November 24, 2015 - Minutes (Special)

Place:

Grand Ballroom
Executive Airport Plaza Hotel
7311 Westminster Highway, Richmond

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Ken Johnston
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Linda McPhail

David Weber, Corporate Officer

Absent:

Councillor Harold Steves

Call to Order:

Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m.

1.

ESTABLISHMENT OF UNDERLYING ZONING FOR LAND USE CONTRACTS THAT INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES AND EARLY TERMINATION OF LAND USE CONTRACTS
(Location:  Multiple Properties throughout Richmond; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, accompanied by John Hopkins, Planner, provided the following background information:

§   

the proposed bylaws are to (i) establish underlying zoning in areas currently governed by Land Use Contracts (LUC) affecting single-family lots as required by provincial legislation, and (ii) terminate LUC’s in areas with single-family lots;

§   

in 2014, the provincial government amended the Local Government Act to (i) provide for the termination of all LUCs by June 30, 2024, (ii) require that local governments adopt underlying zoning for all LUC properties by June 30, 2022, (iii) establish a process under which local governments could undertake the early termination of LUCs, and (iv) provide the City’s Board of Variance (BOV) with new authority to hear appeals regarding the timing of early termination bylaws;

§   

the proposed LUC early termination bylaws have an effective termination date of one-year following adoption which is consistent with the minimum requirements permitted by the provincial legislation;

§   

anyone wishing to develop in accordance with the LUC would be required to submit a complete building permit application prior to the end of the transition period;

§   

should a property owner feel that the early termination causes them hardship, they would have the ability to apply to the City’s BOV for a request to have the transition period extended;

§   

the City’s BOV would have the ability to consider the request but would not be able to grant an extension beyond the June 30, 2024 date;

§   

the BOV’s decisions are specific to the property owner;

§   

any appeals to the City’s BOV must be made within six months of adoption of the LUC termination bylaw; and

§   

any BOV request must be considered within six months of the receipt of the completed application.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Elizabeth and Bob Hardacre, 5391 Woodpecker Drive (Schedule 1)

(b)

Mark Ting, Richmond resident (Schedule 2)

(c)

Mark Ting, Richmond resident (Schedule 3)

(d)

Michelle Li, Richmond resident (Schedule 4)

(e)

Lynda ter Borg, Richmond resident (Schedule 5)

(f)

Cheuk, Elaine, Richard, and Anna Tang, 11340 and 11320 Galleon Court (Schedule 6)

(g)

David and Elizabeth Currie, 5860 Kittiwake Drive (Schedule 7)

(h)

Tony Burns, Richmond resident (Schedule 8)

(i)

Richard Tang, Richmond resident (Schedule 9)

(j)

Mike Kelly, 10770 Hollybank Drive (Schedule 10)

(k)

Clayton Ablett, 10740 Fundy Drive (Schedule 11)

(l)

Paul Wright, 3071 Williams Road (Schedule 12)

(m)

Richmond School District No. 38 (Schedule 13)

(n)

Joanne Kim, 11540 Pelican Court (Schedule 14)

(o)

Gordon and Julie Halfnights, 5184 Sapphire Place (Schedule 15)

(p)

Ken and Linda Epps, 6341 Sheridan Road (Schedule 16)

(q)

Trevor Barnett, 5180 Bunting Avenue (Schedule 17)

(r)

Elia Nagaria, 8200 Colonial Drive (Schedule 18)

(s)

Bruce Imrie, Richmond resident (Schedule 19)

(t)

Ted Bruce, Richmond resident (Schedule 20)

(u)

Neil Cumming, Richmond resident (Schedule 21)

(v)

Karen Cowl, Hollymount Drive (Schedule 22)

(w)

David Currie, Westwind Resident (Schedule 23)

(x)

Graham Johnsen, John ter Borg, and Lyn ter Borg (Schedule 24)

(y)

Andrew Tan regarding 6911 Graybar Road (Schedule 25)

(z)

Patrick Weeks regarding 9508 Palmer Road (Schedule 26)

(aa)

Scott Nakade, Hollycroft Drive (Schedule 27)

(bb)

Margaret and Ted Mortensen, 10540 Seamount Road (Schedule 28)

