Date:

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt, Vice-Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Harold Steves

Also Present:

Councillor Derek Dang (arrived at 4:10 p.m.)

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, October 5, 2010, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

APPLICATION BY YAMAMOTO ARCHITECTURE INC. FOR REZONING AT 7491, 7531 AND 7551 NO. 2 RD FROM TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS (RD1) AND SINGLE DETACHED (RS1-E) TO MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM3)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8649, RZ 10-516627) (REDMS No. 2913864)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8649, for the rezoning of 7491 No. 2 Rd. from “Two-Family Dwellings (RD1)” and 7531 and 7551 No. 2 Rd. from “Single Detached (RS1-E)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

2.

APPLICATION BY GARMAR HOLDINGS LTD. FOR REZONING AT 6191/6211 BELLFLOWER DRIVE FROM TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS (RD1) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS2/B)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8646, RZ 10-531062) (REDMS No. 2967091, 2967278)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8646, for the rezoning of 6191/6211 Bellflower Drive from “Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1)” to “Single Detached (RS2/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

3.

APPLICATION BY GARY DHAMI FOR REZONING AT 7700 AND 7720 ASH STREET FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F) TO SINGLE DETACHED (ZS14) – SOUTH MCLENNAN (CITY CENTRE)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8647) (REDMS No. 2967753)

In response to a query Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, advised that the applicant’s plan to subdivide the two lots on Ash Street to permit a seven lot single-family subdivision is in compliance with the Official Community Plan and the McLennan South Sub-Area Plan.

A brief discussion ensued with regard to the road curvature of the road alignment along the eastern edge of the applicant’s property. Mr. Jackson advised that staff would investigate the issue of the road, including an assessment of the ring road or the possibility of a cul de sac.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson confirmed that the City would compensate the owner(s) of any land that is used for road dedication and construction to the level set out in the DCC program.

Ken Jermana, 7691 Bridge Street, addressed Committee and requested confirmation that he would receive a Development Cost Charge (DCC) credit when he applies to subdivide his lot. He also stated that his preference would be a cul de sac, instead of a new portion of Armstrong Street.

Mr. Jackson provided clarification and stated that through a subsequent application, if staff proposes the cul de sac, and not a through road, staff would also request a public walkway to connect the end of the proposed cul de sac to Bridge Street.

Mr. G. Ganuelas, 7651 Bridge Street addressed Committee and noted that his property is adjacent to the applicant’s lots but that he has had no input into his neighbour’s plans to subdivide. He stated his concern regarding the application, and added that he plans to develop his property.

Mr. Jackson stated that there were no implications for 7651 Bridge Street by the application being considered by Committee, and that the nine-metre future dedication of the rear of his property would be required in any development scenario.

A brief discussion ensued between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Ganuelas with regard to the process of submitting a rezoning application.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8647, for the rezoning of 7700 and 7720 Ash Street from “Single Detached (RS1/F)” to “Single Detached (ZS14) – South McLennan (City Centre)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

AGRICULTURE (AG) ZONE SETBACK

(File Ref. No.:  08-4430-03-07, 12-8060-20-8609) (REDMS No. 2969065, 2974133, 2970407)

Holger Burke, Development Coordinator, made the following points:

(i)

the Province’s Ministry of Agriculture and Land is in the process of reviewing: (a) setbacks in the Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR); and (b) house size limits on the ALR; staff: (i) expects the Provincial guidelines to be released in 2011; and (ii) would initiate a public consultation process and would consult with the Agriculture Advisory Committee, before initiating changes to the Zoning Bylaw.

(ii)

Richmond’s new Zoning Bylaw No. 8500 includes a provision that states that an accessory residential building must have a maximum setback of 50 metres, as the distance between the principle residence and the secondary building or structures.

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff, and in particular on:

·          

the merits of returning to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback versus awaiting the outcome of the Province’s review of ALR setbacks;

·          

the Province is consulting with local governments at the staff level, but it is unknown whether the Province is undertaking a public consultation regarding ALR setbacks; and

·          

the unique nature of Richmond’s large and small farm lots, and the need for the Province to recognize that Richmond is unlike other municipalities.

Bill Zylmans, 17771 Westminster Highway, identified himself as a Richmond farmer. He spoke in opposition to the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback, and expressed his disappointment that staff did not consult those impacted by the ALR setback issue before Zoning Bylaw 8500 was adopted.

Mr. Zylmans stated that applications for home projects seeking approval under the setback conditions outlined in Zoning Bylaw 8500, are not being turned down, indicating to him that a return to previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback conditions would be a fiasco.

In conclusion, Mr. Zylmans noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has indicated it will consult with municipalities, and he looks forward to being consulted during that process.

Phil Borovsky 6191 No. 6 Road, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. He lives on a road where most of the lots are less than five acres. He noted that he is taxed by the City for a ‘city’ lot, not a ‘farm’ lot, and he questioned what type of farming can take place on a lot under 20 acres.

Alex Tei, Granville Avenue, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. He expressed disappointment in the lack of consultation with the public before Zoning Bylaw 8500 was adopted. He purchased his property when Zoning Bylaw 5300 was in place and believes that he, and other home owners, should be allowed to develop their lots as they see fit, something that is undermined by conditions outlined in Zoning Bylaw 8500.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Jackson advised that the setback conditions continue to apply to the residential structure.

