intergovernmental and administration electoral …...designated speaker: greg smith, director it...

March 26, 2013

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATION

ELECTORAL AREA SUB-COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:00 a.m.

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 3, 2013 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 3, 2013 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES No items presented. 3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Programs and Priorities

Designated Speaker: Greg Smith, Director IT & Emergency Management Corporate Services

That the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee endorse the Workplan as set out in Attachment 2 to the report dated January 28, 2013, titled “2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Programs and Priorities”.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

IA-EA - 1 -

Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee Regular Agenda April 3, 2013

Agenda of 3

5.2 Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Designated Speaker: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Board: a) consent to the implementation of the Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax

Exemption Program on the Islands Trust islands within the Greater Vancouver Regional District, namely Bowyer Island, Passage Islands and Bowen Island; and

b) enable the Council of Bowen Island Municipality to implement, at its discretion, the Natural Area Tax Exemption Program on Bowen Island.

5.3 UBC Chan Centre Liquor Licence Application Change – Add Existing Backstage Space to Current Liquor Licence

Designated Speaker: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Board provide no comments or recommendations with regards to the February 1, 2013 application by the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts to change the liquor primary licence #180905 at the Chan Centre at UBC to add existing backstage space to the current liquor licence.

5.4 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Dates

Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Director Board & Information Services Corporate Services

That the Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2013 regular meetings as follows: Day and Hour Wednesday, February 6 9:00 am Wednesday, April 3 9:00 am Wednesday, June 5 9:00 am Wednesday, September 4 9:00 am Wednesday, November 6 9:00 am Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda.

IA-EA - 2 -

Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee Regular Agenda April 3, 2013

Agenda of 3

5.5 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Greg Smith, Director IT & Emergency Management Corporate Services

That the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee receive for information the report dated March 11, 2013, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

No items presented.

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

No items presented. 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

That the Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee conclude its regular meeting of April 3, 2013.

Membership: Harris, Maria (C) – Electoral Area A Stevenson, Tim (VC) – Vancouver Broughton, Brenda – Lions Bay

Deal, Heather – Vancouver Reid, Mae – Coquitlam

Steele, Barbara – Surrey Walters, Deb – Pitt Meadows

IA-EA - 3 -

To: Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee From: Greg Smith, Director IT & Emergency Management, Corporate Services Date: January 28, 2013 Meeting date: April 3, 2013 Subject: 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee

Programs and Priorities RECOMMENDATION That the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee endorse the Workplan as set out in Attachment 2 to the report dated January 28, 2013, titled “2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Programs and Priorities”. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee with its terms of reference and key priorities, activities, and Workplan for the year 2013. BACKGROUND This is an annual report which enables the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Workplan to be carried out. DISCUSSION The terms of reference for the Sub-Committee are shown in Attachment 1. At its October 4, 2012 meeting, the Electoral Area Committee endorsed the program and priorities for 2013. This served as the basis for the 2013 budget endorsed by the Board at its October 19, 2012 budget workshop. These programs and priorities were used to develop the Sub-Committee’s 2013 Workplan presented in this report (Attachment 2). The Board priorities relating to the Electoral Area are identified in Attachment 3. The Sub-Committee’s priorities for 2013 focus on the following key initiatives: • enactment of updated unsightly premises and building bylaws; • investigation of implications of provincial government transferring dike ownership and

maintenance to Electoral Area A on Barnston Island; • reports on issues of concern to Electoral Area residents. The Workplan will be used as the basis for reporting back to the Sub-Committee at each meeting. It will be updated to reflect progress towards completion of the individual items, changes in the schedule and, as needed, when new items are requested by the Committee through a resolution. The Workplan also reflects the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee schedule of meeting once per quarter.

5.1

IA-EA - 4 -

2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Programs and Priorities Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee endorse the

Workplan as set out in Attachment 2 to the report dated January 28, 2013, and titled “2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Programs and Priorities”

2. Provide direction to staff regarding changes to priorities, activities and Workplan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There no new financial implications associated with this report. The 2013 Electoral Area Budget of $233,401 was approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. Proposed changes by the Sub-Committee in its priorities, activities and Workplan may need to be considered in the context of the approved Electoral Area Budget. OTHER IMPLICATIONS No other implications noted. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The focus of the 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee for 2013 is in the key areas as outlined in this report. Attachments: 1. 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee – Terms of

Reference (Doc. # 6800615). 2. 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee - 2013 Workplan

(Doc. # 6800444). 3. Metro Vancouver 2013 Action Plan – Excerpt – Regional Federation (Doc. #6801336). Reference: - Electoral Area Website: http://www.metrovancouver.org/SERVICES/ELECTORALA/Pages/default.aspx

6865265

IA-EA - 5 -

http://www.metrovancouver.org/SERVICES/ELECTORALA/Pages/default.aspx�

6925309 Updated: March 15, 2013

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

Electoral Area Sub-Committee

Terms of Reference The Electoral Area Sub-Committee is a sub-committee of the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee. It provides advice and recommendations to the Metro Vancouver Board on Electoral Area planning and administration. This includes: policies, projects, services and programs and how these matters can contribute to the livability and sustainability of the region. Metro Vancouver is the local government authority for Electoral Area A. The focus of the Electoral Area Sub-Committee is on the provision of effective local government services within the unincorporated areas of Metro Vancouver. The Electoral Area Sub-Committee responsibilities are to: • Review and monitor the annual work program for programs assigned to the Sub-Committee

and make recommendations to the Metro Vancouver Board, as necessary, on any changes in program scope and priorities;

• Hear and consider public delegations on matters within the scope of the Sub-Committee’s purview and, where appropriate, make recommendations to the Metro Vancouver Board arising out of such delegations;

• Pursue matters referred to the Sub-Committee by the Metro Vancouver Board and report back to the Board expeditiously, as required;

• Establish and administer local services within specified areas in accordance with the Local Government Act and other applicable legislation;

• Examine and consider service levels and alternative mechanisms for the delivery of local services;

• Develop bylaw regulations, including policies and procedures for enforcement actions relating to establishment or delivery of local services;

• Communicate and consult with other standing committees, member municipalities, adjacent regional districts, Islands Trust, the province and its agencies, the federal government, First Nation communities and the general public in development and support of its functions;

• Address any other matters related to general interest issues or local service administration which the Sub-Committee deems appropriate or which the Board directs;

• Recommend Advisory Planning Commission and Board of Variance members to the Metro Vancouver Board;

• For the UBC campus, Metro Vancouver does not provide planning and building bylaw services. The Chief Planning Officer for Metro Vancouver is required to provide comments to the Minister on any changes to UBC’s Regional Context Statement.

In carrying out these responsibilities, the Sub-Committee may provide advice, guidance or direction to staff as to the scope and priority of work to be carried out, including new tasks to be undertaken. However, where such direction represents a sufficiently significant change in the previously approved work program, or a significant expenditure of funds, or runs contrary to the advice of professional staff, the Sub-Committee shall refer the matter to the Board, with appropriate recommendations, for decision by the Board.

5.1 Attachment 1

IA-EA - 6 -

- 2 - The Sub-Committee Chair, or in the absence of the Sub-Committee Chair, the Sub-Committee Vice-Chair will usually be the chief spokesperson on matters of public interest within the Sub-Committee’s purview. Some issues may be of such public profile that it will be appropriate for the Board Chair or Vice Chair to be the chief spokesperson; on technical matters or where the status is still at the staff proposal level, the Chief Administrative Officer or senior staff may be the appropriate chief spokesperson. Where necessary and practical, the Board Chair, the Sub-Committee Chair and the Chief Administrative Officer (or vice-chairs and deputy) will confer to determine the most appropriate course of action. The CAO will assign a committee manager to the Sub-Committee. The Committee manager will be responsible for coordinating agendas and be the principal point of contact for Sub-Committee members. Sub-Committee Meetings The Electoral Area Sub-Committee meets every two months and has special meetings as required. A quorum of 50% plus one of the Sub-Committee memberships is required to conduct Sub-Committee business. Relationship with Other Board Committees Matters of overall budget and financing of the programs are the purview of the Finance Committee. Expenditures within the approved budget remain the purview of the Electoral Area Sub-Committee, but items which entail significant changes to the approved budget should be referred to the Finance Committee for their recommendation to the Board as well as the recommendation of the Electoral Area Sub-Committee. Matters involving Metro Vancouver’s strategic relationships with other governments, agencies and communities are under the purview of the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee. While the Electoral Area Sub-Committee will receive reports and discuss issues under its purview, the Sub-Committee Chair will keep the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee apprised of any intergovernmental implications arising from such reports and discussions. Matters considered by the Electoral Area Sub-Committee may have implications for issues considered by other committees. Similarly, matters considered by other committees may have relevance for the Electoral Area Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee manager will keep the Sub-Committee apprised of significant reports with inter-committee implications. Sub-Committee Membership The Chair, Vice Chair, and members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors. 6800615

IA-EA - 7 -

2013 Intergovernmental and Administration Committee

Electoral Area Sub-Committee Workplan

1st Quarter

Key priorities

• Report on work program for 2013 • Report on the Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program • Report on UBC AMS Liquor Licence

2nd Quarter

Key priorities

• Report progress on UEL water rate • Outline a communication plan for Electoral Area A • Report on Building Bylaw amendments

3rd Quarter

Key priorities

• Report on Barnston Island Dike ownership and maintenance issues • Report on Unsightly Premises Bylaw amendments • Board enactment of Building Bylaw amendments • Report on advancing the RGS goals for the Electoral Area

4th Quarter

Key priorities

• Board enactment of Unsightly Premises Bylaw amendments • Report on building activity within Electoral Area A

Note: Bold – completed items 6800444

5.1 Attachment 2

IA-EA - 8 -

28

REGIONAL Federation

We commit to contribute to the effective and efficient performance of our regional roles through leadership and collaboration with our members and other stakeholders.

Goal Key aCTIoNs for 2013

Effectively and efficiently manage the region’s Electoral Area.

� Clarify responsibilities and potential liabilities associated with proposed Barnston Island Dike Transfer.

� Develop tools to enhance communications with residents of Electoral Area.

IA-EA - 9 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.1 Attachment 3

GStanese

Text Box

6801336

To: Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee From: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: January 28, 2013 Meeting date: April 3, 2013 Subject: Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program RECOMMENDATION That the Board: a) consent to the implementation of the Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program on the Islands Trust islands within the Greater Vancouver Regional District, namely Bowyer Island, Passage Islands and Bowen Island; and b) enable the Council of Bowen Island Municipality to implement, at its discretion, the Natural

Area Tax Exemption Program on Bowen Island. PURPOSE To consider the implementation of the Islands Trust Natural Area Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP), providing a property tax exemption of up to 65% of assessed land value, for the three islands within the jurisdiction of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Islands Trust. BACKGROUND This work is part of the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee’s Workplan. DISCUSSION There are three islands (Bowen, Passage and Bowyer Island) within Metro Vancouver which are also within the Islands Trust. Passage and Bowyer Islands are within the Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A. Bowen Island is one of the District’s member municipalities. Please see Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Islands Trust NAPTEP Context Map

5.2

IA-EA - 10 -

Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 6 The Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP) was first piloted in 2005 by the Sunshine Coast Regional District after being enacted by the provincial legislature. It has since been adopted in the Capital, Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley, Powell River and Comox Valley Regional Districts. As required under provincial legislation, the Islands Trust is seeking the agreement of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board to implement NAPTEP on the islands in its jurisdiction. For the Municipality of Bowen Island, a resolution to implement the program is required by both the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Bowen Island Municipality. NAPTEP is an Islands Trust program and is managed by its conservation land trust, the Islands Trust Fund. To qualify for NAPTEP, a landowner must be willing to permanently protect, through a NAPTEP conservation covenant, one or more of the following eligible features on their property: • Areas relatively undisturbed by human activity that are good examples of important ecosystems

such as forests over 80 years old, woodlands, water features, sparsely vegetated natural areas, coastal bluffs, etc.;

• Areas relatively undisturbed by human activity that are key habitat for rare native plant species or plant communities;

• Areas that are critical habitat for native animal species in relation to breeding, rearing, feeding or staging; and/or

• Special geological features. There are no minimum or maximum lot size requirements; however, the program may not be beneficial for small properties with a low assessed value. Each situation is unique based on the property and a landowner’s property tax circumstances. Additionally, lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) require approval from the Agricultural Land Commission to place a restrictive covenant on title, which has not occurred in any cases for this program. Eligible properties are typically classified as “residential” by BC Assessment; however, Section 49.3 of the Islands Trust Act allows for other properties classes to apply to the program. If the property is approved under the program, the property is then reassessed as residential class. Lands subject to other tax exemptions such as the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) or lands designated as Private Managed Forest Lands (PMFL) are typically not eligible for NAPTEP. As of December 2012, there are 22 NAPTEP covenants registered on title in the Islands Trust Area, protecting over 70 hectares of land. NAPTEP participants are reporting annual reductions of $1,300 to $3,700 on their property taxes. Participants normally recover the costs to participate in the program (survey, legal and baseline report) in a few years. If a landowner breaches the conditions of the covenant, the Islands Trust may remove the NAPTEP certificate from the property as per section 49.5 of the Islands Trust Act. If the certificate is cancelled, the landowner must pay the full value of the discounted taxes since the certificate was issued, plus applicable interest. The discharge of the NAPTEP certificate does not automatically result in the cancellation of the conservation covenant, which may remain in place. The brochure with the program details and additional information on the administration of NAPTEP by the Islands Trust is provided in the Attachment to this report.