(cc)

Betty Boland, Richmond resident (Schedule 29)

(dd)

Rob McLaren, 4340 Craigflower Drive (Schedule 30)

(ee)

Mick, Richmond resident (Schedule 31)

(ff)

Han Tuyet Linh, 8891 Craigflower Gate (Schedule 32)

(gg)

Jason Fung, 6111 Tiffany Boulevard (Schedule 33)

(hh)

Hongda Wu, 6231 Woodwards Road (Schedule 34)

(ii)

Leon and Rita Chan, 10740 Whistler Court (Schedule 35)

(jj)

Raymond Pare, 4120 Tyson Place (Schedule 36)

(kk)

David and Elizabeth Currie, 5860 Kittiwake Drive (Schedule 37)

(ll)

Pamela O’Donnell, 11211 Galleon Court (Schedule 38)

(mm)

Jim and Teri Barkwell, 8251 Coldfall Court (Schedule 39)

(nn)

Raphael and Jackie Lui, 8391 Mirabel Court (Schedule 40)

(oo)

Tamara Melder, Richmond resident (Schedule 41)

(pp)

Mary Ann Williamson, 8166 Mirabel Court (Schedule 42)

(qq)

Eric and Lillian Ah-Yon, 8011 Mirabel Court (Schedule 43)

(rr)

Karen and Paul Cowl, Richmond residents (Schedule 44)

(ss)

Clarence and Frances Anne Ash, 8171 Mirabel Court (Schedule 45)

(tt)

David Currie, Richmond resident (Schedule 46)

(uu)

Kevin Wei, 5880 Kittiwake Drive (Schedule 47)

(vv)

Anil Kotadia, 8231 Mirabel Court (Schedule 48)

(ww)

Don and Rosemary Neish, 6900 Gainsborough Drive (Schedule 49)

(xx)

Antonio, Emperatriz, and Patrice Banting, 8131 Mirabel Court (Schedule 50)

(yy)

Antonio, Emperatriz, and Patrice Banting, 8131 Mirabel Court (Schedule 51)

(zz)

Jim and Marilyn Donaldson, 4891 Lancelot Drive (Schedule 52)

(aaa)

Bernabe and Maria Ellorin, 8311 Mirabel Court(Schedule 53)

(bbb)

Gary and Carol Chen, 8160 Mirabel Court (Schedule 54)

(ccc)

T. and J. Meier, Richmond residents (Schedule 55)

(ddd)

Jim Barkwell, Richmond resident (Schedule 56)

(eee)

Charlene Liu and Charles Shi, 10291 Defoe Street (Schedule 57)

(fff)

Wilbur Walrond, Richmond resident (Schedule 58)

(ggg)

Eddie Lee, Vivien Wong, and Ming Wong, 8140 Mirabel Court (Schedule 59)

(hhh)

Ping Xi, 8280 Mirabel Court (Schedule 60)

(iii)

Kirk Johnstone, 9151 Pauleshin Crescent (Schedule 61)

(jjj)

Kathleen Beaumont, 6415 London Road (Schedule 62)

(kkk)

Jeffrey Li, 4251 Tyson Place (Schedule 63)

(lll)

Patricia and Patrick Stapleton, 5291 Hollycroft Drive (Schedule 64)

(mmm)

Alice Chang, 10581 Hollybank Drive (Schedule 65)

(nnn)

Karen McDonald, 7111 Lynwood Drive (Schedule 66)

(ooo)

Eric Ah-Yon, Richmond resident (Schedule 67)

(ppp)

John and Sharon Parrott, 8960 Lancelot Gate (Schedule 68)

(qqq)

Tony and Nancy Yurkovich (Schedule 69)

(rrr)

Robert and Sally Breen, 12032 Osprey Court (Schedule 70)

(sss)

Janet Khong, Richmond resident (Schedule 71)

(ttt)

Graham Taylor, 8571 Fairhurst Road (Schedule 72)

(uuu)

Alan Wong, 7991 Bennett Road (Schedule 73)

(vvv)

Alexander and Margaret Brodie, 4091 Lancelot Drive (Schedule 74)

(www)