Amit Sandhu, No. 6 Road identified himself as a developer who farms acres on a lot on Sidaway Road. He spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. He expressed dismay with how the issue was portrayed in the local media. Mr. Sandhu noted that Richmond should promote farming, and focus on being a sustainable community. He believes that Richmond cannot attract more farmers if the setback conditions in Zoning Bylaw 8500 stand.

Mr. Sandhu remarked that farmers do not want to compete with one another, and not many set up their own roadside markets, but instead most of Richmond’s farmers participate in a co-operative.

Arzina Hamir, 8480 Dayton Court, Coordinator of the Richmond Food Security Society. She spoke in opposition to the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. She commented that it would be prudent to await the findings of the Province’s setback investigation, and that Committee’s decision would impact all residents of Richmond, not just those who live in the ALR.

Ms. Hamir noted that she does not live in the ALR, but she is concerned that more non-agricultural uses, such as recreational uses, on ALR land are possible if the City returns to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback conditions.

Roland Hoegler, 6560 No. 4 Road, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. He remarked that the majority of lots in Richmond’s ALR are less than two acres, and that Zoning Bylaw 5300 affords more flexibility for the homeowners of small ALR lots. He commented that compliance with the setback conditions of Zoning Bylaw 5300 would not negatively impact Richmond’s food security.

In response to Mr. Hoegler’s query regarding whether the City would be obligated to follow future Ministry of Agriculture and Land guidelines, Mr. Jackson advised that the Ministry would formulate guidelines, and the City would decide what guidelines to follow, but would formulate its own Bylaw.

Dale Badh, 7251 Ash Street spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback. He thanked Council and staff for investing time in the issue of the 50 metre setback. He noted that the setback conditions, as outlined in Zoning Bylaw 8500, prevent homeowners in the ALR from choosing what work to undertaken on their properties.

Mr. Badh stated that the City could help farmers by providing them with some concessions, as Zoning Bylaw 5300 does.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw 8609, to return to the previous regulatory framework of Zoning Bylaw 5300 which had no setback limitation from a constructed public road for accessory residential buildings, structures and septic fields in the Agriculture (AG) zone (Option 1), be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion continued between Committee and staff and in particular on:

·          

there would be no setback limitation from a constructed public road for accessory residential buildings, structures, or septic fields in the Agriculture Zone;

·          

the setback requirement of 50 metres apply, but only for residential buildings on the ALR;

·          

staff will share information with the Province, but staff is unaware of the scope of the Province’s investigation into ALR setbacks;

·          

whether the Province is to relax setback restrictions on small lots; and

·          

whether it is better to await the Province’s findings, or to make a decision at this time.

The Chair noted that where setbacks were concerned, when Zoning Bylaw 5300 was changed to Zoning Bylaw 8500, ALR issues were not addressed, nor was the issue of dumped fill. He stated his lack of confidence in either the Agricultural Land Commission or the Province recognizing the unique nature of Richmond’s agriculture land issues.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED, with Councillors Sue Halsey-Brandt and Harold Steves OPPOSED.

5.

THE METHODOLOGY TO UPDATE OCP ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESAS)

(File Ref. No.:) (REDMS No. 2982049)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning advised that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Study is part of the 2041 Official Community Plan (OCP) Update, and that a consultant who is an expert in the ESA field has been hired.

(Cllr. Steves left the meeting at 5:26 p.m. and returned at 5:32 p.m.)

(Cllr. Greg Halsey-Brandt left the meeting at 5:29 p.m. and returned at 5:31 p.m.)

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff, and in particular on:

·          

the study will examine existing ESAs, and, using a database, will explore potential, new ESAs;

·          

if an ESA on private property is designated in the City’s revised ESA study, legal advice will be followed with regard to compensation;

·          

the applicability of the term “alteration of land” as it may apply to cultivation; and

·          

staff will submit a draft of the study during the winter months of 2010.

Mr. Erceg advised that staff would return to Committee at a later date to further discuss the issue of farming activities on properties that include ESAs.

Michael Ciacci, 11540 Westminster Highway, addressed Committee and queried why half of his property was designated an ESA, and the other half is not. He added that he cultivates a blueberry crop on the ESA portion of the property.

Mr. Erceg advised that staff will look at Mr. Ciacci’s property, as well as others like it, during the study, and apply more precision to the mapping of ESAs than was applied in the past.

The Chair directed Mr. Ciacci to communicate with the Manager, Policy Planning, with regard to his query.

It was moved and seconded

That the methodology for identifying and mapping ESAs, as described in Attachment 3 in the staff report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated September 22, 2010, be endorsed.

CARRIED

6.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

(a)

Official Community Plan (OCP) Update

Mr. Crowe advised that during the week of October 4, 2010, staff would launch the next round of public consultations on the Official Community Plan (OCP). The consultation themes include: jobs, parks, housing options, energy, transportation and the environment.

Using display boards, Mr. Crowe drew attention to the City’s shopping centres and stated that members of the public will be asked if they would like to plan around the shopping centres, after the OCP is completed, to explore possible improvements and densification. As well, members of the public will be asked to express their preferences regarding more housing choices, including coach houses and granny flats.

A brief discussion ensued with regard to examples of building types.

In concluding his report, Mr. Crowe advised that staff continues to monitor the information received from the web site surveys.

(b)

Airport Noise

In response to a query, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised that Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, has communicated with the Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR), Transport Canada and NAV Canada, and that Mr. Wei would provide Council, as well as members of the Air Traffic Noise Task Force with information.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:50 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, September 28, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk