Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strathcona REGIONAL DISTRICT
Additaikeamosalaiiiis
File: 0400-01 September 25, 2013
Via Email: [email protected]
Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6
Attention: Ralda Leroux, Policy Analyst
Dear Ms. Leroux:
RE: FILE 3360-20/CP 2CV 13 — ELECTORAL AREA OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT — MT. WASHINGTON INTEGRATED RESOURCE COMMUNITY PLAN
This is further to the referral regarding the above noted official community plan amendment bylaw received by the Strathcona Regional District on July 31, 2013. The referral was considered by the Strathcona Regional District Board at its regular meeting on August 22, 2013 at which time the following resolution was passed.
Leigh/Abram
"THAT the Comox Valley Regional District be advised the Strathcona Regional District's interests are unaffected by the proposed Bylaw No. 215 "Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan, 1998, Amendment No. 45" (CP 2CV 13)."
We trust this is the information that you require.
Sincerely,
Tom Yates Corporate Services Manager
#301 - 990 Cedar Street, Campbell River, BC V9W 7Z8 Tel: 250-830-6700 Fax: 250-830-6710
Toll free: 1-877-830-2990 www.strathconard.ca
6480-20 / Area C3350-20 / CP 2CV 13
BYLAW REFERRAL FORM RESPONSE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL REFERRAL FORM FILE: 6480/Area C and 3350-20/CP 2CV 13
Electoral area official community plan amendment: Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, amendment no 45
☒ General departmental comments – see below
☐ Interests unaffected
☐ Issues requiring attention – see comments below
☐ Opposed due to reasons outlined below
Finance’s understanding with respect to Part 5 - Implementation and the potential impact on the CVRD financial plan is as follows: Mount Washington Comprehensive Development Zone – Planning Services indicted that they have on their 2014 work plan, the review of the CD zone. The proposed 2014 financial plan for planning services (function 500) must make provision for $10,000 expenditure for the IRCP zoning implementation. Specifically, the financial plan will include a $5,000 allowance for legal fees and a $5,000 allowance for professional fees.
Fire Protection Feasibility Study - The CVRD is required to initiate discussions to extend fire protection services to determine if residents support service, within three years.
Staff resources are proposed to be used to facilitate community consultation and no additional resources requirements are anticipated.
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) – The CVRD is required to collaborate with owners, residents and other government agencies to develop CWPP within five years.
Staff resources are proposed to be used and no additional resources requirements are anticipated.
Recycling Education Program – The CVRD is to initiate discussions within three years.
Staff resources are proposed to be used and no additional resource requirements are anticipated.
Signed by: Beth Dunlop Title: Corporate Financial Officer
Agency: CVRD Date: September 24, 2013
Please return your response by August 30, 2013 by fax to 250-334-8156,
or by email to [email protected]
1
Selena Speed
Subject: FW: Mt. Washington IRCP_property designation
From: Ralda Leroux Sent: November‐05‐13 12:23 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Mt. Washington IRCP_property designation
Good afternoon Ms. Loukras and Mr. Donkers! Thank you for your email submission and for bringing your concern to our attention. Let’s address your submission first and then attend to the concern expressed. Please be assured that your email submission below will be included in the public hearing binder. With regards to your request, please note that the Mt. Washington IRCP bylaw 215 is an amendment of the official community plan (OCP), which does not govern land use designation as referred to in your email below. The zoning bylaw full-fills that function. However, once the Mt. Washington IRCP is adopted and forms part of the OCP, the steps indicated in the IRCP Part Five Implementation will be followed to ensure that the provision of the IRCP is indeed implemented. You will be relieved to see that the review of the zoning bylaw is included as one of the implementation steps listed in Part Five Implementation, Section 5.2 Studies and Future Plans, third line from the bottom of page 66:
This line includes the review of the Mt. Washington Comprehensive Development Zone (MTW-CD) (forming part of the zoning bylaw), that planning services will undertake within one year after the adoption of the Mt. Washington IRCP.
The review of the Mt. Washington Comprehensive Development Zone in the zoning bylaw will be a continuation of the IRCP. Once the regional district starts with this review, we will certainly keep your request in mind to refrain having “resort” included in any of the future land use designations of the Mt. Washington Comprehensive Development Zone. Kind regards, Ralda Ralda Leroux MCIP, Registered Professional Planner Policy analyst, department of strategic and long range planning Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Direct: 250‐334‐6076 Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 Fax: 250‐334‐4358
2
From: Judy Loukras [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:21 AM To: Mt.WashingtonIRCP; [email protected] Cc: Peter Donkers Subject: Property designation
We are owners of a condo at the Blueberry Hill complex on Mt. Washington and we are sending this email in response to the recent letter to participate in the public hearing on Nov. 14 for the Mt Washington community plan. As you are aware, many Mt Washington property owners have purchased freehold from Mt. Washington in the previous few years. From our understanding, the principle reason for this major investment into each of our properties was to add value. It was generally understood that the value would be added at the time of sale in the future to a new buyer as the property would now have freehold and as such would be looked at favorably by the banks in terms of arranging mortgages and financing.
We have recently discovered that this scenario in fact is not the situation we all expected and there is one additional barrier to the banks looking favorably at financing Mt Washington properties. We have been in contact with several of the major banks and have learned that due to the properties designation of "Resort Residential", our properties do not qualify for mortgages or financing. We are formally requesting at this time that the properties at Mt. Washington be re-designated to "Residential" and the word "Resort" be removed from the designation.
In researching this topic, we found that properties at Whistler and Silver Star near Vernon are both designated as "Residential".
We will not be in attendance at the public meeting on the 14th, but would like to have this letter stand as our formal input into the process of public input into the community plan.
Kind Regards, Judy Loukras and Peter Donkers 1317 Point St. Victoria, BC V8S 1A4
1
Selena Speed
To: Ralda LerouxSubject: RE: MWAR response to IRCP comments from stakeholders
From: Anya Macleod [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November‐12‐13 10:23 AM To: Ralda Leroux; Michael Zbarsky Cc: Peter Gibson Subject: MWAR response to IRCP comments from stakeholders
Hi Ralda,
I hope you’ve been well. I've had the chance this weekend to review the comments submitted to you from various stakeholder groups. Peter Gibson has asked me to respond on his behalf.
A common theme in some of the comments is the protection of Strathcona Provincial Park, and mitigation strategies suggested for the perceived impacts from development in the IRCP area.
Park protection is a laudable goal, and one which Mount Washington Alpine Resort Ltd. (MWAR) has actively supported for many years. However, we are concerned about some of these comments for the following reasons:
1. Our understanding is that the scope of the IRCP pertains only to what is within the jurisdiction and authority of the Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD). It is a policy document re: development of the built environment within the IRCP boundaries, as relates to residential and mixed use areas.
Strathcona Provincial Park is the jurisdiction of the Province and the federal government. Thus, comments with regard to park protection—however well-intentioned—would not seem to belong to this particular document.
2. Mount Washington Alpine Resort Ltd. (MWAR) has met or exceeded all environmental regulations and standards as set by the pertinent ministries at the provincial and federal levels. There are no outstanding issues from a compliance or regulatory standpoint, as identified by any agency tasked with environmental monitoring.