IA-EA - 11 -

Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013

Page 3 of 6 The need to reflect the jurisdiction of the Bowen Island Municipal Council as part of the Board’s decision in this matter was discussed with Bowen Island staff and with Director Stone. The language used in this report, enabling the Council of Bowen Island Municipality to implement, at its discretion, the Natural Area Tax Exemption Program on Bowen Island, reflects the expectation shared by Bowen Island officials. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board:

a) consent to the implementation of the Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program on the Islands Trust islands within the Greater Vancouver Regional District, namely Bowyer Island, Passage Islands and Bowen Island; and

b) enable the Council of Bowen Island Municipality to implement, at its discretion, the Natural Area Tax Exemption Program on Bowen Island.

2. That the Board receive the report for information and provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver with regard to the administration of NAPTEP. The costs associated with covenant registration are paid by the land owner. The Islands Trust Fund Board pays for monitoring and enforcement of the covenant. The extent of the tax exemption equals 65% of the assessed value of that part of the land subject to the protection covenant. It does not reduce parcel taxes or the tax on improvements. There would be a “tax-shift” to other tax payers with each new successful application. This may be partially offset by taxes collected from new development. Only when there is no net increase in new taxable development would an increase in the tax rate be needed to raise the approved budget required by each taxation authority. The experience in other NAPTEP-approved areas is that the tax shift amounts to pennies per property for each jurisdiction collecting taxes. Affected taxes include: Provincial School, Provincial General, GVRD Municipal Levy, TransLink, Electoral Area, and Islands Trust. To get a sense of scale of the tax shift implications the Islands Trust and Metro Vancouver has estimated the potentially eligible properties for each of the three Islands. Passage Island The small lot sizes likely mean that very few properties if any would meet the eligibility requirements unless they host a species at risk that requires a small habitat range. No such species are known to be on the island. Bowyer Island There are five properties on Bowyer Island and all five may be eligible for some portion of their property. If it is assumed that two landowners apply and are approved under the program, the total shift would be approximately $162. This tax shift would be redistributed over 4,648 rate payers within the Electoral Area A taxation area. The total Electoral Area Levy is $247,468 in 2013; the average tax shift per property is estimated at $0.02 or a 0.07% of the Electoral Area Levy.

IA-EA - 12 -

Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Table 1 – Average Tax Shift of NAPTEP to Electoral Area Levy per Approved Property

Electoral Area Land Value

# of Residential Properties

Average Land Value

per Property

2012 EA

Res. Tax Rate

Est. EA Tax Rev. from

Land Value BEFORE

exemption

Est. EA Tax Rev. from

Land Value AFTER

exemption

Owner tax

savings per

NAPTEP property from EA

Levy

Average cost of

NAPTEP to the

Electoral Area Levy

per property.

Bowyer Island - Land

Value of NAPTEP Eligible

Properties - Residential

Class $6,206,000 5 $1,241,200 0.1004 $125 $44 $81 $0.02 Land Value of NAPTEP

Non-Eligible Properties - Residential

Class $5,224,519,005 4396 $1,188,471 Total

Residential Class Land

Value $5,230,725,005 4401 Notes:

*This only includes the owner tax savings from the Electoral Area Levy. Significant additionally tax savings are available to NAPTEP approved properties from other taxation authorizes (Attachment); however, the greatest tax shift impact will be to the Electoral Area Levy. **Assumes the tax shift will be redistributed among all rate payers within the taxation area (4648 properties/folios within the Electoral Area Taxation Area, some of which are water lots). Residential footprint has not been excluded from the land value, so tax shift is likely smaller than $0.02. Bowen Island There are 2,312 rate payers within the Municipality of Bowen Island as of December 2012. Initial estimates assume a maximum of 595 eligible properties covering 1,831 hectares plus 21 properties which may be eligible but with no current assessment data available. The total land value of the 595 properties is $455,791,637. This initial estimate is based on the following criteria and assumptions: • A portion of the property is classified as “residential” by BC Assessment; • Property is not within the ALR; • Total BC Assessment land value of less than $200,000 (i.e., not including improvement value).

(It is assumed that lower value lands would not apply because the cost of entering the program outweigh the benefits);

• Meets the ecological requirements of the program; and • Excludes crown lands; parks and protected areas; and property under 1 acre in size. If these initial criteria are extended further and exclude 0.5 hectares (residential footprint) per property for the total potential eligible 1,831 hectares, this reduces the total area to 1,533 hectares. Assuming an average per hectare value of $248,930, the total land value would be reduced to approximately $381,734,830. This represents an average tax shift to the Bowen Island Municipal Levy of $0.40 per property.

IA-EA - 13 -

Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013

Page 5 of 6 The average tax shift impact, $0.40 per eligible NAPTEP property, on the Bowen Island Municipal Levy will impact different property classes differently. Assuming 15% of landowners (90 properties) are approved under the program, the maximum shift would be approximately $84,084. Note that only 22 properties in the entire Islands Trust area have been approved under the program as of December 2012, therefore 15% of eligible landowners is a conservatively high estimate. This cumulative tax shift represents about 2.4% of the 2012 Bowen Island Municipal Levy of $3,547,641 when using the estimate a 15% adoption by landowners. The 2.4% represents $36 per average property on the Bowen Island Municipal Levy. Table 2 - Average Tax Shift of NAPTEP to Bowen Island Municipal Levy per Approved Property

Bowen Island Land Value

# of Residential Properties

Average Land Value

per property

2012 BIM

Res. Tax Rate

Est. BIM Tax Rev.

from Land Value sub

area BEFORE

exemption

Est. BIM Tax Rev.

from Land Value sub

area AFTER exemption

Owner tax

savings per

NAPTEP property from BIM

Levy*

Average cost of

NAPTEP to the BIM

Municipal Levy per

property**

Estimated Land Value of NAPTEP

Eligible Properties - Residential Class -

Excludes Residential Footprint*** $381,734,830 595 $641,571 2.24034 $1,437 $503 $934 $0.40 Land Value of

Residential Footprint of

NAPTEP Eligible Properties -

Residential Class*** $74,056,807 Not

applicable Not

applicable Land Value of

NAPTEP Non-Eligible Properties -

Residential Class $706,152,167 1644 $429,533 Total Residential

Class Land Value $1,161,943,804 2239 Notes:

*This only includes the owner tax savings from the Bowen Island Municipal Levy. Significant additional tax savings are available to NAPTEP approved properties from other taxation authorizes (Attachment); however, the greatest tax shift impact will be to the Bowen Island Municipal Levy. **Assumes the tax shift will be redistributed among all rate payers within the taxation area (2312 properties/folios within the Bowen Island Taxation Area, some of which are water lots). *** The average residential footprint is assumed to be 0.5 ha. The 65% tax exemption only applies to the portion of the land value in the program, i.e., the land value of the residential footprint is excluded from the program. There will be impacts to the GVRD Municipal levy and TransLink Levy as well. The estimated tax shift to the GVRD Municipal Levy if 15% of the owners are approved under the program is $4,890 or 0.01% of the GVRD Municipal Levy (which is approximately $44 million). The tax shift would be shared across all rate payers in the GVRD Municipal Levy taxation area. Similarly, the TransLink Levy will be affected. The estimated maximum tax shift for the TransLink Levy is $27,277. If the recommended resolution is passed by Metro Vancouver, the Municipality of Bowen Island will have the authority to decide on whether to approve the NAPTEP program for its municipality as well as retain authority to decline specific NAPTEP applications should they wish.

IA-EA - 14 -

Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Furthermore, the Municipality of Bowen Island could mitigate the potential tax shift in a variety of ways. The tax shift does not necessarily need to be borne by business or light industrial assessment classes. Some examples of mitigation strategies include: • Incremental new development which increases the tax base; • Adjustments to Variable Tax Rates (Sec. 197(3)(b) of the Community Charter), e.g., increasing

the residential class rate so non-eligible NAPTEP residential properties pay more and NAPTEP properties pay less;

• Assessment averaging and phasing options (Sec. 198 of the Community Charter); and/or, • Local Service Taxes (Sec. 216(1)(a) of the Community Charter) give authority to municipalities to

have service area taxes based on improvement value only, thus shifting away from general property taxes which are required under the Community Charter to be on both land and improvements.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS If approved by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Islands Trust staff will be responsible for promoting the program to property owners on Bowyer and Passage Islands. In addition, the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee will continue the dialogue with Bowen Island Council started in fall 2012 regarding NAPTEP. The Trust Fund Board is responsible for deciding which properties it will allow into covenant under the program, based on advice of staff, and the Trust Council is responsible for issuing the tax exemption certificates. Of the six Regional District Boards currently in the program, none have chosen to have authority over which properties are accepted into the program. The deadline for new NAPTEP applications is April 1 of each year, for a reduction in tax in the following year. Should the Metro Vancouver Board approve this program early in 2013, it is possible that some properties could have tax reductions by 2014. Board approval after February 2013 would mean delaying the tax reduction until 2015. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Islands Trust Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program is an excellent program for helping protect natural assets in our region and furthering the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy by helping to protect ecologically significant lands. The tax shift implications for Electoral Area A Levy, GVRD Municipal Levy and regional TransLink Levy are negligible. Attachment: Islands Trust - An Applicant’s Guide to Calculating Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP): Costs and Benefits (Doc. #6803974). References: - Local Government Tax Rates and Assessments 2012: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/tax_rates/tax_rates2012.htm - Natural Areas Protection Tax - Exemption Program (NAPTEP) – Frequently Asked Questions – Questions about NAPTEP: http://bit.ly/Wpb7hu - Islands Trust Fund: http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca/initiatives/privateconservation/naptep.aspx 6864599

IA-EA - 15 -

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/tax_rates/tax_rates2012.htm�

http://bit.ly/Wpb7hu�

http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca/initiatives/privateconservation/naptep.aspx�

A P P L I C A N T ’ S G U I D E T O C A L C U L AT I N G C O S T S A N D B E N E F I T S 1

An Applicant’s Guide to Calculating

Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP)

Costs and Benefits

IA-EA - 16 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.2 Attachment

N AT U R A L A R E A P R O T E C T I O N TA X E X E M P T I O N P R O G R A M ( N A P T E P )2

TAblE of CoNTENTs

background ...........................................................................................................3

Eligibility ................................................................................................................3

Protecting land forever ...........................................................................................4

Determining If NAPTEP Is Right for You .....................................................................4

on-going benefits ...................................................................................................4

Costs .....................................................................................................................5

NAPTEP Costs and benefits Calculation Worksheet .....................................................6

Scenario 1 DOUG SMITH ......................................................................................8

Doug smith is a single man with a 900 square foot cabin on 4 hectares (10 acres) of oceanfront property on Galiano Island. His property assessment is $1,250,000 and his tax bill is $5,685. He recently lost his Home owner Grant.

Scenario 2 THE MARIYAMA FAMILY ..................................................................11

Vivian and Jin Mariyama own 80 hectares (200 acres) of inland property on salt spring Island which have been in their family for many years. They have a 2800 square foot house and their land is subdividable to 8 lots. Their property has no designated road access. The assessed value is $3,900,000 and their taxes are $18,993.

Scenario 3 GARY AND CLARA DICKSON ...........................................................14

Gary and Clara Dickson own 65 hectares (160 acres) of waterfront on Gambier Island with a rustic 500 square foot cottage. They live in Alberta and are summer residents who have recently retired and are thinking of moving to Gambier full-time. Their property is worth $1,080,000 and their taxes are $5,420.

Scenario 4 THE MITCHELL FAMILY ....................................................................17

The Mitchells have two small children and live in a 1400 square foot house on 2.8 hectares (7 acres) on Mayne Island. They have a wetland and stream on their land. Their property is valued at $550,000 and their taxes are $2,125 including their Home owner Grant.

summary of Information in scenarios .......................................................................20

For More Information

for more information please contact the Islands Trust fund at (250) 405-5186 or visit the Islands Trust fund website at http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca

Updated December 2010

IA-EA - 17 -


bACkGRoUNDThe Canadian Gulf Islands are renowned and cherished for their stunning physical beauty, gentle climate, and rural charm. These characteristics have led to a steadily increasing demand for land on these islands resulting in higher property values and taxes. In response to higher taxes, many island residents consider logging, subdividing or selling their properties — decisions that often result in damage to sensitive island ecosystems that are home to rare and endangered species. In response, the Islands Trust developed the Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP) to provide a property tax incentive that encourages island residents to maintain natural features on their properties. NAPTEP is a joint initiative of the Islands Trust and its land conservancy, the Islands Trust fund. The program provides landowners who permanently protect their land’s natural features with a Natural Area Exemption Certificate, which qualifies them to receive a 65% exemption in property taxes on the protected portion of their land.

A comprehensive NAPTEP information package is available at http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca and will be mailed upon request. Please read this Applicant’s Guide to Calculating NAPTEP Costs and Benefits document along with the NAPTEP information package.

