DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS

NOTICE OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

Monday, March 19, 2012 @ 7pm School House, 1589 Millstream Road A G E N D A

1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

2. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Adopt a) Public Hearing – March 5, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt b) Council – March 5, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Receive c) Advisory Planning Commission – March 6, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive d) West Shore Parks and Recreation – February 9, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive e) Capital Regional Hospital Board – March 7, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive f) CommunityComm Centre Task Force – March 8, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive 4. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS a) i) Councillor Allen Dobb CRD Arts; Heritage Task Force, Sustainability Strategy Advisory Committee

ii) Councillor Diane Gill Community Infrastructure Services Select Committee, CRD Solid Waste Advisory

iii) Councillor Sigurd Johannesen Community Centre Task Force; Emergency Planning, Greater Victoria Family Court, Community Policing, JDF Water Commission

iv) Councillor Marcie McLean Fiscal Environmental, Inter-municipal Advisory Committee on Disability Issues (IACDI)

v) Councillor Karel Roessingh Advisory Planning Commission, Capital Region Emergency Service Telecommunications (CREST), Greater Victoria Public Library Board, Ground Water Task Force

vi) Councillor Ken Williams West Shore Parks &Recreation, Community Centre Task Force, CRD Water Commission b) Mayor’s Report 5. RATIFICATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS a) Committee of the Whole – March 12, 2012 i) RE: PROPOSED COMMUNITY HALL – ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Recommendations: That the District accept the proposal for Architectural Services from Stantec Architectural Limited. Further that staff arrange a contract for subsequent approval.

b) Community Centre Task Force - March 8, 2012 RE: IDENTIFY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING OPTIONS (FOR COMMUNITY HALL) It is ultimately desirable to have a community group manage the facility. However it is likely that at least initially the District provide initial management through District staff and a contract for caretaker services.

RE: IDENTIFY POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER COMMUNITY LANDS AND FACILITIES AND IDENTIFY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. That design considerations take into account the potential for a future municipal office, west fire hall if/ when necessary as well as a possible works yard and Fire Department practice area. 2. That potential implementation steps include in the following order: a) build community hall b) municipal office design and siting c) west fire hall d) works yard and fire department practice area RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the Community Centre Task Force recommendations and refer to staff for comments. 6. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, March 14, 2012 RE: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-01-08 – 889 FINLAYSON ARM ROAD RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to draft a zoning bylaw amendment to accomplish the proposal

b) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, March 12, 2012 RE: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-02-11 – 1150 BEAR MOUNTAIN ROAD RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to draft an intermunicipal agreement bylaw, a Land Title Act section 219 covenant requiring sprinklers, and OCP and zoning bylaw amendments to accomplish the proposal. 8. CORRESPONDENCE

a) Member Release – March 1, 2012 RE: 2012 APPLICATION INTAKE – GAS TAX AND INNOVATIONS FUND (1855-17)

9. BYLAWS

10. NEW BUSINESS

a) Memo – C. Leek, Building Inspector, February 17, 2012 RE: STOP WORK ORDER – 641 MILLSTREAM LAKE ROAD RECOMMENDATION: That until such time as a valid and subsisting Building Permit(s) for work can be issued, the Corporate Officer of the District of Highlands will file a Notice with the Land Title and Survey Authority of BC stating that a Resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Council relating to the property legally described as Lot B, Section 32, Highland District, Plan 49463, Parcel Identifier 015-134-121 having a civic address of 641 Millstream Lake Road, and that further information respecting the Resolution may be inspected at the District Office during regular office hours

b) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, March 13, 2012 RE: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION DP-01-12 RECOMMENDATION: That Council ISSUE Development Variance Permit DP-01-12.

c) Memo – C. D. Coates, March 2, 2012 RE: GREATER VICTORIA PUBLIC LIBRARY BUDGET RECOMMENDATION: That Council APPROVE the 2012 Library Operating Budget and Five Year Financial Plan.

d) Memo – C. D. Coates, March 2, 2012 RE: ENHANCED 911 CALL ANSWER SERVICE RECOMMENDATION: That Council advise the Capital Regional District of its interest to participate in the 911 Call Answer Service. 11. IN CAMERA Motion: That Council move In Camera to discuss items pursuant to the Community Charter, specifically: Section 90 (2) (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both (TAC); and Section 90 (1)(a) 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. 12. RELEASE OF IN CAMERA RESOLUTIONS

13. ADJOURNMENT

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS

MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

Monday, March 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

School House, 1589 Millstream Road To Council

March 19, 2011

The Purpose of the Meeting is to hold a PUBLIC HEARING for:

Bylaw No. 336: “Highlands Zoning Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 32, (Public 2 Zone - (Portion of 1786 Millstream Road)) Bylaw No. 336, 2012.”

PRESENT: Mayor Jane Mendum Councillors Allen Dobb Diane Gill Sigurd Johannesen Marcie McLean Karel Roessingh Ken Williams IN ATTENDANCE:

Chief Administrative Officer Chris Coates Planner Laura Beckett Corporate Officer Tina Neurauter 19 members of the public

1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

MOTION: 066 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That the agenda be approved. CARRIED

The Public Hearing regarding Bylaw No. 336 is declared open at 7:03pm.

The mayor read out the following statement.

At a Public Hearing, as required by the Local Government Act, all persons who believe that their interest in property may be affected by the proposed Bylaw shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw that is the subject of the Public Hearing. This is not a meeting to debate the issues or to state a position on why the Bylaw has been written.

Any persons wishing to speak are asked to state their name and address for the record.

Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council – March 5, 2012 Public Hearing For Bylaw No. 330 and Bylaw No. 331 – Page 2

Any letters or briefs shall be included in the record of the Public Hearing and will be available to the public for viewing.

After all persons who so wish have expressed his or her views, I shall ask three times, “Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard”, and if no further views are forthcoming I shall declare the Public Hearing closed.

Anyone wishing to have letters or briefs recorded in the minutes may bring them to the front now or submit them at the time of their presentation.

Please also note that the function of council is to listen to the views of the public not to debate the merits of the proposed bylaw.

After the conclusion of the public hearing, all members of council are precluded from receiving any further input or submissions.

After this public hearing has concluded, Council may, without further notice, give whatever effect Council believes proper to the representations made at this hearing.

As a matter of information, the bylaw is on the Regular Council Meeting Agenda for consideration later this evening. Please be reminded that there will be no opportunity to speak to the bylaw at that time. The opportunity to speak is now.

If it is required, the public hearing may be adjourned and reconvened without further notice if the time, date and place the meeting will be reconvened is stated to those in attendance at the meeting.

The lands that are the subject of the proposed bylaws comprise approximately 4.21 hectares (10.4 acres) and are described as a portion of South ½ of Section 14, Highland District, Except Parcel B (DD 32752I) and Except Parts in Plans 8758, 22965, 40257 and 2812 RW (part of 1786 Millstream Road)

2. BYLAWS

a) Bylaw No. 336 Highlands Zoning Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 32, (Public 2 Zone -(Portion of 1786 Millstream Road)) Bylaw No. 336, 2012.”

Summary of the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment:

General Purpose: Bylaw No. 336 rezones the subject land from Amenity 1 Zone (Am1) to Public 2 Zone (P2), an existing zone in the Highlands Zoning Bylaw that has permitted uses of Assembly, Community Hall, Fire Hall, Municipal Hall, School, Recreation Facility, and Non- motorized outdoor recreation. The total floor area of all buildings on a lot in the P2 zone may not exceed 600 square metres (6,460 square feet). The District of Highlands proposes to build a community hall on the subject land.

Mayor Mendum called for comments from the public for the first time.

Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council – March 5, 2012 Public Hearing For Bylaw No. 330 and Bylaw No. 331 – Page 3

Bob McMinn, 499 Millstream Lake Road, addressed Council and spoke in favour of Bylaw No. 336. Mr. McMinn believes this is an excellent location for a Community Hall.

Mara Dhillon, 3875 Munn Road, addressed Council and spoke in favour of the Bylaw. She believes that the proposal for a Community Hall is a good idea.

The Mayor asked a second time if there was anyone else who wishes to be heard.

Mr. Rick Lester, 787 Finlayson Arm Road, addressed Council and stated that he was among several residents of lower Finlayson Arm Road who objected to this location (Finlayson Arm Road/ Millstream Road) for a Community Hall as they would be most affected by this development and associated development. He further stated that he realized that majority will prevail and will not oppose the location if the following concerns are addressed:

The remainder land located north of Finlayson Arm Road be rezoned to a P1 Zone (undeveloped park land and walking trails) Costs associated with the Community Hall (construction, maintenance and ongoing operating costs) not be a drain on the Municipality’s finances. Construction costs need to come from other revenue (not taxation) Protecting the domestic water supply Control on noise pollution (no early morning or late night activities) Installation of a gate to cut down on vandalism and partying at the Community Hall site

The Mayor asked a third time if there was anyone else who wishes to be heard.

There being no further comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing Closed at 7:13pm.

At the public hearing, 3 people addressed Council (either in person or via a written letter/ statement) regarding the application. Two fully supported the application and one supported the application concerns stated were addressed.

3. ADJOURNMENT – Close Public Hearing

MOTION: 067 /2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR SECONDED: COUNCILLOR

THAT the Public Hearing adjourn at 7:14p.m. CARRIED

MAYOR Laura Beckett, MCIP, Planner

I certify this report as being fair and accurate.

