PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, March 17, 2016 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, B.C.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
1. Adoption of Agenda
PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS
REPORTS
2. GM, Planning & Development – Special Events Bylaw Annex A (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 1 - 5
3. Senior Planner and GM, Planning & Development – SCRD Zoning Amendment Annex B Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments (Areas B, D, E, F) pp 6 - 18 (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
4. Planner – SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Annex C Landing Strata Corporation (Electoral Area B) pp 19 - 27 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
5. Planning Technician - Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Annex D Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 28 - 31
6. Planning Technician - Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Annex E Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 32 - 35
7. Planning Technician - Road Frontage Waiver – MoTI Subdivision File No. Annex F 2013-00026 (Sladey) pp 36 - 38 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
8. Planner – Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Annex G Register – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre (Area A) pp 39 - 44 (Heritage Conservation) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
9. Planning Secretary - Transportation Advisory Committee Recommendation Annex H Regarding Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Consultation pp 45 - 47 (Voting – All)
10. Electoral Area A (Egmont/Pender Harbour) APC Minutes of February 24, 2016 Annex I Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 48 - 50
11. Electoral Area B (Halfmoon Bay) APC Minutes of February 23, 2016 Annex J Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 51 - 54 Planning and Development Committee Agenda – March 17, 2016 Page 2
12. Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek) APC Minutes of February 29, 2016 Annex K Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 55 - 57
13. Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC Minutes of February 24, 2016 Annex L Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 58 - 60
14. Electoral Area F (West Howe Sound) APC Minutes of February 23, 2016 Annex M Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) pp 61 - 63
COMMUNICATIONS
15. Mona Helcermanas-Benge for Eoin Finn, dated February 1, 2016. Annex N Regarding Letter to Minister of Environment and Climate Change pp 64 - 89 regarding Woodfibre LNG project and delegation to PDC.
16. Greg Kyllo, Parliamentary Secretary for the BC Jobs Plan, Ministry of Jobs, Annex O Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour, dated pp 90 - 91 February 16, 2016. Regarding BC Jobs Plan 4-Year Progress Update. (Available online)
17. Hon. Coralee Oakes, Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch Annex P and Hon. Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural pp 92 - 94 Development, dated February 24, 2016. Regarding Initiative to Issue Licences for the Sale of 100% BC Wine.
NEW BUSINESS
IN CAMERA
That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a), (e) and (k) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality”, “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements…” and “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages…”.
ADJOURNMENT
ANNEX A
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development
SUBJECT: SPECIAL EVENTS BYLAW
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the report titled “Special Events Bylaw” be received;
AND THAT staff be authorized to prepare an updated special events bylaw for consideration at a future Planning and Development Committee meeting which incorporates best practices from other local government jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND
At its May 22, 2014 meeting the Regional Board adopted the following Planning and Development Committee recommendation:
THAT staff write a report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.
This planning task has been carried forward into the 2016 work plan. The issue of special events permitting has arisen in conjunction a growing number of relatively large events in Electoral Areas in recent years.
SCRD Bylaw No. 51 was adopted in 1970 to provide for the health and other protection of persons attending special events. The bylaw contains provisions regarding: attendee threshold for permitting, property owner authorization, health considerations (domestic water supply; toilet facilities; garbage collection and removal; food and drink storage, dispensing and use; public health facilities; and emergency medical facilities) safety and security matters such as vehicle parking; internal security on the site; traffic control (including access routes for emergency vehicles); adequate arrangements have been made for fire protection may require a cash bond sufficient to cover the obligations undertaken by the applicant.
Staff have searched SCRD archives and no record of a permit ever being issued under Bylaw 51 has been found.
1 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016 Special Events Permits Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Bylaw 51 addresses the core health and safety concerns associated with the holding and permitting of special events. However, over the years more modern bylaws have addressed matters such as application fees, implementing a “tiered” approach (e.g. minor and major events), specifying a maximum number of events per year, insurance requirements and exemptions from permitting requirements.
Staff reviewed special events bylaws from around the province as outlined in Attachment A. When the first generation bylaws were established in the early 1970s, 1000 attendees was the point at which a permit was required. Over the years, for public health and safety reasons, numerous jurisdictions lowered the threshold to 500 and more recent bylaws have used a tiered system with 200 being the attendance trigger for a permit.
Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications
In terms of intergovernmental implications it could be anticipated that agencies such as Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health and RCMP would welcome a more coordinated approach than is presently occurring.
Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date
A draft bylaw could be brought forward in April or May for committee review and referral to APCs.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
The 2016 Planning and Development work plan contains the following task: Report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting
CONCLUSION
Staff recommend that a new Special Events Permit bylaw be prepared and brought back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting for consideration.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM Legislative CAO X-JL Other
2016-MAR-01 PDC Report Re Special Events Bylaw 2 Attachment "A" to Special Events Bylaw report
Attendee Max. Administered/ Threshhold events/yr/ External Agency permit issued Jurisdiction for Permit: "Tiered Approach" site Fees Security Authorization: Exemptions: by: SCRD 1000 no no none may require cash bond to cover MHO, RCMP, no Secretary/Regi (existing) obligations Local Assistant to onal Board the Fire Marshall ,
Town of n/a n/a n/a none at discretion of Director of Parks application cc'd to This bylaw is a "Public Places Regulation Bylaw" and Director of Gibsons or CAO RCMP and Fire applies only to municipal land. Parks or CAO Department Squamish- 200 3 classes of no $100; $200; Save harmless plus security MHO for all events Yes, exemptions possible from some info CAO, must Lillooet RD event: 200-499 $300+ per deposit of $0, $5,000 or $10,000 plus RCMP, MoTI requirements consult with attendees; 500- additional depending on class of event. $2 and FLNRO for appropriate 999; 1000+ 1000 over million or $5 million liability Class 2 and 3 Electoral Area 2000) insurance based on class of events Director before event with RD as named insured issuing
RD of 500 no no none, but yes, estimated policing costs; MHO; RCMP. Fire (a) which is licensed by any government or Secretary Nanaimo applicant Insurance - no Inspector; governmental agency having the jurisdiction to do so, pays all (b) held by a board of school trustees under the 3 costs School Act, (policing (c) held by a municipality or by the Regional District traffic under the Municipal Act, or control, etc) (d) held within the boundaries of a city, town, district or village municipality under the Municipal Act.
Fraser Valley 200 3 classes of no $200, $400 Yes, rates for 3 classes of event Written certification Board RD event: 200-499 and on private or Crown Land from MHO, RCMP, attendees; 500- $400+$200 $5K/$7.5k; $15K/$20k and LAFC, Fire Chief 999; 1000+ per 1000 $40k/$60k. Minimum $5 million or Forest Fire participants insurance. Ranger. P.Eng in excess of certification where 2,000 tempoary structures involved. Comox 1000 and no no max, n/a yes, for policing and other costs MHO, Chief of a) which is licensed by any government or CAO Valley RD for which a but bylaw Police, fire governmental agency having the jurisdiction to fee is provides inspector do so; charged for b) Held by a board of school trustees under the permits School Act; for c) held by the Regional District multiple d) held within the boundaries of a city, town, district events on or village municipality; same land e) held within indoor facilities in accordance with the in same Fire Services Act year
Thompson- 500 no no $100 Minimum $2,000 bond, minimum Notify property 1. any annual celebration, fair, fund raising event or Regional Board Nicola RD $2 million insurance owners within 1 km public assembly organized by or sponsored by a duly of the site; MHO; constituted and recognized society incorporated RCMP; Office of under the authority of the Society Act of BC, Fire ratepayers organization, a duly constituted and Commissioner/ BC recognized community association or fire department Forest Service which holds valid and adequate third party liability Protection Branch/ insurance operating within the Regional District; 2. Local Fire Chief any congregation, gathering or event that is to take (as necessary); place in any permanent building, structure or facility Liquor Control and lawfully existing on the
Licensing Branch date of adoption of this Bylaw and affixed to land 4 lawfully zoned by the authorities having jurisdiction for the holding of such congregation, gathering or event; property zoned for "Outdoor Assembly Use" and "Comprehensive Entertainment Commercial"
Central 500 no no $1 security may be required at Board MHO, RCMP, Fire none Regional Board Okanogan discretion Marshal, Forest RD Ranger RD of Fraser- 1000 No tiers, but no $200 Save harmless agreement plus MHO, RCMP, yes, licensed theater or other place of assembly Regional Board Fort George staged approval $2,000,000 (or an amount MoTI, BC Forest licensed or zoned by the authority having jurisdiction process. acceptable to the RD) Services for the holding of such congregation, gathering or Preliminary Comprehensive General Liability Protection Officer, event Approval and policy with RD named as an or where Final Approval. insured applicable, the Board may appropriate require PIM as Volunteer Fire part of preliminary Department Chief. approval process. Emergency plan required for events >5,000 attendees Peace River 4,000 no no none, but none; Insurance - no Fire Chief, a) which is licensed by any government or not specified RD (2,000 if applicant Environmental governmental agency having the jurisdiction to do so; lcohol pays all Health Officer, b) held by a board of school trustees under the served) costs RCMP, Provincial School Act; c) held by a municipality or by the (policing Liquor Inspector Regional District under the Municipal Act. traffic control, etc) Village of 300 Yes, Minor (<1000) no Minor - $200; Save harmless, liability insurance ($5 MHO, RCMP. Office a. Special Events held or sponsored by the Village; CAO Pemberton and Major Events Major - $300 million per occurrence), include of Fire b. Special Events held by Sea to Sky School District No. 48 (1,000+). Also plus per Village as named insured. Security Commissioner, & No. 93; where event lasts $100/200/30 deposit of $1,000 for a minor event Liquor Inspector, c. Special Events held outdoors that can facilitate the 12 consecutive 0per and minimum $10,000 for major MoTI, BC Safety attendance of less than 300 people and applied for by hours or more, or additional event. Authority; ALC, Min a local business or a community or rate payer less than 12 hours thousand of FLNRO association incorporated under the but continues into attendees to Society Act and operating within the Village unless the the next day. 10000/20000 event is a “Commercial Event" /20000+. d. Special Events facilitated by organizations or groups that hold a valid Parks & Public Space Use Permit issued by the CAO. City of 200 or more Small (<500), $200 security amount to be determined MHO; Chief City Manager Abbotsford people if Medium (500-999) (application by the City Manager based on the Constable, Fire there is no and Large (>1,000) fee) size, duration, and nature of the Chief, ALC, MoTI. Beverage attendees event and associated risk; the FLRNO, adjacent 5 Garden; or Applicant must provide the City with owners by any a written undertaking to indemnify number of and save harmless the City; $2 people if million insurance ($5 million if site there is a includes a highway) Beverage Garden. ANNEX B
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner Steven Olmstead, General Manager, Planning and Development
SUBJECT: BYLAW 310.148 (AGRICULTURE ZONE) AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT the report titled Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments be received;
2. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 be considered for amended second reading as follows:
a. Amend section 1021.2 (2) to read:
(2) Subject to section 1021.6(1) of this bylaw, one auxiliary dwelling unit may be located within: (a) a single family dwelling; or (b) where there is no second single family dwelling in the form of a manufactured home on a parcel, above an existing single-storey agricultural building subject to section 502(8) of this bylaw. b. Amend section 1021.4 to include:
(3) Despite Sections 1021.2 and 1021.6 only one single family dwelling is permitted on:
(a) Lot 12, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776;
(b) Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776.
Despite section 1021.10(1) each single family dwelling described within this section will have a ground floor area not exceeding 170 square metres and a total floor area not exceeding 280 square metres.
c. Amend section 1021.6 to read:
(1) Subject to sections 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) of this bylaw no more than three dwellings shall be located on a parcel such that there are no more than two single family dwellings and one auxiliary dwelling unit.
(2) Despite section 1021.10(1) of this bylaw, the floor area of a single family dwelling shall not exceed 350 m².
6 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 2 of 13
3. AND THAT a public hearing concerning Bylaw No. 310.148 be scheduled to be held on Tuesday April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at the SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt;
4. AND THAT the Director ______be delegated as the Chair and Director ______be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing;
5. AND FURTHER THAT staff bring forward a report to a future Planning and Development Committee to address anomalies where property zoning and Agricultural Land Reserve designations do not align.
BACKGROUND
At the Board meeting of January 14, 2016, the following resolutions were adopted:
004/16 Recommendation No. 5 Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 (AG Zone)
THAT the staff report dated December 1, 2015 and titled “Draft Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148 – Additional Modifications” be received;
AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015, as amended, be forwarded to the Board for Second Reading;
AND THAT a Public Hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at the SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt;
AND FURTHER THAT Director Winn be delegated as the Chair and Director Lewis be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing.
018/16 THAT the report concerning “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015” be received;
AND THAT “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015” be read a second time as amended.
Subsequently staff found that Bylaw 310.148 was altered after the December 10, 2015, Planning and Development Committee regarding the number of dwellings that are permitted on a parcel. There was no time to address this prior to the public hearing and to amend the bylaw at third reading would trigger the need for a new public hearing. Thus the public hearing that was scheduled for February 17 was cancelled.
In the staff report to the March 2015 Planning and Development Committee, it was noted that there are a number of properties where the Rural Three zone (which will be replaced by the AG zone) and Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries are not consistent. These site specific zoning changes, though essentially housekeeping in nature, are best considered as separate bylaws. Then, if there are any concerns or issues associated with a property, the more general amendment to create the new AG zone will not be affected.
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 7 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 3 of 13
Staff also found that a site specific designation currently in Bylaw 310 was not carried forward in Bylaw 310.148. The property (706 Leek Road) was rezoned to allow for subdivision but limited the number of dwellings such that there would be no more than two dwellings. With a maximum floor area specified for each dwelling. Bylaw 310.148, attached to this report, has been amended accordingly.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends that Bylaw 310.148 should be amended to clarify the total number of permitted dwellings and reschedule the hearing. This should be achieved by altering Section 1021 (6) to establish that the maximum number of dwellings is three - two single family dwelling and one auxiliary dwelling. Section 1021.2 (2) also would be amended to replace the word “and” with “or” to clarify that only one auxiliary dwelling is permitted but that it could be realized in one of two ways. Bylaw 310.148, attached to this report, has been amended accordingly.
A number of properties have inconsistent zoning and ALR boundaries. This has arisen for a number of reasons such as: properties being excluded from or included in the ALR but zoning did not change at that time; map error; and zoning reflecting land use rather than ALR designation (park and assembly uses is the main example of this).
With regard to the properties where there zoning and ALR boundaries are not consistent staff consider that addressing this could cause significant delay and potentially complicate moving Bylaw 310.148 forward. By introducing proposals to consider these properties would restart the referral process and move consideration of Bylaw 310.148 back several months.
Staff consider that it is important to move forward with amending Bylaw 310 to incorporate the proposed AG zone. This will address the current mismatch between SCRD zoning and ALC legislation for the majority of sites currently in the ALR.
A staff report setting out property by property analysis and proposals could be brought forward at a future Planning and Development Committee. Proposals could be the subject of one or more bylaw amendments.
A public hearing should be rescheduled for Tuesday April 12, 2016 and held in the SCRD Boardroom commencing at 7:00 pm.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
N/A
CONCLUSION
Prior to holding the public hearing for Bylaw 310.148, staff identified additional amendments that were needed to clarify the total number of dwellings and to incorporate site specific limitations. Staff also note that zoning and ALR boundary inconsistencies raised in March 2015 had not been addressed.
Staff consider that Bylaw 310.148 as amended should proceed to a public hearing on April 12, 2016 in the SCRD Boardroom.
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 8 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 4 of 13
With regard to the zoning and ALR boundary inconsistencies, staff consider that attempting to accommodate this within the context of Bylaw 310.148 would add complications and significant delay to addressing current mismatch between SCRD zoning and ALC legislation for the majority of sites currently in the ALR. Staff propose bringing forward a report to address the boundary inconsistencies to a future Planning and Development Committee.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - SO Legislative CAO X - JL Other
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 9 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 5 of 13
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.148, 2015 A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987
The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
PART A – CITATION
1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015”. PART B – AMENDMENT
2. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 as follows: (a) Column I of Table II in Section 509 and sections 601.2(3), 601.9, 602.7, 611.1(5) and 611.9 by deleting the words “horticultural sales” and replacing them with “horticultural product sales”;
(b) Column I of Table II in Section 509 and sections 1001.3(2), 1001A.3(1), 1001B.3(2), 1001D.3(2), 1011.4(7) and 1011A.4(9) by deleting the words “riding stable and academy” and replaced with “horse riding, training or boarding facility”;
(c) All textual references to “RU3”, “RU3A” and “RU3B” are replaced with “AG” and all textual references to “Rural Three”, “Rural Three – A”, and “Rural Three – B” are replaced with “Agriculture”;
(d) Amend Part II by replacing and adding new definitions, as listed on Appendix A to this bylaw;
(e) Part III by replacing “RU3 Rural Three” and “RU3A Rural Three - A” with “AG Agriculture”;
(f) Schedule A to Bylaw 310 is amended by rezoning all lands zoned RU3 (Rural Three), RU3A (Rural Three A) and RU3B (Rural Three B) to AG (Agriculture).
(g) Part X by deleting sections 1021, 1021A and 1021B and replacing with the following:
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 10 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 6 of 13
AG Zone (Agriculture)
1021 Permitted Uses
1021.1 The following uses are permitted in the AG zone:
(1) agriculture; (2) farm or farm operation; (3) single family dwelling subject to section 1021.6 of this bylaw; (4) auxiliary dwelling unit subject to section 1021.6 of this bylaw; (5) agricultural product sales subject to sections 1021.7(2) and 1021.7(4) of this bylaw; (6) animal slaughter or processing subject to section 1021.8(1) of this bylaw; (7) farm research and education subject to section 1021.7(5) of this bylaw; (8) creamery subject to sections 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(4) of this bylaw; (9) winery or cidery subject to sections 1021.7(3) and 1021.8(3) of this bylaw; (10) brewery, distillery or meadery subject to sections 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(4) of this bylaw; (11) agritourism excluding tourist accommodations except as permitted under section 1021.5 of this bylaw; (12) food and beverage service lounge auxiliary to a brewery, cidery, distillery, meadery or winery subject to section 1021.7(3) of this bylaw; (13) home occupation subject to Part 502(10) of this bylaw; (14) bed and breakfast subject to Part 502(11) and section 1021.5(2)(c) of this bylaw.
Additional Permitted Uses
1021.2 On a parcel exceeding 1 hectare the additional permitted uses are:
(1) (a) one manufactured home, up to 9 metres wide, for housing:
(i) the parcel owner’s immediate family; (ii) farm workers; or (b) a second single family dwelling, where authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission in response to a non-farm use application.
(2) Subject to section 1021.6(1) of this bylaw, one auxiliary dwelling unit may be located within:
(a) a single family dwelling; or (b) where there is no second single family dwelling in the form of a manufactured home on a parcel, above an existing single-storey agricultural building subject to section 502(8) of this bylaw.
(3) horse riding, training or boarding facility subject to section 1021.8(2) of this bylaw.
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 11 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 7 of 13
1021.3 On a parcel equal to or exceeding 8 hectares the additional permitted use is:
(1) marihuana production facility.
Site Specific Uses
1021.4 (1) A garden supply centre is permitted on Lot 17, District Lot 682, Plan 13714.
(2) An additional dwelling to create a duplex is permitted on Lot B, Block H, District Lot 903, Plan 1866 in place of a second single family dwelling.
(3) Despite Sections 1021.2 and 1021.6 only one single family dwelling is permitted on:
(c) Lot 12, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776;
(d) Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776.
Despite section 1021.10(1) each single family dwelling on the two lots described within this section will have a ground floor area not exceeding 170 square metres and a total floor area not exceeding 280 square metres.
Temporary Uses
1021.5 (1) The AG zone is designated as a temporary use permit area for the purpose of permitting temporary agritourism campgrounds auxiliary to agriculture or a farm operation in Electoral Areas B, D and E.
(2) A campground approved under a temporary use permit under this section shall:
(a) be situated on a parcel having an area of at least 2 hectares and classified for property tax assessment purposes as a farm; (b) not exceed 5% of the parcel area; (c) not exceed 10 campsites, except that where a bed and breakfast is situated on the same parcel the combined number of bed and breakfast guest rooms plus campsites shall not exceed 10; (d) be either connected to a community sewer facility or have on-site sewage disposal facilities in place that are in accordance with current regulations pursuant to the Health Act.
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 12 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 8 of 13
Number and Size of Dwellings
1021.6 (1) Subject to sections 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) of this bylaw no more than three dwellings shall be located on a parcel such that there are no more than two single family dwellings and one auxiliary dwelling unit.
(2) Despite section 1021.10(1) of this bylaw, the floor area of a single family dwelling shall not exceed 350 m².
Areas of Agricultural Buildings, Structures and Uses
1021.7 (1) The parcel coverage of all buildings and structures used as part of a park, including biodiversity conservation, passive recreation, heritage, wildlife and scenery viewing, shall not exceed 100 m².
(2) Agricultural product sales are permitted auxiliary to a farm if:
(a) all of the farm product offered for sale is produced on the farm on which the retail sales are taking place, or
(b) the total sales area, both indoors and outdoors, for all agricultural products does not exceed 300 m² and if at least 50% of that sales area is limited to the sale of farm products produced
(i) on the same farm; or (ii) by an association, as defined by the Cooperative Association Act, to which the owner of the farm on which the agricultural product sales take place belongs.
(3) A food and beverage service lounge auxiliary to a brewery, cidery, distillery, meadery or winery:
(a) shall neither exceed:
(i) a floor area of 100 m²; (ii) an indoor seating capacity of 30; nor (iii) an outdoor area of 50 m².
(b) may serve alcoholic beverages other than produced on the same farm, provided that the beverages are sold:
(i) as single servings for immediate consumption within an area conforming to subsection 3(a); or (ii) in a special event area operated in accordance with a special event endorsement issued under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation.
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 13 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 9 of 13
(4) A, brewery, cidery, creamery, distillery, meadery or winery may include:
(a) preparing and storing their processed products; (b) a retail sales area subject to section 1021.7(2) of this bylaw; (c) on-site tours.
(5) The parcel coverage of all buildings, structures used solely for farm education and research shall not exceed 100 m².
Conditions of Use
1021.8 (1) At least 50% of animals slaughtered and farm product processed, packaged or stored by an animal slaughter or processing facility shall be reared and produced on the same farm.
(2) A horse riding, training or boarding facility shall not contain more than 3 horse stalls per hectare to a maximum of 40 horse stalls per parcel.
(3) A winery or cidery shall have:
(a) at least 50% of the farm products used in wine or cider products produced on the same farm, or
(b) a land area more than 2 hectares, and
unless otherwise authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission, at least 50% of the total farm product for processing supplied by a British Columbia farm under a minimum three-year contract.
(4) A brewery, creamery, distillery or meadery must have at least 50% of the farm products used in producing beer, creamery products, distilled spirits or mead produced on the same farm.
Siting
1021.9 (1) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, no building or structure shall be sited within:
(a) 5 metres of a front or rear parcel line;
(b) 1.5 metres of a side parcel line, except where the side parcel line abuts a highway, in which case the minimum setback to side parcel line shall be 4.5 metres.
(2) Agricultural and farming activities, uses, buildings and structures shall be sited a minimum distance from a parcel line, as follows:
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 14 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 10 of 13
parcel line setback
use of land, building or structure front or abutting ALR all other
5 metres to front apiary beehives 1.5 metres to 1.5 metres abutting ALR agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas, except as 5 metres 5 metres otherwise specified under this section. agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined 10 metres 15 metres livestock areas including up to 1 AU of swine. agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined 25 metres 30 metres livestock areas including more than 1 AU of swine. animal slaughter or processing 25 metres 30 metres food and beverage service lounge 10 metres 15 metres greenhouse containing no artificial lighting 5 metres 5 metres greenhouse containing artificial lighting 15 metres 15 metres kennel, including outdoor runs 10 metres 15 metres
agricultural product sales except in the 5 metres 5 metres form of an open air stand
agricultural product sales in the form of an 1.5 metres 5 metres open air stand agritourism campground (where permitted) 25 metres 30 metres agricultural waste storage facility 25 metres 30 metres chemical storage structure 10 metres 10 metres marihuana production facility 60 metres 60 metres
mushroom growing medium preparation 25 metres 30 metres and storage soilless medium preparation 10 metres 15 metres soilless medium storage 5 metres 7.5 metres
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 15 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 11 of 13
(3) Agricultural and farm activities, uses, buildings and structures shall be situated a minimum distance from the natural boundary of a watercourse or waterbody, as follows:
watercourse / waterbody use, building or structure setback confined livestock area containing 10 or fewer AUs animal slaughter or processing agricultural waste storage facility mushroom barn 15 metres composting or compost storage chemical storage structure wood waste storage confined livestock area containing more than 10 AUs seasonal feeding areas 30 metres field storage of agricultural solid waste
Parcel Coverage 1021.10 Parcel coverage shall not exceed 15%, except: (1) residential buildings and structures, including those auxiliary to a residential use, shall not exceed a parcel coverage of 10%; (2) greenhouse parcel coverage, exclusive of all other parcel coverage, shall not exceed 50%.
PART C – ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 9th DAY OF April, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME, as amended, this 8th DAY OF October, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME, as amended, this 14th DAY OF January, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2016 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2016 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2016 ______Corporate Officer
______Chair
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 16 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 12 of 13
Appendix A to Bylaw No. 310.148
1. Part II of Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is amended by deleting the following definitions:
“farm” “horticultural sales” “horticulture” “riding stable and academy”
2. Part II of Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is further amended by inserting the following definitions: “agricultural building” means a building used in conjunction with agriculture, including a farm operation and, where permitted under this bylaw, may contain accommodation in the form of an auxiliary dwelling unit or sleeping unit for farm workers; “agricultural product sales” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the sale of horticultural products, dairy, eggs, meats, apicultural products, aquacultural products, creamery products, wines, ciders, beers, meads, or distilled spirits, which are produced on the same land or, where permitted under this bylaw, transported from elsewhere; “agricultural unit” or “AU” means an equivalent live farm animal weight corresponding to 455 kg for livestock, poultry or farmed game, or any combination these equaling 455 kg; “agricultural waste storage facility” means land, building or structure used to contain agricultural liquid or solid waste or other biosolids for a beneficial use such as composting, or disposal; “agritourism” means temporary and seasonal activities auxiliary to a farm operation such as farm tours, hay rides and fish ponds that promote or market agricultural products grown, raised or processed on a parcel classified for assessment purposes as a farm; “animal slaughter or processing” means slaughtering livestock, or cutting, eviscerating, sectioning, deboning, smoking, curing or packaging meat or meat products. Where the context requires, it also means a provincially licenced animal slaughter and processing facility; “confined livestock area” means an area of land or building where non-grazing livestock are kept or secured such as by a structure such as a fence, wall or landscape barriers, and includes poultry coops, pens and outdoor runs, stables, feedlots, paddocks, corrals, exercise yards, and animal holding areas, but does not include a seasonal feeding or grazing area; “creamery” means a facility where milk and cream are processed and where butter or cheese are produced; “farm” or “farm operation” means an agricultural business conducted as an integrated unit on land comprising all or part of a parcel or group of parcels, contiguous or not, and involving any of the following activities: growing, producing, raising or keeping animals or plants, including mushrooms, or the primary products of those plants or animals; clearing, draining, irrigating or cultivating land; using or storing farm machinery, equipment, devices, materials and structures; agricultural activity on, in or over land in accordance with the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act;
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 17 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 13 of 13
“farm research and education” means land, buildings or structures dedicated to researching, promoting and teaching methods of agriculture and farming; “greenhouse” means a translucent-clad structure that is used for horticulture and is of sufficient size for one or more persons to work within it; “horse riding, training or boarding facility” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the keeping of horses being trained and cared for, which may also include training and instructing equestrian riders; “horticultural product sales” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the sale of fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers or ornamental plants that are grown and produced on the same farm or otherwise on the same parcel; “horticulture” means the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers and ornamental plants; “livestock” means domestic farm animals including poultry, bees reared through apiculture, fish or other aquatic animals raised through aquaculture; “manufactured home” means a transportable prefabricated structure, whether ordinarily equipped with wheels or not, that is designed, constructed or manufactured to be moved from one place to another and to be used for residential use by a single family. The structure normally conforms to the CSA Z240 series standards of the Canadian Standards Association for manufactured homes; “poultry” means domestic birds raised for the consumption of eggs or meat such as chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese, pheasants, quail, game birds and ratites; “sales area” means floor area or land area where customers may freely peruse, select and purchase products that are prepared, stored and displayed for sale;
2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment 18 ANNEX C
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: SCRD Planning & Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Gregory Gebka, Planner
SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation (Electoral Area B)
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT the report titled “Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation” be received;
2. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be given Third Reading;
3. AND THAT following Third Reading, Bylaw No. 310.161 be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure for approval pursuant to section 52 of the Transportation Act;
4. AND FURTHER THAT Bylaw No. 310.161 be forwarded to the Board for adoption.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of January 28th, 2015, the Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation:
Recommendation No. 8 SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 (Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation)
THAT the staff report titled “Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation (Electoral Area B)” be received;
AND THAT the registered owner for Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be identified as Strata Corporation VR757;
AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be amended to incorporate the provision requiring a minimum 50% land area denoted on Strata Plan VR757, District Lot 4545, be undivided and undeveloped open space;
AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be forwarded to the Board for Second Reading, as amended;
19 Staff Report to SCRD Planning & Development Committee Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Strata Corporation VR757 Page 2 of 3
AND THAT a Public Hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 18th, 2016, at the Coopers Green Community Hall located at 5500 Fisherman’s Road, Halfmoon Bay;
AND FURTHER THAT Director Mauro be delegated as the Chair and Director Nohr be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing.
At its January 28th meeting the Board also gave Bylaw No. 310.161 second reading.
A public hearing concerning Bylaw No. 310.161 was held on February 18th, as scheduled, and the report of the public hearing is included in Attachment A. This report summarizes the public hearing and recommends how to proceed with Bylaw No. 310.161.
Strata Corporation VR757 (the “applicant”) has applied to amend its zoning in order to legitimize residential use of 30 strata units. Originally developed as part of a resort complex in 1979, various strata units within the complex have over the years been occupied or rented out as residences rather than as tourist accommodations. Of those that are currently occupied, strata units are varyingly used as either residences or as tourist accommodation.
DISCUSSION
Ten people attended the public hearing, including chair, alternate chair and staff. None of those attending expressed concerns with the application. One letter, received from an adjoining property owner, was read out. The letter expressed concerns over:
required and available number of residential parking spaces on the strata property whether the applicant has adequate contingency reserve fund for long term repair, maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, including road maintenance along a private easement located on their property vacant restaurant / pub as a possible fire and safety hazard rusted drain pipes leaching drain water on neighbours’ property sink holes appearing in the parking lot
With the exception of required parking, the adjoining property owner’s concerns should be addressed by means other than this zoning bylaw amendment application. Additional off-street parking could be required on a site-specific basis at a rate other than currently specified under the zoning bylaw (1.2 parking spaces per ‘apartment’ dwelling unit). However, to do so, further evidence of a residential parking deficiency should be apparent. Staff did not see such evidence at the time the applicant identified 37 parking spaces designated for residential use – although, this was during the winter season when many strata units are unoccupied while parking spaces, both residential and commercial, are substantially underutilized. To consider the matter, the Board could choose one the following options:
(1) Request further information from the applicant to more precisely determine residential parking demand and establish a site-specific parking rate to adequately meet the parking demand; or
(2) Require off-street parking using the rate established for ‘apartment’ (1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit) and defer any detailed consideration of total combined off-street parking until such time as there is a development application to re-develop the vacant restaurant / pub.
2016 Report to March 17 PDC Bylaw No. 310.161 Secret Cove Strata Corp 20 Staff Report to SCRD Planning & Development Committee Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Strata Corporation VR757 Page 3 of 3
Deferring a detailed analysis of total combined off-street parking could result in putting the onus on other (commercial) strata owners to someday give up some of their off-street parking spaces to eliminate any shortage in residential off-street parking. However, it would seem by Policy 15.6(h) of the Official Community Plan (OCP), the community envisions considerably less commercial floor area (175 m²) mixed with multi-family residential units than currently constructed and unoccupied on the site. Such policy would likely prevent any expansion of commercial floor area, unless this maximum specifically varied following an application from the applicant.
Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date
In the event the Board gives Bylaw No. 310.161 Third Reading, the bylaw will be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure for approval pursuant to section 52 of the Transportation Act.
Communications Strategy
In the event Bylaw No. 310.161 is adopted, it will be posted to the SCRD website.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Consistent with Halfmoon Bay OCP.
CONCLUSION
The zoning bylaw amendment application is an opportunity to legitimize residential multi-family use and to ensure on-site servicing, off-street parking and other amenities are adequate for the potential mix of current and future uses. With the exception of adjoining property owner having various concerns and issues with the applicant, no major concerns were expressed at the recent public hearing. Noted concerns over required and available off-street parking may be deferred until such time as a development application is made to redevelop any of the two ‘commercial’ strata units. A copy of Bylaw 310.161 is included in Attachment B.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X-SO Legislative CAO X-JL Other
2016 Report to March 17 PDC Bylaw No. 310.161 Secret Cove Strata Corp 21 ATTACHMENT A
22 23 24 25 26 ATTACHMENT B
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.161, 2015 A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987
The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
PART A – CITATION
1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015. PART B – AMENDMENT
1. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987, Part VIII by:
(a) consecutively re-numbering sections 821.2 through 821.5 to sections 821.4 through 821.7; and
(b) inserting immediately following section 821.1: Site Specific Uses
821.2 In addition to the uses permitted in section 821.1, the following use is permitted on Strata Lots 1-30, Strata Plan VR757, District Lot 4545:
(1) one dwelling per strata lot.
821.3 A minimum 50% of the land area denoted on Strata Plan VR757, District Lot 4545, shall be undivided and undeveloped open space.
PART C – ADOPTION
READ A FIRST TIME this 28th DAY OF MAY 2015
READ A SECOND TIME this 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2016
READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2016
ADOPTED this DAY OF 2016 ______Corporate Officer
______Chair
27 ANNEX D
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Sven Koberwitz, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) be received;
AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.193 to vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2 to allow for the construction of a workshop; be issued.
BACKGROUND
The SCRD is in receipt of a development variance permit application to legalize an existing 193.5 m2 workshop. The workshop was the subject of a building permit issued in 2010 where it was required to remain open so as to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings. At some point prior to final inspection the workshop was completely enclosed, thereby qualifying it to be counted as an auxiliary building, which resulted in the total floor space exceeding the allowance within Bylaw 310. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow the workshop to remain enclosed and the building permit to be completed.
Owner/Applicant: Charles Lenfesty Legal Description: Lot 11 Block C District Lot 2631 Plan 19009 P.I.D.: 007-045-115 Electoral Area: D – Roberts Creek Civic Address: 3359 & 3365 Sunshine Coast Highway Land Use Zone: CR1 OCP Land Use: Country Residential Proposed Variance: To vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2. Parcel Area: 11,870 m2
DISCUSSION Options and Analysis In June 2010 building permits were issued to allow two shipping containers to be located on the property to be used as storage by the applicant. Subsequently, in August 2010 another permit was issued to allow for a roof to be constructed, between the two containers, creating an “open carport” which would not count towards the auxiliary building floor area limits. At some point prior to the final inspection the building was completely enclosed to create a 193.5 m2 workshop. In addition to the workshop that is the subject of this application, several other auxiliary buildings of varying sizes exist on the property. The applicant will be required to either remove, or reconfigure the existing buildings to meet the allowable floor area limits. This must be done prior
28 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Page 2 of 4
to completing the building permit that was issued for the workshop and issuance of the development variance permit. The subject property fronts the Sunshine Coast Highway and is located between Roberts Creek Road and Marlene Road. At 1.18 hectares (2.93 acres) is significantly larger than many of the surrounding properties, especially those on the south side of the highway. At 1.18 hectares the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings is 150 m2. It should be noted that were the property 130 m2 larger (0.01 %) it would qualify for 200 m2 of allowable auxiliary building floor area applicable to parcels 1.2 hectares and above.
While the variance requested is quite large compared to the total floor space permitted, the property only falls short by 130 m2 from qualifying for the next bracket of auxiliary floor area allowance in which the building would be permitted. Therefore, planning staff are willing to support this application at this time. Support is contingent upon removing the additional auxiliary buildings referenced above. See Attachment A for site plan.
DVP 310.191 PDC Report.docx 29 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Page 3 of 4
Option 1 – Recommended Option Issue the variance with the condition that all other auxiliary buildings be reconfigured or removed from the property. This will enable to applicant to maintain the existing enclosed workshop.
Option 2 Deny the variance. The applicant will need to reconfigure the workshop so it is no longer enclosed. The existing 150 m2 limit for auxiliary building floor area will continue to apply.
Organization and Intergovernmental Implications This application was referred to the shíshálh Nation. No comments or concerns were noted, however a Preliminary Field Reconnaissance has been requested prior to any future work involving ground disturbance.
Communications Strategy Owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the subject parcel were notified. No comments have been received to date. The application was referred to the February 29, 2016 meeting of the Roberts Creek APC. The APC recommended supporting the variance with the condition that other auxiliary buildings be modified or removed from the property.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Not Applicable
CONCLUSION
The SCRD has received an application to vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2. The intent of this variance request is to allow a previously constructed workshop to become legal since it is over the allowable floor area limit. Due to the relatively large size of the subject property and the fact that it is only 130 m2 short of qualifying for 200 m2 of auxiliary building floor area, planning staff support this variance application.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – SO Legislative CAO X – JL Other
DVP 310.191 PDC Report.docx 30 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A - SITE PLAN
DVP 310.191 PDC Report.docx 31 ANNEX E SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Sven Koberwitz, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT 310.195 (AUSTIN)
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) be received;
AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.193 to vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2, be issued;
BACKGROUND
The SCRD is in receipt of a Development Permit application to vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2. The intent of the application is to allow an existing cottage to be classified as an auxiliary dwelling once a new single family home is built on the property. Because the floor area of the cottage is over the allowable limit of 55 m2 for auxiliary dwellings, a variance is being requested to avoid structural alterations to the cottage in order to reduce floor area. The subject property is located in a residential area on Northwood Road in Halfmoon Bay, across from a large undeveloped parcel of Crown land.
Owner/Applicant: Richard W. Austin and Bonita M. Austin Legal Description: Lot 10 Block 3 District Lot 1330 Plan 11394 P.I.D.: 009-073-655 Electoral Area: Halfmoon Bay Civic Address: 8035 Northwood Road Land Use Zone: R2 OCP Land Use: Residential B Proposed Variance: To vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2. Parcel Area: 2306.7 m2 (0.57 acres)
DISCUSSION
Options and Analysis Bylaw 310 allows parcels over 2000 m2 to contain a single family dwelling and an auxiliary dwelling limited to 55 m2 in floor area. An existing cottage with a floor area of 58 m2 currently serves as a residence for the applicant while a new single family dwelling is being built on the property. Once the new single family dwelling is constructed the applicant wishes to designate the existing cottage as the auxiliary dwelling (Site Plan – Attachment A). Since it is over the 55 m2
32 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Page 2 of 4
floor area limit a variance will be required to avoid any alterations that may be necessary to reduce the floor area. The existing cottage was likely built prior to the existence of the SCRD; no building permits were found on file with the Building Department. The new home is a 1498 sqft rancher, currently under construction. A new septic field, registered with Vancouver Coastal Health, is being installed to service the new home. The cottage is serviced by its own exisitng field.
Figure 1 - Location Map Planning staff consider the variance request to be minor and to not defeat the intent of the bylaw due to the minor increase in allowable floor area and due to the fact that the cottage was likely built prior to the introduction of auxiliary dwelling floor area limits.
Option 1 – Recommended Option Issue the variance. The existing cottage will be legal for use as an auxiliary dwelling.
Option 2 Deny the variance. The applicant will be required to reduce the floor area of the existing cottage or decommission it as a dwelling by remove the cooking facilities prior to receiving final occupancy for the new single family home currently under construction.
Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications This application was referred to the shíshálh Nation. No comments have been received to date.
DVP 310.195 PDC Report.docx 33 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Page 3 of 4
The SCRD Building Department conducted a site visit on March 2, 2016 and had no concerns with the application.
Communications Strategy Owners and occupiers within 50 metres of the subject parcel were notified. No comments have been received to date. The application was referred to the February 23, 2016 meeting of the Halfmoon Bay APC where a recommendation to support the variance was made.
Figure 2 - Existing Cottage
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Not Applicable
CONCLUSION
The applicant wishes to allow for an existing cottage to serve as an auxiliary dwelling once the construction of a new single family dwelling is complete. The existing cottage has a floor area of 58 m2 which is over the maximum allowable floor area of 55 m2. In order to avoid structural alterations a variance is being requested to allow the existing cottage to remain unaltered. The variance being requested is relatively minor and involves an existing building, therefore planning staff support this application. Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – SO Legislative CAO X – JL Other
DVP 310.195 PDC Report.docx 34 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
DVP 310.195 PDC Report.docx 35 ANNEX F
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Sven Koberwitz, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey)
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the report titled Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) be received;
AND THAT the requirement for 10% lot frontage onto a road be waived for subdivision of Lot B Block 34 District Lot 1392 Plan 22426 on Harbour View Road in Pender Harbour (MOTI Subdivision File No. 2013-00026).
BACKGROUND Section 512 of the Local Government Act requires that all newly created lots have a minimum 10% parcel frontage onto a highway unless a local government waives the requirement. The SCRD Board must waive the lot frontage requirement for the above referenced subdivision to proceed. DISCUSSION Options and Analysis A copy of the proposed subdivision is attached as Attachment ‘A’. The application involves a two lot subdivision of the subject property fronting both the Sunshine Coast Highway and Gulfview Road. The subject property is located within both the ‘G1’ and ‘C’ subdivision district and each new is well above the minimum size requirements of the respective subdivision zones. While lot 1 will have sufficient frontage along the Sunshine Coast Highway, however remainder lot B will have less than 10% frontage along Gulfview Road. Preliminary Layout Approval has been issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and therefore the Ministry has accepted the proposed access points. Given that the access has been approved as part of the subdivision, the Planning and Development Division supports the frontage waiver request. The MOTI referral was received in January of 2013 and was referred to the Area A Advisory planning Commission (APC). At its meeting of February 2013, the Area A APC expressed support for the subdivision, as proposed. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES Not Applicable.
36 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION A waiver for the 10% frontage requirement is required by the SCRD Board for the above mentioned subdivision application to proceed. Preliminary Layout Approval has been granted by the Approving Officer, therefore planning staff support the frontage waiver request.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – SO Legislative CAO X – JL Other
2013-00026 Frontage Waiver Report for PDC.docx 37 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT ‘A’
2013-00026 Frontage Waiver Report for PDC.docx 38 ANNEX G
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: SCRD Planning & Development Committee - March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Gregory Gebka, Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NEW ENTRY TO SUNSHINE COAST COMMUNITY HERITAGE REGISTER
PENDER HARBOUR CULTURAL CENTRE (AREA A)
RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. THAT the report titled “Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre” be received;
2. AND THAT the attached draft Statement of Significance be forwarded to the Area A Advisory Planning Commission for review and comments;
3. AND THAT following Area A APC review, the attached draft Statement of Significance be forwarded to the Board for endorsement and approval for inclusion within the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register;
4. AND FURTHER THAT once registered, the Regional District give notice of the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre’s inclusion within the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register to:
(a) Pender Harbour Living Heritage Society; and (b) Heritage Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of January 14th, the Board approved the 2016 Planning & Development Department Work Plan, as amended, which includes the following item:
Prepare a Statement of Significance for the Madeira Park Ranger Station to be included on the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register (Heritage Conservation-515)
Local governments in BC may establish community heritage registers to formally list real property identified as having heritage value or heritage character. A ‘statement of significance’ (SoS) is a key component to this effort, which satisfies Local Government Act (LGA) requirements for documenting the reasons why property is included in a community heritage register, speaking directly to its heritage value or heritage character.
An SoS:
summarizes the description, heritage value and character-defining elements of each historic place
39 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register Page 2 of 3 – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre
reflects modern values concerning history and historic places identifies what part of history a historic place represents, and how and why that is of value and importance today
The SCRD established the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register in 2009 as part of an effort to recognize and promote heritage conservation, which may be accessed at: http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register
Once a community heritage register either includes or deletes a property, the local government must give notice:
(a) to the owner of the heritage property in accordance with section 974 of the LGA, and (b) to the minister responsible for the Heritage Conservation Act in accordance with section 977 of the LGA.
In general, an SoS should contain the following information: natural or community history and/or architecture of the heritage resource significant historical dates, events, or persons photographs depictions other archived information that emphasizes heritage character and value
DISCUSSION:
Options and Analysis
Efforts to compile an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre have been sporadic since 2012, when staff originally contacted various Pender Harbour community representatives concerning the initiative. Both staff and the Pender Harbour Living Heritage Society (PHLHS) undertook research and over time were able to find some historic records, including photographs, of the complex originally constructed as the “Madeira Park Ranger Station”. The PHLHS drafted an SoS in late 2015, which staff have reformatted slightly, as attached.
Although staff have collaborated primarily with the PHLHS on the initiative, the draft SoS could be forwarded to the Area A Advisory Planning Commission for input.
Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications
N/A
Financial Implications
N/A
Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date
In the event the Board endorses the attached SoS, staff will immediately thereafter add the SoS to the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register following relevant notices to the Pender
2016 report to March 17 PDC 40 Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register Page 3 of 3 – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre
Harbour Living Heritage Society and Heritage Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.
Communications Strategy
Any new entry to the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register is included within an updated, consolidated version, which is posted at http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Registering an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre is consistent with Strategic Plan priority to facilitate community development, particularly to collaborate with community groups and organizations to support their objectives and capacity.
CONCLUSION
Following various efforts over time to research and compile historical records, an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre has been compiled for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre for final input, endorsement and registration.
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X-SO Legislative CAO X-JL Other
2016 report to March 17 PDC 41 Attachment A
Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE – PENDER HARBOUR CULTURAL CENTRE
Description of Historic Community Place
The Pender Harbour Cultural Centre consists of a group of buildings located in Madeira Park on the waterfront. Originally constructed as a ranger station, the historic place is now a main social centre for Madeira Park and is comprised of the School of Music, Reading Centre, Harbour Artists and Serendipity Child Care Centre.
Cultural Centre
Heritage Value
The Cultural Centre is situated on Block 20, which was part of local pioneer Joe Gonsalves’ 160 acres in 1910. Sometime around 1950, Lot 1 of Block 20 reverted to the Crown, on which the Ranger Station complex was built. The Ranger and his staff administered tree cutting licences and fought forest fires within their district (Pender Harbour, Texada Island, Egmont and Jervis Inlet). Their Forestry vessels were moored at the dock below.
BC ranger stations were very busy between 1950 and 1978; though, most were shut down by the early 1980s. The Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) purchased Lot 1 of Block 20 from the Crown for $1 in 1987, at which time the land was stipulated for community use and public recreation purposes, and has been used as such ever since.
42
Garage 1950 Forest Ranger building 1950
Image NA-12179 courtesy of the Royal BC Museum, BC Archives Image NA-12630 courtesy of the Royal BC Museum, BC Archives
This group of buildings is a good example of one of the few remaining forestry complexes in BC The Cultural Centre is valued as a gathering place for community events and services for both Pender Harbour residents and visitors. World class musicians come to perform, community groups meet regularly, artists create and sell their works, library books are borrowed, kindergarten and child care is offered. Annual events, such as the Chamber Music Festival, draw visitors from near and far. Activities at the Cultural Centre occur as a direct result of Pender Harbour’s energetic volunteers.
Reading Centre, originally the Ranger's living quarters Serendipity Child Care Centre, originally the Ranger's office
Character-defining Elements
School of Music, originally the Forestry maintenance Harbour Artists, originally the Forestry garage shop 43 The character-defining elements of the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre include:
typical mid 20th century design used in small BC resource towns Dutch building style is representative of other Ranger Stations built in that period green sheet metal roof original garage door on the Harbour Artists building paned windows and casings one of the few remaining Forest Service complexes in BC
Garage door Green sheet metal roof
44 ANNEX H
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016
AUTHOR: Autumn Ruinat, Planning Secretary
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SUNSHINE COAST FIXED LINK CONSULTATION
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the report titled “Transportation Advisory Committee Recommendation Regarding Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Consultation” be received for discussion.
BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2016, the SCRD Board adopted the following in-part recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting of January 11, 2016:
085/16 Recommendation No. 4 Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes (TAC) – January 11, 2016
AND THAT the following recommendations be acted upon:
Recommendation No. 6 Sunshine Coast Fixed Link – Consultation
THAT staff send a letter to the consultant through the Ministry, requesting clarification and a summary of the governmental, public, and institutional engagement opportunities happening on the Sunshine Coast with regard to the Sunshine Coast Fixed Link study;
AND THAT this recommendation be reviewed at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting.
DISCUSSION
The above recommendation is being brought forward for review. A letter was sent to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure on February 26, 2016 and is enclosed as Attachment A.
STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES
Support Sustainable Economic Development Facilitate Community Development
Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - SO Legislative CAO X - JL Other
2016-Mar-17 PDC Cover Report for TAC Recommendation Fixed Link Study 45 Attachment A
46 47 ANNEX I
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
AREA A - EGMONT/PENDER HARBOUR ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA ‘A’ ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE LIBRARY AT PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL, 13639 SUNSHINE COAST HWY, MADEIRA PARK, BC
PRESENT: Chair Geoff Craig
Members Janet Dickin Jim Hall Jane McOuat Catherine McEachern Gary Park Tom Silvey Alan Skelley Alex Thomson
ALSO PRESENT: Area A Director Frank Mauro Recording Secretary Kelly Kammerle Public 6
REGRETS: Sean McAllister Randy Picketts Dennis Burnham Gary Park
CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR
Geoff Craig was nominated and elected by acclamation.
1. AGENDA
1.1 The agenda was adopted as presented.
2. DELEGATIONS
48 AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 24, 2016 Page 2
3. MINUTES
3.1 Area ‘A’ Minutes
The Area ‘A’ APC minutes of January 27, 2016 were approved as circulated.
The following minutes were received for information:
3.2 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 3.3 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 3.4 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 3.5 Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 3.6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016
4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. REPORTS
5.1 OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87 (Ruby Lake Resort Ltd.)
The APC discussed the staff report regarding OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87 (Ruby Lake Resort Ltd.) with the following comments:
Why is a statement for economic viability necessary? It was felt this is an unnecessary burden on proponents and is of little use for the SCRD. Amphitheatre acoustic sound plan not necessary.
Recommendation No. 1
The APC supports the OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87
Have addressed the parking and noise issues Promoting economic development Positive progress and changes have been made
Please note: “Catherine McEachern excused herself from voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest which had been previously disclosed.”
49 AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 24, 2016 Page 3
5.2 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
Recommendation No. 2
The APC recommended supporting the SCRD recommendations with the following concerns/points:
Need small wind energy system defined. It’s felt that 300 kW is too large to be considered small scale. Request staff to revisit this upper limit. Recommended that the height is defined by hub height to the top of the blade. Should be 1.25 meters x total height of the wind energy system from property line and 1.5 meters from buildings. Concern about the noise and vibration and impact on birds and bats.
5.3 Development Permit with Variance A-42 (Hanson) Recommendation No. 3
The APC recommended supporting the SCRD recommendations with the following points:
APC supports Option 1 with the upgrading of the septic system.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Jim Hall will be resigning from the Area “A” APC as of March 1, 2016.
Gordon Littlejohn has been appointed to the Area “A” APC starting March 1, 2016.
7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Round 1 of Budget review Lily Lake Trail should be completed by the Spring General discussion
8. NEXT MEETING March 30, 2016
9. ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m.
50 ANNEX J
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
AREA B - HALFMOON BAY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA B ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE COOPERS GREEN COMMUNITY HALL AT COOPERS GREEN PARK, 5500 FISHERMAN ROAD, HALFMOON BAY, BC
PRESENT: Chair Frank Belfry
Members Ray Moscrip Bruce Thorpe Barbara Bolding Alda Grames Wendy Pearson Len Pakulak Joan Harvey
ALSO PRESENT: Area B Director Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters Public 1
REGRETS: Members Walter Powell Lorn Campbell Elise Rutland Eleanor Lenz
CALL TO ORDER 7:01 p.m.
1. AGENDA The agenda was adopted with the following amendments:
1. Item 5.2 to be discussed before 5.1
2. New business items:
6.1 Len Pakulak to address the APC 6.2 Discussion about new minute taking practices & possible Board changes to the APC
2. DELEGATIONS
51 AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 2
3. MINUTES
3.1 Area B Minutes
The Area B APC minutes of January 26, 2016 were approved as circulated.
3.2 Minutes
The following minutes were received for information:
Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, none. Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016
4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. REPORTS
5.1 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
The APC discussed the staff report regarding Small Scale Wind Energy Systems. The following concerns/points/issues respond to specific questions on page 24:
a) The proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’ -Suggest that 300 kW system is too large and think that 30 kW or less is more reasonable -Ask the SCRD to give their thoughts on sale of power to BC Hydro as well as roof- mounting structures. b) Permitting small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use in all zones - The APC generally agrees with use in all zones, but think that small scale wind energy systems would be intrusive in some residential zones, but feel that restrictions should be imposed by lot size and setbacks rather than zones. -Some lots are close together and separation should be large enough so that wind energy systems are not going to be offending people: having many small wind energy systems running constantly in all zones could be a problem for neighbours with noise, vibration, and visual impact. c) Parcel line setbacks equivalent to one times the tower height - The APC feels that the 1:1 setback is too small, but can’t provide a quantifiable setback based on limited knowledge. d) Minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot -The APC also feels that the proposal is too small but can’t provide a quantifiable alternative based on limited knowledge. e) A limit of one wind energy system per parcel -The APC suggests that large properties in certain zones (industrial, commercial, agricultural) may have more than 1 wind energy system (for example, greenhouses on acreage)
52 AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 3
f) A maximum height of 20 meters -The APC suggests that this is the maximum height
The following general concerns/points/issues were noted:
Green energy is the future; we need to find a way to support it. However, noise is the big issue; think that the setbacks are not sufficient for noise, and visual impact, and the birds (environment). Think we should leave the visual aspect out since it is subjective; but consider noise and vibration (vibration from wind energy systems through rock can disturb sleep). Visual impact is also a health issue: the flashing of lights and movement can be detrimental to the health of people with migraines and visual sensitivities. Regarding setbacks, 100 feet is probably a safe distance, but one tower height/length away on a small lot probably isn’t enough.
Recommendation No. 1 Regulating small scale wind energy systems
In addition to the feedback and rationale provided above, the APC requests that the SCRD consider a site visit for APC members from all areas to the wind energy system at Crystal and Pell Roads in Roberts Creek.
5.2 Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin)
Richard Austin was present for the discussion of the Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin).
The APC discussed the staff report regarding Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) The following concerns/points/issues were noted:
Was there a permit for the existing structure? Perhaps the building department should have a look at it to make sure it is up to code, for the owner’s protection. Note that this is an auxiliary dwelling, not an auxiliary building.
Recommendation No. 2 Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin)
The APC recommended that Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) be supported.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Len Pakulak to address the APC: Len Pakulak presented his resignation to the committee and the APC members extended their appreciation for the decade of service that Len provided to the committee.
6.2 Comments on the Minutes/ Board consideration of changes to the APC: -The APC chair recently suggested to the SCRD that the numbering on the minutes should match the agenda and also that it is important that the new style of minute taking continue to reflect the ‘grass roots’ nature of feedback from members to the SCRD. -The Area Director pointed out that discussion comments provides good feedback for the Board Chair in case anything that comes up or needs to be discussed with other directors. Summation may happen, but other comments will stay in there.
53 AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 4
7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Garry Nohr presented his report.
8. NEXT MEETING March 22, 2016
9. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m.
54 ANNEX K
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
AREA D - ROBERTS CREEK ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 29, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA D ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE ROBERTS CREEK LIBRARY AT 1044 ROBERTS CREEK ROAD, ROBERTS CREEK, BC.
PRESENT: Chair Bill Page
Members Heather Conn Marion Jolicoeur Nicola Kozakiewicz Dana Gregory
ALSO PRESENT: Area D Alternate Director Michelle Morton Recording Secretary Peggy Martin Public 1
REGRETS: Area D Director Mark Lebbell Members Barry Morrow Jeffrey Abbott
ABSENT: Members Gerald Rainville
CALL TO ORDER 7:08 p.m.
NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR
Nomination for Chair and election of Chair: Bill Page by acclamation. Nomination for Alternate Chair and election of Alternate Chair: Heather Conn by acclamation. Nomination for Secretary and re-instatement of Secretary: Peggy Martin. Board renewal of appointments: Gerald Rainville, Dana Gregory, and Bill Page for 2 years. New APC member: Nicola Kozakiewicz was welcomed.
1. AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.
2. DELEGATIONS
2.1 Mr. Charles (Chuck) Lenfesty regarding Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)
Mr. Lenfesty explained that the property had been in his family for 20 years. He described the buildings currently on the site: a small house (32’ by 28’) with nearby small shop and sheds, mobile home, and the larger shop in question. The larger shop was constructed from two 40’ storage containers with a roof over them and a third shipping container was placed across the
55 Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 29, 2016 Page 2 bottom to form a “U”. The shop was enclosed to protect his woodworking tools from damage by rain and humidity, as well as the need for security and safety. However, the enclosed shop has an area greater than 150 m2, thus needing a variance. He stated that if the variance is granted, he would reduce the auxiliary building coverage on the site by opening up the small sheds and attaching one large container to the mobile home.
APC thanked Mr. Lenfesty for his delegation.
3. MINUTES
3.1 Area D Minutes
The Area D APC minutes of January 25, 2016 were approved.
3.2 Minutes
The following minutes were received for information:
Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Notes of January 20, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of January 21, 2016
4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. REPORTS
5.1 Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)
Recommendation No. 1 To vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2.
The APC recommended that the development variance permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) located at 3359 & 3365 Sunshine Coast Highway, Roberts Creek, BC, be supported for the following reasons:
None of the neighbours nor the shishalh Nation have objected to this variance It is a large piece of land, almost 3 acres, which would allow greater coverage by auxiliary buildings The shop is well separated from the neighbours and the property is well treed Enclosing the shop makes sense for protection of equipment, safety and security Other auxiliary buildings on the site will be modified or repurposed to remove them from the auxiliary building area calculation
5.2. Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
Recommendation No. 2 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
The APC recommended that the referral report titled Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Systems be received.
56 Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 29, 2016 Page 3
The APC recommended the proposed amendments to Zoning Bylaw 310 or 337 to regulate small-scale wind energy systems as follows: The proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’ be accepted, although APC hoped that selling electricity to the BC Hydro grid would be acceptable. There should be at the least an engineering drawing put before the SCRD – to ensure a standard code of construction. Permit small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use in all zones. That parcel line setbacks equivalent to one times the tower height be accepted. On waterfront properties, the setback from the foreshore natural boundary should be at least 15 m. That the minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot be 1.5 times the total height of the wind energy system. A limit of one wind energy system per parcel, but more could be added if technology improves in the future. The maximum height of 20 metres be accepted.
As well APC considered that this area is more suitable to solar power than wind power. APC was concerned that wind mills could have a devastating effect on migratory and resident birds in the area, and that rotor noise, flicker and shadow are major concerns for neighbours that are not addressed in these guidelines. Some models of turbines may have better performance and fewer detrimental effects, perhaps a list of recommended models should be prepared by SCRD.
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mark Lebbell (the Area D Director) was unable to attend but sent his alternate, Michelle Morton, to address the APC. The Ecology & Preparedness Forum held February 21, 2016 at the Roberts Creek Hall (arranged by Mark Lebbell, as an independent initiative) was a huge success – between 85-100 people attended, with lots of engaged participation. It became clear from participant reviews of the session, that what is really needed is affordable first aid training. The Roberts Creek Community Association will be looking into offering training in this area.
8. NEXT MEETING Monday, April 25, 2016
9. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m.
57 ANNEX L
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
AREA E – ELPHINSTONE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA E ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT FRANK WEST HALL, 1224 CHASTER ROAD, ELPHINSTONE, BC
PRESENT: Chair Mary Degan
Members Bob Morris Rod Moorcroft
ALSO PRESENT: Director Lorne Lewis Alternate Director Laurella Hay Recording Secretary Diane Corbett
REGRETS: Members Brenda Thomas Dougald Macdonald Lynda Chamberlin
ABSENT: Members Patrick Fitzsimons Jim Gurney Jenny Groves Raquel Kolof Rob Bone
CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.
NOMINATION OF CHAIR as per Bylaw No. 453, Section 8 (i) (ii)
Mary Degan was nominated Chair of the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission.
AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.
MINUTES
3.1 Area E Minutes
The Area E APC minutes of January 27, 2016 were approved as circulated.
3.2 Minutes
The following minutes were received for information:
• Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016
58 Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2016 Page 2
• Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 • Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 • Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 • Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016
BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
REPORTS
5.1 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
The APC received the staff report regarding regulation of small-scale wind energy systems.
The following points and concerns were raised:
• Potential impacts of windmills include visual, noise, vibration, and the flicker effect, a continual flickering shadow. Windmills could potentially change wind patterns. • The Sunshine Coast is a poor location to install windmills as winds are obstructed by Vancouver Island. Wind power does not work well here, although the head of Howe Sound gets some good blows. • Solar is more financially viable than windmills. • There is a lot of sloped area on the coast; a windmill could interfere with views. • There was confusion and a request for clarification regarding the statement in the staff report on a maximum height of 20 metres that appears to conflict with the information on the table titled “Parcel line setback based on tower height”, which lists larger heights. This inconsistency of information needs clarification by staff. • There was no comment in the report about interfering with the airport; there are low flying airplanes here. • Definition of “small scale wind energy system”: o There is a need for clarity regarding the resale of power in the proposed definition. Does that include feeding power back into the BC Hydro system? • Zones: o Windmills should not be allowed in residential zones. It is unlikely the setback requirements could be met in a residential area. • Setback: o There was consensus that the setback be 1.5 times the tower height. • Minimum separation to any dwelling on adjacent lot: o There was concern about what the impact would be on the neighbouring property once the tower is built. Would this impact the setback for the neighbour? It puts a limit on future neighbouring construction if there is no dwelling currently. Is the intent to make an imposition on the neighbouring lot? It is like a restrictive covenant, and could restrict the price of the lot. The onus should be on the person building the windmill to situate it so it does not affect the neighbour. • Number per parcel: o There was a general consensus to allow more than one windmill on a parcel, depending on parcel size. Probably only one would be needed for personal use. There might be a need for more than one for a farm operation. Potentially allow more than one for larger acreages, as long as they are not used to produce power for resale. • Height of 20 metres: o Support was expressed for a 20-meter maximum size. It was suggested it might be possible to do a higher windmill on larger properties as long as it fits the other criteria.
59 Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2016 Page 3
NEW BUSINESS
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Lewis gave his report.
NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 23, 2016
ADJOURNMENT 8:40 p.m.
60 ANNEX M
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
AREA F – WEST HOWE SOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WEST HOWE SOUND (AREA F) ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT ERIC CARDINALL HALL, 930 CHAMBERLIN ROAD, WEST HOWE SOUND, BC
PRESENT: Chair Fred Gazeley Members Jurgen Kowalewski Laurel Houle Bob Small (in part, by telephone)
ALSO PRESENT: Director Ian Winn Recording Secretary Diane Corbett
REGRETS: Member Bruce Wallis Alternate Director Kate-Louise Stamford
ABSENT: Member Lee Selmes
CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.
Bob Small joined the meeting by telephone at 7:05 p.m.
NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR – per Bylaw No. 453, Section 8 (i) (ii)
Fred Gazeley and Jurgen Kowalewski were nominated Co-Chairs.
Bob Small left the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as presented.
DELEGATIONS
MINUTES
3.1 Area F Minutes
The Area F APC minutes of November 24, 2015 were approved as circulated.
61 Area F – West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, February 23, 2016 Page 2
3.2 Minutes
The following minutes were received for information:
Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 and January 27, 2016 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 and January 26, 2016 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, November 30, 2015 and January 25, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 and January 27, 2016 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 and January 20, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015, and January 21, 2016
BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was discussion of the Bylaw Enforcement Notice (BEN) System.
REPORTS
5.1 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems
The APC discussed the staff report regarding the regulation of small-scale wind energy systems. The following points were noted:
Proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’: – Clarify what is meant by “used for resale”. An example was given of a wind energy system producing more power than required and the excess going back into the grid, with the owner receiving a credit; would that be considered “resale”?
Small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use: - These systems should not be permitted in residential (R1) zones. Where there are concentrated residential areas, wind energy systems would create issues. In other zones, the lots should be the larger sized lots. - Minimum parcel size of 484 square metres, as proposed, is too small. - Suggested minimum parcel size: 4000 square metres for a 20-metre tower.
Parcel line setbacks based on tower height: - Would be okay for larger parcels. - It depends on where the lot is situated.
Minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot: - Look at other jurisdictions, like Ontario and Alberta, before recommending setbacks. - What if the dwelling on the adjacent lot is built after the wind system is installed?
Limit to one wind energy system per parcel.
Limit maximum height of 20 metres.
We are in a wind shadow of Vancouver Island, with a very poor wind system on the
62 Area F – West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, February 23, 2016 Page 3
Sunshine Coast. Wind power would be intermittent, and would not make economic sense. There is only one small-scale wind energy system on the coast; the owner has reported that it is not cost effective.
Would like to see a process in place requiring owners proposing to build a wind energy system to consult with neighbours for their input, potentially mitigating issues. Would it require a rezoning? That may be one way to trigger a public meeting, giving all neighbours an opportunity to comment.
NEW BUSINESS
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Winn gave his report.
NEXT MEETING March 22, 2016
ADJOURNMENT 9:07 p.m.
63 February
Garry Chair,
Sechelt 1975
Email; Planning
Re:
Attached Dear
and Change.
agreement Minister
send
the Eoin
Island McKenna
need Vancouver But 2016.
Thank
Best
West 6588 Mona
604-921-6585
ncnahbengeshaw.ca
Letter
January
Islands
as Field
Mr.
Nohr,
Finn Sunshine
you
wishes,
the
Autumn
Wellington regarding BC
Vancouver,
time That
you
Helcermanas-Benge
Committee
delay 1,
All
Nohr:
please
a
had Rd.,
request
to
has
VON
2016
Trust copy with
very
Island.
express
is meeting would
Minister
hoped
already of
any Coast
Ruinat
3A1
find
BCEAO. much when
proposed
the
Council
to Avenue
decision
BC
also
concern
letters come essence,
einlDistrict, Regional and he
of
announced
for 6588
I
be
get
could
Environment
The to
he
your
an
via INC
2h9
regarding it. the sent
Wellington
Mona
is
(for
regarding
Village
opportunity
we
come
a
unable
monahbengeshaw.ca
consideration.
Honourable projects
delegation
from
Eoin
hope
the
as
of
the
addition Finn) to and the
the a
you Lions Helcermanas-Benge
Avenue,
there.
come
delegate
Environment
District
to Climate
Woodfibre
then
may
Catherine
Bay update
We of
in
64 It
be
West he
has
February
a
isa
of
to
Change
look
climate
able
will
West
you
request
passed
hopeful
Vancouver
LNG
Mckenna,
/604-921-6585
Assessment
forward
apply
to
on
Vancouver
regarding
due
consider
test project
his
a
this
for sign
motion
to
for
LNG
to
the Minister
letter
BC
a
that
for
hearing greenhouse
series approval
Dr.
presentations
Woodfibre
Planning
V7W Council,
to
Howe
the
in
Finn’s
send
esnhowever person
of of
2H9
from Honourable
Sound presentations
Environment
as
Bowen
request a
meeting
gases
part
similar
LNG
you. ______
in
and
of ANNEX N
project
the
to
Island
in
the
of
Catherine letter
request FE9
the
RECEIVED writing.
North
March
CHAIR
and
we
on substitution
SCRD Municipality
EA
and
0
Vancouver missed
Climate
process.
and
that
3
18,
If I
will
2016 you
on
the
I The Ottawa Minister December Parliament Dear We Assessment department #E15-02 that this progressing On decisions The very along Vancouver’s Council banned We appreciate project. Sini cc:Pamela Attachment Jordan Sandra October are Honourable proposed welcome additional length keen Minister the ON writing of from resolution Smith, for 750
DISTRICT based proposed Sturdy, 3, interest Environment Goldsmith Bicego, Buildings of that has K1AOH3 26, the independently - Certificate 2015 concerns the 17th your McKenna: our project. time to timelines 2015 Woodfibre Mayor had Catherine on waters MLA, respectfully Street, municipality Manager, in sent new may science-based shipping Jones, an the the West West about to for administration. opportunity and erequired be of proposed Province may the the McKenna, and Howe LNG MP, Environment Vancouver, Vancouver Climate route the request RE: BC fronts have Woodflbre West we Project. THE project Sound. Environment Proposed Woodfibre of for appreciate evidence. to
OF to Vancouver for B.C. Change onto OFFICE British that MP complete LNG Sea be CORPORATION & We a and We Sustainability LNG extended Burrard thorough you V7V to tankers. are
WEST Columbia Sky given understand Woodfibre LNG OF Given 65 the delay 3T3 prolect Sea Assessment encouraged a Sunshine thorough THE Inlet new these, Project. to review to the the The Sky apply in Telephone: issued and government’s MAYOR federal recent Howe that LNG citizens Sunshine our Coast OF of the review
VANCOUVER Office these Please by the your suggestion Environmental THE Project entrance Sound, the change 604 decision potential of new of I, Coast in department’s new 925 find West July the commitment 7000 British policies in policies enclosed to on Assessment. that of govemment Vancouver environmental Howe the 2014 Assessment Columbia LNG to Fax: Environment announced approval Sound our this outlining to File: FELl tankers 604 RECEIVED environmental have municipal proposed we 925 01 until which impacts 03 process Certificate anticipate 5999 75-01 West taken be and your 1019966v1 2016 is of is with 747254
for
5999
plant.
tanker
terminal
rogue
feedback
925 Howe
Liquefied
the
of
consultative future
request
LNG
for
604
LNG
meeting
for 0332-01
government Fax:
our
the safety,
and and
the .
of
that
waters
File:
motion:
and
request
regular
and
regarding
the
tanker federal
and
7000
groups
Proposal
environmental
existing
in
thefr
925
2014
the
Project
uses,
the
to
operation bodies
any
THE
to super following
plant; 604
concerns
in
VANCOUVER
Limited
working
LNG
OF
the and
tankers
our
LNG write
advise
July21,
MAYOR
of
LNG
watewvay
Teiephone:
its
response
LNG
regarding
included
in at
THE
passed
of the of
consultative
location 66 Council
Council
and
be
OF
Woodfibre 3T3
committees,
and
WEST
and
and
traffic,
conflicting
Woodfibre
V7V
Council
concerns
CORPORATION V
passage
consideration
operation
project;
future
OFFICE
traffic Office
OF
Sound,
B.C. our
groups
the tanker
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Area
THE
Proposed
and
of
and
Project.Dlrector LNG
erosion,
Govt
St
regarding
and ban
tanker
Howe
RE:
Vancouver
West West
West
to
Coast
Vancouver,
9V1 working
office
in
Prov
of of
the
of
location
1ting
Yates
Mayor
West Assessment
and
Sound
West
Stn
foreshore
Executive
VBW
Woodfibre
Plant
of
and
836
delegation
Street, -
District District
District
Bailey:
a
the
BC
2014
9426
Smith,
Howe
respecyjjy.,,requests
Gas
suggestion
the the
Bailey,
in on the waves, committees, Sound. traffic
assessment a
Mr.
Facilities
DISTRICT
24,
District Floor
Box Council
:hael 750-17th
LNG Environmental P0 Scoff 1. Dear July 2nd Victoria, received Natural THAT
The Council inclusigp_jg1i cc: bod[eIs4aárdina
3. 2. 200-1627 Fort St.. Victoria, BC V8R 1H8 Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155
Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 660-2421. Elsewhere in BC1.800.663.7867 Email infoimationl%islandstnist.bc,ca IslcrndsTrust Web .islandstrust.bc.ca
January 22, 2016 File Number: 410-20
The Honourable Catherine McKenna Minister of Environment and Climate Change 200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard Gatineau QC K1A0H3
Via Email: ec.ministre-minister.ec(äcanada.ca
Dear Minister McKenna:
Re: Concerns with evaluation of marine shipping during environmental assessments and suggestions for improving public participation
Congratulations on your recent election and appointment as the federal Minister of
Environment and Climate Change. I am very pleased that you have been appointed to represent the Government of Canada in this capacity.
I am writing to you as Chair of the Islands Trust Council. Please allow me a brief introduction in case you are not familiar with the Islands Trust. We are a federation of special-purpose local governments created through legislation by the Government of British Columbia in 1974. We are charged with the mandate to preserve and protect the island communities, culture and environment of the Salish Sea. This is a unique and special place composed of 13 major islands and more than 450 smaller islands covering approximately 5,200 square kilometers of land and water - an area almost the size of Prince Edward Island. We represent 25,000 citizens and 10,000 non-resident property owners.
I’mwriting with two requests. The first is that before you make any decisions about projects that increase shipping through the Salish Sea, you consider our concerns with the federal government’s methods for evaluating marine shipping risks and impacts during environmental assessments. We are aware that you might soon be considering a decision regarding the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. The second request is that you and your staff consider the Islands Trust’s 2015 suggestions to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office for improving public participation in environmental assessments (attached) during any review of the federal environmental assessment regime.
-. ./2
r’re5erving cloud communities, culturenna cnvfronnient Bowen Denman Hornby Gabdola Galiano Gambler Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Satuma South Pender Thetis 67 The Honourable Catherine McKenna January 22, 2016 Page 2
With respect to our first request, we are concerned about the federal government’s practice of administering and concluding a project’s environmental assessment process before the Transport Canada’s Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transshipment Sites (TERMPOL) Review Committee recommendations for that project are available. This lack of integration of the processes thwarts your full understanding of the Project’s marine shipping effects and limits the scope of public participation. This concern arises from the Islands Trust’s recent participation in the Woodfibre LNG environmental assessment process. Woodfibre LNG stated in its application that recommendations from the TERMPOL Review Committee willbe integrated into the Project design and operating procedures, but the environmental assessment process provided no opportunity for the public to comment on the adequacy or environmental and socio-economic consequences of these future mitigation measures.
The Islands Trust Council is also concerned that the federal government’s environmental assessment of new marine terminals has hindered full consideration of the cumulative effects of increased marine traffic in the Salish Sea (e.g Woodfibre LNG Project, WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project). Limitingconsideration of marine shipping impacts to a small geographic area near the proposed terminal provides no meaningful protection for the environment. In the case of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project assessment, the federal government is not permitting collected information on the effects of marine shipping to be considered as an environmental effect of the project. These narrow approaches prevent proper consideration of the regional risks and impacts associated with increased shipping, such as increased oil spill risk, reduced air quality, socio economic impacts associated with increased marine traffic and use of anchorages, and disturbance to species at risk, such as our iconic Southern Resident KillerWhales.
We have a legislated responsibility to be vigilant about the impacts of new marine projects in our jurisdiction and respectfully ask for similar vigilance from your department. We believe that every project that increases shipping in the Salish Sea should be assessed in the context of the cumulative effects of increased marine shipping throughout our region (see attached list of proposed projects). Special measures are warranted for Salish Sea projects as this international region is among the most productive marine ecosystems in the world. The federal government’s Tanker Safety Expert Panel’s 2013 report stated that the waters around the southern tip of Vancouver Island were one of four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large spill. The report also stated that the southern coast of British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, was one of two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact from a spill.
./3
68 The Honourable Catherine McKenna January22, 2016 Page 3
The Islands Trust Council hears steadily increasing concerns from our constituents about increased vessel traffic and the risk of oil spills that could irrevocably damage coastal environments, economies and communities. Trust Council is taking a constructive approach to promoting safer shipping. In light of the identified risks, Trust Council is opposed to oil pipeline projects that lead to the expansion of oil export by barge and tanker from Canada’s west coast. Trust Council has also considered these issues in the context of a national energy strategy and has asked previous federal governments to phase out crude oil export from Canada’s west coast by tanker and barge.
Thank you for considering our requests. Ifyour work brings you to our coast, I invite you to visit our islands. I would be more than happy to show you first-hand the shorelines, marine life and island communities that make this region such a Canadian and global treasure.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Luckham Chair, Islands Trust Council [email protected]
Attach: 1. Islands Trust Chair letter to the BC Environmental Assessment Office re: improving public participation in environmental assessment, May 26, 2015 2. Friends of the San Juan Salish Sea Traffic Projections, September 2015
cc: Islands Trust Area MPs Jonathan Wilkinson, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Trust Area First Nations Islands Trust Council Gambier Island Local Trust Committee Bowen Island Municipal Council San Juan County Council Woodfibre LNG Islands Trust website
69 200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria BC VBR IHS Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155
TollFree via EnquiryBCInVancouver 604.660-2421 Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7067 Email [email protected] IslandsTrust Web .isIandstrust.bc Ca
May 26, 2015 File No.: 0420-20
Via e-mail: [email protected]
Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) P0 Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1
Dear Environmental Assessment Office reviewers:
Re: Improving public participation in environmental assessment
On behalf of the Islands Trust Council, I am writing toprovide input to BC Environmental Assessment Office’s (EAO) consultation on ways to improve the participation of the public in environmental assessment. I understand that the EAO’s intention when seeking public input is to ensure that all potential environmental, social, heritage and health effects that might result from the proposed Project are identified for consideration as part of the assessment process.