ElIGIbIlITYNAPTEP is currently available in:

Denman Island local Trust Area Executive Islands local Trust Area

Gabriola Island local Trust Area Galiano Island local Trust Area Gambier Island local Trust Area Hornby Island local Trust Area lasqueti Island local Trust Area Mayne Island local Trust Area

North Pender Island local Trust Area south Pender Island local Trust Area

salt spring Island local Trust Area saturna Island local Trust Area Thetis Island local Trust Area

To qualify for NAPTEP, you must be willing to permanently protect one or more eligible features on your property with a NAPTEP conservation covenant. Eligible features include:

• Good examples of important ecosystems such as forests more than 80 years old, woodlands, water features, sparsely vegetated areas, coastal bluffs, etc;

• key habitat for rare native plant species or plant communities;• special geological features; and,• Critical habitat for native animal species in relation to breeding, rearing, feeding or

staging.

IA-EA - 18 -

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/ecogifts

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/ecogifts


PRoTECTING lAND foREVERAfter placing a NAPTEP covenant on a portion of your property, you continue to own your land. The standard NAPTEP covenant simply prevents current and future owners from doing anything to the covenant area that may harm its special values. This includes restrictions on:

• removal of native plants;• use of herbicides and pesticides;• alteration of natural watercourses or water bodies;• grazing of animals; and,• modification of the soil or geological features.

Violating the covenant can result in penalties including, but not limited to, payment of all previously exempted taxes plus interest, a fine for each infraction and removal of the NAPTEP Certificate including the benefits it conveys. A covenant is permanent and will not be removed even if penalties are invoked.

DETERMINING If NAPTEP Is RIGHT foR YoUNAPTEP can provide significant property tax savings, but there are costs to enter the program. This guide can help you determine if NAPTEP is financially beneficial for you, but it should not take the place of professional advice. All NAPTEP participants are advised to consult independent tax/financial and legal professionals before placing a NAPTEP covenant on their land.

oN-GoING bENEfITsWith a Natural Area Exemption Certificate landowners will see a 65% reduction in property taxes on the protected portion of their land. The exemption only applies to the land value (i.e. not to the value of buildings). once a Natural Area Exemption Certificate is issued, the exemption continues to apply every year, no matter who owns the property, provided the certificate is not cancelled due to a covenant violation. The covenant stays on title forever, providing on-going benefits to nature.

IA-EA - 19 -


CosTsCosts to enter NAPTEP will vary depending on your tax and legal situation and the complexity of the area you want to protect. based on applications received to date, the following is the range of typical expenses for entering NAPTEP:

Expense

Application Fees

Legal Advice

Financial and Tax Advice

Survey orExplanatory Plan

Baseline Report

Covenant Registration

Total Costs

Cost ($)

$450

$150 to $1,200+

$200 to $1,100+

$1,000 to $7,000+

$500 to $2,000+

$197

$2,500 to $12,000+

Notes

Phase 1: $275Phase 2: $175

NAPTEP covenants are legally binding agreements. We advise all applicants to consult a lawyer when entering NAPTEP.

Because of the complexity of the Income Tax Act and the variability in applicant circumstances and donations, we advise all applicants to consult a tax/financial advisor. Covenants are dispositions of land and may result in capital gains taxes unless properly recorded in your tax return.Covenants may also reduce the market value of your land.You may qualify for income tax benefits and capital gainsexemptions through the Ecological Gifts program administered byEnvironment Canada. Information about the Ecological Gifts Program is available at http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/ecogifts

The survey is usually the most expensive step. The simpler your survey, the less your NAPTEP covenant will cost you. Islands Trust Fund staff can help you to define a simple covenant area.

The baseline report must be prepared by an environmental professional approved by the Islands Trust Fund. The reportdescribes the covenanted land at the time that the covenant is registered. It consists of a vegetation map and descriptions of the vegetation types on the land. Local conservation organizations may be willing to help prepare the baseline report. A list of conservancies active in the Islands Trust Area is available at: http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca/partners.cfm

Covenants and their associated Rights of Way need to be registered with the Land Title Office.

The cost of entering NAPTEP has less to do with the size of the protected area and more to do with the complexity of your survey and tax situation. To date, most NAPTEP participants have recovered their costs within three years.

IA-EA - 20 -


NAPTEP CosTs AND bENEfITs CAlCUlATIoN WoRksHEET

As an island landowner, you will receive two statements related to property taxes each year: a Property Assessment Notice and a Rural Property Tax Notice. The Property Assessment Notice, sent in January by bC Assessment, advises you of your property value. This value is used to determine your property taxes. You are notified of your property taxes later in the year by the Ministry of small business and Revenue through the Rural Property Tax Notice. To complete this worksheet, you will need your most recent Rural Property Tax Notice.

All scenarios presented in this document are based on properties classed by bC Assessment as “Residential 01”. other property classes may be eligible for NAPTEP. Please contact the Islands Trust fund for more information.

To complete a NAPTEP cost/benefit analysis for your property, work through the worksheet on the next page with your most recent Rural Property Tax Notice. There are four scenarios on pages 8 through 19 designed to help you understand how to use the worksheet.

While all tax scenarios explored in this document are hypothetical, the tax calculations are based on 2007 property tax information. If you need further assistance, please contact the Islands Trust fund.

IA-EA - 21 -


a. Calculate the percentage of your property tax bill attributed to your land value (land tax ratio.) (For the value of your land and buildings see the “Assessment (By Property Class)” section on the left hand side of your tax notice).

Land value 1

Total property value (land value + buildings value) 2

Land tax ratio (Line 1 ÷ Line 2) = 3

b. Calculate how much of your tax bill is attributed to your land’s value (using the tax payable before applying any home owner or senior grants, if applicable):

Total taxes payable 4

Taxes attributed to land value (Line 3 x Line 4) = 5

c. Calculate the percentage of your land you will be protecting:

Area to be protected 6

Total property size 7

% of land to be protected (Line 6 ÷ Line 7) = 8

d. Using the results from calculations a and b, work out how much tax could be saved annually if you entered NAPTEP and were to receive the 65% tax exemption.

Projected annual tax savings (Line 5 x Line 8) x 0.65 9

e. Estimate what it will cost you to enter NAPTEP (see page 5), and determine how long it will take you to recoup your costs.

Low cost estimate 10

Estimate minimum number of years to recoup costs (Line 10 ÷ Line 9) = 11

High cost estimate 12

Estimate maximum number of years to recoup costs (Line 12 ÷ Line 9) = 13

WoRksHEET

IA-EA - 22 -


Scenario 1 DoUG sMITH

Doug smith is a single man with a 900 square foot cabin on 4 hectares (10 acres) of oceanfront property on Galiano Island. His property assessment is $1,250,000 and his property tax bill is $5,685. He recently lost his Home owner Grant.

Natural area Doug’s property has a Garry oak meadow and high cliffs where Peregrine falcons are known to nest.

NaPteP motivatioN Doug moved to Galiano because of the natural beauty of the region. He is drawn to his land because of the incredible spring

floral displays. His house is set back from the cliff and has views of the water through a Garry oak meadow.

Doug is eager to protect the foreshore area from development and is interested in NAPTEP because he would like to protect his land and reduce his property taxes. Doug is willing to protect 60% of his property. This will leave him with 1.5 hectares for his house, gardens, driveway, septic field and a rainwater cistern.

ProPerty taxes Doug recently lost his Home owner Grant eligibility because the value of his property increased past the program’s limit.1 In 2007, Doug paid $5,685.50 in property tax without his grant.

CalCulatiNg Costs aNd beNefits to eNter NaPteP because the 65% NAPTEP exemption only applies to land, Doug needs to know what percentage of his tax bill is attributable to his land’s value as opposed to building values. He finds this out by looking at the top, left hand side of his Rural Property Tax Notice. In the “Assessment (by Property Class)” section he notices that his land value is $1,000,000; in the “buildings” column he notices that his building value is $250,000. Therefore, his total property value is $1,250,000.

1 The Home owner Grant is a program that reduces property taxes for landowners with lower assessed property values. As of february 2008, properties valued at $1,050,000 or less were eligible for the full grant and properties valued at less than $1,164,000 were eligible for a reduced grant. These values can change from year to year. for more information visit http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/individuals/Property_Taxes/Home_owner_Grant/hog.htm .

Land value $1,000,000 1

Total property value (land value + buildings value) $1,250,000 2

Land tax ratio (Line 1 ÷ Line 2) = 0.80 (or 80%) 3

House

Survey post, placed

Survey post, existing

Proposed survey area

IA-EA - 23 -

http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/individuals/Property_Taxes/Home_Owner_Grant/hog.htm

http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/individuals/Property_Taxes/Home_Owner_Grant/hog.htm


Doug calculates how much of his property tax bill is attributable to his land value (land tax ratio):

Total taxes payable $5,685.50 4

Taxes attributed to land value (Line 3 x Line 4) = $4,548.40 5

Using the following calculation, Doug estimates his total tax savings by multiplying the taxes attributed to his land’s value first by the percentage of land that he is protecting and secondly by the NAPTEP exemption of 65%:

Area to be protected 2.4 hectares 6

Total property size 4 hectares 7

% of land to be protected (Line 6 ÷ Line 7) = 0.60 8

Projected annual tax savings (Line 5 x Line 8 x 0.65) = $1,773.88 9

Through these calculations, Doug finds that his total annual tax savings through NAPTEP will be approximately $1,773.88. He knows that this number may vary from year to year as his assessment and the taxation rate fluctuate.

Doug is aware that it will cost him money to enter NAPTEP and decides to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if he should apply to the program. His cost estimates are as follows:

Low Estimate High Estimate

Known costs

Application fees $450 $450

Covenant registration costs $197 $197

Estimated costs

Legal advice $500 $1,000

Tax advice $200 $500

Survey plan $1,500 $2,500

Baseline report $750 $1,500

Total = $3,597 = $6,147

IA-EA - 24 -


Doug estimates that it will cost him between $3,597 and $6,147 to enter the program.

leNgth of time to reCouP Program Costs To calculate how long it will take him to recoup his costs, Doug divides the cost of entering NAPTEP by the projected amount in annual tax savings:

Doug estimates that he will recoup his costs in 2.0 to 3.5 years. After that, he will save approximately $1,773.88 annually, depending on tax rates and his property’s assessed value.

fiNal deCisioN because he wants to reduce his cost of living and believes in protecting nature, Doug decides to proceed with a NAPTEP covenant.

Low cost estimate $3,597 10

Estimate minimum number of years to recoup costs (Line 10 ÷ Line 9) = 2.0 11

High cost estimate $6,147 12

Estimate maximum number of years to recoup costs (Line 12 ÷ Line 9) = 3.5 13

IA-EA - 25 -


Scenario 2 THE MARIYAMA fAMIlY

Vivian and Jin Mariyama own 80 hectares (200 acres) of inland property on salt spring Island which have been in their family for many years.2 They have a 2800 square foot house and their land is sub-dividable to eight lots. The assessed value is $3,900,000 and their taxes are $18,993.

Natural area The Mariyamas’ property has majestic 500-year-old Douglas-fir and cedar trees.

NaPteP motivatioN The Mariyamas’ property taxes are high because, under current zoning, there is the potential to subdivide the

property into 8 lots (10 hectare minimum lot size). The owners believe that property taxes will continue to increase over the next few years and are looking for ways to save on taxes without having to subdivide their land and sell off lots.

The Mariyamas are willing to protect 80% of the total property. This will leave them with 16 hectares for their house, barn, gardens, driveways, wells and septic fields. To keep their survey costs low, they design their survey so it is a straight line across their property.

ProPerty taxes In 2007, the Mariyamas owed $18,993 in property taxes. They do not qualify for the Home owner Grant.

CalCulatiNg Costs aNd beNefits to eNter NaPteP The Mariyamas need to know how much of their taxes are attributable to their land’s value as opposed to building values. They find this out by looking at the “Assessment (by Property Class)” section of their Rural Property Tax Notice. They see that their land is assessed at $3.5 million and their house and buildings are assessed at $400,000. Therefore, their total property assessment is $3.9 million.

2 Property owners who have had their properties for several years may be subject to capital gains taxes on the increase in value to their property. because of the complexity of the Income Tax Act and the variability in applicant circumstances and donations it is essential that all NAPTEP applicants get legal and tax advice.

Land value $3,500,000 1


Land tax ratio (Line 1 ÷ Line 2) = 0.897 (or 89.7%) 3

House

Survey post, placed


IA-EA - 26 -


The Mariyamas calculate the percentage of tax attributable to their land value (land tax ratio):

Total taxes payable $18,993 4

Taxes attributed to land value (Line 3 x Line 4) = $17,037 5

With this ratio, the owners calculate the amount of their tax bill attributed to their land value:

To decide if NAPTEP is right for them, the Mariyamas first estimate their total tax savings by multiplying the taxes attributed to their land first by the percentage of land that they are protecting and secondly by the NAPTEP exemption of 65% as follows:

Area to be protected 64 hectares 6


% of land to be protected (Line 6 ÷ Line 7) = 0.80 or 80% 8


The Mariyamas’ total annual tax savings would be approximately $8,863.40.

