April 18, 2017 - Minutes

Regular Council meeting for Public Hearings

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Place:	Council Chambers Richmond City Hall
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 Councillor Harold Steves Claudia Jesson, Acting Corporate Officer
Call to Order:	Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m.

1.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9293 (RZ 14-670471)(Location: 11671 and 11691 Cambie Road; Applicant: Interface Architecture Inc.)
	Applicant’s Comments:
	The applicant was available to respond to queries.
	Written Submissions:
	(a)	Hank Ma, 11888 Mellis Drive (Schedule 1)
	In response to a question from Council, staff advised that the road access has been revised to restrict access to Cambie Road.
	Submissions from the floor:
	None.
	Discussion:
	In response to a question from Council, staff advised that a public walkway would be provided along the eastern boundary of the property to connect Mellis Drive to Cambie Road.

PH17/4-1

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9293 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. Day

	2.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9537 (RZ 14-674068)(Location: 8480 No. 5 Road; Applicant: Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-2		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9537 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

3.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9646 (RZ 16-728719)(Location: 9051 and 9071 Steveston Highway; Applicant: Harj Johal)
	Applicant’s Comments:
	The applicant was available to respond to queries.
	Written Submissions:
	(a)	Taha and Yusra Qaiser, 9093 Steveston Highway (Schedule 2)
	(b)	George Zhuo, 9091 Steveston Highway (Schedule 3)
	(c)	Soly Feng, 9091 Steveston Highway (Schedule 4)
	In response to a question from Council, staff confirmed that a statutory right-of-way is registered on the titles of 9093 and 9097 Steveston Highway to provide vehicular access to the site from the rear lane. The statutory right-of-way will be removed from the titles when the rear lane is connected to Mortfield Gate.
	Submissions from the floor:
	None.
	Discussion:
	In response to questions from Council, staff advised that:
	§		the applicant is required to submit a Construction Parking and Traffic Management Plan and Lane Closure Request to the City's Transportation Department for review, prior to issuance of a Building Permit; and
	§		parking will be prohibited on Steveston Highway for the duration of the construction.

PH17/4-3		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw* *9646* *be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

	4.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9672 (ZT 16-754143)(Location: 13100 Smallwood Place; Applicant: OpenRoad Auto Group Ltd.)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-4		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9672 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

5.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9675 (RZ 16-723761)(Location: 12320 Trites Road; Applicant: 1056023 Holdings Limited Partnership)
	Applicant’s Comments:
	The applicant was available to respond to queries.
	Written Submissions:
	None.
	Submissions from the floor:
	None.
	Discussion:
	It was noted that there would be a loss of industrial land, child care spaces and affordable housing as a result of the development. In addition, there was an expectation that the road along the waterfront would be upgraded to an industrial road to remove industrial traffic from Trites Road.
	Staff provided the following information in response to questions from Council:
	§	no applications have been received on any other properties on Trites Road;
	§	there is still industrial designated land in the area; and
	§	the subject property was designated for residential use in the Official Community Plan (OCP), following extensive public consultation, some 20 years ago.

It was moved and seconded

That the application be referred back to staff.

DEFEATED

Opposed: Cllrs. Au

Dang

Johnson

Loo

McNulty

McPhail

PH17/4-5

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9675 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllrs. Day

Steves

6.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9684 (RZ 15-713737)(Location: 10140 and 10160 Finlayson Drive; Applicant: Benn Panesar)
	Applicant’s Comments:
	The applicant was available to respond to queries.
	Written Submissions:
	None.
	Submissions from the floor:
	Pavel Andrash, 10128 Finlayson Drive, expressed concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and requested:
	§	confirmation of undergrounding of BC Hydro and Telus service lines;
	§	new homes be required to provide on-site parking for the two rental suites included in the new homes; and
	§	replacement of the fence along the property line, following completion of construction.
	Mr. Andrash advised that he would not be opposed to the proposed subdivision if his requests were fulfilled.
	In response to questions from Council, staff confirmed that:
	§	services would be undergrounded as a condition of the subdivision;
	§	each home is permitted to include one rental suite and is required to provide parking on site; and
	§	staff will speak to the Applicant regarding the replacement of the fence.