Rae and Brian Seay, 8211 Mirabel Court (Schedule 75)

(xxx)

Michael Seidelman, 8860 No. 1 Road (Schedule 76)

(yyy)

Debbie and Craig Matsuzaki, 11131 Caravel Court (Schedule 77)

(zzz)

Sandy and Tim VanOstrand (Schedule 78)

(aaaa)

Mary and William Hobbs, 4711 Camlann Court (Schedule 79)

(bbbb)

John ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court (Schedule 80)

(cccc)

Carlo Pechuanco, 6361 Sheridan Road (Schedule 81)

(dddd)

Helen Pettipiece, 5811 Sandpiper Court (Schedule 82)

(eeee)

Lee Bennett, 5371 Woodpecker Drive (Schedule 83)

(ffff)

XXXX XXXX XXXX (Schedule 84)

(gggg)

Marion Smith, 6580 Mayflower Drive (Schedule 85)

(hhhh)

Lyn ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court (Schedule 86)

(iiii)

Anne Marie Kirkpatrick, 6580 Gainsborough Drive (Schedule 87)

(jjjj)

Miranda MacKelworth, 11191 Schooner Court (Schedule 88)

(kkkk)

Ann Rees, Richmond resident (Schedule 89)

(llll)

Bev Loo, Richmond resident (Schedule 90)

(mmmm)

Ted Bruce, Richmond resident (Schedule 91)

(nnnn)

Robert Williamson, 8166 Mirabel Court (Schedule 92)

(oooo)

Darren Bernaerdt, 4771 Garry Street (Schedule 93)

(pppp)

Joseph Lai, 4291 Cabot Drive (Schedule 94)

(qqqq)

Jeffrey Li, 4251 Tyson Place (Schedule 95)

(rrrr)

Wendy Yang, 7508 Williams Road (Schedule 96)

(ssss)

Marilyn Glier, 9191 Maskall Drive (Schedule 97)

(tttt)

Jerry Lee, Realtor, 4249 Lancelot Drive (Schedule 98)

(uuuu)

Unknown Resident (Schedule 99)

(vvvv)

Elizabeth Hardacre, 5391 Woodpecker Drive (Schedule 100)

(wwww)

Wayne Craig, Director of Development response to concerns of Elizabeth Hardacre (Schedule 101)

(xxxx)

Jim Barkwell, Richmond resident (Schedule 102)

(yyyy)

Martin Woolford, 5951 Egret Court (Schedule 103)

(zzzz)

Steven Folk, 11331 Caravel Court (Schedule 104)

(aaaaa)

Eric Tung, 5820 Goldeneye Place (Schedule 105)

(bbbbb)

Monita Chan, 4140 Waller Drive (Schedule 106)

(ccccc)

Christina Giuliani, Richmond resident (Schedule 107)

(ddddd)

Jim Wright, 8300 Osgoode Drive (Schedule 108)

(eeeee)

Chunyu Kan and Gongyun Shen, 11420 Plover Drive (Schedule 109)

(fffff)

Aaron and Cailan Wang, 5860 Puffin Court (Schedule 110)

(ggggg)

Daishan Chen, 5860 Plover Court (Schedule 111)

(hhhhh)

[ Name ] , [ Address ] (Schedule 112)

(iiiii)

Ziyun Qiu, 5591 Warbler Avenue (Schedule 113)

(jjjjj)

Petition in Favour of Terminating LUC 114 (Schedule 114)

Submissions from the floor:

Jim Barkwell, 8251 Coldfall Court, spoke in opposition to the early termination of the LUCs and read from his written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 102).

Arnold Shuchat, 5240 Jaskow Drive, was of the view that the proposed early termination of the LUCs would have financial implications to the property owners and that the one year transition period was insufficient time to allow for rebuild.  In addition, he commented that current owners should have grandfathering rights which would allow them to rebuild to the LUC specifications.  He suggested that a Design Panel be implemented to address concerns regarding the large scale homes.

Sonia Saldanha, 4520 Cabot Drive, commented that her zero lot line property falls under LUC 042 and expressed concern with the “Semi-Detached Zero Lot Line” labelling related to the proposed zoning requesting that it be amended to include detached single-family dwellings. She further commented that under the proposed bylaw her property would be re-classified from detached to semi-detached which would impact future property valuation.