Next, Vivian and Jin investigate the costs to enter NAPTEP to determine if they can afford to enter the program. The biggest cost to participating in the program is the cost of the survey and the legal and tax advice fees. The Mariyamas estimate that they will incur the following costs to enter the program:


Known costs



Estimated costs


Tax advice $600 $2,000

Survey plan $10,000 $15,000

Baseline report $1,500 $3,000

Total = $14,747 = $24,147

IA-EA - 27 -


They believe it will cost them $14,747 to $24,147 to enter NAPTEP.

leNgth of time to reCouP Program Costs To calculate how long it will take to recoup their costs, the Mariyamas divide their projected costs by their projected savings as follows:

It will take between 1.7 and 2.7 years for the Mariyamas to recoup their costs. After that time, they estimate they will save approximately $8,863.40 each year.

fiNal deCisioN The Mariyamas decide to apply to NAPTEP and feel great about protecting the natural values on their property.





IA-EA - 28 -


Scenario 3 GARY AND ClARA DICksoN

Gary and Clara Dickson own 65 hectares (160 acres) of waterfront on Gambier Island with a rustic 500 square foot cottage. They live in Alberta and are summer residents who have recently retired and are thinking of moving to Gambier full-time. Their property is worth $1,080,000 and their taxes are $5,420.

Natural area The Dickson property has a mature forest and an important coastal bluff ecosystem.

NaPteP motivatioN because Clara’s family has loved Gambier Island for over 100 years3 and because their own children have grown up playing in Gambier’s forests, the Dicksons would like to give back to the island by protecting nature on their land.

After discussing it with the rest of the family, Gary and Clara decide they are willing to protect 32.5 hectares (50% of their property). After consulting with an Islands Trust planner, they plan to set aside land for their future house, including space for an access road (should they decide to build one), a septic field, and a well.

ProPerty taxes When Clara inherited the property, it was assessed at $50,000 and she paid annual taxes of $250. Now, the property and cottage are valued at $1,080,000, and in 2007, the Dicksons pay annual taxes of $5,420. They do not qualify for a Home owner Grant because the land is not their primary residence, but they hope to qualify for both the regular Home owner Grant and the additional Home owner Grant for seniors when they move to b.C.

CalCulatiNg Costs aNd beNefits to eNter NaPteP To find out how much of their property tax bill is attributable to their land’s value the Dicksons look at the “Assessment (by Property Class)” section of their Rural Property Tax Notice. They discover that while their cottage is only valued at $80,000, their land is worth $1,000,000, for a total property value of $1,080,000.

Clara and Gary calculate the percentage of their tax bill attributed to the land value (land tax ratio):

3 see footnote 2 on page 11.

Land value $1,000,000 1



Cottage

Future house site

Proposed survey line

IA-EA - 29 -


With this ratio, Clara then works out the amount of tax attributed to their land value as follows:



To determine if NAPTEP is right for them, Clara estimates their total tax savings by multiplying the taxes attributed to their land first by the percentage of the land that they are protecting and secondly by the NAPTEP exemption:





The Dicksons’ projected annual tax savings are approximately $1,631.02.

After some research, Gary learns that they can reduce their survey costs by having an explanatory plan4 prepared instead of a full survey. He estimates the following costs:


Known costs



Estimated costs



Survey plan $1,000 $1,500


Total = $3,347 = $6,647

4 surveyors can prepare either a Reference Plan or an Explanatory Plan to describe a covenant area. Reference Plans are required for complex surveys. If a simple survey is possible and no survey pins need to be placed on the land, an Explanatory Plan can be used. Explanatory Plans are usually less expensive that Reference Plans.

IA-EA - 30 -


The Dicksons estimate that it will cost them between $3,347 and $6,647 to enter NAPTEP.

leNgth of time to reCouP Program Costs To estimate how long it will take to recoup their costs, Clara divides their projected costs by their projected savings as follows:





Assuming that the Dickson’s property taxes remain constant over the next six years, it will take between 2.1 and 4.1 years for them to recoup the costs of entering NAPTEP. After that time, the Dicksons could save $1,631.02 each year.

fiNal deCisioN Gary and Clara decide to enter the program. They anticipate that their property taxes will continue to increase and believe that having a Natural Area Exemption Certificate will ease their tax burden while creating an environmental benefit for Gambier Island.

IA-EA - 31 -


Scenario 4 THE MITCHEll fAMIlY

The Mitchells have two small children and live in a 1400 square foot house on 2.8 hectares (7 acres) on Mayne Island. They have a wetland and stream on their land. Their property is valued at $550,000 and their taxes are $2,125 including their Home owner Grant.

Natural area The Mitchells have a wetland and a seasonal stream on their land where they enjoy watching birds year round and eagerly anticipate the sound of the frogs every spring. They don’t use the wetland and stream area for anything but wildlife viewing.

NaPteP motivatioN The Mitchells want to protect the wetland and stream for the birds and amphibians. They would also love to be able to reduce their taxes. They decide to protect 50% of their land so that the wetland and creek will be protected.

ProPerty taxes The total assessed value of their property is $550,000. In 2007, the Mitchell’s property taxes were $2,695 but with the Home owner Grant, this amount is reduced to $2,125.

CalCulatiNg Costs aNd beNefits to eNter NaPteP To find out how much of their property tax bill is attributable to their land’s value, as opposed to the value of their home and garage, the Mitchells review the “Assessment (by Property Class)” section of their Rural Property Tax Notice. They find that their land is worth $350,000 and their house is worth $200,000, for a total property value of $550,000.

The Mitchells then calculate the percentage of their taxes attributable to the land value (land tax ratio):

Land value $350,000 1

Total property value (land value + buildings value) $550,000 2


With this ratio, the Mitchells calculate the amount of tax attributed only to their land value as follows using the tax payable before applying their Home owner Grant:



Wetland

Stream

House


IA-EA - 32 -


The Mitchells have decided that they can protect 50% of their land with a NAPTEP covenant. Using this figure, they determine their projected annual tax savings as follows:

The Mitchells are disappointed to see that their annual tax savings are only projected to be $557.38.

because they know that their tax savings will be low compared to their expenses, the Mitchells agree that they should try to keep survey costs low by designing an easy-to-survey covenant area. They estimate that they will incur the following costs to enter the program:


Total property size 2.8 hectares 7


Projected annual tax savings (Line 5 x Line 8 x 0.65) = $557.06 9


Known costs



Estimated costs



Explanatory plan $1,000 $1,500


Total = $3,097 = $4,647

IA-EA - 33 -


The Mitchells find that it will cost them between $3,097 and $4,647 to enter NAPTEP.

leNgth of time to reCouP Program Costs To calculate how long it will take to recoup their costs, the Mitchells divide their projected costs by their projected savings as follows:

The Mitchells estimate that it will take them 5.6 to 8.3 years to recoup the costs of entering NAPTEP. Even then, they might only see a savings of approximately $557.38 each year.

fiNal deCisioN The Mitchells find that they cannot afford the expense of entering NAPTEP at this time, but think that it would be worth reconsidering the program if they decide to protect a larger portion of their land or if they can reduce the costs associated with entering the program. They decide to ask their local conservancy for help to cover the costs of placing a conservation covenant on their land.





IA-EA - 34 -


Scenario

1 (Doug Smith)

2(Mariyam

as)

3(Dicksons)

4(Mitchells)

LotSize (ha)

480652.8

Covenant Area(ha)

2.4

6432.5

1.4

Portion of Lot in Covenant

60%

80%

50%

50%

Natural Values

and Amenities

Oceanfront w

ith view

s.H

igh cliffs and G

arry oak meadow

. Peregrine falcon nesting on cliffs.

Inland parcel with

views and sub-

division potential. 500 year-old trees.

Waterfront property

with no designated

road access. M

ature forest and coastal bluff ecosystem

s.

Inland property w

ith small

wetland and stream

.

Assessed Value of Land

$1,000,000

$3,500,000

$1,000,000

$350,000

Property Tax (on land) Before Exem

ption

$4,548.40

$17,045.00

$5,018.52

$1,715.00

Annual Property Tax Savings

$1773.88

$8,863.40

$1,631.02

$557.38

Costs to Enter Program

$3,597–$6,147

$14,747–$24,147

$3,347–$6,647

$3,097–$4,647

Length of tim

e to recover costs

2.0–3.5 years

1.7–2.7 years

2.1–4.1 years

5.6–8.3 years

sUM

MA

RY of IN

foRM

ATIoN

IN sC

ENA

RIos

IA-EA - 35 -

GStanese

Text Box

6803974

To: Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee From: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: February 4, 2013 Meeting date: April 3, 2013 Subject: UBC Chan Centre Liquor Licence Application Change – Add Existing Backstage

Space to Current Liquor Licence RECOMMENDATION That the Board provide no comments or recommendations with regards to the February 1, 2013 application by the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts to change the liquor primary licence #180905 at the Chan Centre at UBC to add existing backstage space to the current liquor licence. PURPOSE To consider an application to change the liquor licence capacity at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at UBC. BACKGROUND This work is within the Terms of Reference of the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee and the authority of the Metro Vancouver Board. DISCUSSION In early February 2013, Metro Vancouver received a request to provide comments on a liquor licence application received from the UBC Chan Centre for the Performing Arts. The University of British Columbia (UBC) and the applicant are located within Electoral Area A. The applicant would like to add an existing backstage space (loading dock, dressing rooms, etc) to the current liquor licence #180905 at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts building located at 6265 Crescent Road. The reason for the application is to respond to ongoing requests from performing artists for alcohol service in their dressing rooms. Not having this area licensed creates a number of client service issues and logistical problems in responding to their requests. The Chan Centre’s mandate is twofold: to meet the needs of the UBC community and to provide for local and visiting arts enthusiasts an acoustically superior, medium-sized concert hall. The Chan Centre’s programming includes a variety of performances and events offered year-round. No building or renovations will take place in this area and the addition of the backstage area to the liquor licence will not affect ingress/egress numbers for this area laid out in the Chan Centre Fire Protection and Life Safety Building Code. The current total capacity of all licensed areas is 1,396 persons; UBC Permits & Inspections has determined an occupant load of 26 persons for the proposed expanded area. The application is not increasing the total building capacity. Under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act (LCLA), for certain liquor licence applications and under prescribed circumstances the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) is required to notify and provide an opportunity for input from the local government or First Nation that has jurisdiction in the area where the proposed or existing licensed establishment is located. A local government or First Nation may then choose whether or not to provide input on an application. If the local

5.3

IA-EA - 36 -

UBC Chan Centre Liquor Licence Application Change – Add Existing Backstage Space to Current Liquor Licence Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 2 government chooses to provide input they must gather the views of residents that may be affected by the proposed establishment (if necessary) and provide the branch with a resolution within 90 days of notification. Typically, local governments are responsible for addressing issues at the local or community level and often regulate issues such as noise, parking and fire safety surrounding licensed establishments. As they address issues at the local level, local governments are often best situated to understand the potential impact of a licensed establishment on a community. However, since 2010, Metro Vancouver no longer does land use planning at UBC nor does it provide policing or fire services. Further, Metro Vancouver does not regulate noise, parking or transportation planning at UBC. These services are regulated through UBC, UNA and the Province. As result of our strictly limited role, Metro Vancouver is not well positioned to provide comments regarding this liquor licence or any future liquor licence at UBC or UEL. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board provide no comments or recommendations with regards to the February 1, 2013

application by the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts to change the liquor primary licence #180905 at the Chan Centre at UBC to add existing backstage space to the current liquor licence.

2. That the Board provide comment to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch recommending (support / refusal) of the February 1, 2013 application by the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts to change the liquor primary licence #180905 at the Chan Centre at UBC to add existing backstage space to the current liquor licence. Reflecting regulatory requirements, the Board must provide reasons for this recommendation, considering the potential for noise and impact on the community. The Board would also have to consider gathering views of area residents and businesses, and applicable agencies.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If Alternative 2 is selected, there would minor expenses and staff time required to consult residents. OTHER IMPLICATIONS There are no other implications. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Staff recommend that the Board decline to provide comments or recommendations to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch with regard to the application by the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts to change the liquor primary licence #180905 at the Chan Centre at UBC to add existing backstage space to the current liquor licence. If this recommendation is adopted, the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch will gather and consider comments from area residents and businesses. Attachment: UBC Chan Centre for the Performing Arts Liquor Licence and Floor Plan (Doc. #7017895). Reference: Local Government and First Nations Roles and Responsibilities in the Provincial Liquor Licensing Process: A guide for local governments and First Nations: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/lclb/docs-forms/PSSG-LocalGovt-Fst-Nation.pdf 7018072

IA-EA - 37 -

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/lclb/docs-forms/PSSG-LocalGovt-Fst-Nation.pdf�

IA-EA - 38 -

gstanese

Text Box

5.3 Attachment

/

III

IIIilJ

4i

IA-EA - 39 -

gstanese

Text Box

7017895

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee From: Paulette Vetleson, Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information

Department Date: January 17, 2013 Meeting date: April 3, 2013 Subject: 2013 Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee

Meeting Dates RECOMMENDATION That the Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2013 regular meetings as follows: Day and Hour Wednesday, February 6 9:00 am Wednesday, April 3 9:00 am Wednesday, June 5 9:00 am Wednesday, September 4 9:00 am Wednesday, November 6 9:00 am Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda. PURPOSE To establish the day, hour and place of committee meetings. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Procedure Bylaw requires the board and committees to decide from time to time by resolution the day, hour and place its regular meetings will be held. The schedule of board and committee meetings is planned to reduce conflicts with other meetings and events. On a monthly basis it provides for 2 board, 11 standing committee, 2 subcommittee, and 4 advisory committee meetings, as well as statutory holidays, conferences for elected officials, and spring break. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the committee meeting dates be approved as presented. 2. That the committee meeting dates be approved as amended by the committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A OTHER IMPLICATIONS N/A

5.4

IA-EA - 40 -

2013 Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Dates Intergovernmental and Administration Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Committee will have met the requirements of the board Procedure Bylaw by establishing the day, hour and place of its regular meetings. The information will be published on the Metro Vancouver website. As such the public will be aware of the regular meetings and can plan to attend such meetings. Staff recommends Alternative 1. Attachments and References: N/A 6951793

IA-EA - 41 -

To: Intergovernmental and Administration – Electoral Area Sub-Committee From: Greg Smith, Director IT & Emergency Management, Corporate Services Date: March 11, 2013 Meeting date: April 3, 2013 Subject: Manager’s Report RECOMMENDATION That the Intergovernmental and Administration - Electoral Area Sub-Committee receive for information the report dated March 11, 2013, titled “Manager’s Report”. Barnston Island Diking District Proposed Transfer – Update In February 2012, Emergency Management BC (EMBC) committed to the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to provide funds in fiscal year 2012 and beyond to assist with diking district assessments and the Drainage Ditch and Dike Act transfers. In December 2012, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations initiated a study on the condition of the Barnston Island Dike. Metro Vancouver contributed to the study with the Ministry leading the assessment. Metro Vancouver is also on a steering committee with Barnston Island Diking District, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and the Katzie First Nation. The study will be completed by the end of March of 2013 and results shared with the Committee. Metro Vancouver’s participation is as an interested party with no commitment whatsoever to accept responsibility for the dike. Montizambert Wynd Petition for Water Service and Boundary Extension In April 2012, staff assisted in the preparation of a Montizambert Wynd residents’ petition for water service and/or boundary extension to the District of West Vancouver. The petition was submitted to the District of West Vancouver Council in May 2012. In October, staff were informed that West Vancouver was not interested in pursuing this matter. Further, West Van District now recognizes that they have been providing raw water to the residents from their “Montizambert Connector” since at least the mid seventies. West Van Council has passed a resolution to cease providing raw water as of the end of August 2013. In spite of that, West Van Staff have offered to meet with Metro Staff to try and see if creative options of providing potable water to the residents at no cost, no liability impact and with no change in Provincial licensing. If these talks break down, the residents will have no option but to build a water intake system as per their original water licenses, many of which date to the early 1940’s. Letter from Electoral Area Resident Re: Notice on Title at 1 Johnson Bay Correspondence was received from Mr. Reith, Electoral Area resident, dated October 17th, 2012, regarding a notification sent to his mailing address about the Notice on Title Hearing which was held June 7th, 2012, by the Electoral Area Committee (Attachment 2a). Notification of the Hearing was sent by registered mail, however, the owner failed to pick it up at the post office and it was returned to Metro Vancouver (Attachment 2b).

5.5

IA-EA - 42 -

Manager’s Report Intergovernmental and Administration – Electoral Area Sub-Committee Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Past and recent letters from Mr. Reith (including attachment 2a) show the return address used by Metro when writing to Mr. Reith. It should also be noted that no work appears to have taken place to rectify the issues that resulted in the Notice on Title. At the discretion of the Committee, Mr. Reith may be invited to attend an Intergovernmental and Administration – Electoral Area Sub-Committee meeting after his return (April 2013). Revised UEL Water Rates FAQ Metro Vancouver engineering staff are preparing a report to the Metro Vancouver Utilities Committee in the first quarter of 2013 with regards to water rates for GVWD non-members. This report will address issues relevant to water rates in the University Endowment Lands. Staff will monitor and ensure the Electoral Area Sub-Committee is provided a copy of this report. UBC Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre Liquor Licence On January 17, 2013, the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch approved a temporary change application for the UBC Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre’s liquor licence hours for the period of February 1 - 3, 2013, for the Davis Cup Tennis Tournament, as well as to add tiered seating in an area that was already licensed (Attachment 3). The application was submitted by UBC to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch on January 11, 2013. As the venue was already licensed and the proposal did not exceed the already approved capacity for the stadium, the Branch did not seek comments from Metro Vancouver; however, a fire inspector review of the proposed plan to install the temporary seating was completed. Attachments: 1. a) District of West Vancouver Council Resolution dated October 15, 2012 (Doc. # 6800392). b) District of West Vancouver Council Minutes dated February 18, 2013 (Doc # 7142377). c) District of West Vancouver Council Report re. Item 10 for February 18, 2013 (Doc # 7142115). 2. a) Correspondence dated October 17, 2012 received from Mr. Aaron Reith and documents mailed to Mr. Reith on September 17, 2012 (Doc. # 6879916). b) Correspondence dated May 23, 2012, titled “Notice of Hearing June 7th – Bylaw Contravention – District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm (folio #743.10047.163)” sent to Mr. Reith by registered mail (Doc. #6926783). 3. Temporary Change to a Liquor Licence – Approved Establishment: Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre Liquor Primary Licence #110162 - Correspondence dated January 17, 2013 from Liquor Control and Licensing Branch addressed to University of British Columbia (Doc. #6964678). 4. Metro Vancouver Water Service to UEL and UBC Frequently Asked Questions Bulletin (Doc. #6927529). 6801008

IA-EA - 43 -

westvancouver ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

750 17th STREET, WEST VANCOUVER B.C. V7V 3T3 TELEPHONE: 604 925-7000 FACSIMILE: 604 925 .. 5999

Montizambert Wynd Council Resolution - October 15, 2012

THAT:

Due to concerns regarding: inconsistency with established District practices; the terms of the District's existing water licence; the substantial costs involved; difficulties with collection of payment and legal enforcement; potential risks with maintaining water quality; potential legal liability; difficulties with monitoring outside District boundaries; control issues regarding the maintenance of the infrastructure; and the availability of other viable and less expensive alternatives, Council resolves to not provide District water outside District boundaries to the properties in the Montizambert Wynd area.

Due to concerns regarding: the cost to provide standard District services to the Montizambert Wynd area; potential maintenance and liability issues regarding the bailey bridge at Montizambert Wynd; the substantial infrastructure improvements that would be required including road and waterinfrastructure; the potential impact that an extension would have on the rest of the municipality; the number of affected properties; and the resources required to implement a boundary extension, Council resolves to not proceed with a boundary extension to incorporate the Montizambert Wynd area within the District of West Vancouver's boundaries.

CARRIED

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER W ESTVA N COUV E R. CA

IA-EA - 44 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 1a

GStanese

Text Box

6800392

FEBRUARY 18, 2013 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES M-1

603136v2

To view the entire meeting click here:

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013

COUNCIL:

Mayor M. Smith; Councillors M. Booth, C. Cameron, N. Gambioli, T. Panz, M. Lewis, and W. Soprovich. STAFF:

G. McRadu, Chief Administrative Officer; B. Leigh, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer; S. Scholes, Municipal Clerk; R. Fung, Director of Engineering and Transportation; M. Koke, Acting Chief Financial Officer; A. Mooi, Director of Parks and Community Services; B. Sokol, Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits; and A. Marut, Acting Deputy Clerk. CALL TO ORDER OPEN SESSION

1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.

Mayor Smith spoke regarding the passing of former Council member John Clark, provided a summary of his nine years of service on Council and on many Council committees, his involvement in the community, and noted his sense of humour and passion for West Vancouver. Councillor Soprovich spoke regarding John Clark’s sense of the community and its well being, of his business in Ambleside, and informed of the upcoming celebration of life. Councillor Lewis spoke regarding John Clark’s encouragement to enter politics and noted he would be sorely missed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. Approval of February 18, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Agenda

MOVED by Cameron, seconded by Soprovich:

THAT the February 18, 2013 regular Council meeting agenda be amended by:

• adding to Item 3 replacement page M-2 of the February 4, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes;

• adding to Item 7, written submission C-2;

• adding to Item 16, an addition to Item 16.1, and Items 16.2 to 16.3 regarding correspondence;

AND THAT the agenda be approved as amended.

CARRIED

IA-EA - 45 -

http://videos.westvancouver.ca/Council_Videos/2013/02/18/entire.smil

http://videos.westvancouver.ca/Council_Videos/2013/02/18/item1.smil


GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 1b


603136v2

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

3. Adoption of January 14, 21, and 28 and February 4, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes and January 28, 2013 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes

MOVED by Panz, seconded by Booth:

THAT the following Minutes be adopted as circulated:

• January 14, 2013 special and regular Council Meetings;

• January 21, 2013 Public Hearing and special and regular Council Meetings;

• January 28, 2013 Committee of the Whole and regular Council Meeting;

• February 4, 2013 special and regular Council Meetings.

CARRIED

DELEGATIONS

4. M. Markwick, Dundarave Festival of Lights Society, regarding Dundarave Festival of Lights (File: 0055-01)

A presentation was provided and M. Markwick (Executive Director, Dundarave Festival of Lights Society) and G. Allison (Chair, Board of Directors, Dundarave Festival of Lights Society) spoke relative West Vancouver’s centennial celebrations, donations, funding and volunteer contributions and thanked Council and staff.

MOVED by Booth, seconded by Panz:

THAT the delegation from M. Markwick, Dundarave Festival of Lights Society regarding Dundarave Festival of Lights be received for information, with many thanks.

CARRIED REPORTS

5. Reports from Mayor and Councillors on Boards, Committees, and Working Groups

Councillor Lewis reported on the Metro Vancouver Finance Committee meeting.

Councillor Booth reported on the upcoming North Shore Congress Child and Family Friendly Community Charter meeting at the Gleneagles Golf Course and Clubhouse, the Community Centres Society board meeting ‘Forum for Dialogue and Learning: A North Wind is Blowing: Why You Should Care’, and a Blue Sky Visioning Session.

Councillor Soprovich spoke relative to Metro Vancouver and costs to the tax payer, and reported on the North Shore Emergency Management Office (NSEMO) meeting concerning the Royal Canadian Marine Auxiliary Coastguard and Operation Slip and Slide.

Councillor Panz reported on the upcoming Old Growth Conservation Society Annual General Meeting this week.

IA-EA - 46 -





603136v2

Councillor Cameron reported on the Upper Lands Study Review Working Group meeting, the Memorial Library Board meeting, and opening of the new youth lounge ‘Room 14’.

Councillor Gambioli reported on the Gleneagles Community Centre Family Fun Night, and on the Asian New Year Celebration at Park Royal.

Mayor Smith reported that he would be addressing the Sunrise Rotary Club and the Rotary Club of West Vancouver on February 23, International Rotary Day, and informed of the Rotary Peace Forum and Heritage Week.

MOVED by Gambioli, seconded by Cameron:

THAT the oral reports from the Mayor and Councillors be received for information.

CARRIED 6. Proposed Amendment to Development Permit No. 08-041 (Hollyburn Mews)

for property located at 2011 Esquimalt Avenue (formerly 2031, 2047 and 2063 Esquimalt Avenue) (File: 1010-20-08-041)

Reports received up to and including February 18, 2013:

NAME: DATE: FOR COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION:

S. Mikicich January 9, 2013 January 21, 2013 / February 18, 2013

Written Submissions received up to and including February 18, 2013:


CONSIDERATION:

Vaal Investments Ltd. February 10, 2013 February 18, 2013

A PowerPoint presentation was provided and G. Boyle (Manager, Community Planning) described the proposed amendment to the development permit, and responded to queries of Council.

Mayor Smith called for public input.

G. Pajari (2545 Queens Avenue) queried relative to staff costs and the applicant’s costs regarding the application and B. Sokol (Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits) provided a response.

Discussion ensued relative to the proposed amendment including roof height, permit fees and the possibility of staff ruling on certain variances and B. Sokol and G. Boyle responded to queries of Council.

MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Cameron:

THAT all written and oral submissions regarding the proposed amendment to Development Permit No. 08-041 (Hollyburn Mews) for property located at 2011 Esquimalt Avenue (formerly 2031, 2047 and 2063 Esquimalt Avenue) up to and including the Council Meeting held on February 18, 2013 be received for information.

CARRIED

IA-EA - 47 -



603136v2


THAT the proposed amendment to Development Permit No. 08-041 (Hollyburn Mews) for property located at 2011 Esquimalt Avenue (formerly 2031, 2047 and 2063 Esquimalt Avenue), which would allow for higher roof peaks for three buildings as follows:

Duplex A: Increase of 0.046 metre (1.8 inches); Duplex B: Increase of 0.046 metre (1.8 inches); and Coach House Unit 3: Increase of 0.29 metre (11.3 inches); be approved.

CARRIED 7. Development Variance Permit Application No. 13-001 (1690 21st Street)

(File: 1010-20-13-001)

Reports received up to and including February 18, 2013:


CONSIDERATION:

J. Allan & G. Boyle January 9, 2013 January 21, 2013 / February 18, 2013

Written Submissions received up to and including February 18, 2013:


CONSIDERATION:

M. Silverbrooke February 14, 2013 February 18, 2013 J. Mahon February 14, 2013 February 18, 2013

A PowerPoint presentation was provided and G. Boyle (Manager, Community Planning) described the subject development variance application, and responded to queries of Council.

Mayor Smith called for public input.

J. Mahon (2055 Westdean Crescent) spoke in opposition to the application and conveyed concerns including bylaw compliance and impact on neighbours.