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

Monday, March 5, 2012, @ 7:00pm SCHOOL HOUSE, 1589 MILLSTREAM ROAD

PRESENT: Mayor Jane Mendum To Council Councillors Allen Dobb March 19, 2011 Diane Gill Sigurd Johannesen Karel Roessingh Marcie McLean Ken Williams

IN ATTENDANCE: Chief Administrative Officer Chris Coates Corporate Officer Tina Neurauter Planner Laura Beckett 19 members of the public

1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

MOTION: 068/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR SECONDED: COUNCILLOR

That the agenda be approved. CARRIED

2. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

Katrina Andres, law student, presenting on behalf of the Environmental Law Centre’s client, the Dogwood Initiative, addressed Council to discuss the Regional Sustainability Strategy. The submission by the Dogwood Initiative recommends a five-part framework (which consolidates the nine RSS policy briefs). Ms. Andres then described the five-part policy framework for sustainability as being:

1. Reform government in the region to apply a carbon evaluation framework to all decisions made at the CRD. 2. Create compact complete communities in planned locations where a range of affordable housing and transportation options are available. 3. Integrate green infrastructure throughout all communities in the region through expanded and updated green/blue spaces and biodiversity corridor planning, including extending the Green/Blue Spaces Strategy to the Juan de Fuca landscape and using integrated rainwater/stormwater management approaches. 4. Support the sustainability regional economy through the efficient use of natural resources and products within green industry, building on the strong protection of the rural working landscape and Victoria Economic Development Strategy. 5. Reinforce the regional food system by continuing to protect all agricultural land and creating an integrated food system strategy for food security and vibrant agricultural industry in the region. Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 2

Ms. Andres concluded that they believe the RGS has proven to be a highly effective tool in managing growth and the RSS must be grounded in principles of ecological conservation and stewardship so that the economy and citizens can thrive over the long- term. Any additional questions may be forward to Ms. Andres.

Mayor Mendum thanked Ms. Andres for her presentation.

Bob McMinn, 499 Millstream Lake Road, addressed Council regarding rezoning applications RZ-02-10 and RZ-01-08. Mr. McMinn stated he would like to see the FESC recommendation in their revised applications. Neither of the applications included the recommendation. Mr. McMinn feels that the applications, as they are now, do not benefit the community and heavily favour the applicant. Impacts need to be reduced before applications move forward.

Pattie Whitehouse, 635 Lost Lake Road, addressed Council regarding RZ-02-10. Concerns regarding violation of goals of the OCP. Glad to see covenant regarding building material (natural materials) and natural plantings but still feels it is not adequate. Would like to see the application amended so that owners in this area could keep livestock if they wished and no restriction of natural building materials.

Mara Dhillon read a letter to Council on behalf of Ellie Rayner, 600 Stewart Mountain Road – Ms. Rayner stated that she opposes rezoning application, RZ-02-10. Ms. Rayner opposes the rezoning application as presented as applicant has not addressed many of the recommendations from the select committees. Presently the application has too many lots, and amenity is not sufficient. Ms. Dhillon stated she agreed with the statements of Ms. Rayner.

3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

a) Council – February 20, 2012 MOTION: 069 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That the Council minutes of February 20, 2012 be ADOPTED. CARRIED

4. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS

a) Committee Reports i) Councillor Allen Dobb CRD Arts – next meeting, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Heritage Task Force - nothing to report Sustainable Strategy Advisory Committee – nothing to report

ii) Councillor Diane Gill Community Infrastructure Services Select Committee – nothing to report CRD Solid Waste Advisory – next meeting Thursday, March 8 – meeting at 10am for a tour of Hartland Landfill Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 3

iii) Councillor Sigurd Johannesen CCTF – meeting scheduled for March 8, 2012 Emergency Planning – to meet in the near future GVYJC – nothing to report Community Policing – nothing to report. CRD Water Supply Commission - nothing to report. Councillor Johannesen attended a School Planning meeting for SD No. 62 with respect to the two proposed high schools.

iv) Councillor Marcie McLean FESC – Next meeting on March 7, 2012 IACDI - have not met

v) Councillor Karel Roessingh APC – have not met CREST – have not met GVPL – Received presentation on E-books GWTF – have not met Councillor Roessingh thanked his neighbours for helping him out while he is unable to drive

vi) Councillor Ken Williams WSPRS – Finance meeting on Thursday, March 8 @ 5.30pm, followed by a Board meeting at 7pm. In April a strategic planning meeting will be held prior to the Board meeting. TAC – meeting held on Monday, February 27, 2012 JDF Water Commission – nothing to report vii) Mayor’s Report CRD Board – next Hospital/Board meeting will be held on March 14, 2012 CRD Parks – nothing to report. CRD Environment – next meeting on March 28, 2012 – Kitchen scrap waste program to be discussed. Meet with the new RCMP Inspector to discuss priorities – Block Watch Program available to residents Breakfast meeting scheduled for March 8, 2012 with the UVic President 5. RATIFICATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 6. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a) RE: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION DVP-03-11 MOTION: 070/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DOBB SECONDED: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN

That Council DENY Development Variance Permit Application DVP-03-11. CARRIED Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 4

b) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, March 1, 2012 RE: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT DVP-02-11

MOTION: 071/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR GILL

THAT Council issue Development Variance Permit DVP-02-11 pertaining to Strata Lot 6, Section 4 Range 3W and 4W, and Section 5 Range 4W, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS6035, Together with an Interest in the Common Property in Proportion to the Unit Entitlement of the Strata Lot as Shown on Form V (“2009 Hawkins Place”)

That would vary Section 3.3 (1) (d) of Zoning Bylaw 100 FROM: 3.3 (1) Despite any other provisions of this Bylaw, no part of any building or structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, moved or extended nor shall any part of any mobile home or unit, modular home or structure be located:... d) ...within 30 m of the natural boundary of Millstream, Craigflower, Earsman, Hazlitt or Pease Creek or any other watercourse. TO: 3.3 (1) Despite any other provisions of this Bylaw, no part of any building or structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, moved or extended nor shall any part of any mobile home or unit, modular home or structure be located:... d) ...within 25.68m of the natural boundary of Millstream, Craigflower, Earsman, Hazlitt or Pease Creek or any other watercourse. CARRIED

c) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, February 23, 2012 RE: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-01-08 – 889 FINLAYSON ARM ROAD

MOTION: 072/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR DOBB

That Council refer Rezoning Application RZ-01-08 to a future Council meeting after the applicant has met with the Planner to discuss issues raised this evening including: community benefit (net benefit) of this application; amenity contribution; and specific protection to the Manzanita grove (sensitive area protection (two party or third party covenant)). CARRIED

Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 5

d) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, February 29, 2012 RE: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-02-11 – 1150 BEAR MOUNTAIN ROAD

MOTION: 073/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR DOBB

That Council return the application to the applicant to show: 1. Appropriate scheme and consistency of design in the proposed building scheme 2. Respond to Mr. Flitton’s comments as made through the CISSC recommendation

AND That Council direct staff to comment on: 1. Pros and cons of a phased development agreement for this application CARRIED

e) Memo – L. Beckett, Planner, February 28, 2012 RE: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-02-10 & OCP-03-10 LOT C, SECTIONS 30 & 74, ROWNTREE AND GOWLLAND ROADS

MOTION: 074/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DOBB SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That Council refer Rezoning Application RZ-02-10 & OCP-03-10 to a future Council meeting after the applicant has met with the Planner to discuss issues raised this evening including: density is too high (possible reduction to 11 lots), community benefit (net benefit - amenity contribution is too low for trail building and considering parkland is under power lines). CARRIED

8. CORRESPONDENCE a) Letter – BC Gov’t Retired Employees Association – February 8, 2012 RE: MSP PREMIUMS FOR SENIORS (0110-20)

MOTION: 075/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DOBB SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That the letter from the BC Government Employees Association regarding MSP Premiums for seniors be RECEIVED. CARRIED Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 6

b) Letter – Mayor Fortin, February 17, 2012 RE: SUPPORT OF BILL 380 (IMPORTATION OF SHARK FINS) (0110-20)

MOTION: 076/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS SECONDED: COUNCILLOR GILL

That Council pass the following motion regarding support of Bill 380:

WHEREAS Bill C-380 has been introduced in the House of Commons in an effort to prohibit the importation of shark fins in Canada and to prohibit the practice of shark finning.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council urge the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition to pass Bill C-380 in the Parliament of Canada.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council urge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to adopt a motion in support of Bill C-380. CARRIED c) Letter – Pacific Centre, February 16, 2012 RE: COMMUNITY OUTREACH PREVENTION EDUCATION REPORT (4710-02) d) Letter – Mayor Daykin, February 17, 2012 RE: INSTALLATION OF SMART METERS (5500-10) e) Letter – CRD Business & Residential Taxpayer’s Association, February 20, 2012 RE: 2012 PROPERTY TAXES (0110-20)

MOTION: 077/ 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN

That the above correspondence labeled c) through e) be RECEIVED. CARRIED

f) Letter – G. Nason, Central Saanich, February 2012 RE: FARM FENCING DEER FUNDING (0110-20) pg. 124-130 MOTION: 078 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN

That Council SUPPORT the Resolution being submitted by the District of Central Saanich to the 2012 Annual General Meeting of the AVICC. CARRIED Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 5

9. BYLAWS

a) RE: Bylaw No. 336: “Highlands Zoning Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 32, Public 2 Zone - (Portion of 1786 Millstream Road) Bylaw No. 336, 2012 MOTION: 079 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DOBB SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That Bylaw No. 336 “Highlands Zoning Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 32, Public 2 Zone (Portion of 1786 Millstream Road) Bylaw No. 336, 2012 be given THIRD Reading. CARRIED MOTION: 080 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR JOHANNESEN

That Bylaw No. 336 “Highlands Zoning Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 32, Public 2 Zone (Portion of 1786 Millstream Road) Bylaw No. 336, 2012 be given FINAL Reading and ADOPTION. CARRIED 10. NEW BUSINESS

a) Memo – C.D. Coates, February 27, 2012 RE: STRATEGIC COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FUNDS MOTION: 081 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN SECONDED: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH

That Council APPROVE the Strategic Community Investment Funds Agreement and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the District. CARRIED

b) Memo – T. Neurauter, February 22, 2012 RE: HIGHLANDS HERITAGE PARK AGREEMENT AND MASTER PLAN 2012

MOTION: 082 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR GILL

That Council APPROVE the 2012 Master Plan and the Agreement for the Heritage Park Society. CARRIED

c) Memo – L. Condon, March 1, 2012 RE: BUILDING REPORT – FEBRUARY 2012 RECOMMENDATION: That Council APPROVE the February 2012 Building Report. MOTION: 083 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN

That Council APPROVE February 2012 Building Report. CARRIED Council Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 5

11. IN CAMERA

MOTION: 084 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR ROESSINGH SECONDED: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN

That Council move In Camera at 9:57pm to discuss items pursuant to the Community Charter, specifically: Section 90 (f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment CARRIED Council reconvened from In Camera at ????pm.

13. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: 085 / 2012 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR SECONDED: COUNCILLOR

That the Council meeting of March 5, 2012 adjourn at ?????pm. CARRIED

MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS

ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Meeting held on March 6, 2012 School House, 1589 Millstream Road at 7:03 p.m.

PRESENT: Eleanor Rayner, Chair Mara Dhillon Honora Johannesen Rick Lester Allan Roger Fred York

IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Ken Williams, Council Liaison Alternate Laura Beckett, Planner, Secretary to APC

ABSENT: Colleen Robertson, Vice Chair

1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

MOVED BY: HONORA JOHANNSEN SECONDED: MARA DHILLON

THAT the agenda be approved with the addition of, “Observations from March 5, 2012 Council Meeting,” as item 3.b). CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

MOVED BY: MARA DHILLON SECONDED: HONORA JOHANNSEN

THAT the Advisory Planning Commission minutes dated January 11, 2012 be adopted. CARRIED

3. NEW BUSINESS

a) Council Referral – February 6,2012 pg. 12-63 RE: REZONING APPLICATION – RZ-03-11 – 1289 MILLSTREAM ROAD

Mr. Michael Bocking gave an overview of the application, including the following points:  Largest lot in what was section 27  Area is 26.5 acres  Working farm  Kit has owned property for 32 years  Average lot size in area is 8 acres Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 2012 Page 2

 The proposal is for two residential lots and one park lot: 1. Cottage has been there for approximately 20 years 2. Retain existing farm lot  Sensitive ecosystem and connection between Lone Tree Park and Hazlitt Creek Park  Supporting policy includes: 1. Retention of farmland 2. Proposal design is in keeping with rural character 3. Ecosystem preservation 4. Additional parkland  Road work: Who would pay – Is there any possibility that the Province may? Staff advised that road work is typically the responsibility of the applicant.  Concern about precedent – What does this mean for other people in similar circumstances? Applicant advised that theirs was one of the few properties that could supply a piece of parkland fronting onto road. Comment was made that each application is reviewed upon its own merits.

MOVED BY: ALLAN ROGER SECONDED: FRED YORK

THAT the APC support the application. CARRIED

Concern was expressed that the road standard not be too onerous for the situation (one additional residential lot).

b) General Observations Regarding Applications pg. 12-6

The APC expressed a request for courtesy of applicants’ time in scheduling and confirming site visits. There was the suggestion that there be one weekday and one weekend site visit opportunities.

There was discussion about amenities, and how to crystallize principles that are repeatable. Staff offered to circulate the District’s policy regarding amenity rezoning considerations.

4. ADJOURNMENT

MOVED BY: RICK LESTER

THAT the meeting adjourn at 8:20 pm. CARRIED

Eleanor Rayner, Chair Laura Beckett, APC Secretary

Minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Board of Directors Meeting held Thursday, February 9, 2012 in the Fieldhouse

PRESENT: Arnie Hamilton, Les Bjola (Chair), Jo Mitchell, Ken Williams, Winnie Sifert, Heidi Rast (Vice-Chair), Lanny Seaton, Shaun Wysiecki (Secretary-Treasurer), Cynthia Day, Rob Martin, Mike Hicks

ABSENT: Moralea Milne, Matt Sahlstrom, Terry Young, David Screech

STAFF PRESENT: Linda Barnes, Administrator Cindy O’Regan, Manager of Recreation Brian Merryweather, Human Resources Advisor Sue Dickson, Manager of Finance & Administration Wade Davies, Manager of Operations Lore Cumberbatch, Administrative Secretary

CALL TO ORDER 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm

APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Wysiecki and Rast that the agenda be adopted with the following addition under New Business as 7c) 2012 Budget Updated and Issues CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Mitchell and Rast that the minutes of the regular meeting held January 19, 2012 be adopted as circulated.

CHAIR’S REMARKS 4. The Chair noted that West Shore Parks and Recreation’s mandate is to deliver high quality community recreation programs and services and maintain sports facilities, in the most cost effective manner possible.

Professional staff are constantly looking at ways to increase revenues and cut expenses. They are part of a large number of recreational professionals across the province sharing similar

West Shore Parks and Recreation Society – Board of Directors Minutes – February 9, 2012 1

challenges. We are not unique in feeling pressure to deliver these important public services in a poor economy.

The municipal requisition is currently less than 50% of the overall revenues; a ratio that is exceptionally good when compared to other municipalities across the province and Canada.

West Shore’s proposed $244,000 increase is the result of careful consideration by staff and Board as to the most prudent management of limited resources in order to maintain facilities in optimum condition, and provide affordable community recreation services.

A great deal of consideration is given to how best to manage limited resources. In order to maintain $63 million in aging capital assets, the taxpayer must understand that investment is necessary. It is not helpful to “shoot the messenger” who brings the news that these facilities are aging. A report commissioned by the Board last year identified area s of greatest concern for maintenance and these were addressed in a ten year capital plans that het Board and all Owners agreed needed funding.

Over the past 4 years, WSPRS Owners have received over 3.5 million in new capital assets with no municipal capital contribution.

WSPRS strives to deliver recreational services most valued and most used by the community. Every attempt is made to keep the user fees affordable, and to provide subsidy for the most vulnerable populations such as young families, people living with disabilities, seniors and children and youth.

An independent audit occurs each and every year. This information is public and it is important that Board members understand staff are responsible for public funds, and that they are accountable both to the Board and the Owners, as well as to the oversight of public auditors.

When there are questions relating to the management or use of public funds, those questions should come to the Board to be answered thoroughly. Speaking only to the media is not helpful in developing long term solutions to complicated challenges.

Board members should bring concerns forward during budget preparation, in order to clearly address any issues that Owners may have.

We are putting forward a request to the Board the Director Rast who is currently the Strategic Planning Chair to become WSPRS Municipal Liaison Ad Hoc Committee Lead to try to bring forward more cohesiveness with all members.

After discussion it was

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Mitchell and Wysiecki that a Municipal Liaison AdHoc Committee be created with Director Rast as the Lead. CARRIED.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. N/A

West Shore Parks and Recreation Society – Board of Directors Minutes – February 9, 2012 2

NEW BUSINESS 6. a) Strategic Planning Workshop The Administrator noted that she has scheduled Mary Martin from Nexus Learning to facilitate a Strategic Planning Workshop on Thursday, April 19th at 5:00 pm in the Fieldhouse. This event will assist in developing priorities for the Board for current and upcoming years. A light supper will be served.

The Chair confirmed the date change of the Board meeting from April 12th to April 19th with the Strategic Planning session starting at 5:00 pm with the Board meeting to follow at 7:00 pm. Details will be e-mailed to all members.

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Seaton and Sifert that the verbal report be received for information. CARRIED.

OLD BUSINESS 7. a) Facility Naming Rights and Commemorative Naming Policies The Manager of Recreation brought forward a report dated January 31, 2012 requesting that the Board approve the Facility Naming Rights Policy and the Commemorative Naming Rights Policy.

Naming Rights refers to the granting by West Shore Parks and Recreation Society (WSPRS) the right to name a piece of property or portions of a property in exchange for financial or other acceptable considerations. Commemorative Naming refers to the naming of a property in honour of outstanding achievement, distinctive service, or significant community contribution.

The purpose of the two policies is to provide clear guidance regarding Naming Rights and Commemorative naming of community facilities under the care and control of WSPRS. The goal is to provide a consistent evaluation framework and approval process.

The policies are intended to balance public and private interests by encouraging philanthropic giving while acknowledging public investments in, and ownership of community facilities as well as the public realm; and to encourage continued investment in these facilities for the benefit of the citizens of the West Shore for generations to come.

