and the Cslifornia fires, we have learned that a local government's evacuation plans and its ability to Implement them are more important than its fire suppression ablllty for the safety of residents and firefighters alike. Are there workable evacuation plans in place before people take up residence? Is there a plan for expansion of the road network to eliminate dead ends and bottlenecks In forested areas in the Foothills (and everywhere in the District for that matter)? Are there bylaws mandating fire resistant construction materials for building in the forest interface? Is there a plan for the creation of firebreaks in the forested lands in the Foothills and elsewhere In the forest interface? On balance, the DOL's inclusion of the foothills region and It's rezoning for development has been a mixed blessing. Any district that receives more parkland In the park-poor E&N Land Grant (in this otherwise park-rich province) has done well. However, the frustrating and flawed process of implementing the development underlines the difficulty and expense that can occur when small places undertake large tasks. The park component has suffered due to delays measured in decades coupled with Council's lack of assertiveness In dealing with the power of development interests. Thus far, Council's approval of the infrastructure within the development Itself may well tip the balance from "mixed blessing'' for Lantzville residents to something more negative. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Brtan Blood Cc DOL Fire Chief P258 Kyle Young From: Trudy Coates Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:41 PM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Emailing: photo # 1Jpg, photo # 2Jpg, photo # 3Jpg, photo # 4jpg, photo # SJpg, photo# 6Jpg Attachments: photo # 1Jpg; photo # 2Jpg; photo # 3Jpg; photo # 4Jpg; photo # SJpg; photo # 6Jpg ---Original Message-- From: Brian Blood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:02 PM To: Trudy .Coates Trudy. Attached is the photo file you requested. If they can't be copied well enough I do have some original prints left. Let me know, thanks. 88 1 P259 P260 P261 P263 -u I\) (j) (Jl Kyle Young From: Debbie Babuin Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Debbie Babuin and I reside at 7746 Clark Drive. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RS1 to F SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as ½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with Input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Debbie Babuin 1 P266 Kyle Young From: Roxanne Dale Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Roxanne Dale and I reside at n3o Clark Drive, Lantzville. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in genera 1. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as ½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Roxanne Dale 1 P267 Kyle Young From: chris hehn Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: chris hehn Sent: February 18, 2020 7:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: concerned resident at 7150 blackjack dr Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: chris hehn Sent: February 18, 2020 6:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: concerned resident at 7150 blackjack dr Members of Lantzville Council My name is Chris Hehn and I reside at 7150 blackjack drive .Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180,1 do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP .To be clear ,I am not against development of this land in general .However ,I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area .Please leave the zoning of our area to remain at½ acre lots . the level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville . There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions ,polls ,surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully Chris Hehn Sent from Mail for Windows 10 P268 Kyle Young From: Michelle Hudon < [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:44 AM To: Mayor Swain Cc: Councillor Geselbracht; Councillor Proctor, Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Kyle Young Subject: Concerned resident at 7190 Hase Place Lantzville Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Michelle Hudon and I reside at 7190 Hase Place. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against the development of this land in general. However, I am against the Increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as 1/2 acre lots. The levelof increased density does not frt well with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw nd there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required to input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Michelle Hudon 1 P269 Kyle Young From: Conrad Nickel Email subject: Concerned resident at 7715 Clark Drive Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Conrad Nickel and I reside at 7715 Clark Drive. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Mayor Mark Swain: mayor .swa [email protected] Councillor Will Geselbracht: [email protected] Councillor Karen Proctor: [email protected] Councillor Ian Savage: [email protected] Councillor Jamie Wilson: [email protected] Kyle Young, Director of Planning: [email protected] P270 Kyle Young From: Kyle Young Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:34 PM To: Councillor Proctor, Ronald Campbell Cc: Mayor Swain; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Councillor Geselbracht Subject: RE: Suites and carriage houses Councillor Proctor: Yes, the minimum parcel areas for secondary suites and carriage houses would apply to lands within the special planning areas as well. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Young, RPP I Director of Planning District of Lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8083 F: 250.390.5188 E: [email protected] This email and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of the message and attachments from your system. -Original Message--• From: Councillor Proctor Hi Kyle, Quick question The motionS that were passed at the last COW concerning lot size for suites and carriage houses. Do this lot size effect the special plan areas? Thanks K Sent from my IPad 1 P271 Kyle Young From: Michael Scott Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Michael Scott and I reside at 7139 Blackjack Drive. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSI to F SAP. To be clear,I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as 1/2 acre lots. The level of Increased density proposed does not flt with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who would be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, MICHAEL P SCOTT. 1 P272 Kyle Young From: bert van der Mey Get Outlook for Android ------·------From: Bert van der Mey ------Forwarded message------From: Michelle Hudon Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Bert van der Mey and I reside at 7190 Hase Place. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against the development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as 1/2 acre lots. The levelof increased density does not fit well with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required to input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Sincerely, Bert van der Mey. P273 Mrs. Victoria Setter {$ Co,. •. : D Circ. To Staff 7542 Superior Rd . D Mayor D Public Works Lantzville, B.C. B'J CAO 1$ Planning V0R 2H0 0 Direcror of Finance D Fire Dept. February 17, 2020 D Corp. Adrn1n. 0 Other :--- - Q'i Agenda _f<._ X>~ 1..:-~- ~~-'--1.,...;- ~n-i\\r~ ~ r---· ~ :---2"':= To Whom It May Cone~ 3900.~o.f60 ( E~t.\"~ ~ 'CO'AV\tl\ (V>.t. We are delighted to have your Ernie's Blackpoint Repair in our area. Looking forward to using your services in the future. It is unfortunate that you have to go Mobile versus at your property [as you were told before purchasing your property] Eager to get acquainted, with your Ernie's Blackpoint Repair. Haven't had to opportunity to use you yet. Have heard from council members as well as Lantzville residents. That you go the extra mile as well as being 100 percent above boa.rd. You are also one of our Guardian Angels that drive after dark watching over the: Lantzville, as well as the person to steer head the removals of homeless camps in Lantzville as well as Nanaimo. All of these people volunteered their time and equipment. [you guys do not get paid] When we first moved to Lantzville, my husband joined the Lantzville Fire Hall as a volunteer Lantzville Fireman, which he did for several years. I joined the Block Watch in Lantzville and am the Captain on Superior Rd. We moved to Lantzville we wanted to make sure that we supported our area. Funnnny Farm Flowers, Superior Rd, Sy Zumba Gold with Shandra in Costin Hall, Yoga with Elizabeth, Tremblant Rd., Hair cut and done, Donna, Harper Rd . Pedicures, Wendy, Blissful Spa, Lantzville Rd. Superior Farm, Superior Rd. We t ry to keep everything local. Best of luck in having Ernie's Blackpoint Repair from your property as was told to you. Versus Mobile t hat you had to do to keep the roof over your head. P274 Kyle Young From: Dave "Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Dave Gaskell and I reside at 7057 Blackjack Drive, Lantzville, BC, V0R 2H0. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am agai,;lst the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as ½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public Input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Dave Gaskell 1 P275 Kyle Young From: Maureen < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:28 AM To: Mayor Swain; Councillor Geselbracht; [email protected]; Councillor Savage; Councillor Wilson; Kyle Young Subject: Concerned Resident at 7057 Blackjack Drive, Lantzville, BC VOR2HO "Members of Lantzvllle Council, My name is Maureen Gaskell and I reside at 7057 Blackjack Drive, Lantzville, BC, VOR 2HO. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as ½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public Input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Maureen Gaskell 1 P276 Kyle Young From: Ronald Campbell Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11 :06 AM To: Kyle Young Cc: Trudy Coates Subject: FW: RESEND Spelling Error: Please add to public hearing agenda information for Feb 24th Attachments: Clark Development.docx FYI Ronald Campbell, CLGM I Chief Administrative Officer District of lantzville I 7192 Lantzville Road, PO Box 100, Lantzville, BC V0R 2H0 T: 250.933.8080 F: 250.390.8080 E: [email protected] Make every second count! This email and any attachments are for the use of the Intended recipient only and may be confidential, privileged and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information ond Protection of Pr,vocy Act. If you are not t he Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, printing, copying, circulation or other use of t his message and any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify me by return email and delete this message, any attachments and any copy of t he message and attachments from your system. From: Mundell, Rachelle As discussed here is the information we would like included in the public information and to be considered by council 1 prior to the meeting on Feb 24 \ RESENT DUE TO SPELLING ERROR Thank you Rachelle Mundell P277 Councillors, District of Lantzville Staff, and General Public: We are putting forth a petition as mentioned below. Please read and consider prior to the meeting on th February 24 • We have requested that this information be added to the information on the agenda for the public hearing. We wm have the signed petition as well as speakers available at the hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Neighbours of Clark, Alger & Blackjack, As you are likely aware, there is a proposal currently before the Lantzville Council to change the zoning of the parcels of land at Clark Drive and Ronald/Ware from the current RSl zoning which allows for an average of½ acre lots (under 100 lots total), to the new zoning of F-SAP which will allow for a significant Increase in density (over 300 lots), including townhouses and cluster housing. There is growing concern among many residents of our neighbourhood that this will significantly impact the character and rural nature of the surrounding neighbourhoods. It would also put potentially hundreds of additional cars on the road. Our roads are country roads with no sidewalks or crosswalks and are used by many families with small children, residents walking their dogs, locals riding their horses en route to nearby trails, etc. Our infrastructure simply would not support the increased demands while maintaining safety for existing residents. There has been no polling, surveys, public hearings or the like from area residents who will be immediately affected by these sweeping and significant changes to our neighbourhood (there was one information sharing open house in October after a plan had already been crafted by the developer). Having dozens of concerned citizens sending a unified message will force the Council to take note and realize that this process is being rushed and we want to maintain the current form and character of our neighbourhood. There are 3 IMPORTANT STEPS for each resident to take immediately: 1. Send an email to Mayor Swain, Councillors Proctor, Geselbracht, Savage and Wilson, and Director of Planning Kyle Young. Send this email as soon as possible (but by Sunday Feb 23rd at the latest). Please see next page for email as well as the email addresses. Please send an email from each person In your house. 