Discussion ensued relative to the requested variance including deck design changes, design plans, stairwell location, basement, overhangs, lot size, and B. Sokol (Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits), G. Boyle, and M. Rahbar (representing A. Filsoof, owner of 1690 21st street) responded to queries of Council.

MOVED by Cameron, seconded by Lewis:

THAT all written and oral submissions regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. 13-001 for 1690 21st Street up to and including the Council Meeting held on February 18, 2013 be received for information.

CARRIED

IA-EA - 48 -



603136v2


THAT Development Variance Permit Application No. 13-001 for 1690 21st Street, which would allow for exterior stairs from the ground to the main floor deck to be constructed within the required rear yard, be approved.

DEFEATED Mayor Smith and Councillors Booth, Cameron, Gambioli, Lewis,

Panz, and Soprovich voted in the negative 8. Directions from Committee of the Whole Meeting on Neighbourhood

Character and Housing Held on January 28, 2013 (File: 2515-02)

B. Sokol (Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits) spoke relative to the subject report dated February 4, 2013.

Discussion ensued relative to the Housing Action Plan including progress and reporting back on the plan, moving the initiatives forward and timelines, boulevards, Regional Context Statements and Regional Growth Strategy, diverse and affordable housing choices, neighbourhood character, lot size and housing size and bulk, densification, coach houses, rental properties and conversions to strata, policies for height and decks, monster houses, accomplishments since 2008 relative to housing bulk, secondary suites, Ambleside Activation, and Council priorities and staff resources. B. Sokol and G. Boyle (Manager, Community Planning) responded to queries of Council.

MOVED by Soprovich, seconded by Panz:

THAT

1. The Housing Action Plan dated November 2012 be adopted to provide the framework for the Planning Department’s work on housing during 2013-2014; and

2. The District’s 2013-2014 departmental work plans include ‘housing bulk’ and ‘boulevards’ as priority work items as described in the report dated February 4, 2013.

Discussion ensued.

MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Soprovich:

THAT further consideration of the motion be tabled and that staff be requested to come back to Council to suggest any changes to the work plans.

CARRIED Councillors Cameron, Gambioli, and Panz, voted in the negative

Discussion ensued relative to information to be provided relative to work plans.

IA-EA - 49 -



603136v2

9. Public Safety Building – Project Status Report for January 2013 (File: 0500-01)

J. Wong (Manager, Facilities and Assets) spoke relative to the subject report dated February 7, 2013.

Discussion ensued relative to the report including project budget and funding, underground parking and cost, timelines, process including Council involvement and public open house, and massing scenario. G. McRadu (Chief Administrative Officer) informed that the report back to Council is being prepared for the March 4, 2013 Council meeting.

MOVED by Panz, seconded by Soprovich:

THAT the report entitled “Public Safety Building – Project Status Report for January 2013” dated February 7, 2013 be received for information.

CARRIED 10. Montizambert Wynd (File: 1815-05)

M. Chan (Director, Lands, Bylaws, First Nations, Legal Affairs) spoke relative to the subject report dated February 7, 2013.

B. Fanagan (9 Montizambert Wynd) informed he was representing home owners of Montizambert Wynd, provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke relative to achieving a satisfactory solution, their request to delay the vote on the recommendation for one month, historical long term relationship with respect to the water supply, and responded to queries of Council.

Discussion ensued relative to the residents working with Metro Vancouver, cost and liability concerns, and the request for a one month delay and B. Fanagan responded to queries of Council.

J. Lee (2 Montizambert Wynd) spoke relative to information they are working on for clarification.

J. Maguire (4 Montizambert Wynd) spoke relative to the request for one additional month to gather information prior to Council voting on the recommendation, and their compliance with Vancouver Coastal Health, and responded to queries of Council.

G. McRadu (Chief Administrative Officer) responded to queries of Council relative to the recommendation.

MOVED by Booth, seconded by Soprovich:

THAT the District of West Vancouver (“the District”) resolve to provide formal notice to the residents and owners of properties on Montizambert Wynd that the District will, six (6) months after Council passes this resolution, disconnect the connection between the Montizambert Wynd water pipe to the District’s water pipe at the location of Latitude: 49° 24’ 25.155” N and Longitude: 123° 14’ 24.808” W, and as shown in Appendix 1 to the report dated February 7, 2013 entitled “Montizambert Wynd”.

G. McRadu spoke relative to the recommendation.

The question was called on the motion.

IA-EA - 50 -




603136v2

CARRIED 11. Request for Order of Non-Enforcement of Noise Control Bylaw for the

Demolition of Existing Bus Shelters and Installation of New Bus Shelters at Park Royal (File: 1605-15/1785-10)

Councillor Soprovich left the meeting at 9:27 p.m.

MOVED by Gambioli, seconded by Lewis:

THAT Council approve the request from the District of West Vancouver Roads & Utilities Department and Pattison Outdoor Advertising for an Order of Non-Enforcement of Section 6.1.2 (a) of the Noise Control Bylaw No. 4404, 2005 for approximately 5 nights during the months of February and March, 2013 for the purposes of demolishing the existing bus shelter structures and the installation of new bus shelters on Marine Drive adjacent to the Park Royal pedestrian crosswalk.

CARRIED Councillor Soprovich absent at the vote

12. Pedestrian Crossing at Marine Drive and 23rd Street Intersection

(File: 1785-01)


THAT the report dated February 7, 2013 from the Transportation Engineer titled, “Pedestrian Crossing at Marine Drive and 23rd Street Intersection” be received for information.


BYLAWS

13. Council Procedure Bylaw No. 4730, 2012 (File: 1610-20-4730)

MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Panz:

THAT proposed Council Procedure Bylaw No. 4730, 2013 be amended by:

• In section 4.7 by deleting the words “as the Councillor responsible for acting in the place of the Mayor”;

• In section 4.27 by adding commas before and after the words “without limitation”;

• In section 4.40 by adding to the title the words “and Tie Vote” and by adding to the text the words “If the votes of the members present at a council meeting at the time of the vote are equal for and against a motion, the motion is defeated.”;

• In Part 6 by using capitals consistently for “Committee of the Whole”’; • In Part 6.11 by replacing the words “at following regular Council meeting”

with the words “at a future specified Council meeting”; and • In Part 6.12 by adding the words “and address” after the words “by stating

their name”.

IA-EA - 51 -





603136v2

MOVED by Booth, seconded by Cameron:

THAT the motion be amended by adding to the definition of public notice posting places in Part 1.4 of proposed Council Procedure Bylaw No. 4730, 2013, the words “and on the District website unless having made reasonable efforts the Clerk is unable to effect such posting to the website”.


The question was called on the motion as amended.


Councillor Soprovich returned to the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Panz:

THAT Council Procedure Bylaw No. 4730, 2013 be read a second time as amended.

CARRIED MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Gambioli:

THAT Council Procedure Bylaw No. 4730, 2013 be read a third time.

CARRIED 14. 5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4717, 2012, Amendment Bylaw No. 4745,

2013 (File: 1610-20-4745)

MOVED by Cameron, seconded by Panz:

THAT third reading of 5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4717, Amendment Bylaw No. 4745, 2013 be rescinded.

CARRIED


THAT 5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4717, Amendment Bylaw No. 4745, 2013 be amended by replacing Schedule “B” with the Schedule “B” as attached to the report dated February 12, 2013 from the Acting Chief Financial Officer.

CARRIED

MOVED by Cameron, seconded by Soprovich:

THAT 5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4717, Amendment Bylaw No. 4745, 2013 be read a third time as amended.

CARRIED

IA-EA - 52 -



603136v2

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

15. Consent Agenda Items

MOVED by Panz, seconded by Lewis:

THAT the Consent Agenda items as follows be approved:

• Item 15.1 – Heritage Alteration Permit Application No. 12-060 for 4733 Piccadilly South (to set date for consideration);

• Item 15.2 – Development Permit Application No. 12-055 for 6418 Bay Street (to set date for consideration);

• Item 15.3 – North Shore Advisory Committee on Disability Issues Review of 2012 Committee Work and 2013 Work Plan and Budget Request;

• Item 15.4 – Development Applications Status List; and

• Item 15.5 – Correspondence List.

CARRIED 15.1. Heritage Alteration Permit Application No. 12-060 for 4733 Piccadilly South (File: 1010-20-12-060)

THAT the Municipal Clerk give notice that Heritage Alteration Permit Application No. 12-060 for 4733 Piccadilly South for additions and alterations to an existing house, with zoning bylaw variances for highest building face, number of storeys, building height, and the rear yard be considered on Monday, March 18, 2013.

15.2. Development Permit Application No. 12-055 for 6418 Bay Street (File: 1010-20-12-055)

THAT the Municipal Clerk give notice that Development Permit Application No. 12-055 for 6418 Bay Street to allow for a 52 square metre addition, with a zoning bylaw variance for parking be considered on Monday, March 18, 2013.

15.3. North Shore Advisory Committee on Disability Issues Review of 2012

Committee Work and 2013 Work Plan and Budget Request (File: 0810-18-12)

THAT

1. The North Shore Advisory Committee on Disability Issues 2013 Work Plan be approved; and

2. The budget request for a one third share ($4,767) of the total budget ($14,300) be approved utilizing existing funds within the Grants in Aid budget.

IA-EA - 53 -



603136v2

15.4. Development Applications Status List (File: 1010-01)

THAT the Development Applications Status list to February 8, 2013 be received for information.

15.5. Correspondence List (File: 0120-24)

THAT the correspondence list be received for information.

Council Correspondence Update to February 1, 2013 (up to 12:00 Noon)

Referred for Action

(1) D. Close, January 25, 2013, regarding “Request for Crosswalk lighting – Dundarave” (Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response)

(2) January 28, 2013, regarding “28 January Council Meeting – Agenda Item #4” (Referred to Acting Chief Financial Officer for consideration and response)

(3) H. and D. Miller, January 24, 2013, regarding Spirit Trail Upgrade and Seaview Walk (Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response)

(4) E. Roberts, January 30, 2013, regarding “Litter Free Communities Campaign” (Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response)

(5) P. Chapman, January 31, 2013, regarding “FW: 1105 Esplanade” (Referred to Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits for consideration and response)

Received for Information

(6) Committee and Board Meeting Minutes – Design Review Committee – December 13, 2012; Gleneagles Community Centre Advisory Committee – June 21, 2012, September 13, 2012, October 11, 2012, November 8, 2012; Lower Caulfeild Advisory Committee – June 13, 2012, November 14, 2012; Community Grants Committee – November 9, 2012, December 14, 2012

(7) Metro Vancouver Board, January 25, 2013, regarding “Expert Panel on British Columbia’s Tax Competitiveness”

(8) K. Little, January 28, 2013, regarding “Council of the whole mtg.”

(9) E. Lyman, January 24, 2013, regarding “Fwd: land use information for you”

(10) Park Royal Shopping Centre Holdings Ltd., January 29, 2013, regarding Update on Remaining Work on New Intersection and Ongoing Construction

(11) 2 submissions, dated January 31, 2013, regarding Departmental Budget Reviews

(12) 20 submissions, dated January 24 – February 1, 2013, regarding 1300 block Marine Drive

IA-EA - 54 -


603136v2

Responses to Correspondence

(13) Director of Engineering and Transportation, January 29, 2013, response to J. Wyckham, regarding Pedestrian Overpass at Park Royal

Council Correspondence Update to February 8, 2013 (up to 12:00 Noon)

Referred for Action

(1) i2i Intergenerational Society of Canada, January 31, 2013, regarding Request for Proclamation of Intergenerational Day Canada (Referred to Municipal Clerk for response)

(2) Pret-a-PorterLuxe, February 5, 2013, regarding “WHAT NEXT?” (Referred to Director of Lands, Bylaws, First Nations and Legal Affairs for consideration and response)

(3) A. Lepiarczyk, February 3, 2013, regarding “Rules of engagement” (garbage pickup) (Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response)

(4) February 3, 2013, regarding “Parking Signs – Traffic and Parking Bylaw No. 4370, 2004; NSN 3 Feb 2013 p. A6 “Mailbox: WV parking signs mislead” (Referred to Director of Lands, Bylaws, First Nations and Legal Affairs for consideration and response)

(5) February 4, 2013, regarding “2012 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes for the Month of November” (Referred to Acting Chief Financial Officer for consideration and response)

(6) February 4, 2013, regarding “2012 5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw 4717, 2012, Amendment Bylaw No. 4745, 2013” (Referred to Acting Chief Financial Officer for consideration and response)

(7) W. and M. Hill, February 4, 2013, regarding “Parking Regulations Bylaw” (Referred to Director of Lands, Bylaws, First Nations and Legal Affairs for consideration and response)


(8) Honours and Awards Secretariat, January 28, 2013, regarding “Order of British Columbia ~ 2013 Call for Nominations”

(9) North Shore Family Court and Youth Justice Committee, February 4, 2013, regarding “Law Day 2013 – SAVE THE DATE”

(10) Ambleside and Dundarave Ratepayers’ Association (ADRA), February 5, 2013, regarding “FW: draft as per last meeting” (Walker Building Renovation application)

(11) 15 submissions, dated January 22 - February 7, 2013, regarding 1300 block Marine Drive

Responses to Correspondence

(12) Senior Community Planner, Planning and Development, February 1, 2013, response to C. Ballantine, “Shadow Study!”

