Document Number: 296971

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

1100 Patricia Boulevard, Prince George, B.C., V2L 3V9

DATE: April 7 2014

TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL

FROM: IAN WELLS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. CP100089 (Bylaw No. 8584),

Rezoning Application No. RZ100451 (Bylaw No. 8585) to facilitate an intensive rural

residential subdivision and, Land Use Contract Discharge Application No. LU000030

(Bylaw No. 8117) to discharge the Land Use Contract authorized by Bylaw No. 2950.

Applicant: L&M Engineering Ltd. for Wilmark Homes Ltd., Inc. No. 0199454

Location: 4257 Blackburn Road

ATTACHMENT(S):

- Location and Zoning Map

- Appendix “A” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584

- Appendix “B” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584

- Appendix “C” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584

- Appendix “D” to CP100089, Bylaw No 8584

- Appendix “A” to RZ100451, Bylaw No. 8585

- Appendix “A” to LU000030, Bylaw No. 8117

- Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950, 1976

- Land Use Contract Land Title Office Document No. PGM8141

–Official Community Plan Consultation Checklist & Direct Notification Area Map

- Province of BC Information Bulletin: Miscellaneous statutes bill introduced

- Supporting Documents

i CJTYOF

PRINCE GEORGE

Document Number: 296971

PURPOSE:

The 45.5 ha subject property is located along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn neighbourhood. The

applicant is proposing to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP), the Zoning Bylaw, and the Land Use Contract on

title to facilitate a subdivision of the subject property into 84 residential lots, no smaller than 0.4 ha. The proposed

subdivision would feature approximately 2.5 km of new road, 3.6 ha of parkland dedication, and City water and

sanitary services.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT Council Receive Application No. CP100089 to amend City of Prince George Official Community Plan

Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 by:

a) AMENDING Schedule B-6: Future Land Use by re-designating a PORTION of the South East ¼ of

District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283 from Rural B to Parks and Open Space, as

shown on Appendix “A” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

b) AMENDING Schedule B-6: Future Land Use by re-designating a PORTION of the South East ¼ of

District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283 from Rural B to Rural C, as shown on

Appendix “A” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

c) AMENDING Schedule B-14: Water Network Improvements to INCLUDE the servicing of the

subject property as future projects – development demand warranted, as shown on Appendix

“B” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

d) AMENDING Schedule B-15: Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Improvements to INCLUDE the

servicing of the subject property as future projects – development demand warranted, as shown

on Appendix “C” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

e) REMOVING Water Supply and Distribution Policy 8.8.9 and REPLACING it with a new Water

Supply and Distribution Policy 8.8.9, as shown on Appendix “D” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584,

2014;

f) REMOVING Sewage Collection and Wastewater Treatment Policy 8.8.11 and REPLACING it with a

new Sewage Collection and Wastewater Treatment Policy 8.8.11, as shown on Appendix “D” to

Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

2. THAT Council DENY FIRST READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383,

2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014.

3. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. RZ100451 to amend City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw 7850,

2007 by:

a) Rezoning a PORTION of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan

18283 from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to AR3: Rural Residential, as shown on Appendix “A” to

Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.

b) Rezoning a PORTION of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan

18283 from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to P1: Parks and Recreation, as shown on Appendix “A”

to Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.

4. THAT Council DENY FIRST and SECOND READING to City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw No. 7850, 2007,

Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.

Document Number: 296971

The application to support the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use and growth management

policy direction within the OCP. There is strong policy support to limit the development potential of the subject

property to more moderate rural residential uses (i.e. 2 ha lots), without the expansion of City water and sanitary

services.

Administration recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council approve this application for

1st and 2nd Reading, Administration recommends that the scheduling of Public Hearing and 3rd Reading be withheld

until a Phased Development Agreement (PDA) bylaw is prepared for Council’s consideration. A PDA is an agreement

between the land owner and the City that locks in rezoning changes and establishes the phasing of a development

over a specified period of time, usually up to 10 years. A failure by the land owner to develop under the terms of the

phased development agreement could result in the repeal of the rezoning changes considered in this report. Most

aspects of the proposed development would be detailed in the agreement, including, but not limited to: phasing,

subdivision design, parkland dedication, servicing standards, infrastructure standards, transportation impacts, and

buffering adjacent to ALR lands. The preparation of the phased development agreement involves significant staff

time and resources and will only be pursued by staff with Council’s direction.

BACKGROUND:

Site Characteristics

Location 4257 Blackburn Road

Current Uses Vacant Rural Land

Site Area 45.5 ha

Official Community Plan

Future Land Use Rural B – Minimum lot size of 2 hectares

Growth Management Rural - On-site private water well and septic systems

Proposed Future Land Use Rural C – Minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares

Existing Growth Management Infill – City water and sanitary servicing systems

Zoning Bylaw

Existing Zone AF: Agriculture and Forestry – Minimum lot size of 15 ha

Supportable Zone at Rezoning AR2: Rural Residential – Minimum lot size of 2 ha

Supportable Servicing On-site private water well and septic systems

Proposed Zone AF: Agriculture and Forestry – Minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares

Proposed Servicing Expansion of City water and sanitary services

Surrounding Land Use Table

North 64 hectare lot in the Agricultural Land Reserve

South 112 hectare lot in the Regional District of Fraser Fort George and in

the Agricultural Land Reserve

East 0.75 to 2 ha rural lots, Blackburn Road, Midland Road

West 2 ha to 12 ha rural lots, Marston Road, Old Cariboo Highway

POLICY ANALYSIS:

The subject property covers 45.5 ha along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn Neighbourhood. Surrounding

land uses include rural resource lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to the north and south, un-serviced

rural lots to the east and west, and serviced residential lots running north along Blackburn Road. This application is

intended to facilitate the subdivision and development of the subject property into 84 rural residential lots, no

smaller than 0.4 ha, with City water and sanitary servicing. The proposed subdivision would also feature

approximately 2.5 km of new road and 3.6 ha of parkland dedication. The specific amendments that are required to

facilitate the proposed subdivision, and which are considered in this report, are as follows:

Document Number: 296971

Official Community Plan Amendments:

- Re-designate the subject property’s B-6: Future Land Use designation from Rural B (minimum lot area of 2

ha) to Rural C (minimum lot area of 0.4 ha) and Parks and Open Space.

- Amend Utilities and Drainage Policy 8.8.11 and Schedule B-14: Water Network Improvements to add a

future development demand project to upgrade and extend water servicing from Blackburn Road south to

Midland Road and into the subject property.

- Amend Utilities and Drainage Policy 8.8.11 and Schedule B-15: Sewer and Wastewater Treatment

Improvements to add a future development demand project to upgrade the sanitary servicing from Giscome

Road to its terminus along Blackburn Road South and upgrade and extend from its terminus along

Blackburn Road South to Midland Road.

The details of the upgrades and extensions proposed in the OCP Schedules and policies identifies the City

of Prince George preferences for the location of these upgrades and extensions, and actual location and

location can be accommodated through the design phase.

Zoning Bylaw Amendments:

- Rezone the subject property from AF: Agriculture and Forestry (minimum lot area of 15 ha) to a portion of

AR3: Rural Residential (minimum lot area of 0.4 ha) and a portion of P1: Parks and Recreation.

Land Use Contract Amendment:

- Discharge an outdated 1977 Land Use Contract that established conditions and approvals for an urban

318 lot subdivision of the subject property.

Official Community Plan Policy Analysis

The Official Community Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 (OCP) is the overarching statement of objectives and policies to guide

decisions on planning and land use management within the City. The OCP references and incorporates the direction

of many subject specific plans and policies, including the myPG Sustainability Plan, the Active Transportation Plan,

and the current Financial Plan. The collective of this policy direction is not in support of the application.

Land Use Policy

The subject property is designated Rural B on Schedule B-6: Future Land Use of the OCP. The Rural B designation

supports a maximum lot size of 2 ha. Policy 8.3.109 describes the supportive types of uses in these areas: “small

farms, contracting, forestry and similar activities that make good use of the land and rural context,” with “very

limited development, including low-intensity residential use, hobby farms and similar uses.” Rural B areas often

function as a transition between rural resource lots (>15 ha) and more intensive rural residential lots (>0.4 ha).

The applicant would like to re-designate the subject property from Rural B to Rural C to facilitate a residential

development lots no smaller than 0.4 ha.

Urban/Rural Edge

Policy 8.1.5 of the OCP states that the Blackburn area should reflect “a strong urban/rural edge” that supports

“agriculture through [the] integration of urban and rural areas.” The rural edge of the Blackburn neighbourhood

includes the subject property and the adjacent ALR lands to the north regulated for large parcels and zoned for

agricultural and forestry uses. The proposed development presents a sprawling expansion of serviced residential

lots that encroach into the rural edge of the neighbourhood. The proposed development would be isolated from the

rural context that exists west of Blackburn Road; for example, the subject property is sandwiched between two ALR

tracts with farmland potential. Intensive rural residential uses could adversely affect the agricultural pursuits of

these ALR lands due to the increase of dogs, ATVs and nuisance complaints from residents. Therefore, the proposed

rezoning and re-designation of the subject property weakens the strong urban/rural edge in the Blackburn

neighbourhood and the integration of residential and rural uses.

Document Number: 296971

The proposed subdivision would be situated in a rural context

The proposed subdivision, outlined in black, is outside

of the City serviced infill area identified in grey.

Document Number: 296971

Complete Communities

Creating complete communities is also a main principle of the OCP with the aim to “make it easy for people to shop,

play and work close to home” and to emphasize, “a range of attractive mobility choices, including walking, cycling,

and transit.” This land use management approach directs residential growth and capital investment towards priority

areas, as described in Section 8.1.10 and 8.1.11:

8.1.10 The City should prioritize public investments to Growth Priority Areas, including capital investments in

transit, biking/walking infrastructure, streetscape improvements, parks and other public open spaces...

8.1.11 …the City should prioritize neighbourhood planning in and around Growth Priority areas. These plans

should take a “complete community” approach, including situating the plan area in the context of the

surrounding urban structure…and relating residential development and densities to the urban structure and to

design principles for walkable communities.

The Blackburn neighbourhood offers limited services beyond an elementary school and a community hall. The lack

of services results in residents having longer vehicle trips to meet everyday needs. The proposed development

would be considerable distance from common destinations such as highschools (Duchess Park – 12.3km) or

commercial centres (Parkwood Shopping Centre – 12.1 km). Without any conventional public transit routes in the

Blackburn neighbourhood, these longer trips are almost entirely dependent on the private vehicle. There are also no

formalized pedestrian or cycling routes serving the Blackburn area at present. The Active Transportation Plan (2010)

identifies the potential to create a shared Bike/Traffic lane along Blackburn Road and Giscome Road in medium

term forecast, but any trail or cycling connection from the Blackburn area to the Downtown is a low priority.

The Blackburn neighbourhood does not feature the characteristics of a complete community at present. It is

possible that the neighbourhood could see intensive residential growth, commercial development, and improved

amenities in the future. If significant development pressures exceed the capacity for growth, then a rezoning of the

rural subject property for serviced residential lots could be reassessed. However, there is still capacity for residential

growth north of Giscome Road. Rezoning the subject property now is premature as it would displace new growth

from the more urban residential neighbourhoods to the north.

Growth Management

The proposed subdivision would be serviced by an extension of City sanitary and water servicing. The City would

request that the terminus of the water and sanitary systems be extended south to the property frontage at Midland

Road. The developer will be required to upgrade the water system to meet the necessary fire flow standards.

Upgrading the water system to meet the fire flow standards is currently not identified as a capital project for the City,

and the City’s Water Master Plan is underway to address current fire demand deficiencies to set these priorities.

The subject property is designated as Rural on Schedule B4: Growth Management of the Official Community Plan.

Policy 8.1.18 states the “the City should not extend or provide new City water, sanitary or storm services to rural

areas, except where Northern Health considers there would be substantial benefits to local water quality and water

security.” Northern Health has not indicated that there would not be any substantial benefits to local water quality

and water security as a result of this application.

Expanding services beyond the urban/rural edge of Schedule B4: Growth Management requires additional

resources to service, including fire protection, public transit, road maintenance, snow clearing, and refuse collection.