Furthermore, MWAR has received warm praise from organizations such as the Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Foundation (whose 2013 letter you have a copy of already). Please let us know if you would like us to re-submit our many letters of support.
3. To the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific data substantiating commentators’ “concerns” that MWAR operations are having a negative impact on water quality in Strathcona Provincial Park. These are opinions without scientific evidence to support them.
We are only aware of one study: a Master’s thesis by Jordi Jay Nicolet (who is not a registered professional biologist). This thesis is limited in scope and does not draw any conclusions other than that more study is needed.
If there are in fact scientific studies undertaken by appropriate professionals that we are not aware of, we would like to see them. Otherwise, it is our belief that unsubstantiated ‘concerns” do not belong in a policy document.
2
Most disturbing to us are the comments submitted that insist further study is not needed (where is the preceding study?), that certain steps need to be taken now (in response to what data?) and then impacts tracked (measured according to what baseline?). Even to a non-scientist, this approach seems completely contrary to an evidence-based approach.
Please let me know if this email is a sufficient means of submitting our concerns, or if procedure requires the submission of a formal letter signed by Peter prior to the Nov 14th meeting.
Additionally, please let me know if I should copy anyone other than Mike on this email.
Regards, Anya
250-702-0337
600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6
Tel: 250-334-6000 Fax: 250-334-4358
Toll free: 1-800-331-6007
www.comoxvalleyrd.ca
BYLAW REFERRAL FORM
Files: 6480-20/Area C, 3360-20/Area C and CP 2CV 13 Electoral area official community plan amendment: Mt. Washington IRCP
Date Sent: July 31, 2013 Respond by: August 30, 2013
Please comment on the attached application regarding potential effects on your interests. Section 879 of the Local Government Act (LGA) outlines that a local government must provide one or more opportunities for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities affected by the development of an official community plan (OCP), or the repeal or amendment of an OCP. In keeping with Section 879, the Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) wishes to ensure that all future consultations with applicable adjacent regional districts and municipalities, First Nations, school and improvement district boards, and provincial and federal government agencies are considered early and ongoing as required by the LGA. You will note on the response form a number of choices that describe your interests. All details that support your position are appreciated including official legislative, governance and policy considerations that may affect the CVRD’s consideration of these bylaws. We would appreciate your response within thirty (30) days of July 31, 2013. If no response is received by August 30, 2013, it will be assumed that your agency’s interests are unaffected. If required, please contact the CVRD to assist you in determining the type of information that would be helpful or to better understand how the proposed bylaws may impact land use and development. Should you have any specific questions regarding the proposed bylaw amendments, please contact Ralda Leroux, policy analyst at 250.334.6076 or email [email protected]
Applicant’s Name: CVRD
Purpose of Bylaws: To amend the OCP, by replacing the existing Mt. Washington LAP, with the proposed new Mt. Washington integrated resort community plan (IRCP) and in so doing, ensure that the proposed new objectives and policies of the IRCP are consistent with those of the Comox Valley regional growth strategy (RGS).
OCP Bylaw: Bylaw No. 2042, being the “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan, 1998”
OCP amendment: Bylaw No. 215, being the “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan, 1998”, Amendment No. 45
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 2
The staff report attached introduces the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP and provides an overview of the five parts of the plan, summarized below:
- Part one includes four figures and portrays the contextual overview of the plan area.
- Part two, planning for future growth, describes the nine principles of the IRCP, includes a summary of RGS policies that formed the basis of the IRCP, and a review of existing capacity and demand of land area, infrastructure, accommodation and services.
- Part three consists of objectives, expanded RGS policies and advocacy policies.
- Part four provides information on the mixed use development permit area.
- Part five explains the implementation of the plan. The IRCP ends with a glossary of terms and the following three maps:
- Topography/slope analysis
- Land use designations
- Development permit area Should you have any comments or questions regarding the proposed amendments, please contact me directly at 250.334.6076 or by email at [email protected] Thank you, R. Leroux
Ralda Leroux Policy Analyst
Attachments: The staff report dated July 5, 2013 with the following appendices:
- Appendix A – bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45” (Due to the size of this bylaw, it is attached separately.)
- Appendix B – work plan to process bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”
- Appendix C – governments, ministries and agency referral list - Appendix D – mixed use development approval information area – application
requirements cc: Debra Oakman, chief administrative officer
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 3
BYLAW REFERRAL FORM RESPONSE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL REFERRAL FORM
FILE: 6480/Area C, 3350-20/Area C and CP 2CV 13
Electoral area official community plan amendment:
Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, amendment no 45
☐ General comments – see below ☐ Interests unaffected
☐ Issues requiring attention – see comments below
☐ Opposed due to reasons outlined below
Comments:
Signed by: Title:
Agency: Date:
Please return your response by August 30, 2013 by fax to 250-334-8156,
or by email to [email protected]
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 4
DATE: July 5, 2013 FILE: 6480-20 / Area C and 3350-20 /Area C /CP 2C 13
TO: Chair and Directors Electoral Areas Service Committee FROM: Debra Oakman, CMA Chief Administrative Officer RE: Mt. Washington IRCP – OCP amendment bylaw
Purpose The purpose of this report is to introduce the official community plan (OCP) amendment bylaw to replace the existing Mt. Washington local area plan (LAP) with the new Mt. Washington integrated resort community plan (IRCP). Policy analysis Section 865, part 25 of the Local Government Act (LGA) requires that all electoral area OCP policies be consistent with Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) bylaw 120, 2010. The following management growth policies of part five, section 5.2 of the RGS provides guidance for the development of settlement nodes: “MG Policy 1B-1 – Settlement Nodes Settlement Nodes shall accommodate growth through a balance of new development, intensification and improvements to public infrastructure. Infrastructure improvements will need to include the provision of appropriate water and sewer services along with enhanced public transit and active transportation options. MG Policy 1B-2 – Uses within Settlement Nodes Settlement Nodes will be identified within the Comox Valley Regional District OCP and will have a Local Area Plan that provides for specific land-uses and development criteria.” On June 28, 2011 the board gave direction to proceed with a Mt. Washington IRCP prior to the electoral area official community plan review and on July 26, 2011 the board approved the work plan for this project. Section 876 of the LGA authorizes a local government to adopt one or more OCPs. Division two of Part 26 of the LGA outlines the purposes, authority, required content, policy statements and adoption procedures of OCPs. Section 890 states that a local government must hold a public hearing before adopting an OCP. Section 879 of the LGA states that during the amendments to enactment, a local government must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 5
As for the development permit included in the Mt. Washington IRCP, section 920.1(1) of the LGA clarifies “development approval information” and in section 920.1(2) prescribes the following: “If an official community plan includes a provision under section 920.01 (1), the local government must, by bylaw, establish procedures and policies on the process for requiring development approval information under this section and the substance of the information that may be required.” Executive summary In accordance with the RGS implementation policy, the electoral areas OCP must be updated following the adoption of the RGS. Through a RFP process, the board selected CTQ Consultants Ltd. to develop the Mt. Washington IRCP that would be consistent with the RGS policies. They followed the board approved consultation plan and early in 2012, effectively engaged with identified stakeholders. The input received from the stakeholders and policy direction of the RGS formed the basis of the IRCP. Together with Saratoga and Union Bay, the RGS identified Mt. Washington as a growth receiving settlement node. Over the long term, the future of Mt. Washington is not only tied to the expansion of the alpine resort but also in the ability to grow as a community. As a result, the IRCP policies provide direction for the expansion of varied land uses, community services and infrastructure and for adapting to climate change. The community service policies include direction for fire protection, safety, policing and security, education, roads, parking, transportation and mobility, recreation, parks and greenways, water and sewer services provision, solid waste disposal and recycling, and telecommunications. The policies of the IRCP do not dictate an expansion of resort amenities or responsibilities. Instead, they allow for flexibility in future land use, as regards amenities, services and new development. The IRCP also delineates who is responsible for what; namely, which agent or body provides and maintains an existing service, and who would be providing and maintaining future services. CVRD commitments are found throughout the IRCP, but especially in part five, where the implementation steps are listed. These commitments will be subject to budget approvals. The OCP amendment bylaw (appendix A) will replace the existing Mt. Washington local area plan, schedule ‘J’ to bylaw no. 2042, being the “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan, Bylaw, 1998” with the Mt. Washington IRCP. The proposed OCP amendment bylaw will be processed according to the work plan attached as appendix B. In keeping with section 879 of the LGA, the report presents a list of governments, ministries and government agencies (appendix C) that will be included in the referral process, which will follow after first reading of the amendment bylaw. In accordance with section 920.1(1) and (2) of the LGA, the planning procedures and fees bylaw need be amended to include the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP mixed use development permit application requirements. Upon board approval of the application requirements (appendix D), the procedures and fees bylaw amendment process will be initiated.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 6
Recommendations from the chief administrative officer: 1. THAT first reading be given of Bylaw No. 215, being the “Comox Valley Official
Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”, attached as appendix A of the staff report dated July 5, 2013; which proposes to amend Bylaw No. 2042, being the “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998”, in order to replace the Mt. Washington local area plan with the integrated resort community plan.