Marion Smith, spoke in favour of the proposed zoning and LUC bylaws and read from her written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 85).

Lan Zhou, 9751 Ashwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed termination of LUC 088 and provided a comparative analysis of LUC 088 and the proposed RS1/B zoning (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 115).  She commented that early termination of the LUCs would not remove any of the existing large scale homes but would serve to accelerate construction of homes under the LUC in the short term.  She further commented on the economic benefits and additional property taxes generated by LUC development and suggested that a solution be found that would benefit all stakeholders.

Lee Bennett, 5371 Woodpecker Drive, spoke to concerns regarding the early termination process and read from his written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 83).

XXXX XXXX XXXX, spoke in support of the proposed bylaws and read from a written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 84).

Paul Winkleman, 8260 Colonial Drive, expressed concerns with the neighbouring three-storey home that has eliminated privacy for his property.

Jason Ma, 6220 Goldsmith Drive, addressed concerns regarding the construction of the large scale homes under LUCs and their effect on the areas liveability, character and equitable property evaluation.

Richard Tang, 11340 Galleon Court, spoke to the proposed early termination of LUC 015 and its impact on future plans to renovate his property under the terms of the LUC that would benefit a special needs situation.  Mr. Tang commented that he neither can afford to build immediately nor would the proposed zoning allow the necessary square footage to meet his family’s needs.

Helena Duchowska, 3760 Bamfield Drive, expressed concern for the shortage and cost of senior or nursing care housing and was of the view that additional nursing homes were needed.

Bryant Pike, 5560 Woodpecker Drive, spoke to his future plans to renovate the existing dwelling and was of the opinion that the proposed one year sunset clause did not allow enough time for the submission of a building application under the LUC.  Also, he was concerned that the proposed zoning would not allow him to rebuild the current dwelling in the event of a fire or disaster and suggested grandfathering existing owners to some extent.

Teri Barkwell, 8251 Coldfall Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaws and read from her written submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 116).

Kevin Wei, 5880 Kittiwake Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed early termination of LUC 012 and was of the view that the proposed bylaw would create financial hardship for property owners.  Also, he commented that the transition period was not sufficient time to plan for the future and suggested that the LUCs remain in place until June 30, 2024.

With the aid of translator Esnie Shum, 10551 Truro Drive, Sunny Wu, 8580 Delaware Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaws and was of the view that, should the City proceed with the termination of the LUCs,  homeowners be financial compensated for the devaluation of their properties due to the loss of allowable square footage. He commented that, as the LUCs are enforceable, the LUC option should not be removed.

Alex Au-Yeung, 4271 Cabot Drive, stated that, should LUC 042 be terminated and the proposed zoning implemented, his zero lot line home would be zoned as a semi-detached zero lot line home.  Mr. Au-Yeung requested that his property remain designated as a single-family residential dwelling.  

Rahimmah Ip, 11420 Pelican Court, expressed concern with regard to the process for the implementation of underlying zoning and early termination of LUC.  Also, she was of the opinion that the one year period after adoption of the proposed termination bylaws was not sufficient and may encourage a rush of building applications.  Ms. Ip then cited concern with regard to the potential loss in her property’s value should underlying zoning take effect, and was dissatisfied that the City could implement such changes unilaterally.  Ms. Ip read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 117).

William Wan, 9991 Ashwood Drive, cited concern with regard to the potential loss in property value for homes under LUC should underlying zoning take effect.  He suggested that a new single-family zone be created specifically for homes under LUC – one with greater density than that of the RS1/B zone.

Sandra Lopez, 4280 Tyson Place, stated that her property falls under LUC 042 and spoke to characteristics of zero lot line properties like hers.  Ms. Lopez then remarked that should the proposed zoning be implemented, her property could no longer be listed for sale as single-family; instead, she noted that it would have to be listed as semi-detached, and was of the opinion that this would lower its appeal in the real estate market.  Ms. Lopez then provided a comparison of property values of zero lot line homes and single-family homes in her neighbourhood, and submitted a petition (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 118) by property owners with homes on Tyson Place and Cabot Drive in favour of the proposed early termination of LUC and the implementation of zoning on the condition that the ZS24 zone be amended to read “Single Family Zero Lot Line.”

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) the “detached and/or semi-detached” dwellings under the LUCs associated with Tyson Place and Cabot Drive, (ii) the definition of semi-detached dwelling under the proposed zoning, and (iii) the zoning bylaw amendment process to allow for detached homes in the area.

Bud Sakamoto, 4348 Bonavista Drive, stated that his property falls under LUC 111, and was of the opinion that the proposed zoning does not complement the existing neighbourhood character.  Mr. Sakamoto then requested that Council consider deferring this matter to further review the compatibility of the proposed zoning regulations in conjunction with other LUC areas.  Concern was expressed that one year was not enough time to consider building.

John ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, spoke in favour of the early termination of LUC and the proposed zoning regulations and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 80).

Leane Van Beusekom, 4191 Tyson Place, spoke in favour of the early termination of LUC and the proposed zoning regulations, however requested that her zero lot line property, which falls under LUC 042, remain labelled single-family.  Ms. Van Beusekom read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 119).

Discussion ensued regarding zero lot line properties and the “Semi-Detached Zero Lot Line (ZS24)” labelling under the proposed zoning bylaws.  It was suggested that a resolution be considered to amend the titling in all four proposed zoning bylaws referencing “Semi-Detached Zero Lot Line (ZS24).

Donald Mak, 9620 Ashwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaws and read from his written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 120).

Bob Ethier, 10471 Truro Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning and early termination of LUC bylaws.  He cited concern with regard to the potential loss in property value as owners with homes under current LUC will lose allowable density should underlying zoning take effect.  Mr. Ethier suggested that area specific zoning be considered and was of the opinion that additional time was required prior to Council’s consideration of the proposed zoning and early termination of LUC bylaws.

With the aid of translator Cailan Zeng, 5860 Puffin Court, Chunyu Kan, 11420 Plover Drive, spoke on building activity in her neighbourhood, noting that her home is now between two new large homes, which has reduced the amount of daylight into her home.  Ms. Kan then remarked that should the proposed zoning for her property be adopted, she would no longer be able to rebuild her home in such a manner that permits more daylight to enter her home.

Pratima Milaire, 6100 Tiffany Boulevard, spoke in favour of the proposed zoning and early termination of LUC bylaws, and was of the opinion that it will preserve the quality and liveability of the city’s neighbourhoods.

Erica Hargeave, 8060 Colonial Drive, queried the proposed zoning for her building.

Andre Savard, 4280 Tyson Place, was of the view that the proposed zoning regarding LUC 042 be amended to residential single-detached, which would allow detached single-family housing and read from his written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 121).

John Montgomery, 5880 Sandpiper Court, spoke in favour of the proposed zoning and early termination of LUC bylaws, noting that LUC regulations were never intended to supersede City zoning regulations.

Lyn ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, spoke in favour of the proposed zoning and early termination of LUC bylaws and read from her written submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 122).

Elvyn C. Wittensleger, 10631 Hollymount Drive, expressed concern with the size of homes permitted to be built under LUC and their impact to neighbours and privacy

Robert Lo, 8824 Cook Crescent, commented on the size of homes built under LUC and was of the opinion that Council should provide guidance and clarity on the City’s vision.

Ivan Pak, 5380 Opal Place, stated that his property falls under LUC 134, and was of the opinion that the consideration of all properties under LUC in one meeting was rushed.  Mr. Pak suggested that specific zoning be considered for each LUC, and expressed concern with the allowable square footage under the proposed zoning regulations. 

Vicki Lingle, 4391 Windjammer Drive, spoke to concerns regarding the scale of new home construction and was of the opinion that streetscape drawings be submitted and reviewed at the time of building application.  Also, she suggested that the streetscape drawings be circulated to area residents for comment and that the amount of light reaching backyards be considered to support backyard gardens.

Bernard Jones, 3688 Howell Court, commented that the properties under LUC 081 are unique and could accommodate larger homes than what the LUC dictated.  He expressed concern that, in the event the current home was destroyed, the proposed zoning bylaw would prevent him from rebuilding the same dwelling.

Yuri Afanasiev, 9577 Pickering Drive, spoke in favour of the proposed zoning and LUC termination bylaws and was of the view that an architect be engaged by the City to review new residential projects.

A written submission from Erik Li, 6197 Tiffany Boulevard, was distributed and read into the minutes (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 123).

Martin Forbes, 6691 Shawnigan Place, expressed the view that the proposed zoning bylaws should maintain the existing parameters of the LUCs as the lots in his neighbourhood are small and would not accommodate a large scale home.

Mayor Brodie acknowledged the conclusion of the hearing of delegations.

As a result of the discussion the following motion was introduced:

SPH15/1-1

It was moved and seconded

That the designation name “Semi-Detached Zero Lot Line (ZS24)” be changed to “Single-Family Zero Lot Line (ZS24)” as it appears in Bylaws 9324, 9334, 9338 and 9342.

The question on Resolution No. SPH15/1-1 was not called as discussion ensued regarding (i) the merits of the proposed name change, (ii) the new title not affecting the proposed zoning requirements related to any existing attached homes in the LUC, and (iii) the submission of a zoning bylaw amendment application would be required should the owner of an attached home wished to pursue a detached dwelling.

The question on Resolution No. SPH15/1-1 was then called and it was CARRIED.

SPH15/1-2

It was moved and seconded

That the following Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 Amendment Bylaws be given second and third readings:

(1)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9300;

(2)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9302;

(3)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9304;

(4)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9306;

(5)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9308;

(6)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9310;

(7)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9312;

(8)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9314;

(9)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9316;

(10)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9318;

(11)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9320;

(12)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9322;

(13)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9324;

(14)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9326;

(15)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9328;

(16)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9330;

(17)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9332;

(18)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9334;

(19)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9336;

(20)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9338;

(21)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9340;

(22)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9342;

(23)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9344;

(24)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9346;

(25)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9348;

(26)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9350;

(27)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9352;

(28)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9354;

(29)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9356;

(30)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9358;

(31)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9360;

(32)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9362;

(33)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9364;

(34)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9366;

(35)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9368;

(36)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9370;

(37)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9372;

(38)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9374;

(39)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9376;

(40)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9378;

(41)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9380;

(42)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9382;

(43)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9384;

(44)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9386;

(45)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9388;

(46)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9390;

(47)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9392;

(48)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9394;

(49)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9396;

(50)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9398;

(51)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9400;

(52)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9402;

(53)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9404;

(54)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9406;

(55)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9408;

(56)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9410;

(57)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9412;

(58)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9414;

(59)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9416;

(60)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9418;

(61)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9420;

(62)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9422;

(63)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9424;

(64)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9426;

(65)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9428;

(66)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9430;

(67)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9432;

(68)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9434;

(69)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9436;

(70)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9438;

(71)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9440;

(72)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9442;

(73)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9444;

(74)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9446;

(75)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9448;

(76)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9450;

(77)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9452;

(78)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9454;

(79)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9456;

(80)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9458;

(81)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9460;

(82)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9462;

(83)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9464;

(84)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9466;

(85)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9468;

(86)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9470;

(87)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9472;

(88)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9474;

(89)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9476;

(90)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9478;

(91)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9480;

(92)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9482; and

(93)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9484.

The question on Resolution No. SPH15/1-2 was not called as discussion ensued regarding the provision for “grandfathering” privileges that would allow dwellings to be rebuilt to their existing dimension in the event of a catastrophe.  Such a provision would require (i) amendments to the density provisions of the proposed zoning bylaws, (ii) a subsequent public hearing, and (iii) grandfathering provisions specific to each lot.

In addition to the following comments, Council thanked the public for their input and staff for the efforts in delivering a fair public process.

Councillor McPhail supported the motion on the floor and commented on the importance of preserving the quality of life and liveability of residents and on the options for those residents that may have a hardship with the transition timeline to apply to the BOV or to Council for a zoning amendment.

Councillor Loo expressed the view that it may not be fair to terminate the LUCs as the BOV process may be too onerous for property owners, they may be unsure as to what they wish to do, or they may not know how to express themselves in terms of meeting the hardship criteria.