After discussion, it was

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Rast and Seaton that the amended Facility Naming Rights Policy and the Commemorative Naming Policy be approved after the Velodrome has been added to each policy.

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors that as per the policies, the Facility Naming Policy Committee will have 2 Board members and 1 staff member. The Board members who will sit on the committee are as follows:

- Director Rob Martin - Director Matt Sahlstrom - Cindy O’Regan, Manager of Recreation

West Shore Parks and Recreation Society – Board of Directors Minutes – February 9, 2012 3

b) Hazmat Suits The Administrator noted that at the December 1, 2011 meeting, the Board had approved the request to purchase four (4) Hazmat suits within the 2012 budget. The Operations Manager met with the Colwood Fire Department and concluded that WSPRS has the appropriate level of coverage and does not recommend purchasing the Hazmat suits.

After discussion, it was

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Rast and Hicks to withdraw the motion of December 1, 2011 to purchase the 4 Hazmat suits out of the 2012 Budget. CARRIED.

c) 2012 Budget Update and Issues Discussion took place pertaining to the 2012 Budget and the confusion surrounding the budgeting process and the clarification needed. Problems start with the society’s agreement that WSPRS must have their budget in to member municipalities by December 1st of each year before year end actuals. It was discussed that the Finance Committee should consider writing a letter to the Owners to amend the date when the Board must have the budget to the owners. If the date was changed, staff could use more accurate actual numbers instead of projected actual numbers from September.

Discussion ensued regarding Colwood requisition issue from 2011 to 2012 and allocation for federal lands. Director Rob Martin noted that all member municipal treasurers are planning a meeting to ensure they are following the same process for calculating converted assessments to provide to WSPRS for budget purposes.

FOR INFORMATION 8. a) Human Resources Staffing Report The Manager, Human Resources presented a report dated February 1, 2012 for the period of January 1 –31, 2012.

MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Seaton and Sifert that the Human Resources Staffing Report be received for information. CARRIED.

b) Administrator’s Report The Administrator noted that there is no written report this month but added a verbal report in which she noted that she will be out of the office for two weeks starting February 10th and noted that the Manager of Recreation will be Acting Administrator from February 20-24th and the Manager of Operations will be Acting Administrator from February 27 – March 2.

IN CAMERA 10. N/A

ADJOURNMENT 11. MOVED/SECONDED by Directors Mitchell and Sifert that he meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. CARRIED.

West Shore Parks and Recreation Society – Board of Directors Minutes – February 9, 2012 4

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CAPITAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD, held Wednesday, March 7, 2012 in the Board Room, 625 Fisgard Street, Victoria, BC

PRESENT: Directors: G. Hill (Chair), G. Young (Vice Chair) D. Blackwell, A. Bryson, S. Brice, J. Brownoff, L. Cross, V. Derman, B. Desjardins, D. Fortin, C. Hamilton, D. Howe, M. Hicks (arr. 10:23), B. Isitt, N. Jensen, F. Leonard, W. McIntyre, J. Mendum, and J. Ranns Staff: R. Lapham, General Manager, Planning and Protective Services; D. Lokken, General Manager, Corporate Services; M. Rachwalski, Senior Manager, Health and Capital Planning Strategies; S. Santarossa, Corporate Officer (Recorder). ABSENT: Directors: M. Alto, T. Daly, D. Howe, W. Milne, L. Wergeland

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:10 am.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOVED by Director Bryson, SECONDED by Director Fortin That the agenda be approved. CARRIED

2. HOSPITAL BOARD ORIENTATION

The Chair provided some opening remarks regarding the Hospital District including its mandate and governance and the scope (inventory) of current assets.

Bob Lapham and Maurice Rachwalski gave a PowerPoint presentation that included an overview of the: • Staff organizational chart of the Hospital District • Traditional capital projects: Major and minor capital • Non-traditional capital projects • Drivers of healthcare capital

Director Hicks arrived at 10:23 am.

Discussion ensued relative to: • What is the appropriate way to fund hospitals and how is the local share of acute health determined • Whether the CRHD has the level of expertise required to make decisions regarding health facilities • How the CRD’s decision-making and public consultation processes mesh with VIHA’s

Staff was requested to report back on whether previous CRHD funding was sufficient for the capital infrastructure that was funded.

965973 Special Hospital Board Minutes -2- March 7, 2012

Discussion continued regarding: • The possibility of a first stage addiction centre in the region • The need for additional revenue sources should the CRHD be required to provide further services • The appropriate CHRD funding levels

3. PROVISIONAL 2012 BUDGET AND 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)

Bob Lapham gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the 2012 Operating Budget and noted a 2% increase over 2011. He stated that the provisional budget needed to be approved before the end of 2011 and was approved by the previous Board in November.

Director Fortin departed at 11:05 pm. Director Hicks departed at 11:06 pm.

MOVED by Director Brice, SECONDED by Director Bryson, That the 2012 Capital Regional Hospital District Provisional Budget be approved. CARRIED

Bob Lapham provided a brief overview of the 2012-2021 Ten Year Capital Plan and the debt servicing implications. The Ten Year Capital Plan was approved by the Board in November.

MOVED by Director Derman, SECONDED by Director Desjardins That the 2012-2021 Ten Year Capital Plan be approved as submitted. CARRIED

4. ADJOURNMENT

MOVED by Director Derman, SECONDED by Director Brice, That the meeting be adjourned at 11:09 am. CARRIED

______CHAIR CERTIFIED CORRECT:

______CORPORATE OFFICER

MINUTES OF THE HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENTRE TASK FORCE

March 8, 2012 at 7:00pm SCHOOLHOUSE, 1589 Millstream Road

To Council IN ATTENDANCE: March 19, 2012

Chair Eleanor Rayner Vice-Chair Bob McMinn Members Bob Flitton Sheila Taylor Council Liaison Sigurd Johannesen Staff Member Chris Coates

ABSENT Members Bessie Nuk Rachael Sansom

Bob McMinn agreed to act as Recording Secretary for the meeting

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOVED BY: BOB MCMINN SECONDED: BOB FLITTON

That the agenda be approved with the addition of item 4. Concept design for community hall which might be presented to the architect for information. CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - June 28,2011

MOVED BY: BOB FLITTON SECONDED: SHEILA TAYLOR

That the minutes of June 28, 2011 be adopted CARRIED

Page 2 Community Centre Task Force Minutes March 8, 2012

3. NEW BUSINESS

a) Identify Operating and Maintenance Funding Options (for community hall) consisting of:

1. Who would manage it, ie arrange and coordinate bookings 2. How would it be cleaned/prepared for meetings etc. 3. The establishment of a rental fee structure.

Bob McMinn outlined experiences with the buildings and grounds of the Caleb Pike Park as they might relate to the new community centre.

Recommendations:

It is ultimately desirable to have a community group manage the facility. However it is likely that at least initially the District provide initial management through District staff and a contract for caretaker services.

b) Identify possible implications for other community lands and facilities and identify implementation steps

Recommendations:

1. That design considerations take into account the potential for a future municipal office, west fire hall if/ when necessary as well as a possible works yard and Fire Department practice area. 2. That potential implementation steps include in the following order: a) build community hall b) municipal office design and scaling c) west fire hall d) works yard and fire department practice area

Recommendation to Council:

MOVED BY: BOB FLITTON SECONDED: SHEILA TAYLOR

That the Community Centre Task Force recommend to Council:

That Council receive the Community Centre Task Force recommendations and refer to staff for comments. CARRIED

Page 3 Community Centre Task Force Minutes March 8, 2012

4. CONCEPT DESIGN FOR COMMUNITY HALL

Bob McMinn showed a model and plans which included the opportunity for badminton, which was suggested as another criteria to those previously listed by CCTF because inclusion of this opportunity could increase use of the community hall by Highlands residents. There was general agreement that this concept design be brought to the attention of the architect during CCTF’s initial meeting with STANTEC.

5. NEXT MEETING - Call of the Chair

6. ADJOURNMENT

That the meeting be adjourned at 8:30pm CARRIED

Bob McMinn, Recording Secretary

Recommendation: That the District accept the proposal for Architectural Services from Stantec Architectural Limited. Further that staff arrange a contract for subsequent approval. RE: IDENTIFY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING OPTIONS (FOR COMMUNITY HALL)

It is ultimately desirable to have a community group manage the facility. However it is likely that at least initially the District provide initial management through District staff and a contract for caretaker services.

RE: IDENTIFY POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER COMMUNITY LANDS AND FACILITIES AND IDENTIFY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

 That design considerations take into account the potential for a future municipal office, west fire hall if/ when necessary as well as a possible works yard and Fire Department practice area.  That potential implementation steps include in the following order:  build community hall  municipal office design and siting  west fire hall  works yard and fire department practice area

RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the Community Centre Task Force recommendations and refer to staff for comments.

District of Highlands 1980 Millstream Road Victoria, BC V9B 6H1 Tel: 474-1773 / Fax: 474-3677 MEMO [email protected]

File: RZ-01-08

To: C. D. Coates, Chief Administrative Officer From: Laura Beckett, Planner Date: March 14, 2012 SUBJECT: Rezoning Application RZ-01-08 (899 Finlayson Arm Road)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council direct staff to draft a zoning bylaw amendment to accomplish the proposal.