AND FURTHER THAT the work plan be approved to process bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”, attached as appendix B of the staff report dated July 5, 2013. AND FINALLY THAT the agency referral list be approved for bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”, attached as appendix C of the staff report dated July 5, 2013.
2. THAT the Mt. Washington mixed use development permit application requirements attached as appendix D of the staff report dated July 5, 2013 be approved subject to adoption of bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”.
AND FINALLY THAT bylaw no. 3, “The Planning Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2008”, be amended to include the Mt. Washington mixed use development permit application requirements, subject to adoption of bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”.
3. THAT the CVRD commitments included in the implementation section, part five of the Mt. Washington integrated resort community plan be considered during the 2014 financial planning process, subject to adoption of bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”.
Respectfully: D. Oakman
Debra Oakman, CMA Chief Administrative Officer History/background factors The purpose of the new IRCP is to align the long range planning policies for Mt. Washington, the infrastructure service requirements and the need to plan community services at Mt. Washington as a settlement node. The Comox Valley regional growth strategy includes Mt. Washington as one of three settlement nodes for the Comox Valley, and describes these nodes as follows: “Settlement Nodes have been identified to accommodate compact forms of development but are not contiguous with Municipal Areas. Settlement Nodes consist of defined areas around Union Bay, Saratoga Beach and Mt. Washington. These Settlement Nodes are established through local planning policy documents around existing
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 7
communities with significant planned capacity to accommodate new growth. Each Settlement Node is unique and will develop based on its particular characteristics and Local Area Plan. New Settlement Nodes can only be created through amendment to the RGS.
MT. WASHINGTON Located in Puntledge-Black Creek – Electoral Area C – Mt. Washington provides its own water and sewer services and has long-term development plans in place that will see it grow substantially as a resort and recreation area. Long-term considerations for this area at the regional level will need to focus on health and safety issues such as provision of adequate fire protection and establishing public transit linkages with Town Centres and inter-regional connections.”
On May 31, 2011 the board directed staff to proceed with the Mt. Washington LAP review and to create an IRCP that reflects the growth management principles and policies of the RGS prior to the comprehensive electoral area official community plan review and on July 26, 2011 approved the work plan for this project. The vision for the creation of a new IRCP was captured in the work plan as follows: “To accommodate the growth and expansion of the resort will be based on LGA, part 25 and 26 requirements; provincial requirements (Bill 27); the need to examine the provision of community services; the regional growth strategy (RGS) vision for the Mt. Washington settlement node; the Comox Valley sustainability strategy (CVSS) principles; the existing LAP content; the vision of the Mt. Washington ownership group; and the views of unit holders and commercial operators; and the views of public.” The services of CTQ Consultants Ltd. were retained to develop the Mt. Washington IRCP. At the November 15, 2011 CVRD board meeting the consultation plan of CTQ Consultants Ltd. was received, which included an on-hill presence and display and a consultation process with identified interest groups. In the first quarter of 2012, staff provided highlights of the consultation results. Staff built on the foundation laid by CTQ Consultants Ltd. and during subsequent draft IRCPs continued working with the two key landowners involved with this project, namely K’ómoks First Nation and the Mt. Washington ownership group. At the beginning of the project, the scope of the study included two areas, namely the Mt. Washington settlement node and three crown parcels at the foot of Mt. Washington abutting the Strathcona Parkway. The RGS managing growth (MG) policy 3A-2 and 3A-3 indicates that, should the ownership of the crown parcels be transferred to K’ómoks First Nation, the RGS will permit the development of tourist commercial uses with the allowance for temporary staff housing subject to OCP and zoning approvals on these lands. After K’ómoks First Nation requested that the crown parcels be removed from the study area, the IRCP was confined to the RGS-identified settlement node boundary and exclusive consultation with the remaining primary land owner. Development of the IRCP focused on future land use and the investigation of community services, to identify what services were provided and which services needed to be expanded to serve the residents and visitors to the resort. The end result is included as the proposed OCP amendment bylaw (appendix A), which consists of the following five parts:
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 8
- Part one includes four figures and portrays the contextual overview of the plan area.
- Part two, planning for future growth, describes the nine principles that formed the foundation and guided the development of the IRCP. It also provides a summary of those RGS policies that formed the basis of the IRCP and were expanded in part three of the plan. This part ends with a review of existing capacity and demand of land area, infrastructure, accommodation and services on Mt. Washington.
- Part three consists of objectives, expanded RGS policies and advocacy policies for the plan area with regards to land use designations, community services, environmental protection, mining and forestry. The advocacy policies were included to reflect what needs to be considered by other agencies. Staff explored the establishment of a broad resort community service that addresses a spectrum of services. This investigation resulted in the creation of objectives and policies for community services included in part three, which addresses fire protection, safety, policing and security, education, roads, parking, transportation and mobility, recreation, parks and greenways, water and sewer services provision, solid waste disposal and recycling, and telecommunications.
- Part four provides information on the mixed use development permit area that applies to the developable area of Mt. Washington and a variety of land uses illustrated on Map 3: Development Permit Area. It was created to enhance the alpine village character and to ensure that the development within the development permit area is suitably integrated with the natural environment and improved surroundings.
- Part five explains the implementation of the plan, delineates who is responsible for which studies and action steps and lists the studies and future plans that need to be created. This part also provides guidance on how collaboration amongst key role players can be achieved. CVRD board commitments included throughout the plan and listed in part five, will be subject to future budget approvals.
The IRCP ends with a glossary of terms and the following three maps with 2012 aerial topography images as a back-drop:
- Topography/slope analysis - Land use designations - Development permit area
The land use designation map depicts the following areas:
- “Mt. Washington IRCP boundary”, the “village centre”, the areas earmarked for “mixed use commercial, mixed use residential, potential mixed use residential, resort facilities, resort recreation” and “resort expansion areas”. The “potential mixed use residential” area is located outside of the IRCP boundary. The RGS growth management MG policy 1B-4 permits minor adjustments to existing settlement node boundaries identified through the local area plan planning process. In review of the RGS criteria for minor amendment listed in section 5.2(3) of the RGS, the plan supports the principle expansion of the IRCP boundaries to include this area, subject to a minor amendment of the RGS. It is considered
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 9
that this expansion qualifies as a minor amendment to the RGS since it is not to be of regional significance in terms of scale, impacts or precedence; contributes to achieving the goals and objectives set out in part three of the RGS; and contributes to achieving the general principles contained in the growth management strategy part four.
With this report, the end product is presented to the board for consideration as bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45” (appendix A), with a work plan (appendix B) to process the bylaw. Should the board approve the proposal, the formal referral process will commence and the amendment bylaw will be referred to all the entities listed in appendix C attached. Options
1. To give first reading to the proposed electoral areas OCP amendment bylaw (included as appendix A) and in accordance with the work plan (appendix B), direct staff to process the bylaw and send referrals to all agents and entities identified in the referral list (appendix C);
2. Do not give first reading to the proposed electoral areas OCP amendment bylaw and direct staff how to proceed.
The amendment bylaw is founded in RGS policies and based on public consultation done by CTQ Consultants Ltd. and further input from the two major landowners (K’ómoks First Nation and the Mt. Washington ownership group) and as such, staff is recommending option one. Financial factors Funds to complete the project were included in the 2011 budget and were continuously carried forward to form part of the 2013 financial plan for function 503 strategic and long range planning. CVRD commitments are found throughout the IRCP, but especially in part five, where the implementation steps are listed. These commitments will be subject to budget approvals. Legal factors The proposed objectives and policies adhere to the growth direction of the RGS. The creation of the Mt. Washington IRCP objectives and policies followed the requirements of LGA, part 25 – to bring the OCP into conformance with the RGS. Part 26 of the LGA will be followed to ensure sufficient consultation with key stakeholders and to adopt the Mt. Washington IRCP to form part of the electoral area OCP. Adherence to the requirements of the LGA will mitigate any risks to the future adoption of the proposed OCP amending bylaw. It is recommended that the board only consider first reading of the bylaw, so that potential amendments to the bylaw can be incorporated based on referral comments received, before second reading is considered.
In accordance with section 920.1(1) and (2) of the LGA, and upon board approval of the mixed use development permit application requirements (appendix D), the amendment of the planning procedures and fees bylaw to include the application requirements, will be initiated. Sustainability implications The RGS mirrored the objectives and policies of the Comox Valley sustainability strategy (CVSS). And therefore the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP, based on the RGS policies, reflects the sustainability direction of the CVSS.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 10
Intergovernmental factors Section 879 of the LGA states that during the amendment to an enactment, a local government must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations, and authorities it considers will be affected. To facilitate the review and consultation process for the proposed bylaw a list was prepared of external organizations and authorities to which these proposed amendments shall be forwarded. The K’ómoks First Nations, ministries and agencies that are suggested for inclusion in the referral process are listed in appendix C attached. Consultation with First Nations will be done in accordance with the board approved K'ómoks First Nation/CVRD Referrals Management Program. Interdepartmental involvement The development of the Mt. Washington IRCP is led by the strategic and long range planning department as an RGS implementation item. The IRCP has implications for the property services and community services branches of the CVRD. During the drafting of the plan, managers in the parks and solid waste departments of community services, the manager of planning services and the senior
manager of engineering services were consulted. During the creation of the proposed OCP amendment bylaw the legislative services department was consulted. Citizen/public relations CTQ Consultants Ltd. have followed the board approved consultation plan and received constructive public and agency input. The plan consisted of a website to keep the public informed, an on-hill presence and display, flyers, posters and an on-line survey, consultation with identified interest groups, with special focus on K’ómoks First Nation and the Mt. Washington ownership group. The website will soon be reconstructed to post the proposed amendment bylaw, the work plan and to communicate the progress made with the processing of the bylaw. Through website updates the stakeholders and public have been and will be kept informed with the progress made on the project. A special email address will again be activated that the public can use to interact with staff on items pertaining to the project.
In accordance with the work plan to process the amendment bylaw, a public hearing will be scheduled. Prepared by: Concurrence: R. Leroux M. Zbarsky
Ralda Leroux, MCIP, RPP Michael Zbarsky, B. Sc. AScT Policy Analyst Manager of Transit and Sustainability Attachments – appendices A to D
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 11
Appendix A
Due to the size of the document, the amendment bylaw has been attached separately.
Appendix B
Work plan to process bylaw 215, “Rural Comox Valley Official Community
Plan Bylaw, 1998, Amendment No. 45”
Steps Aim to meet the following dates and meeting deadlines
1. Request board support for:
o 1st reading of the proposed bylaw (that
introduces the bylaw) to amendment to the electoral area OCP to replace schedule ‘J’ of the OCP (the Mt. Washington Local Area Plan) with the proposed revised schedule ‘J’ (the Mt. Washington IRCP);
o the list of governments, ministries and agencies identified in the referral list.
EASC July 15, 2013 meeting
CVRD board July 30, 2013 meeting
[Note: that KFN was consulted during the drafting of the Mt. Washington IRCP and already provided comments that were taken into account before the draft Mt. Washington IRCP was finalized.
During the referral process, the bylaw will again be referred to KFN and the other two FN tribes in Campbell River, who have not yet seen the proposal.]
2. One-month referral of the proposed OCP amendment bylaw:
o to identify governments, ministries and agencies, including First Nations and advisory planning commissions.
July 31 to August 29, 2013
[Note: Agenda for September EASC closes on August 30, 2013. SLRP will only be able to finalize the staff report once all the referrals are received in a timely fashion.]
3. To request the board to consider:
o the proposed potential amendments of the bylaw based on referral comments collected;
o giving 2nd
reading; and o setting a public hearing date.
EASC September 9, 2013 meeting
CVRD board September 24, 2013
4. Hold a public hearing Potentially schedule public hearing for Wednesday October 23, 2013
5. Request the board to consider:
o input received at the public hearing; and o giving 3
rd reading.
EASC November 18, 2013 meeting
CVRD board November 26, 2013 meeting
6. Refer bylaw to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for review.
November 27, 2013
7. Once the ministry approves the bylaw, request the board to consider 4
th reading to adopt the
bylaw.
EASC January 2014 meeting
CVRD board, end of January 2014 meeting
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 12
Appendix C
At its regularly scheduled board meeting on July 30, 2013, the regional district board endorsed forwarding the proposed OCP amendment bylaw to the following agencies listed below.
FIRST NATIONS AND AGENCY REFERRAL LIST
Should the regional board approve first and reading of the amending Bylaw No. 215 that the proposed referrals to be sent to the following government
levels, ministries, agencies and departments as highlighted with a .