In recent years, Islands Trust trustees and staff have engaged in environmental assessment processes relating to the proposed Raven Coal Mine Project, the proposed BURNCO Aggregate Mine Project and the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. Drawing on their experiences, I’veheard the followingsuggestions for improvement:
• Public comment periods should always be a minimumof 60 days, and these dates should be well-advertised at least 10 days in advance of the public comment period start date in traditional and non-traditional (e.g social media) ways. • The EAO website should be improved so that it is easy to do keyword searches on public comments on applications. This wouldallow members of the public to see not only what the proponent has to say but also what others have to say in order that they might be properly informed on the spectrum of opinion and ideas. • The EAO should support town haIl style meetings to support democratic dialogue and to allow for question and answer periods to be heard by all participants, rather than just the “open house” format. I’veheard that the current open house format results in the proponent’s representatives surrounding and overwhelming individualmembers of the public. Town hail style meetings would allow citizens to hear each other’s perspectives. • Public information sessions/town hall meetings should be hosted as early as practical in the process and should be hosted in affected communities selected by the EAO. In the case of projects that involve marine shipping, affected coastal communities should have the same opportunities to learn and comment as communities close to the proposed facilities. • There should be more training available to local government staff and elected officials to help them participate effectively in EAOworking groups. Training could include examples of how other local governments have structured and funded their participation.
.12
Preserving Island conimtinities, culbirecindenvirorInlerl[ Bowen Denman Hornby Gabdola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saluma South Pender Thetis
70 Environmental Assessment Office May 26, 2015 Page 2
• Working group meeting minutes should be taken by EAO staff and posted promptly to the website. • The EAO should formallyadvise local governments of new environmental assessment processes in their regions through correspondence or notices that can be placed on public meeting agendas. There should also be notices to advise of each public consultation opportunity as well as opportunities to participate on EAO working groups. • The EAO should consider the principles and best practices within the Auditor General of British Columbia’s 2008 report•Pub!ic Participation: Principles and Best Practices for British Columbia as it reviews its public consultation and engagement methods. • To address community concerns that members of the public do not have the same abilityas the proponent to provide expert reports, the EAO should: o hire the expert consultants and charge the proponent for the consulting costs, and/or o provide funding to public interest intervenors to hire qualified experts to interpret and verify the proponent’s information and ensure that there is a formal avenue for submission of public evidence. • The EAO should ensure that projects withinor adjacent to the Islands Trust Area boundary specifically acknowledge the Islands Trust’s provincial mandate to preserve and protect the region.
The Islands Trust Policy Statement is a statutory document founded in extensive community consultation and approved in 1994 by the then Ministerof MunicipalAffairs. In the Islands Trust Policy Statement the Islands Trust Council holds that public participation should be part of the decision-making processes of all levels of government, and that economic opportunities should be compatible with the conservation of resources and protection of community character.
The Islands Trust Council is a federation of local government bodies representing 25,000 people livingwithinthe Islands Trust Area and about 10,000 non-resident property owners. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment and amenities of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.
Thank you for your consideration,
Yours sincerely,
• 1.
Peter Luckham Chair, Islands Trust Council cc: Islands Trust Council Bowen Island MunicipalCouncil Lisa Gordon, Director, Trust Area Services Islands Trust website
71 NEW ANNUALVESSELTRANSITS
) ti sser Surrey
0 Richardson Int’l (increaseinvesselsizel Neptune 0 Centerm I a W. Coast Reduction 0 Viterro Jd Westridge 0 PacificCoast C
RobertsBank2 Westshore C EDDeltaport
OPT Tesoro Seaport Alliance TOTALNEWTRANSITS II 2013 TRANSITS
TOTAL2013 + NEWTRANSITS
See rou’so doe Is ml0ore rIotnclion iiENU, Formoredetailsand sowces www son100nsoig/saFeshippng/
72 Proposed Proposed Salish Sea Current Approved Current Approved Vessel Traffic Proiections: Capacity & Recent Vessel & Recent Project Status Summary New and Expanding Increase in Transits Increase in Terminals and Refinery Capacity Transits 1 Discovery LNGexport 0 20 MTPA 0 Estimate: LNGexport license issued in June ‘15. facility 760 2 Port Metro Vancouver 0 4 MMTA 0 160 Project permit issued in August14. (PMV): Fraser Surrey Application amended to direct-load Docks - Coal ocean-going vessels (OGVs). 3 PMV:Woodfibre LNG 0 2.1 MTPA 0 80 LNGexport license issued in Dec. ‘13. export terminal Environmental Assessments underway. 4 PMV:Richardson 3,000,000 5,000,000 Permitted in 2013. No increases to vessel traffic. “Anticipate International Grain MT MT that the smaller vessels currently servicing the terminal willbe Terminal replaced by larger vessels (Panamax 70,000 MT).’ 5 PMV: Neptune 12.5 6 MMTACoal + 1 352 Phosphate Rock construction Terminals - Coal and MMTA MMTAPhos. Rock completed in ‘14. Coal upgrades/ Phosphate Rock Coal construction to be completed in ‘15. 6 PMV:Centerm 900,000 600,000 268 Estimate: Prolect is in the preliminary design Container Terminal TEU TEU 130 phase. 7 West Coast Reduction 700,000 1,100,000 40 Estimate: Export via Vanterm Terminal. $9.5 M Ltd. Canola MT MT 22 expansion completed in April’15. 8 Viterra Pacific Terminal 2,200,000 3,800,000 190 144 Final project permit issued in July ‘15. —Grain MT MT 9 PMV:Westridge 300,000 590,000 120 696 Facilities application under review by Terminal — Crude Oil BPD BPD National Energy Board until Jan. ‘16. 10 PMV: Pacific Coast 0 575,000 0 46 Project permit issued in Feb. ‘14. Terminals - Canola MT per yr. Expected operational Q3 ‘14. 10 PMV:Pacific Coast 0 2,000,000 0 88 Project permit issued in March ‘15. Terminals - Potash MTper yr. 11 PMV:WesPac LNG 0 3.5 MTPA 0 244 LNGexport license issued in May ‘15. 12 PMV:Roberts Bank 2 0 2,400,000 0 520 Environmental Impact Statement filed Container Terminals TEUs in April‘15. 13 PMV:Westshore 2012: 9.9 MTPA 540 86 Project permit issued in January ‘14. Terminals - Coal 26.1 MTPA 14 PMV:Deltaport Terminal 1,800,000 600,000 538 86 Construction and increases in TEUs — Containers TEUs TEUs underway. 15 Island Gas Connector 0 Pipeline: 0 Estimate: Pipeline project requires US and Pipeline &Malahat LNG 30 MTPA 228 Canadian approvals. Applications floating export facility pending. Expected operational in ‘20. 16 Gateway Pacific Coal 0 48 MMTA 0 974 The USACE, WA Dept. of Ecology, and Terminal, Ferndale WA coal + 6 Whatcom County DEISs due in ‘16. MMTA USACE reviewing Lummi request for permit denial re. treaty rights violation. 17 Tesoro Refining and 0 5,475,000 0 120 Application submitted June ‘15 for new Marketing Company, bbl/year infrastructure to produce mixed xylenes Anacortes WA for export to Asia. 18 NW Seaport Alliance, 3400,000 2,600,000 — Estimate: Seattle and Tacoma ports’ alliance Seattle and Tacoma WA TEUs TEUs 564 plans to expand container terminals. Total New, Approved, &Proposed Vessel Transit Increases 5,300 = 43% Increase in Annual Vessel Traffic 2013 Total Vessel Transits in the Salish Sea 12,394 2013 Transits + New, Approved, & Proposed Annual Transits 17,694 Only OGVtrafficincluded.Nolocalbarge traffic,anchoring,cueing,and/orbunkering(ship fueling)transits included. Abbreviations:bbl = barrels, BPD= barrels per day, LNG= liquefiednaturalgas, MT= metrictonnes, MMTA= millionmetrictonnes per annum, MTPA= milliontonnes per annum,OGVs= Ocean-GoingVessels, PMV= PortMetroVancouver,THU= twenty-footequivalentunit,USACE= USArmyCorps of Engineers 73 September 2015
cc:
Mayor that these, tankers.
We
Murray
Bowen
02
Office Our on On
may
department
Assessment The
Project. independently We Parliament
K1A
Re: Dear Ottawa,
Minister
November
for
science-based
October
welcome
are
Woodflbre
island
timelines
Honourable
OH3
be
Minister
the
in
our
Island
Jordan
Pamela
Skeels
writing
required
The
Ontario,
Please
March
of
•
Woodfibre
suggestion
community
18,
981
Buildings
Environment
26,
Certificate
has
citizens
your
Sturdy,
Municipality
may
Goldsmith
Mckenna;
2015
and
Artisan
to
find
of
2015
LNG
had
Catherine
for
Canada
evidence.
respectfully
this
new
have
we
ML4,
enclosed
a
of
an
Project
the
LNG
that
thorough
Lane,
year sits
Jo,jes,
appreciate
for
administration.
Bowen
opportunity
to
West
and
Province
at
project.
LNG
the
•
be
McKenna,
outlining
Bowen
Given
Member
in
the
e’mail:
Vancouver
Climate
our
extended
request
Woodfibre
Island
Howe
tankers
review
entrance
municipal
the
the
Island, of
We
of
to
bimbLmbc.ca
BOWEN
-a-.
Bowen
British
have
Sound,
Change
M.P.
Parliament,
recent
new
Sea
that
understand
complete
We
be
of
to
BC,
to
the
LNG
to
banned
taken
apply
government’s
you
are
Sky
Council
Columbia
VON
Island
change
Howe
British
ISLAND
potential
project
Sursh,ne
heartened
delay
West
these
1G2
a a
74
from
very
thorough
that
Municipality’s
Sound
•
resolution
Columbia
Vancouver
in
the
4
website:
issued
in
MUNICIPALITY
Coast
new
government
environmental
your
keen
the
TEL:
Howe
commitment
federal
by
and
policies waters
604
department’s
review
the
interest
Environmental
Sea
www.bimbc.ca
sent
along
Sound,
9474255
new
to decision
concerns
Sky
of
to
to
of
we
the
in
policies
Howe
the
Sunshine
this
the
British
impacts
to
the
anticipate
proposed
environmental
on
BC
*
Assessment.
proposed
approval
about
proposed
Sound.
Assessment
FAX:
the
•
Environment
Columbia
announced
Coast
of
Environmental
604-947-0193
the
this
that
shipping
process
project.
project,
Woodfibre
proposed
additional
until
Certificate
decisions
and
Assessment
route
is
your
and
appreciate
progressing
•
project.
LNC
time
for
given
based
#
LNG E15- in
and
March
safety, by
tankers
marine
disruptions,
groups
due
•
the
CARRIED”
LNG
tanker
adopted
plant.
on
of
service
LNG
project working
office.
LNG
ferry Council
LNG
our
the
impacts
604-947-0193
passage
of
•
FAX:
the
regarding
• possible
committees,
contact
Municipal
ban
negative
Woodfibre to
to
operation
concerns the
future
Island
including
email:
related
and
on
our
and
hesitate
604-947-4255
via
of uses
and
MUNICIPALITY
Bowen
TEl
suggestion not
a
website:
•
location
do
office
existing
•
feedback
traffic,
2015, 75
1G2
with
and
any
waterway
23,
please
VON
in
public
ISLAND
tanker
traffic BC,
for
assessment
and
b’.,:fhir,t3ca
February
conflicting Is’and,
included government
tanker
request
be
BOWEN
information,
Sound
held
e-maU
the
Oowen
the
•
and
Office
erosion,
to
Officer
Howe provincial
lane,
further environmental
in
meeting
the
Seconded
Sound;
the regarding
any
Municipality
9V1
to
Artisan
response
foreshore
and
Corporate Stn.
981
resolution:
Assessment
in
Howe Council
Municipality Shepard
V8W
terminal
advise
write bodies
Island
•
require
of
Government
2015
Shepard: and
9426
BC,
wakes,
LNG
Moved
4,
Deputy
you
Island
regular
Mr.
Grundy
Box
Bowen
Council Michael
Council
the
following
waters
2015;
was
its
March
Mr.
Environment P.O.
Provincial
Dear
Victoria,
the
At “It BIM extreme and environment the 24, That BlM
consultative
Should
Sincerely,
Casey
Interim Bowen ______
Dan Rogers Gambler Island Local Trustee
JslandsTruist
Email: [email protected] Web wwislandstrust.bc.ca
January 5, 2016 Via E-mail?Mail
Pam Goldsmith-Jones, M.P. House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A0A6
Dear Ms. Goldsmith-Jones:
I write as one of the Local Trustees of the Gambler Islands Trust Area to provide my congratulations on your recent election. Your role as the Member from this fascinating and beautiful area will undoubtedly provide many interesting challenges for you as willyour role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As you are no doubt aware, the Gambler Islands Local Trust area is the local planning government covering the islands and waters of Howe Sound (excluding Bowen Island) and the eastern half the Straight of Georgia as far north as the south end of Texada Island. In other words, your riding encompasses all of this Local Trust Area. As the local planning authority here, the Gambier Islands Trust Council has many responsibilities but the overriding mandate and mission provided by the provincial Islands Trust Act is to preserve and protect” the Trust area for future generations and for the benefit of all BritishColumbians.
There have been numerous challenging situations and proposals arise in our area in the past and these have been growing exponentially since 2010. No doubt you have heard from many of your constituents about proposals to “reindustrialize” Howe Sound just as the Sound is starting to really recover from many years of abuse. Proposals such as logging on Gambier Island, a gravel extraction facilityIat McNabb Creek and the proposed Woodfibre LNGfacilityhave led many groups to urgently call forgreater protection for the Sound and indeed for the whole Salish Sea.
In addition, concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan oil export facilityin Burrard Inlet and the coal processing facilityin the Fraser River and
Texada Island and how those impact the fragile ecosystems of this area. As a Trustee for this area, I share those concerns. The Islands Trust Council has made submissions related to various proposals emphasizing the need to protect the marine (and other) ecosystems. Kate-Louise Stamford (my co Trustee) and I, as individualTrustees, have also taken positions on various proposals emphasizing the incompatibilityof large industrial and extraction projects with the sensitive and unique natural environment surrounding us.
I write at this time to welcome you to your role and to invite an ongoing dialogue between Kate-Louise and myself as Trustees and yourself on issues of mutual interest and concern. As part of the greater
76 Howe Sound community of locally elected representatives we look forward to participating in a regular schedule of communications and meetings with you.
As well Iwrite to highlighttwo specific issues related to this region which I hope you willconsider.
First, a number of municipalities have written to the Minister of the Environment to urge postponing a federal environmental decision on the Woodfibre LNG proposal until a full review of the Environmental Assessment process has been completed and hopefully the process has been overhauled. I, as a local trustee, join in that call and willbe writingthe Minister directly but also urge you to take that same position with the Minister. This is an opportunity for the new federal government to take a leadership position to protect the environment on this important issue.
Secondly, there is a definitive lackof leadership on an overall growth and impact strategy for Howe Sound. In addition to the variety of industrial proposals for Howe Sound, we are a facing a myriad of residential and recreational projects for the area including in Gibsons, Horseshoe Bay, Brittania Beach and Squamish. Independently, each of these proposals may have some merit and may have taken the immediate local environment into consideration. What is clearly missing however is an overall land/marine management plan for the Howe Sound area to guide these proposals and gauge their impact on the environment as well as physical and social infrastructure of the region. This highly active area is one of the few areas of the province without a comprehensive plan relating to its development and overall growth. The provincial government continues to back away from a Regional Land Management Plan citing jurisdictional issues. Therefore, as our MP and the only political
representative whose jurisdiction covers the whole of the Howe Sound area, I urge you to take a leadership role on this issue.
As a Trustee of the Gambier Island Local Trust Area I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience and hope to be able to set up a time early in the new year to discuss how best to support you, our fellow local governments, and the first nations stewards in the protection and
enhancement of this remarkable area. I am happy to help coordinate a meeting that would include Kate-Louise who knows about and supports me writingto you at this time.
Allthe best in the New Year.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) “DanRogers”
Dan Rogers Gambier Island Local Trustee
cc Kate-Louise Stamford, Gambier Trustee Islands Trust Northern Office Islands Trust Executive Committee
Preserving Island communities, culture and environment
Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis
77 200-1627 Fort St., Victoria, BC V8R 1HB Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155
TollFree via EnquiryBC inVancouver660-2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.1867 Email [email protected] IslandsTrust Web ,islandstwst.bC.ca
November 18, 2015 File Number: 410-20
Via Email: Min(ädfo-mpo.gc.ca.
The Honourable Hunter Tootoo Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard 200 Kent Street Station 15N100 Offawa,ON K1AOA6
Dear Minister Tootoo:
Request for glass sponge reef protection in Salish Sea
Congratulations on your election and your new appointment as Ministerof the Department of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
The Islands Trust Council, at its meeting of September 17, 2015, passed a resolution to recommend that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada implement fishery closures, in addition to those already announced, to protect all glass sponge reefs in the marine waters of the Trust Area. Trust Council’s resolution followed a compelling presentation from Adam Taylor of the Marine Life Sanctuary Society of BC about the ecological importance of glass sponge reefs and the ongoing discovery of new reefs in our region. We understand that these reefs provide important rockfish habitat and are extremely vulnerable to unintentional damage by fishing gear.
Mr.Taylor advised that in April1, 2016 DFOwillplace a fishing closure on 12 glass sponge reefs in the Southem Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound, but protection willnot be in place for 12 more reefs recently discovered by Marine LifeSanctuary Society volunteers.
r’rescn’ingIslond communities, culture caid environment BowenDenmanHornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Ponder Thetis 78 This request is consistent withPolicy3.4.6 of the Islands Trust PolicyStatement, a statutory document founded in extensive communityconsultation and approved by the Province of BritishColumbia in 1994. This policyencourages the provincialand federal governments to develop existingand new programs such as “harvest refugia,”which protect and enhance the populations of native marine species of the Islands TrustArea.
The Islands Trust Council is a federation of localgovernment bodies representing 25,000 people livingwithin the Islands Trust Area and about 10,000 non-resident property owners. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment and amenities of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.
Thank you for considering this request and we look forward to your leadership on this important marine conservation issue and others. Yours sincerely,
Peter Luckham Chair, Islands Trust Council pluckhamNslandstrust.bc.ca cc: Regional Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Bowen Island Municipal Council Gambier Island Local Trust Committee Sunshine Coast Regional District Other members of the Howe Sound Community Forum Islands Trust Council Islands Trust website Adam Taylor Islands Trust Area Map
—w
Lafl lJ a,,—,
I,, ‘
A A A ‘a’— VANCOUVLM UL A’iD ‘tr”
79 Dan Rogers Gambler Island Local Trustee Ca. #306 1232 Harwood Street Vancouver BC V6E 152 IsIa rids Tr[Ast Telephone: 604.220.1500 Email: drogers©islandstrust.bc.ca Web www.islandstrust.bc.ca
March 23, 2015
Michael Shepard, Project Assessment Manager Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) P0 Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1
Dear: Environmental Assessment Office
Re: Woodflbre LNG Proiect Proposal
I write in my capacity as a Trustee of the Gambier Islands Trust Area. These are my comments as an individual Trustee, not the official comments of the Islands Trust or made on behalf of the Local Trust Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions.
Background related to the Gambier Island Trust Area
As the EAO office is likely aware, the Gambier Island Trust (GIT) is one of 13 Local Trust areas created by the Islands Trust Act with planning authority for both the Islands of Howe Sound and the surrounding waters. (In fact jurisdiction expands beyond Howe Sound to encompass the waters and Islands up the Sunshine Coast to Pender Harbour but Howe
Sound is the main focus of these comments). I point out that Bowen Island, while obviously in Howe Sound, is a separate Municipality within the Island Trust structure and thus not within the jurisdiction of the GIT Council.
The Gambier Local Trust Committee is subject to the principals of the Islands Trust Act and the overall Islands Trust Policy statement. As set out in s. 3 of the Act,
“The object of the Trust is to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia”
PreserAng Island communities, culture and environment
Bowen Denman Harnby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Sak Spring Saturna Soulh Pender Thetis 80 Environmental Assessment Office March 23, 2015 Page 2
The Islands Trust Policy Statement can be accessed here: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/tc/pdf/orgpolstatement.pdf, however the three main objects are to:
a) foster the preservation and protection of the Trust Area’s ecosystems; b) ensure that human activity and the scale, rate and type of development in the Trust Area are compatible with maintenance of the integrity of Trust Area ecosystems; and c) sustain island character and healthy communities.
These are important statutory objectives that the Islands Trust and the Gambier Islands Trust Committee takes seriously. The Policy Statement mandates an approach that includes not only technical planning issues but also an overall approach to development that impacts the area to advocate for the objects of both the Act and the Policy Statement.
My Background
I am a landowner and part time resident on Keats Island. I am also a sailor and boater and kayaker and have travelled around Howe Sound and other areas of the Salish Sea for over
30 years. Before my recent retirement, I was a lawyer in Vancouver and elsewhere for close to 33 years.
I take the mandate of the Islands Trust very seriously. As a lawyer, I understand due process and natural justice. I was the Chair of our Community Association on Keats for over 10 years and the founder of the Keats Conservancy. I have attended workshops and meetings put on by the Howe Sound Forum, the Future of Howe Sound Society and other groups within Howe Sound and the Sea to Sky corridor. I have attended a number of the ‘open houses” hosted by the EAO and Woodflbre and attempted to educate myself on as many aspects of this application as I have been able to. As you can well imagine, it is extremely difficultfor anyone for whom this is not a full time job to keep on top of most or even many of the fundamental issues however I have asked as many questions as I can in order to make an informed judgement about this application.
Main Comment and Conclusion
I willexpand on the reasons for my submission in what follows but in summary I have come to the conclusion that this application should not proceed and urge the EAO to strongly recommend to the Government that it refuse the Environmental permit sought by the proponent.
Iwilladdress a number of issues below starting with general observations and comments and then deal with some specific issues of most concern.
81 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 3
Islands Trust Objects
In pursuing its review, the EAC should respect and heed the objectives of the Islands Trust Act. It is provincial legislation that should be a governing document in all applications for development that are within or affect the Islands Trust areas.
It is acknowledged that the Woodfibre LNG plant itself including the storage ships are not physically within the area of the GIT. There is a “carve out” around Squamish harbor which apparently includes the location of the proposed LNGfacility. It is also acknowledged that the Islands Trust Act is not the originating statute for the EAO. However, it is provincial legislation setting the object and policy ofthe Province governing all many aspects within the Islands Trust areas.
The Woodflbre proposal willimpact marine, shipping, air quality and land development values (amongst other things) within Howe Sound and the Salish Sea. It clearly has an impact on the areas covered by the Gambier Islands Trust Council. The fact that Howe Sound willbe impacted is clear from the fact that the working group includes members from communities throughout Howe Sound.
Beyond the “preserve and protect” mandate of the Islands Trust Act, the first object of the Trust Policy (which is adopted by the government as a Provincial Regulation!) is to foster the
preservation and protection of the Trust areas ecosystems. I submit that the EAO must be guided by that principle in reviewing this proposal.
Having reviewed the proposal, there is nothing in the proposal which actually purports to “foster” the Trust Areas ecosystems. There are measures proposed to purportedly “mitigate” impacts on ecosystems but nowhere are there measures or proposals to “foster” protection of the ecosystems... to make those ecosystems better than they currently are. There is nothing to have this project actually ensure that it is more likelythat herring, and dolphins, and rock cod and glass sponges and seabirds and reefs and whales do better — have a greater chance to thrive and increase in numbers. That is what the word “foster” means ... to enhance.
In other words, in my view a primary criterion for reviewing this project is not on the basis of whether the “effects” of the proposal can be “mitigated” but whether the proposal actually enhances the ecosystem of Howe Sound. This is a very different review but in my view is mandated by the terms of the Islands Trust Act and regulations and this view should apply to all reviews done within an Islands Trust area.
On this standard the proposal fails and I suggest should be rejected.
Industrial Proposal for Howe Sound Inappropriate
Many individuals have commented to the proponent and the EAO that “Howe Sound is just recovering and here you are proposing reindustrialization”. Many of those people have long
82 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 4
histories in Howe Sound and can speak eloquently about the impacts of prior industrial development before there was a widespread understanding of the impacts on the ecosystem.
As you will have heard, it was devasting. I won’t belabour the point.
My point is that Howe Sound has in many ways moved beyond large scale industrial development. That happens to areas where the activities of people and the reality of the environment and usage of the natural environs make it inappropriate any longer to consider industry and particularly a resource industry.
While not a perfect analogy, think of False Creek in Vancouver. Itwas an industrial zone for decades and frankly mostly unfit for human habitation (let alone marine life)for much of the last century. Expo 86 started to radically change that and now False Creek is surrounded by thriving residential and commercial areas. It is entirely different and people use it differently than they used to. It moved beyond industrial development.
Interestingly, one piece of heavy industry in False Creek has remained, a cement plant that has managed to adapt to its neighbours and thus thrives while the community changes.
In Howe Sound, much of the heavy industry has gone. Squamish is radically changing, obviously Brittania has cleaned up, and the Woodfibre pulp millhas gone. One heavy industrial plant remains (Howe Sound pulp and paper) by getting along with its neighbours, adapting and cleaning up.
In the meantime however much has also changed in Howe Sound since the heavy industry started to leave. Bowen Island is a thriving ecology minded municipality. Lions Bay has expanded. Summer camps on Keats, Anviland Gambier continue to thrive with busy recreational property sites. Fury Creek is now a recreational and residential development. Brittania has plans to become a residential destination. Many areas on Gambier (including
much of the east side ) have become recreational properties. Howe Sound is full of recreational boaters. The Sea to Sky Gondola has become a success. And Squamish and Howe Sound are marketing themselves as the recreational capital of Canada!!
The point is, Howe Sound has changed and should no longer be considered as a location for heavy industry that is not compatible with these changes and frankly an LNG plant is not. And a prime reason is that the pristine recreational attractions are far more valuable than the heavy industry and willbe threatened by this project.
The value of maintaining the pristine ecosystem in Howe Sound in purely economic terms is set out in the thorough study by the David Suzuki foundation which can be found here
http://davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2O1 5/sound-investment-measuring-the-return-on- howe-sounds-ecosystem-assets/
In summary, it is my submission that Howe Sound has evolved in a different direction from a resource extraction based heavy industry development. It has changed and that change
83 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 5
must be reflected in the consideration of whether to approve this project. New heavy industry wouldn’t be allowed in False Creek and shouldn’t be allowed in Howe Sound.
The Proposal is being advanced in the absence of a full environmental review or a Regional plan.
This comment relates to both the absence of full environmental hearings and the fact that the proposal is being considered in the absence of a comprehensive management plan for Howe Sound.
Howe Sound is a unique ecosphere. And it is an awkward geopolitical location. Surrounded by 3 Regional Districts, a number of municipalities including Squamish, Brittania, Lions Bay, West Vancouver, Bowen Island and Gibsons and much of it encompassed by the Gambier Island Local Trust area. It is of course the traditional home of the Squamish First Nation — the SkwxwU7mesh Uxwumixw.
Allof these groups have expressed a strong desire to come together to plan and determine the future of Howe Sound. They have done so through a number of forums and meetings organized by the Howe Sound Forum and the Future of Howe Sound Society and other groups. These regional political groups joined with the Union ofBC Municipalities to call for a comprehensive regional plan to determine the future of Howe Sound. The Squamish Nation has supported the need for such a plan and is taking steps to develop their own plans. They are doing their own environmental assessment of the Woodflbre proposal and have indicated that they willdevelop a marine plan for the Sound. This is laudable and entirely understandable.
Yet in the face of the clear need and unanimous view of those affected that a regional planning process is needed, the province has said none willbe forthcoming. What they have offered instead is an assessment tool called “Cumulative Effects Assessment” which is very much stillin the development stage and willnot be ready for use for years to come. It is effectively not of any use to us in this EAD process.
In this void of a proper land or marine or air shed management plan, this project is being
assessed on a short time frame without a full environmental hearing process. While I
appreciate that this decision was made by the Minister and not the EAO office, I cannot help but comment that in the context of a major industrial development with other development proposals in the offing in Howe Sound and the complete lack of a management plan, the failure to have a full public hearing is negligent.
Keeping in mind that this is a project that has been opposed by many of the local politicians and Councils in the vicinityand for which public opposition has been very vocal and continuous, in the absence of a full public hearing that allows full participation and proper presentation of expert and other evidence, there can be no community endorsement of any positive outcome. In current parlance, there can be no social license for this project given the minimal opportunity for public involvement.
84 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 6
A complete hearing process would allow: a) evidence to be presented and tested about the environmental and economic impacts of the proposal; b) an independent review (or reviews) of the evidence and arguments; c) an ability for interveners to retain their own experts to review and respond to the experts hired by the proponent. At this point there is no such ability; d) a time frame that would allow for the involvement of counsel and a hearing panel to review the arguments for and against the proposal.
None of this is present. Instead we have thousands of pages of documents much of it technical in nature presented to the public with the instruction for them to review and comment. There are no resources provided to allow for the public to have an independent expert review any of the reports or proposals. And the time frame is measured in days and weeks, not months. And there is a parallel process ongoing on another proposal by Fortis to build a pipeline to deliver the natural gas to this plant.
The public part of the process was a series of ‘open houses”. Granted there have been presentations to various municipal governments most particularly Squamish and perhaps those residents are better served, but the open houses have been full of lightly veiled promotional material for the project, not real opportunities to really test the assertions of the proponent. Myexperience is that ifyou start to really question someone, you were
“swarmed” by representatives wearing Woodfibre tags all of whom began to challenge you. I willacknowledge the EAO team was far more open and informative but the reality was these open houses were simply Woodfibre managed “information”sessions. Not anything like a public hearing process.
This is not “natural justice” as my professional training would lead me to understand the process. It’sa review process but one that ends up being determined by the governmental bodies that are tasked to review it. In other words, there is an great amount of “trust us” in this process. Trust the expert studies from the proponent, trust the consultants hired by the Woodflbre, and trust the EAO staff to review the proposal fully and with the appropriate considerations in mind and finally trust the Minister and Cabinet to take an independent and impartial view of the various information despite repeated political calls for these projects to be approved.
This is not a process that leads to public acceptance particularly, as I said, when there has been no overall strategy or plan advanced or proposed or even contemplated for Howe Sound as a whole.
It’s completely understandable that the Squamish Nation is doing its own environmental review. Ifothers had the jurisdiction and the wherewithal to do it as well, we would.
85 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 7
It is impossible to support this project given this process as it leaves far too many questions unanswered and an overwhelming feeling that the outcome was predetermined.
Any process or project that doesn’t consider the larger impact on Climate Change is fatally flawed.
This is obviously a “high level concern about the project but in my viewour society and province must come to grips with Climate Change and the impact of Green House Gas emissions on that problem. We are hopefully not Florida where Environmental Officers are not allowed to refer to Climate Change. Indeed B.C. proudly (and justly) points to its carbon tax as a successful model to combat climate change.
I appreciate the EAO does not have the mandate to consider this point, but the reality is that LNG plants are not a positive step forward to combat Climate Change as they massively expand the use of fossil fuels at a time when we must be cutting back on them. The review of this project is limited tothe GHG emissions created by the plant itself (enough of a concern) but the reality is that the expansion of the natural gas industry means a large growth in GHG emissions. Most of the largest emitters of GH gasses in BC are Natural Gas
processing plants in Taylor, Chetwynd, Fort Nelson and elsewhere. Iwillnot even comment on the emissions from the extraction process especially fracking as others undoubtedly will.
B.C. willdefinitely not be able to meet its Carbon emissions targets with industries focused on the expansion of the extraction, processing and export of natural gas. Yet this review does not even consider this environmental impact for Howe Sound or indeed for anywhere.
“Once Through” Seawater cooling system is inappropriate
This system has attracted a lot of attention and criticism for its potential impact on the Marine habitat in Howe Sound. Here is what we know:
a) This system is designed in order to help dissipate a great deal of the heat that is generated in cooling the natural gas. b) The system as designed willextract 17,000 cubic metres (17,000,000 litres) per hour from Howe Sound - that is 408,000 cubic metres per day (408 million litres or about 100,000,000 gallons per day)and thus just over 148,000,000 cubic metres per year or 148 Billionlitres. Or approximately 35 billiongallons. That’s a lot of water. c) The system willattempt to exclude sea lifefrom the water that is sucked up from 75 feet below the surface and willalso tryto extract sea life it does suck up and return it to the sound. d) The water willbe returned to the Sound at a depth of about 25 metres with a small amount of chlorine added and as much as 10 degrees warmer than it was extracted. e) The “diffuser” used to distribute the warmed seawater will,according to the proponent, ensure that the water willbe no more than 1 degree warmer than ambient temperature once it is 10 metres from the diffuser.
86 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 8
“Once through” Seawater cooling systems are very controversial and have effectively been banned for power plants in California all of which are being retrofitted with either air cooling towers or alternate closed cooling systems. In fact wet cooling or closed cooling systems have been determined under the US Clean Water Act to be the Best Technology Available. That technology is not being proposed or considered here.
We have been constantly told that this facility willhave world class technology and willbe the cleanest greenest LNG facility in the world. The plan isto withdraw 17 million litres of water per hour (and any sea life that happens to be in that 17 million litres and get sucked through the screens ... assuming they live), try and extract that sea lifeand put it back into the Sound unharmed, then heat the water and return 17 million litres per hour (every hour) 10 degrees warmer and rely upon “dilution”to lower the water temperature back.
I know Howe Sound is a relatively big body of water but it is also has a relatively speaking narrow exit. Near the outlet of this warm water are some extremely important salmon spawning rivers and some important forage fish and herring spawning areas.
Frankly I have trouble believing with the volume of water we are talking about that we can rely on “computer modelling” (and that is the answer when asked how they know it willonly be one degrees warmer at 10 metres from the outlet) when so much depends on the health of our marine ecosystem.
This is also at a time when we are justly worried about our oceans increasing in temperature and this proposal suggests purposely adding to that increase in temperature to the tune of 408 million litres of warm water per day!
At the very least I would ask the EAO to have significant independent scientific review of these assumptions and conclusions to ensure the end result and to ensure that this is sustainable overtime. I imagine the Sound actually warming up because of this process which would be catastrophic.
Alternatives should be sought. Nobody seems to have considered taking the heat and finding ways to pipe it to Squamish or elsewhere to use to warm homes or the like. Why are these proposals not more environmentally benign and “world class” solutions being sought to deal with this excess heat.
I asked a lot of questions and based on the answers I frankly could not support this proposal on this issue alone. This to my mind has the prospect of having the greatest environmental impact on the marine life and overall health of Howe Sound.
Shipping Rules aren’t even established
There are have been many questions about shipping and ship safety that have arisen and the answers have tended to focus on the proposal to tether the large LNG ships to large tugs
87 EnvironmentalAssessment Office March23, 2015 Page 9
(that I don’t believe even exist yet?) to guide them in and out of Howe Sound. This sounds good as far as it goes and certainly large tugs are an important part of any safety mitigation
It is my understanding however that the rules of shipping surrounding this proposed project haven’t even been developed and thus there has been no opportunity for the public to comment or even ask questions about the rules. My understanding is that the TERMPOL Review Committee willnot be even begin hearing from the proponent until August of 2015 and the regulations or recommendations willnot be issued until December of 2015 at the earliest.
The problem, naturally, with this timeline is that the EAO process willbe over. At the very least the matter willbe in the hands of the politicians. And then the shipping recommendations willcome out.
This is actually an absence of public and community participation not merely an inadequacy. The marine hazard mitigation processes, the effect on other forms of shipping, the controls on time and speed of transfer... none of these are known at this time.
It is impossible to support a project that has potentially tremendous impact on a region by the very fact that enormous ships are transiting a narrow water way without knowing what the rules for that transiting willbe.
Siting in Howe Sound seems to violate international Standards
It is my understanding that the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) LNGTerminal Siting Standards states that LNG terminals should not be located in narrow, inland waterways with dense local populations and significant commercial, recreational, and ferry traffic. Why would that guideline not apply to Howe Sound?
I have asked this question and have never received a suitable answer. Here are more questions. Why isn’t Woodflbre or its parent company a signatory to SIGTTO as I understand it is not? Wouldn’t Woodfibre want to comply with the gold standard” for siting of LNG terminals?
Does Woodfibre not believe that Howe Sound is a “narrow inland waterway with a dense local population and significant commercial, recreational and ferry traffic:”. IfWoodfibre challenges that assertion then Iwould challenge their judgement on most matters.
It is clear that Woodfibre chose its current site because: a) it’s a brown site so they do not have to deal with degrading an existing green site; b) there is an existing power and gas supply; and c) there is a deep water port.
88 Environmental Assessment Office March 23, 2015 Page 10
My sense is they are ignoring or disregarding the SIGTOO standards because of these economic factors. This is unacceptable.
Glass Sponge Reefs off Halkett Bay
As you may be aware, 9000 year old glass sponge reefs have been located off Halkett Bay. This marine life is important to protect. Other similar reefs in the Strait of Georgia are in the process of receiving federal protection as valuable habitat and ecosystems.
There is a tremendous unknown about what impact the extremely large LNG vessels would have on these reefs. Nothing close to the size of these vessels transits up Howe Sound at present and little large marine traffic at all goes up the Sound north of Bowyer Island.
I would expect that a thorough study of the impact on these reefs (and of course all other wildlife )of the impact of propellers, wake and noise from these large ships be undertaken independently and that the public and the EAO be certain that no harm can come to these creatures or other marine life before this project is considered.
Summary
I am fully cognizant that hundreds of other comments and submissions will be filed with the
EAO and I am grateful for this opportunity to add to the consideration. I am confident the
EAO will carefully consider these as well as all other submissions. I am also confident that others will raise a multitude of other concerns that I might share.
As will be clear from the above, I can see nothing from the proposal that adds to or enhances the ecosystem of Howe Sound and in particular the Gambier Island Trust Area. In the absence of evidence of enhancement and for all of the other reasons I lay out above, I opposed the application and urge the EAO to not recommend issuing an environmental license.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Den Rogers”
Dan Rogers Gambier Island Local Trustee cc Islands Trust Northern Office
89 Mr. Sunshine to February Chair Today, province. ago you movement reaching and As As As numerous Together We Dear have to Sechek, time The over a Skills four Responsible Minisiry 1975 product fuel lead a Mayor, a are to business. Gany the Training 4-Year years the reducing province, leader Chair generated Field of do significant the more now “BC BC past os Tourism lobs, for record with just Coast 16, of commitments Nohr and country and of Road you Nohr: Labour of Progress seeing the VON Jobs 2016 British four goods that: Minister red “Canada your municipalities allows we by are Regional levels. actions years, tape Plan growth have 3A1 working and diversify in a the community, to Columbians major Update economic us market and 4-Year benefits Starts a While and to the to responsibility District of enable other proudly stakeholder together Parliamentary for commitments eight and BC’s highlights like Here: the and growth Progress of growth you grow barriers BC are yours, key job economy. this expand Jobs reflect The to are working Secretary creation, sectors has our effort:
Plan COLUMBIA diversifS’, in to significant over Update” also as
BC BRITISH for the slowed create that economy markets on well Jobs our the 90 a BC’s have future our than partner were strengthen as next key (4-Year an strengthen Plan” accomplishments in achievements industry, ever grown for economy environment initiated and much of sectors. two in BC’s our before, (BC support our Progress years. together BC’s of economy, and our goods Jobs province’s in is the
As A:y:11 diverse, and the infrastructure government grow long-term The rest we the that Plan) Update). and and BC u economic our and have BC of which prosperity is our yielded services Jobs was welcoming Canada,
strong the FEB
economic S.C.R.D Jobs made
economy. FILE Fax: Phone: Victoria, Parliament East Mailing job momentum launched is Plan.
has 2620,6 Annex Plan to why and creation new ANNEX O while over we
Address. Copy BC actioned BC facilitate 5 952-7263 250 250 performance Buildings development. Ref: has growing. I WV to are opportunities is 953-0964 am
the FEB29 four RECEIVED at investment evolved expected 1X4 seeing that in the sending 111867 past SCRO the the years we same is .12
is 2016
Page Mr.
municipalities, I
Work
for
Best successes
Parliamentary
Greg Sincerely,
Enclosure
hope,
years
Garry
wishes
2
Kyllo
is
as
already
to
as
you
Nohr
come.
for
we
read
Secretary
the
you
look
underway
Province
through
and
ahead
your
for
to
the
and
municipality
how
the
4-Year
the
Jobs
we
private
can
Progress
Plan
continue
in
sector update
91
2016. Update,
—
in
to
is
2016
working
drive
you
and
diversity
feel
to
we
confident
build
welcome
and
on
growth
BC’s
that
your
our
economic
in
ideas.
partnership
the province — ANNEX P
SCRD RECEIVED BRITISH FEBe 2016 COLUMBIA Ref:37429 CHAIR
To Local Governments
February 24, 2016
Dear Mayors and Board Chairs:
We are writing to inform you of an exciting new iniliative, announced on Thursday, February 18, to issue a limited number of licences for the sale of 100% BC wine on grocery store shelves. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the rationale for this offering, pan of the second round of changes to the liquor laws to permit the sate of BC wine on grocery store shelves.
The BC wine industry has been a true success story with over 300 wineries now producing world class wines. The citizens of British Columbia have shown their appreciation of these wines as sates continue to increase.
Duringthe 2013 Liquor Policy Review conducted by Parliamentary Secretary John Yap, we heard from thousands of British Columbians who wanted more convenient access to liquor and particularly to BC wines. The Government listened to these concerns and initiated a number of reforms including:
• Permittingthe 21 licensed VQA wine stores to relocate to grocery stores to sell their wine on grocery store shelves; • Permitting full service licensee retail stores and government liquor stores to relocate to grocery stores to operate as a store in store; and • Committing to issue a limited number of special wine store licences for the sale of BC wine on grocery store shelves, as announced today.
Initially, we will auction six opportunities to apply for the special wine store licence, an approach which will ensure fairness and transparency. The successful bidders will then proceed through the regular application process to obtain the licence. Only grocery stores which meet the specifiedregulatory criteria will be eligible to bid. These criteria include that the store be a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. and be focused on food sales; the same criteria that apply to the relocation of the other types of wine and liquor stores to grocery stores.
To provide the greatest consumer convenience, the products permitted for sale include all types of BC wine made from 100% BC agricultural inputs. This includes cider, honey wine, fruit vine and sake. The rules for VQA stores have also changed to permit them to sell these same types of products.
1
92
2
to
or
to of
to
for
full
in
to
is
a
The
small
from
wine
all
stores,
a
671
has
will
believe
wine
and
apply
store
or
wines
liquor
the
tends
to
one
domestic
liquor
the
We
number
stores
strike
our
all
made
of
VQA pricing
stores
will
there
BC
in
licence
Tuesday,
that access.
grocery
wishing
of
retail
having
policy
to
only
to
community
existing
of
leader”.
21
are
sector
is
retailers
On
most
the
to
wineries
km
share.
sales
9%
store
store.
liquor
This
1
policy prohibits
from
compares
variety
grocery
this
agency
for
only
“loss the
market
sales
access
selling
with
a
licensee of
apply
condition
or
law
negative
full
stores.
wine
a
that
This
as
same
changes
liquor
market
with
Consumers rural
information,
overall
wine
within
stores.
of
not
the
and
ensure
individual
have
to
minimum
represents wine
certainty
The
space
221
prevented
perhaps
to
impacted.
to
BC
to your
—
build
special
stores.
consumer
recent
to
practices
liquor)
does
term
be means
can limited
to
also
and
discussions
Provincial
agency
location.
For
shelf
the
the
these
specifically
rule
wine
stores,
market
moving
stores.
issued
relocation
government
This
our
other this
very
of
1,2016
regard
wineries
that
rural
would
of
which
licence
is compared
stores
or
with
In
retailing
the
in
(or
cnhanced
This
of
more
store’s a
and
greater
store
these
significantly
bars.
strategies
addition,
May
the
special
on-site
be
of
wine
lieenees
be
stores
BC
and
In
liquor
wine degree
sizes
and gain
wine
private
limited
permit
to
in
market
a
sales
liquor
will
one
BC
a
provide
industry. intention
expressed
to
percentage
licences.
another.
extension,
all about
93
it
store
community
inconvenienced.
to
not
in
of
to
stores
liquor
some
BC
using
very
goals.
a
by
stores.
effective
sales
Our
be
one is
been
do
is wine
—
announced
store
from
priced
due
the
sen’ice
wine
sold
selling
unlikely
of
with
and,
manufacturer
restaurants
these
in
these
our
the
government
licensees
wine
20
licences
stores, low
have
Cull grocery
location
expressed
km provide are
to
wine significant
would
in
stores
to
of
licence
practices
a
1
a
in
stores
196
to
spirits
product
the
total
stores
18
store
wine
is
been
obligations.
announced
of
regulations
support
them
these support
stores
store
to
wines space
and
sold
to
the
employ
special
wine
legitimate
stores, and
within
in
pricing concerns
over-served
by
rule
is
additional
stores,
prevent
up
wine
of
again,
and
have
of
neighbourhood
help trade
addition,
Branch
to
incentives
and
wine
shelf
not
an
not
liquor
wine,
km
that
its
apply
these
sold
to
In
wine
and
1
is
our
selection
liquor
Once
to are
in
liquor
imported
would liquor.
Provincial
against
store
for
directly
special
have
percent
and
government
years
beer,
the
number
or
of
special
aware
concerns
with
offering
rule
service
not
26
stores,
store
broad
and
understand
sold
producers
for
our
of
the
where
wineries
selection
a
know,
liquor
are
private
Distribution
Province.
protect
km
many
wines
full
or
types
will
concerns
wineries.
to
from
spirits
23,
1
only
possible
products,
they
retail
we
community
VQA
the
lbr
liquor
may
all
of
larger
intent
a
carry
and
the
in
these
beer,
the
understand
product
rationale
service Liquor
international
winery
issued
you
summary,
Finally,
wonderful non-compliant
industry
stores whole
For suppliers
favour licensee wineries
Febmaiw effectively
We BC
In
selling
full that
store. 20
winery’s
groups
Were existed
sales buy
competing service jurisdictions
the
The
represent
impacts. and
ensure
The
stores
government As balance that meets our trade requirements and also promotes the quality products that are made and bottled here in B.C. The special wine store licences are not new licencesper se but rather are re-issued and reconfigured dormant BC wine store licences that were issuedseveral years ago. Any licences issued will remain consistent with those allowed and already created under existing trade laws.
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the Province’s wine store retailing strategy and we hope you will take these matters into consideration should any of these stores plan to open in or relocate to your community’.
Sincerely, aw The Honourable Coralee Oakes Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch
The l-lonoumblePcter Fassbendcr Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Minister Responsible for TransLink
3
94