Councillor Dang supported the proposed bylaws and expressed concern related to the re-development options for properties that are already impacted by neighbouring large scale re-development.

Councillor McNulty spoke in favour of the motion and commented that the proposed bylaws are a move in the right direction and that Council has been listening to the concerns of residents regarding building height limitations for single-family homes.  He commented that the process has been a good process and that the public has provided a lot of input for consideration.

Councillor Au commented that the LUC issue has been complex and spoke in support of the motion.  He commented on the impact of development under the LUC to neighbourhoods and that waiting until the termination of the LUCs in 2024 was not a viable option.  He further commented that the BOV appeal and/or zoning amendment process would hopefully address some of the concerns raised by residents.

Councillor Johnston spoke in support of the proposed bylaws and commented that the same regulations must apply to all residential development.  He was of the opinion that (i) the termination of the LUCs would not have a significant impact on property values, (ii) extending the transition period to five years would not create a stable development environment in Richmond, and (iii) in the event of a catastrophe, a site specific zoning amendment would be considered by the Council of the day.  Councillor Johnston also noted that residents could appeal to the BOV, but that in the end, it is important that all residents be on equal footing when it comes to development rights.

Councillor Day commented that it is important to maintain the quality of life in Richmond and to regain control with reasonable zoning, applied fairly throughout the city, which allows residential development in keeping with the existing neighbourhood.  Also, Councillor Day commented that the process and the amount of information available has been considerable and the issue has been thoroughly examined for years.  She encouraged residents to get involved, ask questions, and express their views about development in their neighbourhoods.

Mayor Brodie expressed support for the motion and thanked the Planning and Development Department and the City Clerk’s Office for their efforts and the public for their input.

The question on Resolution No. SPH15/1-2 was then called and it was CARRIED.

SPH15/1-3

It was moved and seconded

That the following Richmond Land Use Contract Early Termination  Bylaws be given second and third readings:

(1)

Richmond Land Use Contract 002 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9301;

(2)

Richmond Land Use Contract 003 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9303;

(3)

Richmond Land Use Contract 006 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9305;

(4)

Richmond Land Use Contract 007 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9307;

(5)

Richmond Land Use Contract 009 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9309;

(6)

Richmond Land Use Contract 010 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9311;

(7)

Richmond Land Use Contract 011 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9313;

(8)

Richmond Land Use Contract 012 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9315;

(9)

Richmond Land Use Contract 014 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9317;

(10)

Richmond Land Use Contract 015 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9319;

(11)

Richmond Land Use Contract 018 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9321;

(12)

Richmond Land Use Contract 020 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9323;

(13)

Richmond Land Use Contract 023 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9325;

(14)

Richmond Land Use Contract 027 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9327;

(15)

Richmond Land Use Contract 030 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9329;

(16)

Richmond Land Use Contract 031 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9331;

(17)

Richmond Land Use Contract 032 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9333;

(18)

Richmond Land Use Contract 033 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9335;

(19)

Richmond Land Use Contract 036 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9337;

(20)

Richmond Land Use Contract 037 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9339;

(21)

Richmond Land Use Contract 041 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9341;

(22)

Richmond Land Use Contract 042 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9343;

(23)

Richmond Land Use Contract 043 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9345;

(24)

Richmond Land Use Contract 044 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9347;

(25)

Richmond Land Use Contract 048 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9349;

(26)

Richmond Land Use Contract 049 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9351;

(27)

Richmond Land Use Contract 050 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9353;

(28)

Richmond Land Use Contract 052 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9355;

(29)

Richmond Land Use Contract 053 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9357;

(30)

Richmond Land Use Contract 054 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9359;

(31)

Richmond Land Use Contract 057 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9361;

(32)

Richmond Land Use Contract 058 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9363;

(33)

Richmond Land Use Contract 060 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9365;

(34)

Richmond Land Use Contract 063 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9367;

(35)

Richmond Land Use Contract 065 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9369;

(36)

Richmond Land Use Contract 066 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9371;

(37)

Richmond Land Use Contract 069 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9373;

(38)

Richmond Land Use Contract 071 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9375;

(39)