First Nations
K’ómoks First Nation Homalco Indian Band (covers mostly Electoral Area ‘C’)
Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society (Consists of We Wai Kum, We Wai Kai and Kwiakah First Nations)
Federal Departments and Agencies
Canadian Coast Guard Public Works and Government Services Canada
Department of National Defence (CFB Comox)
RCMP
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada Navigable Waters
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Provincial Ministries and Agencies
Agricultural Land Commission Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
BC Assessment Authority Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
BC Parks Ministry of Energy and Mines
BC Ferry Services Inc. Ministry of Environment
BC Transit Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Investment
Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Ministry of Agriculture
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 13
Local Government
Comox (Town of) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
Courtenay (City of) Strathcona Regional District
Cumberland (Village of) Regional District of Mount Waddington
Islands Trust (Denman Local Trust Committee)
Regional District of Nanaimo
CVRD Branches
Corporate Financial Officer (required for OCP amendments due to S882 of LGA; impact on financial plan or capital expenditure program)
General Manager of Community Services Branch (required for OCP amendments due to S882 of LGA; impact on waste management plan)
Manager of Planning Services Manager of Parks
Other
Agricultural Community Advisory Panel Comox Valley Economic Development Society
Vancouver Island Health Authority (Environmental Health)
Advisory Planning Commissions for electoral areas ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 14
Appendix D
Proposed amendment to the Comox Valley Regional District Planning Procedures and Fees
Bylaw, 2008, to include the following as Schedule A-4 and renumber accordingly
Application for Mixed Use Development Permit within the
Mixed Use Development Permit Area of the Mt. Washington
integrated resort community plan (IRCP) The board delegates to the regional district officers through the delegation bylaw, the power to issue development permits in the mixed use development permit area indicated on Map 3: Development Permit Area of the Mt. Washington IRCP. Where it appears one or more of the requirements outlined in sections 10 and 11 are not applicable, the requirement(s) may be waived by a Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) Officer. 1. Development approval information area
The lands designated as the mixed use development permit area within Bylaw No. 2042,
being the “Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1998”, are also designated
under Section 920.01 of the Local Government Act as areas in which the CVRD may require
development applicants to provide information on the anticipated impact of development
activities under specifies circumstances, affecting designated areas. The requirement for a
development permit will apply to the area identified on Map 3: Development Permit Area.
2. Application
An application shall be completed upon a form provided by the regional district and shall be
delivered to the regional district, together with such plans and particulars as outlined in
sections 10 and 11 below.
3. Application Acceptance
The CVRD may refuse to receive any applications that fail to include all required
information as per sections 10 and 11 below.
4. Fees
The sum as specified in schedule A-1 shall be paid to the regional district at the time of
application. The official date of application shall be that when all required information for
the application and the corresponding fee is received.
5. Refund
Where an application does not proceed or is withdrawn, a refund as outlined in schedule A-1
will be provided to the applicant.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 15
6. Cancellation
Applications one year old or older that are inactive for a period of six months are deemed to
be abandoned and will be closed. Where appropriate and requested by the applicants,
refunds will be provided pursuant to schedule A-1.
An applicant has the right to apply for an extension of up to one-year. Any extension
approved by the regional board, whether for the maximum one-year or a lesser time, is
subject to a payment of 50% of the original application fee.
7. Reapplication
i) Where application submissions do not satisfy the development approval information
requirements, the applicant may request that the regional board reconsider the matter
without charge.
ii) Where an application has been denied by the CVRD officer with delegated authority
to approve a permit, the owner of the land that is subject to that decision may request
that the regional board reconsider the matter.
iii) Where an application has been denied by the regional board, no reapplication for a
substantially similar proposal shall be considered within 12 months of the date of
rejection of the previous application. Fees as per schedule A-1 are applicable to any
new application.
iv) Where an application has been withdrawn, fees as per schedule A-1 are applicable to
any new application.
8. Security
Security in the form of a cash deposit or letter of credit in the amount of 125 per cent of the
costs estimated by the landscape architect or equivalent professional which meets British
Columbia landscape standard may be required to secure satisfactory completion of landscape
and screening works. Where the completion of works includes the successful establishment
of vegetation, the regional district may hold 25 per cent of the total security for the period of
18 months after the confirmation that all works authorised in the development permit have
been completed.
9. Application procedure for development approval information area An applicant shall first provide a written term of reference for the preparation of
information on the natural features of the site and proposed development. The terms of
reference shall specify professional expertise to be used for preparation of information and
the type of information to be submitted. The terms of reference require the acceptance by
the regional district prior to the information being prepared.
10. Application requirements At the time of application, the applicant shall provide:
i) The completed application form. This must include authorizing signatures of the
owner and/or agent.
ii) A written brief which describes the reasons/rationale for the requested permit.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 16
11. Development approval information requirements
In order to assist the regional district in determining conditions or requirements to be
included in a development permit, and to meet the guidelines of the mixed use development
permit, all applicants may be required to provide the following development approval
information at the time of application:
Application requirements
Report preparation Submission requirements
A survey based
site plan
Registered
professional
planner, architect,
landscape architect,
land surveyor or other
qualified professional
The site plan shall include the following information (on one or more
drawings as needed):
North arrow and scale 1:500 or less;
A key map indicating the location of the civic address;
Form giving elements on the subject site:
- Location and setbacks of natural features to property lines and
buildings, such as water courses (including ditches), banks
and steep slopes; and
- Rights-of-way and easements;
The proposed development of the site:
- Existing and proposed grades (when land alteration is
considered);
- Location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings,
including building height, and total site coverage;
- Location and dimensions of vehicle and pedestrian access
points, on-site drive way(s), parking areas, pedestrian
walkways and potential bicycle pathways; and
- Indicating how provision is made for alternative transportation
choices and vehicle drop-off areas;
On-site parking spaces and dimensions for:
- Emergency vehicles (where fire lanes will be provided);
- Physically impaired persons; and
- Location of bicycle racks;
In accordance with the snow/rainwater management plan, the
drainage arrangement and location of on-site snow storage and
snow groomed paths;
Solid waste management – garbage, recycle and composting
facilities; and how screening will be provided;
Location of potential mechanical equipment areas and if these are
provided, how it will be screened; and
Location of pervious and semi-pervious areas – and total
coverage (as a percentage of the site area) that is impervious.
Snow/rain water
management
plan
Registered professional
engineer
If low impact development forms part of the plan, describe how
features such as rain gardens, bio swales and infiltration trenches
will be incorporated.
Architectural
elevations
Registered professional
architect
Include dimensions of buildings and architectural features, by
describing the following:
Types of roof materials;
Location and screening of roof equipment; and
Materials for the exterior finishing of the building.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 17
Landscaping
and screening
plan
Landscape architect or
equivalent professional
which meets the British
Columbia landscape
standard
A plan indicating:
Existing trees and vegetation:
- All tree species to be removed and their diameter at breast
height;
- The location of existing trees, vegetation and other important
natural features that will be retained;
- The rehabilitation and re-vegetation – the location or pattern
and spacing of all proposed trees, shrubs, plants and ground
covers, as well as landscape features such as boulders, logs,
fencing, or other structures;
Water conservation measures and irrigation (if applicable):
- Describe which water conservation measures will be
incorporated – either through landscaping with drought
resistant and native species, or snow melt and/or rain water
capturing measures for re-use;
- Describe how the proposed landscape will be watered;
- Include finish selections such as mulch, stone gardens
etcetera as well as irrigation needs if any. Quantities of each
of these must be provided in a report that accompanies the
plan;
Security bond:
A landscape security bond will be required for 125 percent of the
total value of the landscaped projects. To this end, specify and
provide cost estimates for the total value of the landscape work
and all material that is required to implement the landscape plan.