PH17/4-6		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9684 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

	7.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9685 (RZ 16-743867)(Location: 9680 Aquila Road; Applicant: Mickey Chow)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-7		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9685 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

	8.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9686 (RZ 15-708960)(Location: 9880 Granville Avenue and 7031 No. 4 Road; Applicant: Zhao XD Architect Ltd.)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-8		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9686 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

	9.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9694 (ZT 16-753545) (Location: 9920 River Drive; Applicant: Krahn Engineering Ltd.)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-9

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9694 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. Steves

	10.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9697 (ZT 15-707253)(Location: 16160 and 16268 River Road; Applicant: Brook Pooni Associates)
		Applicant’s Comments:
		A representative of Brook Pooni Associates reviewed the application and the commitments and voluntary contributions being offered by the Applicant.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.

PH17/4-10		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9697 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

	11.	RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9698 (ZT 14-656010)(Location: 11991 Steveston Highway; Applicant: Suncor Energy Inc. (Petro-Canada Inc.))
		Applicant’s Comments:
		The applicant was available to respond to queries.
		Written Submissions:
		None.
		Submissions from the floor:
		None.
		Discussion:
		In response to a question from Council, staff confirmed that the application is required as the use is different from the previously approved application.

PH17/4-11		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9698 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

12.

BYLAWS RELATED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9691; RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9647; RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9692
(Location: City-Wide; Applicant: City of Richmond)

In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Carol Day declared herself to be in a conflict of interest as her husband owns a bed and breakfast and left the meeting at 7:33 p.m.