IA-EA - 55 -


603136v2

Council Correspondence Update to February 12, 2013 (up to 4:30 p.m.)

Referred for Action

(1) HUB – North Shore Committee, February 12, 2013, regarding “Request for Delegation to Council” (Referred to Municipal Clerk for response)

(2) Green Jobs BC, February 1, 2013, regarding Open Letter Calling for a Bold Green Jobs Plan for BC (Referred to Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for response)


(3) 2 submissions, dated January 31 – February 7, 2013 regarding 1300 block Marine Drive

(4) Da Vinci’s Home, February 7, 2013, regarding “Ambleside Activation”

(5) Vaal Investments Ltd., February 10, 2013, regarding “Proposed Amendment to DP # 08-041 2011 Esquimalt Avenue – “Hollyburn Mews” (Referred to February 18, 2013 Council meeting for Council consideration)

(6) G. Knight, February 12, 2013, regarding “Display case in WV Com> Centre Atrium for Heritage Canada Feb. 17th -24th – by Hollyburn Heritage Society & W.V. Heritage”.

OTHER ITEMS

16. Council requested that the following correspondence be brought forward for discussion.

16.1. Park Royal/The Village at Park Royal, January 21, 2013, regarding “Connectivity and safety are essential elements of Park Royal upgrades”; and Park Royal Shopping Centre Holdings, January 29, 2013 regarding Update on remaining work on new intersection and ongoing construction (For information)

Councillor Gambioli spoke relative to removal of the pedestrian overpass at Park Royal, the overpass for cars being closed for renovations, and timing of completion for the renovations.

16.2 B. McArthur, February 11, 2013, regarding Upper Lands Study Review (Referred to Director of Planning, Land Development and Permits for consideration and response)

Councillor Cameron spoke relative to the Upper Lands Study Review Working Group working on issues related to this matter and that the information will be forwarded to the Co-Chairs.

IA-EA - 56 -



603136v2

16.3 S. Radcliffe, February 8, 2013, regarding “Two oddities in new garbage pickup” (Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response)

Councillor Cameron spoke relative to comments received regarding the change to bi-weekly garbage pick-up and the upcoming report to Council. R. Fung (Director of Engineering and Transportation) informed that there will be a communications plan as progress continues toward implementation.

MOVED by Booth, seconded by Cameron:

THAT Items 16.1 – 16.3 be received for information.

CARRIED PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

17. Public Questions and Comments

C. Reynolds (201-1571 Bellevue Avenue, Editor, West Van Matters) displayed a Heritage Week poster, spoke relative to monster houses and floor area ratio, and Heritage Week events.

Councillor Booth left the meeting at 9:37 p.m.

K. Pople (1215 Keith Road) spoke relative to a petition that ADRA is conducting regarding the proposed 1300 block redevelopment, ADRA survey responses, and petition requesting that buildings in the Ambleside business district be limited in height and number of storeys.

L. Kowalski (311-1425 Esquimalt Avenue) spoke relative to the petition described by K. Pople.

ADJOURNMENT

18. Adjournment of February 18, 2013 Council Meeting

MOVED by Gambioli, seconded by Panz:

THAT the February 18, 2013 Council Meeting be adjourned. (9:41 p.m.)

CARRIED Councillor Booth was absent at the vote

Certified Correct: _________________________________ MAYOR _________________________________ MUNICIPAL CLERK

IA-EA - 57 -



GStanese

Text Box

7142377

IA-EA - 58 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 1c

IA-EA - 59 -

IA-EA - 60 -

IA-EA - 61 -

IA-EA - 62 -

IA-EA - 63 -

IA-EA - 64 -

IA-EA - 65 -

GStanese

Text Box

7142115

Aaron Reith

2962 Panorama Dr

North Vancouver BC

V7G 2A4

Tom Pearce

Metro Vancouver

4330 Kingsway BC

V5H 4G8 October 17, 2012

Dear Tom:

Thank you for your letter dated September 17, 2012. Sorry for the delay in responding but I am away

often and rarely check the mail. Tom I am the founding director of the Indian Arm Conservation Society

(2003) we have organised several shoreline cleanups in and around Indian Arm with participation from

GVRD, TsleiI Waututh First Nation, BC Parks, Vancouver Aquarium and hundreds of volunteers. To date

we have remover over 21,000 lbs of garbage from Indian Arm with no charge to the taxpayer.

I am telling you this because I was taken by surprise with your letter indicating the Board has directed an

action against my property without my knowledge even though we have worked together positively in

the past. The Board must give me an opportunity to speak to this issue and since I was not given an

invitation to the meeting I would argue that the decision by the Board is riot valid. I would respectively

ask that the notice on title be removed immediately and an invitation to a Board meeting be

forthcoming.

I am away until April 2013 so no hurry in organising a meeting. I hope we can work together

cooperatively and resolve this issue. We are talking about two sheds with a usable area less than 100 sq

ft each, hardly worth an expense to the taxpayer with a court challenge. Rest assured that no other work

has or will be conducted on the property without settlement of this matter.

Thank you,

Aaron Reith

IA-EA - 66 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 2a

GStanese

Text Box

Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks DepartmentTel. 604 432-6350 Fax 604 432-6296

September 17, 2012 File: CR-06-01-743.10047.163

Mr. Aaron G. Reith2962 Panorama DrNorth Vancouver, BC V7G 2A4

Dear Mr. Reith:

Re: Roll #743.10047.163District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm

On June 7, 2012 a recommendation was made by the Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictBuilding Inspector to register a BYLAW CONTRAVENTION NOTICE submitted under 695 of theLocal Government Act R.S.B.C, 1996, c. 323. and;

On June 15, 2012 the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board approved the followingresolution:

That the Board directed the designated corporate officer to tile a notice in the land titleoffice on the following property as being in non-compliance of GVRD Building Bylaw No.1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm; roIl #743.10047.163 and that staff beauthorized to pursue legal and enforcement action, including injunctive reIief if necessary,’to compel the property owners to fulfill the requirements of the G VRD Building Bylaw.

On July 3, 2012 a notice was filed at the Land Title Office pursuant to the bylaw contravention.I have enclosed the May 15 Staff report and the July 3, 2012 letter to the Land Title Office for yourinformation. To date we have not received a demolition or building permit application from you. Ifwe do not receive a complete application from you within 30 days we will forward your file to legaldepartment for enforcement action.

Please contact the undersigned at (604) 432-6383 should you have any questions.

Yours truly,

:12

Tom PearceElectoral Area Planner

TP/ms

Attachments:1. July 3, 2012 Letter to the Land Title Office (Orbit # 6323226)2. May 15, 2012 Staff Report to June 15, 2012 GVRD Board (Orbit #6466638)

6466107

IA-EA - 67 -

metro

4330 inqv. [nab 0(, C;nada v5H 4G$ 60 432 200 vww

July 3, 2012 File: CR06-0t743i0047.163

The RegistrarLand Title Office88 Sixth StreetNew Westminster, BCV3L 583

Notice is hereby given that:

(a) A recommendation was made by the Greater Vancouver Regional District BuildingInspector to register a BYLAW CONTRAVENTION NOTICE submitted under 695 of theLocal Government Act R.S.BC. 1996, c. 323. and;

(b) On June 15, 2012 the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board approved the followingresolution:

That the Board directed the designated corporate officer to file a notice in theland title office on the following property as being in non-compliance of GVRDBuilding Bylaw No. 1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm; roll#743.10047.163 and that staff be authorized to pursue legal and enforcementaction, Including injunctive relief, if necessary to compel the property owners tofulfill the requirements of the GVRD Building Bylaw.

(c) described as:

Parcel Identifier: 017-587-166DISTRICT LOT 7065 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT‘1

T9/gnol

Actini Corporate Officer

6318983

IA-EA - 68 -

Section E 3.3

nietrovancouver G:*

t JCt fQ Fr Dkt Meto HjCt

4330 Kngsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G 60443262G0 www.metrovancouver.orgElectoral Area Committee Meeting Date: June 7, 2012

To: Electoral Area Committee

From: Tom Pearce, Regional PlannerMetropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: May 15, 2012

Subject: Bylaw Contravention Notice on Property Title — Reith — Roll # 743.10047.163

Recommendation:

That the Board direct the designated corporate officer to file a notice in the land titleoffice on the following property as being in non-compliance of GVRD Building Bylaw No.1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm; roll #743.10047.163.

1. PURPOSE

To address non-compliance with the Greater Vancouver Regional District Building BylawNo. 1043, 2006 on District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm, in Electoral Area ‘A’.

2. CONTEXT

The property located at 1 Johnson Bay - District Lot 7065, Group 1 is on Indian Arm withinElectoral Area A. The property has had four Stop Work Orders on the property since 1998including:

• September 18, 1998 for deck construction below the residence;• May 12, 2006 for an addition to the residence;• April 30, 2010 for construction of accessory buildings;• September 14, 2011 for construction of accessory buildings.

Since the most recent Stop Work Order issued September 14, 2011, the Metro VancouverBuilding Inspector has sent two letters to the property owner and made two follow up visits;but no progress has been made toward acquisition of a building or demolition permit.

Section 695 of the Local Government Act gives authority for the regional district to register anote against land title for building regulations that have been contravened uponrecommendation of the Building Inspector. Such a notice alerts prospective buyers ofunapproved building improvements and is an effective tool to encourage compliance withbuilding regulations. The Metro Vancouver Building Inspector has recommendedproceeding with a Notice on Title for contravention of the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict Building Bylaw No. 1043, 2006.

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 31

IA-EA - 69 -

Bylaw Contravention Notice on Property Title — Reith —Roll # 743.10047.163Electoral Area Committee Meeting Date: June 7, 2012Page 2 of 2

3. ALTERNATIVES

The following options are provided for consideration:

a) That the Board direct the designated corporate officer to file a notice in the land titleoffice on the following property as being in non-compliance of GVRD Building BylawNo. 1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm; roll #743.10047.163.

or

b) That no action be taken.

4. CONCLUSION

There has been four Stop Work Orders since 1998 on the property. The last Stop WorkOrder was issued September 2011 and since that time no progress has been made byMr. Reith in fulfilling the requirements of the GVRD Building Bylaw.

Staff have written Mr. Reith and made two follow up visits to his property. It is thereforerecommended that the Board direct the designated corporate officer to file a notice in theland title office on the following property as being in non-compliance of Greater VancouverRegional District Building Bylaw No. 1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm (roll# 743.10047.163).

ATTACHMENTS

1. District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm — Letter dated May 2, 2012 from Jim Martin,Electoral Area Building Inspector addressed to Mr. Aaron G. Reith (Doc. #6203628).

2. District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm - Letter dated September 20, 2011 from JimMartin, Electoral Area Building Inspector addressed to Mr. Aaron G. Reith(Doc. #6203904).

6197241


IA-EA - 70 -

ruetro\:.n( vrr

May 2, 2012

REGISTERED MAIL

Mr. Aaron G. Reith2962 Panorama DrNorth Vancouver BC V7G 2A4

Dear Mr. Reith:

Re: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm

Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks DepartmentTel. 604-432-6375 Fax 604-436-6970

File: CR-06-01 -743.10047.163

Further to our letter dated September 14, 2011 (which was returned to sender> noting the Stop Work Orderposted at your property for work constructed without a building permit. We have subsequently revisited yourproperty on May 2, 2012 and reviewed your file May 2, 2012.

The file review notes the following:• Stop Work Order was issued September 18, 1998 for deck construction below the residence.• Stop Work Order was issued May 12, 2006 for an addition to the residence.• Stop Work Order was issued April 30, 2010 for construction of accessory buildings.• Stop Work Order was issued September 14, 2011 for construction of accessory buildings.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Building Administration Bylaw No. 1043, 2006,(“the Building Bylaw’) provides, in part, that:

Section 109 (3): “Every owner of property on which a “Stop Work Order’ has been posted shallcease all work thereon immediately and shall not do any work thereon until all provisions of thisBylaw have been fully complied with and the “Stop Work Order” has been removed under thedirection of the Building Official’ and

Section 202 (1) “Every owner shall apply for and obtain: (a) a building permit before constructing,altering or repairing a building or structure...”

You are required to submit a building/demolition permit application in accordance with Schedule E of theBuilding Administration Bylaw. Please refer to Bylaw No. 1043, 2006 for application requirements. TheBylaw can be viewed at http:/Iwww.metrovancouver.orglboards/bylaws/Bylaws/RD_Bylaw_ 1 043.pdf , orcopies of the building permit application can be provided by calling Manjit Sunner at (604) 432-6369. If anapplication is not received the Metro Vancouver Board will consider registering a Bylaw Contravention Noticeon Title.


6153009

Yours truly,

lectoral Area Building Inspector

JM/ms


IA-EA - 71 -

metrovancouver r

iid 1) )rt iv,

4330 Ktngsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4G8 6044326200 wwwmetrovancouver.orgMetropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Tel. 604-432-6375 Fax 604-436-6970

September 20, 2011 File: CR-06-01-743.10047.163

REGISTERED MAIL


Dear Mr. Reith:

Re: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm

On September 14, 2011 a Stop Work Order was posted on your property for work in progresswithout a building permit.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Building Administration Bylaw No. 1043,2006, (“the Building Bylaw’) provides, in part, that:

Section 109 (3): “Every owner of property on which a ‘Stop Work Order” has beenposted shall cease all work thereon immediately and shall not do any work thereon untilall provisions of this Bylaw have been fully complied with and the “Stop Work Order” hasbeen removed under the direction of the Budding Official’ and

Section 202 (1) “Every owner shall apply for and obtain: (a) a building permit beforeconstructing, altering or repairing a building or structure..