Site illumination
and signage
Applicant
Plan indicating:
Location of all exterior lighting for all the proposed and existing
buildings and any lighting included in the landscape plan;
Where applicable, the location of existing signs on the subject
site, with drawings and/or photographs of the details;
Dimensions of existing and proposed signs; and
Colour, material and design of proposed signs.
GHG emission
reduction
Registered
professional
architect
Indicate:
How the site and building design incorporate energy efficient
building materials, techniques, technologies, and practices that
produce local energy and/or reduce the amount of energy
consumption;
The solar path during summer and winter months,
demonstrating how the location, orientation and design of
buildings facilitate retention of passive solar heat and optimizing
daylight hours;
The location of the building, the majority of the windows in the
building, and the prevailing wind direction – to illustrate if the
design makes provision for natural ventilation and subsequent
reduced energy use; and
Low-impact development features incorporated in the building
and landscape design, making provision for on-site water
capturing for re-use and water conservation measures.
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 18
12. Processing
The following procedure will apply:
a) A staff report and other information deemed relevant will be submitted to the
approving officer of the regional district. Applicants will be provided an opportunity
to discuss the permit conditions with staff and approving officer. If the applicant does
not agree with the approving officer’s decision, the applicant will be given the
opportunity to appeal the decision to the appropriate committee of the regional
district.
b) After the approving officer has dealt with the application, the applicant will be notified
in writing of the outcome.
c) Where the regional district issues a development permit, it shall file in the Land Title
Office a notice that the land described in the notice is subject to the permit.
END OF DOCUMENT
BYLAW REFERRAL FORM RESPONSE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL REFERRAL FORM FILE: 6480/Area C and 3350-20/CP 2CV 13
Electoral area official community plan amendment: Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, amendment no 45
☒ General departmental comments – see below
☐ Interests unaffected
☐ Issues requiring attention – see comments below
☐ Opposed due to reasons outlined below
The proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, amendment no 45 meets the requirements and criteria of the solid waste management plan. Staff have would like to identify the following concerns/points of identification for the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP:
1. With regards to the implementation stage of the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP, staffing obligations and staffing resources to present and provide extensive levels of consultation with Mt. Washington ownership group and stratas may not be available. A more advisory role should be considered, not high level.
2. Wild life conflicts should be considered – bear proof containers on as need basis to reduce human/wildlife conflict and exposure.
3. Recycling services should be provided through private contracts initiated by stratas, until Multi-Material BC initiates collection of residential units through any future curbside collection of electoral areas A, B, and C.
4. Curbside collection of household waste and recycling are currently available through private contracts. Curbside collection may be provided in the future, to single family dwellings with residential zoning, through electoral area C collection, established by regional district bylaw.
Signed by: T. A. Boatman Title: Thomas A. Boatman, PE
Manager of solid waste
Agency: Community Services Date: September 23, 2013
Please return your response by August 30, 2013 by fax to 250-334-8156,
or by email to [email protected]
Agency and local government referral - Files: 6480-20/Area C/3350-20/CP 2CV 13 Page 3
BYLAW REFERRAL FORM RESPONSE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL REFERRAL FORMFILE: 6480/Area C and 3350-20/CP 2CV 13
Electoral area official community plan amendment:Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, amendment no 45
EJ General comments — see below J Interests unaffected
[ilsues requiring attention — see [] Opposed due to reasons outlinedcomments below below
Comments: L • ,1
(4’, .f’. i
24A j, tji (
(
tce ( 7 4 --
..... L.L L1LI4LLJiIA L
<‘- çL4. c .f4-cv - .“/J- 1t* € -
, 4\_. —
‘__\ - ,
>LE ‘ V 41 Z1kS —
(
€f
- S 4.fLg
&rL4r.f±cL L
‘I
e&
Signed by:
IAgency:t4Ak -
/1I
Date:V
Please return your response by August 30, 2013 by fax to 250-334-8156,or by email to [email protected]
(b) Establishment of a parking lot at the base of Mt. Washington or the start ofStrathcona Parkway from which visitors to the resort community can use alternativetransportation options, such as car-pooling or shuttle bus services
(c) The CVRD will continue to discuss opportunities with BC Transit for the regionaltransit service to expand the service to the base of Mt. Washington
(d) An internal transit system for peak period use, with pick up and drop off at strategiclocations and parking lots
(e) A multi-modal transportation system with opportunities for ski-in and out, walking,cycling and use of people movers such as staircases, gondolas, magic carpet rides, andrope tows (powered by renewable energy sources) that will encourage people to getaround within the IRCP area without using their vehicles
(f) A year-round pedestrian and multi-use trail system(3) Encourage the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to:
(a) Continue maintaining and providing efficient snow clearing and maintenance ofStrathcona Parkway
(b) Continue communication with all the key parties that benefit from the parkway, suchas the Mt. Washington ownership group, the CVRD, private forest land owners andBC provincial parks
3.28 Recreation, parks, and greenways
Objectives
(1) To provide opportunities for four-season recreational services to the permanent andseasonal population of the resort cornrnunity___._ .
(2) To provide recreational all agcs’dnd abilities) \t(3) To, promote a formal public trail system (gravel and/or hard surface) to help reinforce
pedestrian orientation at the resort(4) To integrate public open spaces and trails into design to form an integral part of the resort
community, while understanding that (private) ski terrain is part of the open space systemand non-motorized transportation system (skIIng instead of walking/biking)
(5) To establish a development interface zone within the Mt. Washington IRCP area, topreserve or enhance aesthetics and minimize the impact of light and noise generated fromdevelopment within the IRCP area
(6) To respect the connectivity to Strathcona Provincial Park including views, trails and trail
Policy
heads
-)_-
(1) When reviewing applications for subdivision or rezoning, consider the provision of publicparks and recreational greenways that will improve connectivity within the village area andbetween the future village centre and adjacent Strathcona Provincial Park.
(2) Provide ample public open space and pedestrian walkway throughout the IRCP area to:
Mt. Washington IRCP Page 43
5.3 Promoting Collaboration amongst Key Role Players
The CVRD should work with the Mt.Washington ownership group to confirmneeds for facilities such as thefollowiflg:
• Recreational (indoor) facilities• Resort community facilities• An expanded emergency centre• Special amenities•
• Schools and other educationfacilitiesPlaces of WorshipOther institutional developments
Means to deliver these services will besubject to jurisdictional responsibilities.
The CVRD will facilitate discussionswith key stakeholders to, collaborateand address the concern about theimpact of snow removal and otheractivities on the natural environmentand aquatic systems within the IRCParea and in Paradise Meadows locatedin Strathcona Provincial Park adjacentto and downstream from the resortcommunity, to integrate solutions insnow management and clearing — thatcan be carried forward in a proposedfuture drainage plan.