To provide more efficient services, the OCP directs growth towards more established neighbourhood areas that have

been identified for future growth and servicing. For the subject property, being in a rural area adjacent to farmland,

the goal is to “to minimize further infrastructure expansions now and instead focus City spending on addressing

capacity limitations…” Therefore, the long-term cost associated with the indefinite maintenance and operation of

proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s asset management policies.

The applicant has stated a willingness to develop the subject property as bare land strata, where the servicing and

the roads are owned and maintained by the residents of the proposed subdivision through a private strata

corporation. The strata corporation would be responsible to pay for the maintenance of these services indefinitely,

including water and sanitary systems, roads, and snow clearing. The City would still be responsible to service the

subdivision with fire protection, police services and refuse collection.

Document Number: 296971

The bare land strata format would allow the City to avoid maintenance costs; however, whether private or public,

Administration has concerns with the expansion of infrastructure into rural areas. In the case of a bare land strata, if

the costs to maintain the servicing and roads where eventually cost prohibitive for the residents, or if a major failure

in the private infrastructure occurred, the City would likely be looked to for technical or financial support as what

occurs today.

The bare land strata format is more commonly used to facilitate alternative infrastructure standards or innovative

land uses such as clustered housing. Administration does not support bare land strata as an alternative to City

services solely to avoid and download costs to strata corporations. This rationale could establish the precedent for

other bare land strata proposals when the required infrastructure is inconsistent with the City’s growth management

and asset management objectives.

Administration recognizes that there are other Rural C designated areas in the City that are delivered full City

services; however, many of these areas were subdivided before the City was incorporated in 1975 (e.g. North

Nechako, Estate Road, Western Acres). The Valleyview subdivision was created after 1975 because it is adjacent to

an urban neighbourhood and nearby the full-service Hart Commercial Centre. In the case of the Blackburn

neighbourhood, approving serviced residential lots in a previously rural area without essential services nearby could

provide a precedent for similar proposals that involve the outward expansion of service delivery. Therefore, the long-

term cost associated with the indefinite maintenance and operation of proposed development is inconsistent with

the City’s asset management policies.

REGULATORY ANALYSIS

Zoning Bylaw

The subject property is zoned AF: Agriculture and Forestry, which has the purpose to “conserve and manage

agricultural and forestry land by providing for a compatible range of uses with regulations that maintain parcels of

at least 15.0 ha. The zone also provides for… complementary residential related uses that are compatible with the

secondary residential role of an agricultural and forestry area.”

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to AR3: Rural Residential and P1: Parks and Open Space

to facilitate a subdivision of the subject property into 84 residential lots with parkland dedication. The proposed

development aligns with the purpose of the AR3 zone to provide for “suburban lifestyle primarily on properties larger

than 0.4 ha.” The P1 zone would provide approximately 3.5 ha of parkland dedication in the south end of the

proposed development, with the purpose to “to provide for the preservation and enhancement of open space while

supporting limited, complementary secondary uses.”

The proposed AR3 zone is not compatible with the rural character of the area west of Blackburn Road. Land use

management in this area is meant to protect this rural character, to conserve the agricultural potential of the area,

and to limit the sprawl of infrastructure. Therefore, Administration does not support the proposed rezoning of the

subject property from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to AR3: Rural Residential and P1: Parks and Recreation.

Land Use Contract

A Land Use Contract is a contract that exists between the owner of a specific property and the municipality. This

approach was used through the 1970s as a means to negotiate the terms and conditions of subdivision and

development in a City or Regional District. The contract may describe the subject lands, the uses permitted, the

regulations for siting of building, the use of parks, landscaping requirements, and other development criteria. Many

Land Use Contracts are still in effect throughout the City of Prince George.

A Land Use Contract was registered to the legal title of the subject property in 1977, by bylaw. The intent was to

develop a 318 lot subdivision on the subject property with an average residential lot size of 890 m2. The subdivision

plan provided for park space, an elementary school and shopping uses. The residential density of the land use

contract far exceeds the rural uses contemplated by the Official Community Plan (i.e. 2 ha lots). Further, the zoning

assigned to the subject property, both in the 1980 Zoning Bylaw and the 2007 Zoning Bylaw, has been for

agriculture or forestry.