This letter is notification that it is an offence to proceed with work without a building permit. You arerequired to submit a building permit application in accordance with Schedule E of the BuildingAdministration Bylaw within 60 days of the date of this letter. Please refer to Bylaw No. 1043, 2006for application requirements. The Bylaw can be accessed athftp://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/BylawsJRD_Bylawi 043.pdf , or copies of thebuilding permit application can be provided by calling Manjit Sunner at (604) 432-6369.


Yours truly,7

dim MartinElectoral Area Building Inspector

JMJms

5463280


IA-EA - 72 -

GStanese

Text Box

6879916

metr c

Board Secretariat and Corporate Information DepartmentPhone: 6O4432625O Fax: 6O445 I6686

DOUBLE REGISTERED MAIL

May 23, 2012


Dear Mr. Reith:

Re: Notice of Hearing June 7th — Bylaw ContraventionDistrict Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm (folio # 743.10047.163)

Please be advised that on September 14, 2011 and May 2, 2012 the Building Inspector carried out aninspection of the above-mentioned property. It was noted that the accessory buildings are without thebenefit of a Building Permit, which is in contravention of the Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictElectoral Area Building Administration Bylaw No. 1043, 2006 (Building Administration Bylaw).

You are required to submit a building/demolition permit application in accordance with Schedule Eof the Building Administration Bylaw as noted in our September 20, 2011 and May 2, 2012 letters.To date no application has been received.

Therefore, at the next regular meeting of the Electoral Area Committee meeting, the followingrecommendation will be put forth for consideration:

“That the GVRD Board direct the designated corporate officer to file a notice in the land titleoffice on the following property as being in non-compliance of GVRD Building Bylaw No.1043, 2006: District Lot 7065, Group 1, Indian Arm; folio #743.10047.163.”

Under the provisions of Section 695 of the Local Government Act, the owner of the property mayattend the Electoral Area Committee meeting and speak to the recommendation. Please notify me nolater than May 28th (7 working days prior to the meeting date) if you wish to attend and speak. Ifcircumstances have prevented you from meeting this deadline, please call me at 604-432-6283 todiscuss options.

The meeting is being held on June 7th at 8:30 a.m. at the City of Pitt Meadows Council Chambers,12007 Harris Road, Pitt Meadows, BC.

You may wish to consult legal counsel regarding this matter.

IA-EA - 73 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 2b

Please contact Tom Pearce, Electoral Area Planner at 6O4-4326383 if you require further information

about the bylaw contravention.

Yours truly,

Paulette VetlesonCorporate Secretary/Manager

cc: Tom Pearce, Electoral Area Planner

6208411

IA-EA - 74 -

© 2012 Canada Post Corporation

Tracking Number

RW641452151CA

Please note that this is the most up-to-date information available in our system. Our telephone agents have access to the same information presented here.

Track Status

Date Time Location Description Retail Location Signatory Name

2012/05/29 12:33 NORTH VANCOUVER

Final Notice; Item will be returned to sender if not collected within 10 days

PARKGATE P.O.

Date Time Location Description Retail Location Signatory Name


Final Notice; Item will be returned to sender if not collected within 10 days

PARKGATE P.O.


Item available for pickup at Post Office


Item transferred to Post Office; being prepared for pickup.

2012/05/24 10:45 VANCOUVER Attempted delivery. Notice card left indicating where item can be picked up.

2012/05/24 08:32 VANCOUVER Item out for delivery

2012/05/24 06:58 VANCOUVER Item processed at local delivery facility

Track History

Shipping Options and Features for this Item Signature Required

1Canada Post - Track - Result Detail Print

6/5/2012http://www.canadapost.ca/cpotools/apps/track/personal/printThisResult?execution=e19s1IA-EA - 75 -

met

rova

ncou

ver

4330

Kin

gsw

ay,

Bur

naby

BCC

anad

aV

5H4G

860

443

2-62

00tL

b

——

——

——

——

——

RW

641

452

151

CA

RW

641

452

151

CA

q1C

A

dlR

W64

1452

151

CA

CP

CT

rack

ing

Num

ber

Num

éro

dere

pér

age

deIa

SC

P

r—

‘

PARK

GA

TEV

ILLA

GE

RPO

SHO

PPER

SD

RUG

MAR

T#2

52

3650

MO

UN

TSE

YM

OU

RPA

RKW

AY

NO

RTH

VA

NCO

UV

ERV

7H2Y

O(6

04)9

24_1

788

‘G2A

4

IA-EA - 76 -

GStanese

Text Box

6926783

IA-EA - 77 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 3

IA-EA - 78 -

IA-EA - 79 -

GStanese

Text Box

6964678

Metro Vancouver Water Service to UEL and UBC Frequently Asked Questions Bulletin

June 2012 Page 1

The following questions and answers provide information about water service from Metro Vancouver to the University Endowment Lands and the University of British Columbia Point Grey Campus.

GVRD - Greater Vancouver Regional District (also known as Metro Vancouver)

Acronyms

GVWD - Greater Vancouver Water District (also known as Metro Vancouver)

UBC - University of British Columbia Point Grey Campus

UEL - University Endowment Lands

Where does Metro Vancouver drinking water come from?

Questions and Answers

Metro Vancouver’s drinking water comes from rain and snow that is stored in three mountain watersheds/reservoirs – Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam. Water is distributed to communities from the reservoirs through a network of pumping stations and service reservoirs located in the communities (municipalities), and over 500 km of supply mains. Another 7,000 km of community (municipal) distribution mains deliver water to the consumer’s tap.

Who is responsible for drinking water?

Under the name ‘Metro Vancouver’, the regional government provides services through four corporate entities, one of which is the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD). Supplying water from source to the consumer is done via the GVWD as the wholesale supplier using large water mains and the local community (or municipality) as the local water supplier using smaller distribution pipes with connections to each property.

What is Metro Vancouver’s role?

• Watershed management

• Water treatment

• Water transmission

• Wholesale distribution to municipalities and communities such as University Endowment Lands (UEL)

• Monitoring and reporting on Metro Vancouver water quality

• Planning for Metro Vancouver water system’s sustainability

What is the role of the local water utility (municipality)?

• Distribution within community (municipal) boundaries

• Monitoring and reporting on community (municipal) water quality

• Cost recovery from residential and business customers (billing)

IA-EA - 80 -

GStanese

Text Box

5.5 Attachment 4


June 2012 Page 2

• Bylaw enforcement of sprinkling restrictions

• Planning for and maintaining the community (municipal) water distribution systems

(Water is collected and distributed by the GVWD to its customers via infrastructure owned and operated by the GVWD. There is no fee charged by municipalities for water transmission via GVWD infrastructure through a municipality.)

Where do UEL and UBC get their drinking water from?

The Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) provides a reliable source of safe, high-quality drinking water to its member municipalities as well as the UEL.

Water is transported through GVWD infrastructure from the source reservoirs through the City of Vancouver to the edge of the UEL. UEL and UBC water is supplied from a Metro Vancouver water main located along 16th Avenue and ending at Blanca Street. From this point the water becomes the responsibility of the UEL. This arrangement has been in place since at least 1949.

The water is then distributed and sold by the UEL. Some of the water is sold to residents and businesses on UEL lands and most is transmitted via UEL infrastructure to UBC. From this point the water and the local water system become the responsibility of UBC. UBC Utilities then provides water to the local community including the UNA neighbourhood residences.

Is UEL or UBC a Member of the GVWD?

Most communities that are members of the GVWD are members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD); the exceptions are Lions Bay, Bowen Island, and White Rock. The GVWD provides service to 18 member communities. Additionally UEL, Point Roberts, and the Capilano River Fish Hatchery are non-members that receive water from the GVWD.

UBC is not directly connected to the GVWD water system and UBC obtains GVWD water indirectly through an agreement with UEL.

Who distributes the water within UEL and UBC?

The University Endowment Lands and the University of British Columbia are responsible for conveying drinking water to residences and consumers within their respective areas. Each jurisdiction has its own water utility which provides service to local consumers.

What is the relationship between GVWD and UEL?

UEL is not a member of the GVWD. However, the Director who represents the Electoral Area on the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board is also a member of the GVWD Board and has input into GVWD policies.

Many of the key elements covering the supply of water to the UEL by the GVWD are included in the Greater Vancouver Water District Act (a Provincial Act). Some of these elements include:

• The GVWD shall furnish an adequate supply of water to UEL (and indirectly to UBC) to meet their needs as their population and water demand grows in a fashion similar to other users of water from the GVWD system.

IA-EA - 81 -


June 2012 Page 3

• Water rates charged to UEL are to be reasonable having regard to the rates charged to other users of water from the GVWD system under substantially similar circumstances.

UEL does not fall under the definition of a ‘municipality’ which is a requirement under the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, and therefore is currently ineligible for membership.

What does being a Non-member of the GVWD mean?

As a non-member of the GVWD, UEL does not have the risks and liabilities associated with being a GVWD member, such as responsibility for GVWD debt.

How is the water rate from GVWD to UEL determined?

The GVWD sells water to UEL and other non-members at the GVWD non-member rate. The GVWD non-member rate (dollars per cubic metre) is set at 20% more than the GVWD member rate. With the exception of Point Roberts, non-members only pay the GVWD for the volume of water they use. As a non-member, UEL does not pay any additional service fees or for any expansion of infrastructure required to increase the supply capacity of the GVWD water system to the UEL area.

The GVWD's practice has long been to charge non-members a 20% surcharge on the GVWD member rate. The non-member rate is higher because of the risks and liabilities that non-members do not face (such as responsibility for GVWD debt). Prior to becoming members of the GVWD, municipalities have paid the non-member rate. Details are negotiated into an agreement when new members join.

How is the water rate for UEL residents and businesses determined?

Water from GVWD sources is distributed and sold by the UEL to residents and businesses on UEL lands. The water costs charged to UEL properties include the cost of buying water from the GVWD plus the distribution and overhead costs incurred by the UEL water utility.

How is the water rate for UBC residents determined?

Water from GVWD sources is delivered to UEL which uses its infrastructure and pipes to transmit the water to UBC. The UEL adds a surcharge of 10% on the cost of GVWD water to cover the costs associated with building, maintaining and operating the water delivery infrastructure that provides water to the border of UBC.

UBC Utilities then provides water at the local level to the UNA neighbourhood residences. Water costs are metered and charged to residential multi-family buildings; the individual housing units do not have meters and residents are generally charged by allocation on unit sizes. UBC sets its water rates to match the same water rate charged to City of Vancouver residents.

Are new GVWD water treatment plants funded with money other than the increase in water rates?

To a large extent, the cost of the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project Plant and the associated works were funded by increases in the water rates, however, a combined provincial-federal grant in the amount of $118 million was received for the approximately $800 million project.

IA-EA - 82 -


June 2012 Page 4

Additional Information on GVWD Wholesale Water Rates to University Endowment Lands

At the April 5, 2012 Electoral Area Committee meeting, the issue of Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) wholesale water rates to the University Endowment Lands (UEL) was discussed. A 20% mark up for water sales to non-GVWD members applies to the UEL. Staff was requested to report back to the Committee on the financial implications of a possible UEL water rate change for the region and refer the information to the UBC/UEL governance review. The Committee agreed to maintain the status quo until after the governance review is concluded.

Using the 2012 budget, reducing the wholesale water rate to UEL to match GVWD member rates would reduce GVWD annual revenue by approximately $607,000. This would represent $0.0017 per cubic meter of water or 0.28% of total projected water sales revenue.

Metro Vancouver: Metro Vancouver is the name for the four separate regional corporate entities: Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD); Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District (GVS&DD); Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD); Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC). These are legally distinct entities each with different mandates.

Glossary

Metro Vancouver comprises 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty First Nation. Through Metro Vancouver, each representative has a say in how the region is run. These Directors are members of the Municipal or First Nation council who have been appointed to the Board by their respective councils on a “representation by population” basis. One Director is elected to the Board in a municipal election by voters who are residents of Electoral Area A and UBC to represent these electors on regional matters at the Metro Vancouver Board.

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD): Serves as the main political forum for discussion of significant community issues at the regional level, along with development of policy and planning and regulatory responsibilities for regional growth and parks.

Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD): Provides wholesale water service to the Metro Vancouver region, including water treatment and transmission and water quality monitoring.

Metro Vancouver Water Treatment and Supply:

For more information

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/Pages/default.aspx

UEL Drinking Water System: http://www.universityendowmentlands.gov.bc.ca/residentialservices/drinkingwater.htm

UBC Utilities: http://www.buildingoperations.ubc.ca/engineering/utilities/

An Act to Incorporate the Greater Vancouver Water District Act: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_24022_01

IA-EA - 83 -

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/Pages/default.aspx�

http://www.universityendowmentlands.gov.bc.ca/residentialservices/drinkingwater.htm�

http://www.buildingoperations.ubc.ca/engineering/utilities/�

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_24022_01�

GStanese

Text Box

6927529

intergovernmental and administration electoral …...designated speaker: greg smith, director it...

Documents