As the resort community continues to grow andmature, it is understood that residents will demanda higher or different level of service, which mayneed to be delivered through new or expandedfacilities.
The CVRD and private landowners shouldcontinue to protect aquatic systems located withinthe IRCP area and further downstream and in thisregard, collaborate with key agencies andstakeholders.
Key role stakeholders include: the Ministry ofEnvironment, BC Parks, TimberWest, the Ministryof Transportation and Infrastructure, snow clearingservice providers and/or private contractorsresponsible for road maintenance within the Mt.Washington IRCP area, the Mt. Washingtonownership group, private and strata landownersand strata councils.
Item Action Explanation
Capital/Funding The CVRD will assist in determining Certain initiatives beyond the resort’s privatefunding sources, investment and development may require
cooperative funding ventures between the CVRD,the Mt. Washington ownership group, andprovincial government agencies. Examples includegovernment grant programs to assist with plansand studies, pursuing assistance (in kind), and aidfor various programs and financing for small capitalprojects.
Use of Facilitiesfor the ResortComm unity
•
•
ir”S
I
EnvironmentalConcerns
Road The CVRD will facilitate discussions Key role players that will be consulted include theInfrastructure with the agencies and entities involved Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, snow
with snow management and clearing clearing service providers and or privatewithin the IRCP area. contractors, the Mt. Washington ownership group,
private and strata landowners and strata councils,to investigate suitable means of providing roadsafety and snow clearing during severe weatherconditions to and at the resort community.
Mt. Washington IRCP Page 67
Children’s ParksPlans
Public EducationalFacilities
The CVRD will collaborate with the Mt.Washington ownership group, currentand future strata councils to findsuitable areas where children’s parksand play areas can be established.
The CVRD will determine if and wherepublic parkland should be provided,with the provision that if parkland isrequested in accordance with the LocalGovernment Act, then park will bemaintained by the CVRD.
The CVRD will facilitate discussion withthe pertinent School District and the Mt.Washington ownership group regardingfuture public school needs and potentialaVocation of land or buildings that canbe used for educational purposes.
The CVRD is interested in developing andmaintaining children’s play areas within the IRCParea.
The Mt. Washington ownership group and theCVRD will continue to monitor the needs ofresidents in relation to education. As warranted,the Mt. Washington ownership group will work withservice providers to ensure adequate space isprovided for appropriate education facilities withinthe Mt. Washington IRCP area.
Item Action Explanation
RCMP Protection The CVRD will initiate and facilitate To maintain and/or improve the safety ofService discussions between the RCMP and permanent and season residents and visitors to
the Mt. Washington ownership group, to Mt. Washington.ensure that adequate on-site policeprotection and security services areprovided for the resort community.
F
iT-
t,J
During future subdivision referrals.
Future Expansion Consideration of future expansion of Where there may be opportunities or needs toOpportunities the Mt. Washington IRCP area will be expand the residential and commercial land uses
subject to the receipt and review of the of the resort community into the privately managedplans and items listed, forest lands beyond the boundary of the IRCP.
Water and sanitary The Mt. Washington ownership group To ensure that the existing systems cansewer services will be responsible to provide data of accommodate future growth and expansion of the
these services, resort community, when development andexpansion is proposed.
Solid The CVRD will work with the Mt. In the interest of implementing a full recyclingWastelRecycling Washington ownership group, private program for the Mt. Washington IRCP area.Program and strata land owners and councils in
accordance with the items listed in thesolid waste disposal policies.
Alternative energy The CVRD will encourage and support Through on-going green building education.the use and generation of alternativeon-site energy production, and willcontinue to promote and educatedevelopment proponents and builderson the use of alternative energygeneration options.
Mt. Washington IRCP Page 69
1
Selena Speed
From: Anderson, Gary D <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:10 PMTo: Ralda LerouxSubject: Mount Washington IRCP
Hi Ralda I have been asked by Dwayne Stroh to providing comments on the Mount Washington IRCP
The few comments I do have are listed below.
Section 3.2.9 Water Service Provisions, page 44, item 1 could include obtaining a construction permit from theVIHA Public Health Engineer for any works to expand the existing water service, add additional treatmentfacilities or partake in any other works requiring a permit under the Drinking Water Protection Act.
Section 3.2.10 Sewer Services Provision, page 45, item 1 mentions providing sanitary services in accordance withVIHA standards. The resort’s current sanitary sewer is regulated under the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Thisreference should probably be changed to the MOE. VIHA applies the Sewerage System Regulation (SSR) underthe Public Health Act i.e. daily design flows less than 22,700 liters per day. This is about the volume of fourteenthree‐bedroom homes.
The creation of new parcels (subdivisions) should be assessed in accordance with the VIHA SubdivisionStandards if new parcels are proposing sewage flows with less than 22,700 lpd, proposing to construct onsitesewerage systems under the SSR and not connecting to the existing MOE regulated sanitary sewer.
References to water reuse (grey water recycling) such as its use in water conservation/irrigation could listagencies/legislation that could have criteria for its application such as the BC Building Code, MOE EnvironmentalManagement Act, VIHA Drinking Water Protecting Act and Public Health Act (SSR).
I hope this helps. Please call me if you have any questions.
Gary Anderson Environmental Health Officer Land Use/Water Consultant Health Protection Environmental Services 200‐1100 Island Highway Campbell River V9W 8C6 Phone (250) 850‐2108 Fax (250) 850‐2455
6480-20 / Area C3350-20 / CP 2CV 13
20130927_Tracking table of comments received on the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215 Page 1
APPENDIX A: Mt. Washington IRCP_ OCP amendment bylaw 215_table tracking comments received Miraged documents are hyperlinked in the table below
First Nation and Agencies referrals Referral comments received
1. K’ómoks First Nation September 3, 2013 - Appreciate that concerns noted earlier have been met. At this time KFN
have no additional comments on the proposed plan.
20130920_KomoksFN_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
2. Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society (Consists of We Wai Kum, We
Wai Kai and Kwiakah First Nations)
September 23, 2013 – No concerns regarding the application.
20130923_WeWaiKaiNation_Bylaw215_.pdf
3. Homalco Indian Band (covers mostly Electoral Area ‘C’) CP 2CV 13 20130814_Homalco_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
August 13, 2013 - Do not object to the proposal.
4. RCMP
Staff Sargent Roger Plamondon
August 26, 2013 - Concur with the content as noted. There are no recommendations at this
time.
20130826_RCMP_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
5. BC Parks
Aaron Millar, Regional Parks and Protected Areas Section Head [email protected]
Andy Smith, Area Supervisor, BC Parks, Strathcona Area West Coast Region
[email protected] Sharon Erickson, regional planner [email protected]
Erica McClaren, conservation officer
September 9, 2013 - Summary of comments received:
Reviewed and are in support of the comments provided by Maggie Henigman, Min. of FLNRO
With bylaw 215 track changes and comment boxes, suggested many ways to strengthen the
bylaw to re-enforce the importance of parks. The most significant concerns are the impacts on
water quality, given that Strathcona Park is downstream from Mt. W. IRCP area.