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

PROPOSAL Rezone parcel to allow for 2 additional residential parcels Owner/Applicant: Kent Willner Location: 889 Finlayson Arm Road Size: 12.02 hectares (29.7 acres) Legal: Lot 8, Section 74 and 75, Plan 20576, Highland District Current Current Zone: Green Belt 2 (GB2) (Permitted uses: residential; agriculture; home-based business; accessory uses, buildings and structures) Current OCP Designation: Rural Current Uses: Single family dwelling, outbuildings, access road, meadow, “light” agriculture (gardens and horses) Current Density: One dwelling unit per 12 hectares (30 acres) Proposed Proposed Zone: Rural 3 (R3) or very similar density and identical use Proposed OCP Designation: No change Proposed Uses: No change Proposed Density: One dwelling unit per 4 hectares (9.88 acres), with minimum lot size of 2.8 hectares (7 acres) resulting in 2 new lots Adjacent Land Use/Zoning …to North: Highlands’ Rural 3 (R3) …to East: Highlands’ Rural 3 (R3) …to South: Highlands’ Bear Mountain Comprehensive Development 1 Zone …to West: Goldstream Park (BC Parks within City of Langford)

LOCATION MAP March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-01-08 (899 Finlayson Arm Road) Page 2

RECENT COUNCIL RESOLUTION

At their March 5, 2012 Regular Meeting, Council resolved: That Council refer Rezoning Application RZ-01-08 to a future Council meeting after the applicant has met with the Planner to discuss issues raised this evening including: community benefit (net benefit) of this application; amenity contribution; and specific protection to the Manzanita grove (sensitive area protection (two party or third party covenant)).

Applicant’s Response The applicant advised staff via email on March 14, 2012:

I would like to make an addition to my application for 889 Finlayson Arm Road for the next council meeting. It appears that there is a desire for a clear benefit to the community with this application. While the two-party covenant was offered as it was intended as a benefit to the community it appears that it may not be enough. March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-01-08 (899 Finlayson Arm Road) Page 3

I am willing to reintroduce a cash amenity of $8769.00 per new lot created as per my earlier application. I offer this cash amenity to go towards the Highlands’ community hall. Thanks

Kent Willner

STAFF COMMENT

Staff remains supportive of the application. The amount noted above is consistent with what was offered in 2008/2009. Certainly, the cash amenity helps further another goal of the District – that of building the community hall/centre.

Staff reaffirms that any emergency access would be determined at the time of subdivision, should the application proceed to that extent. The District of Highlands Subdivision or Development of Land Bylaw states that roads shall have a minimum right of way width of 20m (66 feet). While planning staff does not equate a road with an emergency access, this point would be determined by the approving officer and carried out with the District’s needs in mind.

OPTIONS

1. (Recommended.) If Council is supportive of the application, Council may wish to direct staff to draft a zoning bylaw amendment to accomplish the proposal.

2. Council may wish to deny the application.

3. Council may wish to request more information.

Respectfully submitted by Laura Beckett, MCIP

CAO Concurrence

C. D. Coates, Chief Administrative Officer

District of Highlands 1980 Millstream Road Victoria, BC V9B 6H1 Tel: 474-1773 / Fax: 474-3677 MEMO [email protected]

To: C. D. Coates, Chief Administrative Officer File: RZ-02-11 From: Laura Beckett, Planner Date: March 12, 2012 SUBJECT: Rezoning Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council direct staff to draft: an intermunicipal agreement bylaw, a Land Title Act section 219 covenant requiring sprinklers, and OCP and zoning bylaw amendments to accomplish the proposal.

PROPOSAL SUMMARY Proposal: In area currently zoned CI1 only: Total of 52 single family dwelling equivalents – 40 single family dwellings, 10 smaller, cottage-like houses, 1 duplex (proposed lot 3). Anticipated upper-end size of houses to be 233m2 (2,500 square feet) In exchange for change of use and increase in residential density, the applicant is offering the following amenities in addition to those previously provided: o $550,000 toward the community hall/centre o Donation of existing mechanical water pump system at 1150 Bear Mountain Parkway to community hall/centre. If pump system is inappropriate for that building, pump system would be sold and all proceeds donated toward community hall/centre. Applicant: Roger Tinney, Tinney and Associates Location: 1150 Bear Mountain Parkway Approximate Size: 4 hectares (10 acres) Legals: 1. Strata Lot 1 Section 4 Range 3 West and Sections 4 and 5, Range 4 West, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS6103 Together with an interest in the Common Property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on form V

2. Strata Lot 2 Section 4 Range 3 West and Sections 4 and 5, Range 4 West, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS6103 Together with an interest in the Common Property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on form V

3. Portion within CI1 zone of: Lot D Section 4 Range 3 West and Section 4 and 5 Range 4 West Highland District Plan VIP76077, Except part in Strata Plan VIS6103 (Phase 1) Current Current Zone: Community Institutional 1 (CI1) Current OCP Designation: Recreation Tourism March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 2

Current Density and Uses: One single family dwelling (occupied), one building for assembly use (vacant), driveways, gardens Proposed – *AMENDED* Proposed Zone: New zone to achieve proposal Proposed OCP Designation: New designation to achieve proposal Proposed Uses: Residential (40 single family dwellings, 1 duplex [proposed lot 3], 10 cottages), home-based business, looped trail system, children’s play area and garden plots Proposed Density: 13 units per hectare (5.2 units per acre) (52 single family dwelling equivalents over 4 hectares (10 acres) Adjacent Land Use/Zoning …to North: ‘Residential Area’ within the Bear Mountain Comprehensive Development (GB2 Zone) …to East: TLC (The Land Conservancy) conservation land (C1 Zone) *NB: Same parcel – 1150 Bear Mountain Parkway* …to South: Residential, City of Langford …to West: Residential, City of Langford

LOCATION MAP

PROPOSAL MAP

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 3

RECENT COUNCIL RESOLUTION

At their March 5, 2012 Regular Meeting, Council resolved: That Council return the application to the applicant to show: 1. Appropriate scheme and consistency of design in the proposed building scheme 2. Respond to Mr. Flitton’s comments as made through the CISSC recommendation AND That Council direct staff to comment on: 1. Pros and cons of a phased development agreement for this application

Owner’s Response Please find attached a letter from the owner, Mr. Erik Bentzon that responds to Council’s resolution. Prior to finalizing the letter, Mr. Bentzon requested planning staff’s review to assure consistency with staff’s past reporting and comments regarding the application. Staff advises that the letter is consistent with all of staff’s reporting. Phased Development Agreements Sections 905.1 to 905.6 of the Local Government Act (attached) discuss phased development agreements. Essentially, phased development agreements “guarantee” most zoning and subdivision bylaw provisions for the length of the agreement, which is generally no longer than March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 4

10 years. The agreement is between a local government and a developer, and is imbedded in a bylaw that also requires a public hearing. It can provide for a reasonable unrolling of community amenities over the term of the agreement, in order that a developer is able to afford those aspects of a development as revenue is made from other aspects of the development. There needs to be a strong business case and solid community support for such an agreement. While both may be present for the current application, the owner has stated that the main amenity for this application would be provided within 30 days of the bylaws’ adoption.

Staff understands that this legislation was created for a specific development to occur; now called Capital City Centre at Colwood Corners. This development, a one-billion dollar project involving 2,200 residential units and considerable commercial space, is in a completely different category than the proposal at 1150 Bear Mountain Parkway. Should Council wish to further the proposal, it can be accomplished under more commonly used regulatory tools, such as those recommended by staff. Staff sees no benefit to entering into such a phased development agreement; rather, costs to accomplish the proposal would increase to both the District and the developer without any benefit to the District.

Recommendation Staff remains supportive of the application and recommends that Council consider directing staff to draft the necessary documents to accomplish the proposal. These include OCP and zoning bylaw amendments, as well as an intermunicipal agreement bylaw and likely a Land Title Act section 219 covenant that can control certain aspects of the development that fall under the District’s authority.

OPTIONS

1. (Recommended.) Council may wish to direct staff to draft an intermunicipal agreement bylaw, and OCP and zoning bylaw amendments to accomplish the proposal. Council may also wish to review a covenant requiring sprinklers in the homes.

2. Council may wish to deny the application.

3. Council may to request more information.

Respectfully submitted by Laura Beckett, MCIP

CAO Concurrence

C. D. Coates, CAO March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 5

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS ARISING FROM MARCH 5TH HIGHLANDS COUNCIL MEETING Re: REZONING APPLICATION RZ-02-11-1150 BEAR MTN PKWY

Writer: Owner Erik Bentzon

At the March 5th council meeting I was greatly surprised to hear the comments, concerns and musings of the council. Upon reflection and looking at the agenda of that night, I can see that Council was swamped with an extremely full agenda of many detailed issues. That prompted me to take a more proactive approach and answer the questions/concerns that arose about this project and give a synopsis of the currently relevant points to update our councilors. Starting with the primary questions posed:

1- BUILDING SCHEME ENFORCEMENT: Our building scheme has been well received by staff and formed part of the agenda package at the last meeting. As Chris Coates pointed out, the fact that it is presented voluntarily by us at this stage gives Council more control of the finished project.

You should note this as another example of our responsiveness to Council as this is unusual to be in place for a Rezoning Application. The Building Scheme is in an appropriate format for the Municipality to use and will meet the desire of council and any building/design related suggestions that have been offered by the various committee members and/or public. This has been reconfirmed with Staff.