Richmond Land Use Contract 072 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9377;

(40)

Richmond Land Use Contract 074 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9379;

(41)

Richmond Land Use Contract 077 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9381;

(42)

Richmond Land Use Contract 081 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9383;

(43)

Richmond Land Use Contract 083 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9385;

(44)

Richmond Land Use Contract 084 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9387;

(45)

Richmond Land Use Contract 088 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9389;

(46)

Richmond Land Use Contract 089 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9391;

(47)

Richmond Land Use Contract 090 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9393;

(48)

Richmond Land Use Contract 093 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9395;

(49)

Richmond Land Use Contract 095 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9397;

(50)

Richmond Land Use Contract 098 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9399;

(51)

Richmond Land Use Contract 099 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9401;

(52)

Richmond Land Use Contract 101 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9403;

(53)

Richmond Land Use Contract 102 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9405;

(54)

Richmond Land Use Contract 105 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9407;

(55)

Richmond Land Use Contract 107 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9409;

(56)

Richmond Land Use Contract 109 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9411;

(57)

Richmond Land Use Contract 110 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9413;

(58)

Richmond Land Use Contract 111 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9415;

(59)

Richmond Land Use Contract 112 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9417;

(60)

Richmond Land Use Contract 113 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9419;

(61)

Richmond Land Use Contract 114 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9421;

(62)

Richmond Land Use Contract 116 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9423;

(63)

Richmond Land Use Contract 117 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9425;

(64)

Richmond Land Use Contract 120 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9427;

(65)

Richmond Land Use Contract 121 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9429;

(66)

Richmond Land Use Contract 123 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9431;

(67)

Richmond Land Use Contract 124 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9433;

(68)

Richmond Land Use Contract 125 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9435;

(69)

Richmond Land Use Contract 129 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9437;

(70)

Richmond Land Use Contract 130 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9439;

(71)

Richmond Land Use Contract 132 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9441;

(72)

Richmond Land Use Contract 133 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9443;

(73)

Richmond Land Use Contract 134 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9445;

(74)

Richmond Land Use Contract 135 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9447;

(75)

Richmond Land Use Contract 136 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9449;

(76)

Richmond Land Use Contract 137 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9451;

(77)

Richmond Land Use Contract 140 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9453;

(78)

Richmond Land Use Contract 141 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9455;

(79)

Richmond Land Use Contract 142 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9457;

(80)

Richmond Land Use Contract 143 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9459;

(81)

Richmond Land Use Contract 144 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9461;

(82)

Richmond Land Use Contract 145 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9463;

(83)

Richmond Land Use Contract 146 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9465;

(84)

Richmond Land Use Contract 147 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9467;

(85)

Richmond Land Use Contract 148 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9469;

(86)

Richmond Land Use Contract 149 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9471;

(87)

Richmond Land Use Contract 152 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9473;

(88)

Richmond Land Use Contract 157 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9475;

(89)

Richmond Land Use Contract 159 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9477;

(90)

Richmond Land Use Contract 160 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9479;

(91)

Richmond Land Use Contract 161 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9481;

(92)

Richmond Land Use Contract 162 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9483; and

(93)

Richmond Land Use Contract 164 Early Termination Bylaw No. 9485.

CARRIED

SPH15/1-4

It was moved and seconded

That the following Richmond Zoning Amendment Bylaws be adopted:

(1)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9300;

(2)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9302;

(3)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9304;

(4)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9306;

(5)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9308;

(6)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9310;

(7)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9312;

(8)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9314;

(9)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9316;

(10)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9318;

(11)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9320;

(12)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9322;

(13)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9324;

(14)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9326;

(15)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9328;

(16)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9330;

(17)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9332;

(18)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9334;

(19)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9336;

(20)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9338;

(21)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9340;

(22)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9342;

(23)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9344;

(24)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9346;

(25)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9348;

(26)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9350;

(27)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9352;

(28)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9354;

(29)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9356;

(30)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9358;

(31)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9360;

(32)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9362;

(33)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9364;

(34)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9366;

(35)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9368;

(36)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9370;

(37)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9372;

(38)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9374;

(39)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9376;

(40)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9378;

(41)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9380;