Applicant’s Comments:
The applicant was available to respond to queries.
Written Submissions:
(a)	Terrance Sawasy, 9240 Walford Street (Schedule 5)
(b)	XXXX XXXX XXXX (Schedule 6)
Submissions from the floor:
Brian Cooper, 5511 Cathay Road, advised that he is the co-owner of the Stone Hedge Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Cooper expressed concern that the proposed bylaw revisions do not include the requirement for licenced bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) to carry commercial insurance in order to protect guests.
Mr. Cooper recommended that the transfer of the licence be permitted if a new owner complies with all regulations for a specified length of time e.g. 30 days or 60 days.
In response to questions from Council, staff advised:
§		there is no requirement for B&Bs to carry commercial insurance in the proposed bylaws but it is included in the proposed Bed and Breakfast Code of Conduct Guidelines; and
§		business are permitted to transfer licences to new owners and this would also apply to licenced B&Bs.
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Cooper advised:
§		when Tourism BC was operating, it required a B&B to carry $2 million of commercial insurance in order to maintain its certification; and
§		Stone Hedge Bed and Breakfast is a member of Expedia, which requires commercial insurance coverage, but not all booking sites have the same requirement.
Matthew Yeung, resident, agreed with the bylaw provisions allowing up to two boarders or lodgers in a home without a licence and the requirement to obtain a business licence for more than two people and three rooms. Mr. Yeung expressed concern with the prohibition against homeowners renting their entire home for a period of less than 30 days. This is a common practice throughout the world and has been occurring in Richmond for over 10 years without an issue. Mr. Yeung stated that this prohibition restricts the freedom of the homeowner.
Don Flintoff, resident, requested clarification regarding:
§		the 500 metre buffer zone; and
§		how the buffer zone would apply to a condominium.
In response to Mr. Flintoff’s comments, staff advised that:
§		the buffer zone is for a 500 metre radius; and
§		under the proposed bylaws, a B&B business would not be permitted in a condominium or strata property.
Jackie Sawasy, 9240 Walford Street, questioned the party responsible for monitoring whether home hotels are licenced. Ms. Sawasy reported that the property adjacent to her home is being operated as a hotel and there are six similar operations in her neighbourhood.
In response to Ms. Sawasy, Council advised:
§		monitoring is based on complaints and the proposed bylaws bolster enforcement and penalties; and
§		there is a requirement that the owner be present if a home is being operated as a licenced B&B.
Staff provided the following information in response to questions from Council:
§		the addition of four Enforcement Officers will allow the City to be proactive and to respond quickly to complaints;
§		staff can provide information on the locations of licenced operations;
§		a ticket and letters with deadlines to comply have been issued to the owner of the property adjacent to Ms. Sawasy’s home, as the first stage of the enforcement program;
§		there have been 19 new applications for B&B licences and many have been rejected;
§		the conversion of the garage to a two bedroom rental unit can be dealt with through a variety of options under the Building Bylaw;
§		future public complaints regarding public safety would be handled with two City inspectors attending the premises together and can be accompanied by the RCMP if a safety issue is identified; and
§		a list of licenced B&Bs is not currently posted to the City website but this practice could be implemented.
Lynda ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, questioned how the requirement for the homeowner to be present would be applied if the owner were not physically located in Richmond to oversee the B&B business. Ms. ter Borg recommended that the homeowner be required to be physically available to attend to the operation of the B&B.
Ms. ter Borg requested clarification of the definition of “Residential Rental Accommodation” in Part 22 of the Zoning Bylaw and the Business Regulation Bylaw.
In response to Ms. ter Borg’s comments, staff advised:
§		there is no current requirement that the homeowner be present at all times, however the premises must be the operator’s principal residence; and
§		the definition of Residential Rental Accommodation is worded to disallow the rental of the entire home for a period of less than 30 days.
Gary and Suzanne Blair, 13333 Princess Street, advised that they are the owners of Abercrombie House, and expressed concerns regarding the potential for the existing site-specific zoning to be repealed. Mr. Blair recommended that site-specific zoning be continued and special rules be applied for heritage buildings.
Council recommended that Mr. and Mrs. Blair consult with City staff regarding their specific issues.
In response to a question from Council, staff advised that a development variance permit could be applied for.
A Steveston resident expressed concern that there is no motivation for B&B owners to follow the rules, and recommended that:
§		penalties for non-compliance be increased; and
§		if the RCMP is called to address a noise issue and discovers that an unlicenced B&B is being operated, it be shut down and the occupants be required to vacate the home immediately.
In response to the comments, staff informed:
§		RCMP is able to shut down a B&B due to noise violations and require occupants to vacate the home immediately; and
§		the fine is per offense per day and after a certain number of fines have been issued, an application can be made for a court ordered injunction.
Council advised that the RCMP does not have the jurisdiction to enforce a City bylaw.
Richard Hourie, 11711 Bird Road, recommended that the penalties in the proposed bylaws be increased and details be included in the bylaws. Mr. Hourie questioned whether Fire Department inspections and health inspections are required prior to commencement of the operation of a B&B.
In response to Mr. Hourie’s comments, staff confirmed:
§		current practice is to undertake an inspection at the time of application to ensure compliance with the fire evacuation plan and floor plan submitted by the B&B operator;
§		there are periodic inspections; and
§		new construction must meet the current bylaws to have sprinklers in every room but older construction is required to have smoke detectors in each room and fire extinguishers.
In response to a question from Council, staff advised that under the Community Charter, the maximum amount of a fine for each infraction is $1,000 per day, to a maximum of $10,000 per day.
Kerry Starchuk, 7611 Lancing Place, advised that there is an illegal hotel operating next door to her home that presents health and safety issues. In the past, the hotel has been closed down and fines have been issued however, it continues to operate. Ms. Starchuk advised that City staff have been providing assistance to resolve the situation.
In response to questions from Council, staff confirmed:
§		evidence is being compiled to seek a court ordered injunction;
§		an inspection is required at the initial application, annual renewal and upon receipt of a complaint;
§		the only process available to shut down a B&B is through a court ordered injunction; and
§		Health Inspectors will be notified if a health concern is reported.
Jackie Sawasy, 9240 Walford Street, addressed Council a second time and questioned if the homeowner is required to be present during an annual inspection.
In response to Ms. Sawasy’s comments, staff advised:
§		in the case being referenced, a B&B licence would not be granted; and
§		a representative of the operator may provide access to the home during an annual inspection, but the operator must show proof of residency.
Discussion:
Staff provided the following information in response to questions from Council:
§		the expectation in modern homes is to have a significant number of bathrooms and bedrooms; and
§		as long as the layout of the home resembles a single-family home, the City cannot take any action.

PH17/4-12		It was moved and seconded
		*That Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9691 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

PH17/4-13		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9647 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

PH17/4-14		It was moved and seconded
		*That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9692 be given second and third readings.*
		CARRIED

PH17/4-15		It was moved and seconded
		*That staff be directed to provide more information on the various inspections required to obtain and maintain a B&B licence.*
		CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

PH17/4-16		It was moved and seconded
		*That the meeting adjourn (8:43 p.m.).*
		CARRIED

		Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular meeting for Public Hearings of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)		Acting Corporate Officer (Claudia Jesson)

Alerts

April 18, 2017 - Minutes

In this section