At the time of writing this we are working with Staff to further enhance legal control for the municipality. A Section 219 covenant, in conjunction with the Section 220 statutory building scheme, and presentation boards will provide this level of comfort/security.

We fully understand Council’s keen interest in actually knowing/seeing what is promised as the end product—a basic marketing motivation for us is that we have to deliver to a high level based on the surrounding building standards or the market will punish us and we will not be able to sell…….very self-defeating.

I won’t go into Built Green standards in detail. They were sent to all councilors in Staff’s first report. Know that they are standards that are externally monitored in order to be granted the Built Green banner. Note also that they are the most practical standards for what Council is looking for in terms of ensuring a certain standard of house. Other systems such as Leed’s allow for point scoring on many issues other than the house construction features—for instance, with our high Sustainability Report ratings we could get the needed Leed’s rating more easily with less detail put into each individual house.

2- DENSITY REDUCTION POSSIBILITY: A point to be made here is to remind that we are not asking for any density changes over current zoning. As shown in previous presentations we are going to be less, in terms of square footage, than what is currently allowed. Our proposal is far less intrusive and obtrusive as we won’t have the theatre size buildings and we won’t have the extensive parking/ paving and concurrent site leveling that was part of the current approved use. We will have smaller and environmentally ‘lighter’ footprints that follow natural contours more closely.

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 6

The next point is that the physical density (the built form) is a direct by product of council/community input over the months. The goals were for affordability and, for diversity. Commercial applications were non-viable and addressed in detail with council and during site visits. However, our project does address diversity to Commercial through the amenity contribution. The Amenity’s use is at council discretion. Council has the control to use it for the Municipal Hall project and presumably it is a very large enabling factor for you to move ahead. Therefore our project contributes directly to the new zoning diversity of the new Municipal site and all of its potential. As a second opportunity, our project allows Council to address current zoning on the old Municipal Hall site, which certainly sits in a much more commercially conducive location within the community allowing for further diversification. All of this is at Council’s discretion, of course. Since we are talking diversity, one must not forget the new zoning will allow commercial aspects through home based businesses. In today’s information age there are many opportunities.

One member of council asked the question of possible reduced density. While I won’t say that reducing density is not possible, I would like to point out the joint impact. If we lose lots then it reduces our ability to support other aspects such as the Cottage block, the Community Gardens that are all non-revenue generators. In direct proportion the Municipality loses a related amount of Amenity funds as they have been directly connected to the number of lots. The loss to the municipality is $10,577 per lot reduction.

3- PHASING: We addressed this directly at the last Council meeting but as a quick reiteration: Logical phasing is directed by Hydro availability and existing physical structures of road etc. Phase 1 would consist of the Cottages and houses along the existing road in the Treehouse vicinity. 30 units.

The road and rough grading to Phase 2 would be done at the same time due to the necessity of Sewer system design as determined by the Engineers and Corix where the main sewer connection must occur at the edge of Phase 2 where BMP assumes a downward slope. Phase 2 will occur as Hydro is available.

GENERALIZED DISCUSSION ARISING FROM COMMENTS AT THE COUNCIL MTG.

A-PUBLIC INPUT CONCERNS: The Public has had 12-15 formal opportunities for input through Site Visits, Committee Meetings, Council Meetings, not to mention easy direct contact with either of us at any time throughout this process. I am sure you will agree that we have been, and are, very approachable. We have also hand delivered development notices to all post box outlets in the Highlands. During this entire time we have received only ONE negative email and one non-supportive opinion. We have been lauded for our approach by Council, by Staff and by Committees as well as the Highlands public that we have been in contact with. It is also the mandate of the Committees to represent the ‘pulse’ of public opinion. This support has grown as people have realized our honesty, responsiveness and diligence in our actions. Also, understanding has grown into the previously clouded history of the site. We have set new very high standards with our applications—the amount and quality of detail presented, our proactive attitude at early stages to all requests and issues and the higher degree of technical research and accuracy in our presentations, our reports and our responses.

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 7

B-DENSITY: as mentioned by one council member at the meeting of March 5th “density, density, density”. I have addressed this but let me remind you, we are NOT asking for a density change-we accept the current density in terms of square footage, we want to make it more aesthetically and environmentally palatable.

C-TAXES: There were questions about the Tax implications to the municipality despite the Staff’s own exhaustive research and report. In summary, it is approximately net $30,000 increase every year (-taken from Staff report) directly to Municipal coffers without any direct maintenance or servicing costs which the Strata will manage. It is important not to forget the addition of 50 acres of land for community use, which will be unencumbered from its current covenants that allow various commercial uses and other ambiguities. This is another contribution to the community over and above the other Amenity amounts.

D-AFFORDABILITY: As discussed many times before, our project brings what one councilor called “relative affordability” to the Municipality whose very nature of large land parcels precludes affordability. I will add a further clarification that we bring Real and/or Absolute Affordability through the smaller footprint Cottage Portion.

E-SOCIAL: As this Rezoning process has evolved we have listened carefully for ideas of how to make the project more “Highlands in Nature” so that the new Highlanders will be part of the Municipal fabric. The Affordability component expands the Demographic possibilities for the Municipality, allowing younger families to start in a land expensive community by not having to start with acreages. As importantly, it gives a hereto-unavailable option for the aging Highlander to stay in their Community when physical aging won’t allow for the continued energy of owning and maintaining larger land tracts. Social history and experience need not be lost to the Community. Bus service is available to the property connecting through Langford to the Transit system. The Langford trolley/bus travels hourly in the summer and four times a day during the rest of the year.

The Project itself offers very unique Highland character and sense of community through the Community Garden plots (open to all in the Highlands), through the over one acre of common green space within the development boundary, as well as a unique 50 acre covenanted area that offers recreational opportunities found only in the Highlands and actually buffers the development and the Municipality from further encroachment by Langford. The Cottage Project and the design of the homes reflect Highland’s unique identity of community and Greenness.

F-ENVIRONMENTAL: Another topic justifiably discussed repeatedly as it is at the very core of the Highlands identity. Recognize firstly that we are talking about an already extensively altered site, within the Urban Containment Boundary -this is not a virgin tract of land within the 10 acre portion of this 60 acre site. Despite being the ‘second ones in’ we are the ones who have paid for and presented two exhaustive positive environmental studies. Those studies show that we are the ideal environmentally sensitive developmental model for this parcel and also for rural lands, in general. I know that these studies will provide guidance to the Municipality in its future planning exercises already started through the new Sustainability Report Process –tying into the CRD Regional Sustainability Strategy presented at this past Council Meeting.

We have also pointed out the deficiencies of protection of the 50 acre area and have moved to correct and improve the protections.

TLC has appreciated and approved of the trade of covenanted land from the drainage site to the open viewpoint as pointed out at all our site visits and presentations. March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 8

G-SERVICING INTERMUNCIPAL AGREEMENT: We have been proactive on all aspects of servicing through the Hydro-CRD-Corix-Langford. We came to Council and Staff with solutions in hand and the work done. We have a unique site due to its physical location, which we recognized and were proactive about—saving Staff work wherever possible. As you are aware, we have the ability to connect to sanitary sewer and piped water, thus alleviating environmental/aquifer impacts.

H- SUSTAINABILITY: Our report results speak for its self. We score very high in all aspects that the scores only seem logical when looked with the knowledge that we are improving what is currently allowed on the site.

I-FINANCIAL: Our financial books, pro formas etc have been made accessible to staff. I won’t go into that kind of detail here, as it will put people asleep. Let me briefly summarize:

As I have openly presented many times, my goal is to reduce the current substantial loss of 5-6 million dollars. This development is not driven by large profits—there are no real profits when costs to date are considered-rather my aim is for a modest partial recovery.

Please recognize that this is an unusual and unique opportunity for the Municipality financially and for the Municipality to correct a rather blighted eyesore located in a visually prominent location. Let’s move forward- continuing this process needlessly after 18 months and longer may mean completely lost opportunities for both of us and for the Community.

As always, we are available to you at your convenience for comment or question.

Respectfully yours

Erik Bentzon 250-516-7839

Roger Tinney 250-360-6311

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 9

Local Government Act – Phased Development Agreements

Phased development agreements

905.1 (1) In this section and in sections 905.2 to 905.6:

"developer" means an owner of land who enters into, or who by assignment becomes a party to, a phased development agreement;

"development" means a development on land owned by a developer and described in a phased development agreement;

"phased development agreement" means a phased development agreement under this section;

"specified subdivision servicing bylaw provision" means a provision of a subdivision servicing bylaw that is specified under subsection (3) of this section for a phased development agreement;

"specified zoning bylaw provision" means a provision of a zoning bylaw that is specified under subsection (3) of this section for a phased development agreement;

(2) A local government may, by bylaw, enter into a phased development agreement with a developer.

(3) A phased development agreement must identify the land that is being developed and specify the provisions of a zoning bylaw and a subdivision servicing bylaw to which subsection (5) applies while the agreement is in effect.

(4) A phased development agreement may include additional terms and conditions agreed to by the local government and the developer, including but not limited to terms and conditions respecting one or more of the following:

(a) the inclusion of specific features in the development;

(b) the provision of amenities;

(c) the phasing and timing of the development and of other matters covered by the agreement;

(d) the registration of covenants under section 219 of the Land Title Act; March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 10

(e) subject to section 905.4 (3), minor amendments to the agreement, including a definition of "minor amendment" for the purpose of the agreement;

(f) dispute resolution between the parties;

(g) early termination of the agreement, either automatically in the event that terms and conditions are not met or by mutual agreement;

(h) the amount and location of park land to be provided under section 941 [provision of park land] in respect of land being subdivided that is subject to the phased development agreement.