2. Sign the petition to maintain the current zoning at RSl. This will ensure that the rural community feel of the neighbourhood remains and keep the level of increased traffic to a safe and manageable level. 3. Come to the Council Meeting on Monday, Feb 24th at 7:00pm. The meeting is being held in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 2nd Floor, 7192 Lantzville Road. This is a Public Hearing for Zoning Bylaw No. 180, 2020. Having a strong community presence will demonstrate our commitment to protecting our community and our demand for consultation. P2781 Please send the following email, filling In your own name and address: Email subiect: Concerned resident at Members of Lantzville Council, My name is There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Petition to the District of Lantzville WHEREAS • Rezoning the parcels of land at Clark and Ronald from RSl to F-SAP will drastically increase the density of dwellings permitted such that it will irreversibly alter the existing rural community character of the surrounding neighbourhoods • The Increased density permitted by the rezoning application will result in potentially hundreds of additional vehicles using existing roads which have no sidewalks or crosswalks yet are used by many families with small children, neighbourhood residents walking their dogs or walking to nearby trails, and local residents with horses who use the roads to access nearby trails • The large volume of additional traffic would put increased pressure on the already stressed intersections of Clark Dr and Aulds Rd, and Aulds Rd and the Nanaimo Parkway due to heavy school traffic at several points throughout the day, causing increased frustration for existing residents of the area as well as parents of children attending school We, the undersigned residents of adjacent and affected neighbourhoods call upon the District of Lantzville and Its councillors to: • Not approve the application for rezoning the parcels of land at Clark and Ronald and maintain the existing zoning as RSl. P279 Kyle Young From: Glennys Members of Lantzville Council, My name is Glennys La Rose and I reside at 6714 Alger Road. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, I do not support the rezoning of the vacant land at Clark Drive and Ronald from RS1 to F-SAP. To be clear, I am not against development of this land in general. However, I am against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of our area to remain as ½ acre lots. The level of increased density proposed does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhood and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys and meetings from area residents. Respectfully, Glennys and Ken La Rose 1 P280 Kyle Young From: Leslie Gardner < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:51 PM To: Kyle Young Subject: FW: Bylaw 180 Hi Kyle, I have a couple of comments on proposed bylaw 180. I see Rural Zone is proposed to be zoned for two dwelling. Presumably this is intended to be: 2 houses; or 1 house and a carriage house or suite The bylaw seems to recognize that these larger lots can accommodate 2 houses. Obviously the typical concerns of parking, water and sewer don't exist with these lots as there is room for parking and onsite services are provided by the owner. But given that the lots can accommodate 2 houses, is there any reason that each house couldn't have a carriage house or suite and therefore a total number of dwelling units of 4? A minimum of 3 dwelling units would at least be more reasonable (i.e. 2 houses and 1 with a carriage house or suite). As far as I can tell, all residential properties under this bylaw will be allowed a carriage house or suite. It seems ironic that properties that are recognized as large enough to accommodate two houses {RU}, would not be allowed to have suites. It is actually more restrictive than the rest of Lantzville. I can't believe that such a revision would change the rural feel of RU. Furthermore, I am certain most property owners in RU would agree with more flexibility in the zoning. Also, I would suggest only allowing a mobile home as a carriage house where there is only one house, for example zoning that allows either of: 1. House with suite or carriage house (and carriage house can be a mobile home); or 2. 2 houses each with a suite or carriage house (no mobile home); [or at least 2 houses with one having a suite or carriage house (no mobile home)] Such zoning would encourage permanent quality structures versus a mobile home plunked on each property. It seems that where 2 houses are allowed, shouldn't there be an increase in the number of recreational vehicles that can be stored on site? For RU, the appropriate number should probably be 6 which corresponds to the double that allowed on any property greater than 2,000 m2. Thanks for considering the points above, Larry and Leslie Gardner 8250 Lorenzen Lane 1 P281 Kyl~ Young From: Gordon & Carole Cassie Mayor & Members of Lantzville Council Our names are Gordon & Carole Cassie and we reside at 7222 Hase Place, bordering the vacant land on Clark Drive. Under Lantzville's proposed New Zoning Bylaw 180, we do not support the rezoning of the vacant land on Clark Drive and Rona I Road from RSl to F-SAP. We are not against development of these lands in general, however, we are against the increased density that comes with rezoning to Future Special Area. Please leave the zoning of these areas to remain as½ acre lots. There is no infrastructure to support the proposed increase density which does not fit with the form and character of our local neighbourhoods and the community of Lantzville. There have been specific changes made to the proposed zoning bylaw and there has been no public input from those who will be affected by these sweeping changes and inclusions to the proposed zoning bylaw. More time is required with input sessions, polls, surveys, and meetings with area residents. Respectfully yours Gordon & Carole Cassie 7222 Hase PL Lantzville 1 P282