The land use contract supersedes zoning regulations; however, the developer never pursued the development of the

property under the terms and conditions of the contract. Certain conditions have been breached since the adoption of

the land use contract, such as stated in Schedule K: “The Developer shall have available for housing development 50

Document Number: 296971

lots by September, 1979 and shall develop a minimum of 25 lots in each year thereafter.” Also, the proposed servicing

for the land use contract is inconsistent with current development standards for infrastructure such as water servicing

systems. For the reasons above, and because the applicant is proposing a completely different development

concept for the subject property than what is proposed in the land use contract, Administration recommends that

Council approve the discharge of the land use contract.

Section 930 of the Local Government Act provides that a land use contract may be amended (modified, varied or

discharged) by bylaw, “in a manner specified in the land use contract.” The Land Use Contract contains the following

provision:

37. (1.) The City may, by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of

Council present and eligible to vote at any time, on or after (10) years from the date of registration of

this agreement at the Land Registry Office, unilaterally terminate all or any part of this agreement.

Discharging the land use contract ensures that the subdivision and development controls for the subject property

are clearly under the direction of the Official Community Plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and all other City bylaws. With

respect to development potential and property valuation, Administration has received confirmation from BC

Assessment that the 1977 land use contract is not considered in the property’s assessment. The subject property’s

rural zoning, AF: Agriculture and Forestry, has been used to value the property as single large acreage lot with farm

land potential and that is not in the ALR. The subject property is currently valued on farm class.

Should any land use changes proceed for the subject property, discharging the Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950

would be recommended. The land use contract could eventually be terminated through provincial legislation. Bill 17,

2014, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act was introduced to the legislature on March 10, 2014, and

provides for the termination of all land use contracts in affected BC municipalities and regional districts on the

“sunset” date of June 30, 2022. It also provides that compensation is not payable with regard to land use decisions

for the termination of land use contracts, which extends the current no-compensation provisions currently provided

under Section 914 of the Local Government Act. Part of the intent of this legislation, as described in an attached

bulletin, is to “allow modern land use policies and practices to replace outdated land use contracts.”

FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS:

Section 1.5 of the Official Community Plan considers how land use issues may impact the financial health of the

City. These issues are as follows:

a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be

provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner;

b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and efficient

use of public transit;

c) economic development that supports the unique character of this community;

d) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution;

e) providing adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement, including sufficient

lands and amenities such as public facilities, waste treatment and disposal, parks and recreation;

f) settlement patterns that reduce the risk associated with hazards; and,

g) planning for energy supply and promoting the efficient use, conservation and alternate forms of energy.

Developing serviced residential subdivision on vacant rural land with agricultural potential is a characteristic of

development sprawl. The term sprawl often refers to settlement patterns that feature some or all of the following

characteristics: subdivision of unused agricultural land; large residential lots; tie-in to municipal services; lack of

public transit and pedestrian connections; and, considerable distance to other land uses. The proposed rezoning

and subsequent subdivision has the characteristics of sprawl.

More recent strategic documents reinforce the potentially adverse impacts of urban sprawl. The Core Services

Review Implementation Plan was approved by Council at their regular meeting on July 8, 2013. With respect to

development, Section 2.57 of the Implementation Plan states the Council Decision:

That Administration continue to ensure that recommendations in land use and spending decisions

align with Asset Management Policy and OCP Growth Management Objectives and Policies to prioritize

development within existing urban areas,” with supporting discussion stating that “the City is

Document Number: 296971

experiencing larger deferred maintenance issues as a result of urban sprawl. Further expansions must

be minimized to ensure a high quality of life with adequate levels of service aligned to manageable

fees and taxes.

The 2012-2014 Council Priorities, approved by Council at their regular meeting on January 23, 2012, states the

following asset management goal:

Sustainable Infrastructure: The City efficiently manages the procurement, construction, maintenance,

rehabilitation, and replacement of its physical assets considering lifecycle cost, risk, and service level

continuity.

The excerpts above demonstrate the City’s financial and strategic commitment to limit the sprawl of servicing and

development into rural edges outside of the growth priority and infill areas where significant capacity for new

development already exists. Based the considerations above, Administration believes that the proposed rezoning,

OCP amendment and subsequent subdivision is not in the financial best interests of the City.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

Community Meeting

A Community Meeting was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, with over 20 people attending to receive

public input on the development of the subject property. The applicant summarized the input provided at the

community meeting in the enclosed report. As stated in the report, there were three main issues brought forward at

the meeting:

Transportation: Marston Road terminates at the west perimeter of the subject property. The road provides

access to four residential properties, three of which are duplexes. Residents of these properties were

concerned about traffic into the proposed subdivision if Marston Road were extended. The applicant has

suggested that Marston Road could act as an access for emergency vehicles into the subdivision, with the

main access off of Blackburn Road.

Drainage: Residents along Marston road commented that there have been drainage issues in the area. The

applicants are proposing a storm pond with sufficient capacity to accommodate the drainage from the

property.

City servicing: Residents expressed support for the proposed servicing of City sanitary and water systems.

Some residents lived on Blackburn Road south and were interested in the possibility of a closer connection

to their property.

Seniors housing: the applicant’s letter dated March 31, 2014 suggested that the surrounding residents

expressed interest in having more seniors housing (see Supporting Documents).

Referrals

The application was referred out to internal City Departments and external agencies. The following concerns were

received:

Regional District of Fraser Fort George - The Regional District commented that a significant increase in

residential density of the area, as is proposed, typically has a negative impact on agricultural pursuits from

dogs, ATVs and complaints from residents about agriculture related noise and odors.

City of Prince George Fire Services - Fire Services reviewed the application and expressed concern with

response times. A recent incident near Zilkie Road took over seven (7) minutes to respond to with an engine

responding Code 3 (lights and sirens). Development that encroaches into the rural edges of the City is a

concern for Fire Services as there is more taxing on resource when incidents do occur.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve the application

2. Refuse the application

3. Approve the application as amended

4. Defer or otherwise deal with the application

Document Number: 296971

The Department recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council support this application to

move forward to 3rd Reading and Public Hearing, then giving 1st and 2nd Readings of the corresponding bylaws would

be in order. In this scenario, Administration has the following recommendations:

Phased Development Agreement

Should Council support this application to move forward to 3rd Reading and Public Hearing, then giving 1st and 2nd

Readings of the corresponding bylaws would be in order. Staff recommends that the scheduling of Public Hearing

and Third Reading be withheld until Administration prepares a phased development agreement (PDA) bylaw for the

subject property. As per section 905.1 of the Local Government Act, a local government may enter into a PDA with

the developer by a Council approved bylaw. A PDA may establish terms and conditions for the development,

including, but not limited to the following:

The inclusion of specific features in the development;

The provision of amenities;

The phasing and timing of the development and of other matters covered by the agreement;

The registration of covenants under section 219 of the Land Title Act;

Subject to section 905.4(3), minor amendments to the agreement, including a definition of “minor

amendment” for the purpose of the agreement;

Dispute resolution between the parties;

Early termination of the agreement, either automatically in the event that terms and conditions are not met

or by mutual agreement;

The amount and location of park land to be provided under section 941 [provision of park land] in respect

of land being subdivided that is subject to the PDA.

The maximum term for a PDA is 10 years or, with the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities, for a longer period

up to 20 years. A failure by the land owner to develop under the terms of the PDA could result in the repeal of the

rezoning changes. Administration will not pursue a PDA bylaw for the subject property if Council accepts the

recommendation of Administration to deny the application at 1st and 2nd Reading.

Sequence of Adoption for the Official Community Plan

Pursuant to the Local Government Act, the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 was

adopted by considering the Financial Plan, Solid Waste Management Plan and Strategic Framework. Therefore, any

amending bylaws to the Official Community Plan must also consider these plans.