(4.1) If a phased development agreement includes additional terms and conditions under subsection (4) (h), the amount of park land to be provided

(a) may exceed 5% of the land being proposed for subdivision in respect of an individual subdivision application within the land to which the phased development agreement applies, and

(b) must not exceed 5% of the land being proposed for subdivision in respect of all of the land to which the phased development agreement applies.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), if the specified zoning bylaw provisions or the specified subdivision servicing bylaw provisions are amended or repealed while the agreement is in effect, those changes do not apply to the development unless the developer agrees in writing that the changes apply.

(6) The following changes to the specified zoning bylaw provisions or the specified subdivision servicing bylaw provisions apply to the development without the written agreement of the developer:

(a) changes to enable the local government to comply with an enactment of British Columbia or of Canada;

(b) changes to comply with the order of a court or arbitrator or another direction in respect of which the local government has a legal requirement to obey;

(c) changes that, in the opinion of the local government, are necessary to address a hazardous condition of which the local government was unaware at the time it entered into the phased development agreement. March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 11

(7) Subject to subsection (8), if a specified zoning bylaw provision is a provision under section 903 (1) (c) (iii) [zoning bylaws], a development permit under section 920 [development permits] that

(a) varies the siting, size or dimensions of buildings and other structures, or

(b) varies the siting, size or dimensions of uses that are permitted on the land

does not apply to the development unless the developer agrees in writing that the development permit will apply.

(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to a development permit for land designated under section 919.1 (1) (a) to (c) and (h) to (j) [designation of development permit areas], if the development permit is approved by the inspector.

(9) For certainty, if a matter included in a phased development agreement is specifically authorized under another section of this Part or Part 27 [Heritage Conservation], the requirements that would apply in relation to that matter under those sections continue to apply.

(10) In considering an application for subdivision approval under section 85 [time limit for approval and consideration of public interest] of the Land Title Act in respect of land that is subject to a phased development agreement and in determining if the deposit of the subdivision plan is against the public interest under subsection (3) of that section, an approving officer

(a) must take account of the phased development agreement, and

(b) must not consider any of the following:

(i) amendments to or repeals of specified zoning bylaw provisions and specified subdivision servicing bylaw provisions that have not been agreed to by the developer under subsection (5) of this section;

(ii) a resolution passed by a local government that has entered into the phased development agreement about substantially the same subject matter as a specified zoning bylaw provision or a specified subdivision servicing bylaw provision in that agreement that may affect the intent of the specified zoning bylaw provision or specified subdivision servicing bylaw provision. March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 12

Term and assignment of phased development agreement

905.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the maximum term for a phased development agreement is 10 years.

(2) With the approval of the inspector, a local government may enter into a phased development agreement for a term not exceeding 20 years.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), a phased development agreement may be renewed or extended, as long as the renewal or extension will not make the agreement effective for a period that could exceed 20 years.

(4) A phased development agreement may not require the local government to renew or extend a phased development agreement or enter into a subsequent phased development agreement for the same development.

(5) The developer may assign a phased development agreement to a subsequent owner of the land identified in the agreement only if

(a) the subsequent owner is identified in the agreement,

(b) the subsequent owner is a member of a class of persons identified in the agreement, or

(c) the local government agrees to the assignment.

Process for phased development agreement bylaw

905.3 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), the local government must hold a public hearing in accordance with Division 4 [Public Hearings on Bylaws] before adopting a bylaw under section 905.1 [phased development agreements].

(2) In addition to the notice requirements of section 892 (2) [notice of public hearing], the notice of the public hearing must include the following:

(a) the name of the developer;

(b) a general description of the specified zoning bylaw provisions for the phased development agreement;

(c) the term of the phased development agreement;

(d) a general description of the nature of the development that will be the subject of the phased development agreement;

(e) if the phased development agreement provides for the assignment of the agreement to a subsequent owner of the land March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 13

that is identified in the agreement, the conditions under which the assignment may occur;

(f) any other information required by regulation.

(3) Section 890 (4) [waiver of public hearings] does not apply to a public hearing under subsection (1) of this section.

(4) Despite section 135 (3) [at least one day between third reading and adoption] of the Community Charter, a local government may adopt a phased development agreement bylaw at the same meeting at which the bylaw passed third reading.

Amendments to phased development agreement

905.4 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), if the local government and the developer agree, a phased development agreement may be amended in accordance with this section.

(2) If the phased development agreement provides for minor amendments, the local government may agree to a minor amendment by resolution.

(3) The following matters may not be dealt with as minor amendments to the phased development agreement:

(a) the specified zoning bylaw provisions;

(a.1) the specified subdivision servicing bylaw provisions;

(b) provisions regarding the assignment of the agreement to a subsequent owner;

(c) the term of the agreement, unless the amendment will reduce the length of the term;

(d) renewal or extension of the agreement;

(e) the land that is the subject of the agreement;

(f) the definition of "minor amendment" for the purpose of the agreement.

(4) An amendment to a phased development agreement, other than a minor amendment, must be adopted by bylaw, and sections 905.1 to 905.3 apply to the bylaw.

Information that must be available for public inspection March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application RZ-02-11 (1150 Bear Mountain Parkway) Page 14

905.5 The following must be made available for public inspection at the local government offices during regular office hours:

(a) the phased development agreement;

(b) any amendments to the phased development agreement;

(c) any agreements, permits, plans or other documents that are incorporated into the phased development agreement, whether directly or by reference.

Filing of notice of phased development agreement

905.6 (1) If a phased development agreement is entered into under section 905.1 [phased development agreements], a notice that the land described in the notice is subject to the phased development agreement must be filed with the registrar of land titles in the same manner as a notice of a permit may be filed.

(2) Section 927 [notice of permit on land title] applies to a notice under subsection (1) of this section but there is no requirement to file a notice of a minor amendment described in section 905.4 (2) [amendments to phased development agreement].

District of Highlands Building Department 1980 Millstream Road MEMO Victoria BC V9B 6H1 Tel: 250-474-1773 / Fax: 250-474-3677 [email protected]

File: 641 Millstream Lake Road To: Tina Neurauter, Corporate Officer To Council From: C. Leek, Building Inspector March 19, 2012 Date: February 17, 2012 Subject: 641 Millstream Lake Road/ Building without a Permit – Stop Work Order

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2011 the District became aware of an addition being built to the existing principal dwelling at 641 Millstream Lake Road.

On January 16, 2012 I conducted a site visit, with the owner present, to determine the stage of construction and possibility of a visible inspection for code compliance as the addition was almost complete including interior finishes.

After much discussion with the property owner and a complete review of the property file it was my determination that it would not be possible to issue a building permit and carry out inspections unless a certain amount of destructive-investigative work took place to ensure code compliance, i.e. removing drywall in certain areas as inspection ports into the framework.

On February 13, 2012 the property owner advised me that it was not his preference to do any kind of destructive works.

BYLAW INFRACTIONS

District of Highlands Building Bylaw 192, Section 4.1.1 states:

“That no person shall construct any building or structure unless a Building Official has issued a valid and subsisting Permit for work."

There has been no permit issued for the addition.

CONSIDERATIONS/ OPTIONS

A building permit for the addition may be applied for. Included with the application would be appropriate drawings and Professional Consultant(s) support and destructive- investigative work.

. . . /2 641 Millstream Lake Road – Bylaw Infraction Page 2

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

As required, a letter dated March 1, 2012 was written to the property owners informing that this matter would go before Council on March 19, 2012 and inviting the owners to attend and present their views on the matter. Addition information on this matter is available at the District office.

RECOMMENDATION

Until such time as a valid and subsisting Building Permit(s) for work can be issued, the Corporate Officer of the District of Highlands will file a Notice with the Land Title and Survey Authority of BC stating that a Resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Council relating to the property legally described as Lot B, Section 32, Highland District, Plan 49463, Parcel Identifier 015-134-121 having a civic address of 641 Millstream Lake Road, and that further information respecting the Resolution may be inspected at the District Office during regular office hours.

Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed by,

Chris Leek T. Neurauter, Building Inspector Corporate Officer

CAO Concurrence Chris Coates District of Highlands 1980 Millstream Road Victoria, BC V9B 6H1 Tel: 474-1773 / Fax: 474-3677 REPORT [email protected]

File: DP-01-12

Report To: C. D. Coates, Chief Administrative Officer From: Laura Beckett, Planner Date: March 13, 2012 SUBJECT: Development Permit Application DP-01-12 (1005 River Road)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council issue Development Permit DP-01-12.

Staff Note: Council will recall that the District’s Development Permit Delegation Bylaw was amended in November 2011. This means that any development permit in areas 1 (Steep Slopes), 2 (Water and Riparian Areas), or 3 (Sensitive Vegetation) that involves the deposition of soil, would be reviewed by Council for their issuance or denial. This is the first development permit application that falls under this new regulatory scheme.