BC Parks staff are suggesting a multi-stakeholder meeting to discuss options for a
stormwater/sediment runoff and snow management plan. 20130909_BC_Parks_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
6. BC Transit
Daniel Pizarro [email protected]
August 21, 2013 – No comments.
20130821_BC_Transit_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP amendment_response.pdf
7. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
Heinz Dyck, Chief Negotiator (Absent until Aug. 12, 2103)
July 31, 2013 – Leroux sent one email with attachments to Heinz Dyck and follow-up with
another replica email to Monica Perry.
No comments received.
20130927_Tracking table of comments received on the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215 Page 2
[email protected] (Acting CN during Dyk’s absence)
8. Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Senior Planner regarding process of an OCP amendment
Cathy LeBlanc
Liam Edwards for policies regarding storm water
August 28, 2013 – Cathy LeBlanc phoned and said that she will follow-up with Liam Edwards. In
the first week of September she will provide comments on behalf of Bill Huot.
September 11, 2013 – Cathy LeBlanc phoned and provided valuable suggestions for small
improvements of the bylaw.
20130920_Min_CSCD_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
9. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Ecosystems Biologist West Coast Region
August 19, 2013 – Numerous comments provided in comment boxes alongside the proposed
text – to strengthen the policy language and to add value to the proposed bylaw.
20130819_Min_of_FLNR_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
10 Ministry of Energy and Mines
Russ Francis, Corporate Initiatives Branch
Ministry of Energy and Mines/Ministry of Natural Gas
Development
September 27, 2013, provided pointed comments and a request to remove of “current ” from
Objective (2) of 3.4.2 —Mining
\\HQRMS\Central File Area\Regular\Planning and Development\648020200 Area C
20130927_MEM_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
11. Ministry of Environment
Jessica Pfeffer, Senior Policy Advisor, Intergovernmental &
External Relations Section, Strategic Policy Branch
[email protected] or by phone at 250 356-2191
On July 29, 2013 Lori Gilliland phoned and determined what kind of policies in the IRCP MOE will be reviewing. Based on the fact that the proposed development has privately operated sewer and water systems and the development is on the steep slope of Mt. Washington with related snow management and drainage issues MOE has no comments or contributions to make. Laura Joan Feyrer, Acting Director, IGR and External Relations Branch communicated that their waste water program folks are not typically involved in reviewing community plans with regards to storm water runoff. If there is an update to the associated liquid waste management plan then MOE would be involved. Otherwise for storm water issues the CVRD should contact Liam Edwards of the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD).
12. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, Skills and Training
Communications Director
No comments received.
13. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Bob O’Brien, Operations Manager
Larry Park, District Technician, Courtenay Area Office
August 29, 2013 - No objections as proposed.
20130829_MoTI_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
20130927_Tracking table of comments received on the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215 Page 3
13. Comox (Town of)
Municipal Planner
No comments received.
14. Courtenay (City of)
Peter Crawford, Director of Development Services
Erin Ferguson, senior planner
No comments received.
15. Cumberland (Village of)
Judy Walker, Senior Planner
August 26, 2013 general comments received with suggestions how to improve the grammar,
strengthen policy statements and add additional language to add value to the end result.
20130826_VoC_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
17. Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
Manager of Planning and Development
Charity Hallberg Dodds, Planning Assistant
No comments received.
18. Strathcona Regional District
Beth Rees, Manager of Planning and Parks
September 24, 2013 - the SRD Board considered the referral at their August 22, 2013 meeting and decided that their interests are unaffected.
\\HQRMS\Central File Area\Regular\Planning and Development\648020200 Area C 20130925_SRD_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
20. Corporate Financial Officer (required for OCP amendments due
to S882 of LGA; impact on financial plan or capital expenditure
program)
Beth Dunlop [email protected]
September 24, 2013 – Financial implications for implementing the Mt. W. IRCP:
Mt. Washington Comprehensive Development Zone - Planning Services (function 500) included this review on their 2014 work plan and for the proposed 2014 financial plan, provision will be made for $10,000 expenditure.
For the following implementation items included in part five (implementation of the Mt. Washington IRCP) - Fire Protection Feasibility Study, Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), Recycling Education Program - Staff resources are proposed to be used and no additional resource requirements are anticipated. \20130924_CVRD_CFO_MTWASHINGTON_IRCP_AMENDMENT_RESPONSE.PDF
21. Manager of Planning Services
Alana Mullaly [email protected]
September 12, 2013 – No further comments. Refer to comments provided during the creation of
the plan – October 2012 to June 2013.
\\HQRMS\Central File Area\Regular\Land Administration\335020200 CP 2CV 13
20130920_CVRD_Planning_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
20130927_Tracking table of comments received on the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215 Page 4
END OF TABLE
22. General Manager of Community Services Branch (required for
OCP amendments due to S882 of LGA; impact on waste
management plan)
Ian Smith [email protected]
Tom Boatman [email protected]
September 23, 2013 - The proposed Mt. Washington IRCP OCP amendment bylaw 215, meets the requirements and criteria of the solid waste management plan.
20130923_CVRD_Community_Services_MtWashington_IRCP_amendment_response.pdf
Further comments on the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP resulted in small amendments to the
proposed text and the inclusion of an additional advocacy policy to provide bear-proof
containers for the storage and collection of solid waste.
23. Manager of Parks
Michael Nihls [email protected]
August 26, 2013 – identified issues requiring attention. Modify section 3.2.8 objective (2);
section 5.3 promoting collaboration amongst key role players.
20130826_CVRD_Community_Services_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
25. Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) (Environmental
Health)
Referral was sent to Dwayne Stroh, Senior Environmental
Health Officer
Reply came from Gary Anderson, Environmental Health Officer Land Use/Water Consultant, Health Protection Environmental Services
August 26, 2013 – comments received are summarized below:
Section 3.2.9 Water Service Provisions, could include obtaining a construction permit from the VIHA Public Health Engineer for any works to expand the existing water service, add additional treatment facilities or partake in any other works requiring a permit under the Drinking Water Protection Act.
Section 3.2.10 Sewer Services Provision, mentions providing sanitary services in accordance with VIHA standards. The resort’s current sanitary sewer is regulated under the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and therefore this reference should reflect that.
The creation of new parcels (subdivisions) should be assessed in accordance with the VIHA Subdivision Standards.
References to water reuse (grey water recycling) such as its use in water conservation/irrigation could list agencies/legislation that could have criteria for its application such as the BC Building Code, MOE Environmental Management Act, VIHA Drinking Water Protecting Act and Public Health Act (SSR).
20130826_VIHA_MtWashington_IRCP_OCP_amendment_response.pdf
26. Comox Valley Economic Development Society
John Watson, Executive Director
No comments received.
27. Advisory Planning Commissions (APC) for electoral areas ‘A’,
‘B’ and ‘C’.
‘A’ August 26
‘B’ September 19
‘C’ September 5
APC electoral area ‘A’ met on August 26, 2013. There was no quorum and therefore no
recommendations were made.
APC electoral area ‘B’ met on September 19. They received the document and in future would
appreciate more time to review and comment on such comprehensive and important bylaws.
APC electoral area ‘C’ met on September 5 – support the proposed Mt. Washington IRCP
(Bylaw No. 215) as work in progress with comments and recommendations, which include using
buffer instead of “Development Interface Zone” and to enforce the buffer.