Section 882 of the Local Government Act identifies the adoption procedures for the development, repeal or

amendment to the Official Community Plan bylaw. This sets in motion the following sequence which identifies the

Local Government Act requirements and the City’s own procedures:

1. After a bylaw has been given first reading the following must occur:

a) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Financial Plan

b) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Regional District Solid Waste

Management Plan

c) Consideration of any other plan and policies that the local government considers relevant

(i.e. Strategic Framework for a Sustainable Prince George)

d) Referral to the Agricultural Land Commission if the Plan applies to Agricultural Land

Reserve land (not applicable to these applications)

e) Second Reading

f) Public notice of the Public Hearing

g) Public Hearing

2. Third Reading of the bylaws

3. Adoption of the bylaw

The Local Government Act requires that each reading of the OCP bylaw must receive an affirmative vote of a

majority of all Council members. The adoption procedures found in Section 882 of the Local Government Act is

required, and should any changes occur to the bylaw, the sequence of steps would be repeated.

Document Number: 296971

Statutory Consultation

The Department recommends that Council approve the consultation plan as outlined in the Official Community Plan

Amendment Consultation Checklist, including:

One Citywide Newspaper advertisement requesting written comments; and

Request for written comment from abutting and adjacent neighbours (see attached map)

This consultation would occur after first and second reading the application’s corresponding bylaws and prior to the

Public Hearing.

Should Council wish to approve Application No. CP100089 to amend City of Prince George Official Community Plan

Bylaw No. 8383, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014 AND to approve Application No. RZ100414 to amend

City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw No. 7850, 2007, Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014 the following

recommendations apply:

a. THAT Council GIVE FIRST READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No.

8383, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;

b. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

8584, in conjunction with the City of Prince George Provisional Financial Plan;

c. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

8584, in conjunction with the Regional District of Fraser Fort-George Solid Waste Management Plan;

d. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

8584, in conjunction with the City of Prince George Strategic Framework and confirm there are no

issues;

e. THAT Council GIVE SECOND READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No.

8584, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8467, 2014;

f. THAT Council APPROVE the public consultation process to fulfill the requirements of Section 879 of the

Local Government Act as outlined in the attached Official Community Plan Amendment Consultation

Checklist, including:

i. One Citywide Newspaper advertisements requesting written comment; and,

ii. Request for written comment from nearby properties (See Direct Notification Area Map attached

to the Official Community Plan Consultation Checklist).

g. THAT Council GIVE FIRST and SECOND READING to City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw 7850, 2007,

Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014

h. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. LU000030 to discharge Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950 (Land

Title Office Document No. PGM8141) registered on the legal title of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630,

Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283, as shown on Appendix “A” to Discharge Bylaw No. 8117, 2014.

i. THAT Council GIVE FIRST and SECOND READING to Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950 (Land Title Office

Document No. PGM8141), Discharge Bylaw No. 8117, 2014.

j. THAT Council AUTHORIZE Administration to draft a phased development agreement bylaw pursuant to

Section 905.1 of the Local Government Act regarding the phased development of the South East ¼ of

District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283, in relation to Bylaw No. 8584 and Bylaw No.

8585.

k. THAT Third Reading of Bylaws No. 8584, 8585, and 8117 be WITHHELD until the related phased

development agreement bylaw is authorized to receive Third Reading.

Document Number: 296971

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The subject property is located along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn Neighbourhood. The applicant is

proposing to subdivide the subject property into 84 residential lots with City water and sanitary services. The

proposed application would also feature parkland dedication. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant

has submitted an application to amend the Official Community Plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and the Land Use Contract

registered to the legal title of the subject property.

The application is inconsistent with the land use and growth management policies of the Official Community Plan

(2011). There is strong policy support to limit the development potential of the subject property to more moderate

rural residential uses (i.e. 2 ha lots), as detailed in the body of this report.

Administration recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council approve 1st and 2nd

Reading for these amendment bylaws, Administration recommends that scheduling of Public Hearing and 3rd

Reading be withheld until a Phased Development Agreement (PDA) is prepared for Council’s consideration.

Respectfully submitted:

_____________________________

Ian Wells, Director of Planning and Development

_____________________________

Report Prepared by Jesse Dill, Planner

Community Planning Division

Planning and Development Department

To: Mayor and Council

~~

fPJJ