SUMMARY Location: 1005 River Road Legal: Strata Lot 8, Section 4, Range 3W and 4W, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS5080, Together with an Interest in the Common Property in Proportion to the Unit Entitlement of the Strata Lot as Shown on Form V (See plan as to limited access) Zone: Rural Residential 8 (RR8) Development Permit Area: #1 – Steep Slopes Additional Relevant None Regulations: Applicant Requests: Deposition of boulders Purpose: Create driveway

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application DP-01-12 (1005 River Road) Page 2

LOCATION MAP

SITE MAP

March 19, 2012 Council Meeting Application DP-01-12 (1005 River Road) Page 3

PROPOSAL

Please find attached draft Development Permit DP-01-12. The owner wishes to build a driveway to access the property in an area considered a “steep slope” as per the District’s Development Permit Areas Guidelines. Thus, a development permit is required. The design, created by a geotechnical engineer, requires the importing of boulders, which constitute “soil” as per the District’s Deposition of Soil Bylaw, for the driveway. This is shown in the attached, “Drawing 1 – Embankment Cross-Section.”

This application is fairly routine, especially considering the Highlands’ topography. The development permit area designation allows staff to request professional reports that typically become the conditions of the permit. The geotechnical engineer’s letter, drawing, and photo all form part of the draft development permit for the project. Likewise, all three items would form part of the soil deposit permit, which would require that all conditions of this development permit (should Council choose to issue it) are adhered to.

Certainly, if Council does not issue the development permit, staff would not issue the soil deposit permit. Building staff supports the issuing of the soil deposit permit. The applicant has put a great deal of consideration into the project.

Staff supports the proposal and recommends that Council issue Development Permit DP-01-12. No notification is required for development permit issuance.

OPTIONS

1. (Recommended.) Council may wish to issue Development Permit Application DP-01-12.

2. Council may wish to request more information from the applicant. Council should specify what information they are looking for.

3. Council may wish to deny the application.

Respectfully submitted by Laura Beckett, MCIP

CAO Concurrence

C. D. Coates, CAO

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP-01-12

ISSUED TO: Anna Sadza-Monge

MAILING ADDRESS: 503 Lone Tree Place Victoria BC V9B 6G9

1. The “Lands” are:

Lot 8, Section 4, Range 3W & 4W, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS5080, Together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on form V PID# 024-997-307 (“1005 River Road”)

2. This Development Permit shall be solely to authorize:

A. Within the lands included in Development Permit Area 1 (Steep Slopes): Site preparation for a residential property; specifically the driveway and house siting as needed. Activities include: blasting, vegetation removal, tree cutting, soil deposit and site grading.

3. The Lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of this permit. This includes specifically:  Attachment 1: Correspondence from Brimmell Engineering Ltd., dated March 6, 2012, RE: Proposed Driveway, 1005 River Road, Highlands – Geotechnical Considerations  Attachment 2: Drawing 1 from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 3: Photo from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 4: Site Plan for 1005 River Road, dated 14 March 2012

4. This Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the Bylaws of the District applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. Specifically:  Blasting Permit, to be issued as required  Tree Cutting Permit, to be issued as required  Soil Deposit Permit, to be issued as required

5. If the Permittee does not substantially commence the development permitted by this Permit within 24 months of the date of this Permit, the Permit shall lapse.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS THE XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

AUTHORIZED THIS XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

Christopher D. Coates, CAO

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP-01-12

ISSUED TO: Anna Sadza-Monge

MAILING ADDRESS: 503 Lone Tree Place Victoria BC V9B 6G9

1. The “Lands” are:

Lot 8, Section 4, Range 3W & 4W, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS5080, Together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on form V PID# 024-997-307 (“1005 River Road”)

2. This Development Permit shall be solely to authorize:

A. Within the lands included in Development Permit Area 1 (Steep Slopes): Site preparation for a residential property; specifically the driveway and house siting as needed. Activities include: blasting, vegetation removal, tree cutting, soil deposit and site grading.

3. The Lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of this permit. This includes specifically:  Attachment 1: Correspondence from Brimmell Engineering Ltd., dated March 6, 2012, RE: Proposed Driveway, 1005 River Road, Highlands – Geotechnical Considerations  Attachment 2: Drawing 1 from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 3: Photo from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 4: Site Plan for 1005 River Road, dated 14 March 2012

4. This Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the Bylaws of the District applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. Specifically:  Blasting Permit, to be issued as required  Tree Cutting Permit, to be issued as required  Soil Deposit Permit, to be issued as required

5. If the Permittee does not substantially commence the development permitted by this Permit within 24 months of the date of this Permit, the Permit shall lapse.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS THE XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

AUTHORIZED THIS XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

Christopher D. Coates, CAO

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP-01-12

ISSUED TO: Anna Sadza-Monge

MAILING ADDRESS: 503 Lone Tree Place Victoria BC V9B 6G9

1. The “Lands” are:

Lot 8, Section 4, Range 3W & 4W, Highland District, Strata Plan VIS5080, Together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on form V PID# 024-997-307 (“1005 River Road”)

2. This Development Permit shall be solely to authorize:

A. Within the lands included in Development Permit Area 1 (Steep Slopes): Site preparation for a residential property; specifically the driveway and house siting as needed. Activities include: blasting, vegetation removal, tree cutting, soil deposit and site grading.

3. The Lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of this permit. This includes specifically:  Attachment 1: Correspondence from Brimmell Engineering Ltd., dated March 6, 2012, RE: Proposed Driveway, 1005 River Road, Highlands – Geotechnical Considerations  Attachment 2: Drawing 1 from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 3: Photo from Brimmell Engineering Ltd.  Attachment 4: Site Plan for 1005 River Road, dated 14 March 2012

4. This Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the Bylaws of the District applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. Specifically:  Blasting Permit, to be issued as required  Tree Cutting Permit, to be issued as required  Soil Deposit Permit, to be issued as required

5. If the Permittee does not substantially commence the development permitted by this Permit within 24 months of the date of this Permit, the Permit shall lapse.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS THE XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

AUTHORIZED THIS XX DAY OF XXX, 2012.

Christopher D. Coates, CAO

1005 River Rd. driveway alignment looking west from house site

District of Highlands Administration Deparmtment 1980 Millstream Road MEMORANDUM Victoria BC V9B 6H1 Tel: 250-474-1773 Fax: 250-474-3677 Website: www.highland.ca

File: 2240-26 DATE: March 2, 2012 To Council T0: Mayor and Council March 19, 2012

FROM: C.D. Coates, CAO

RE: GREATER VICTORIA PUBLIC LIBRARY BUDGET

BACKGROUND

Attached is the 2012 Operating Budget and Five year Financial Plan from the GVPL. Approval of the Budget is required by May 1.

At the November 21, 2011 regular meeting council received the 2012 Provisional Budget that indicated a $4,169 increase to the requisition for Highlands for 2012. The final budget, utilizing up to date assessment information, results in a requisition increase of $6,992 for Highlands. The amount of the total requisition amongst all the partners is not increased; rather it is the apportionment between them because of assessment changes that produces the difference.

Council has the option of approving the 2012 Budget at this time, or requesting more information and or a presentation by the Library on the proposed 2012 Budget.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the 2012 Library Operating Budget and Five Year Financial Plan.

Respectfully Submitted

Christopher D. Coates Chief Administrative Officer

Attach.

To Council March 19, 2012

District of Highlands 1980 Millstream Road Victoria BC V9B 6H1 MEMORANDUM Tel: 250-474-1773 / Fax: 250-474-3677

File: 7150-02 DATE: March 15, 2012

T0: Mayor and Council

FROM: C.D. Coates, CAO

RE: ENHANCED 911 CALL ANSWER SERVICE

BACKGROUND

The District is currently a contracted participant with the CRD, West Shore 911 Call Answer Program. The City of Langford is the Service Provider.

Two participants, View Royal and Colwood, are opting to contract with the District of Saanich upon the impending expiration of the agreement.

In response, the CRD has coordinated a discussion amongst the remaining participants who utilize the Langford Service to ascertain their interest for continuation and evolution into an enhanced call answer service of the CRD. The current service is a call relay system.

DISCUSSION

The enhanced service would include dispatch staying involved to determine further equipment and resource requirements related to the incident until the full extent of the required response is activated.

Highlands Fire is very supportive of continuing with the Langford option because of their intimate knowledge of the area and the resource issues that there are.

The attached table shows costs for the service and notes that an increase, due in large part to the absence of View Royal and Colwood, would result in a $3,000 annual increase. This increase equates to approximately 50 cents per hundred thousand of assessed value or $3.15 per year for the average Highlands property.

. . . /2 Memorandum – Enhanced 911 Call Answer March 15, 2012 Page 2

The concept is for a CRD Establishment Bylaw with the provision to opt in. Once a participant is in, the opting out process can be somewhat convoluted.

Council would have the option to express its interest to participate at this time or indicate whether it wishes to pursue an alternate route with a different service provider on its own.

Should Council express the interest to participate that would enable all of the service establishment Bylaw details to be worked out and the Bylaw would come back to Council for their formal consent to participate.

At the Electoral Area Services Committee meeting held March 14, 2012 the CRD Electoral Areas all approved their interest to participate. Highlands, Metchosin, and Sooke were represented and expressed their interest although each requires formal council resolution.

From the District’s point of view this is the best alternative.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council advise the Capital Regional District of its interest to participate in the 911 Call Answer Service.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher D. Coates Chief Administrative Officer

Attachment s:\shared\cao\Memos-Reports\911 call answer