REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: May 14, 2016 Report No. DEV-16-037
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
Title
Exemption to minimum frontage for proposed two-lot subdivision, 1038 Colville Road, pursuant to Section 512 of the Local Government Act.
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council grant an exemption to the proposed minimum frontage on a highway for proposed Lots 1 and 2, Plan EPP59333 (1038 Colville Road) from 10 percent to 9.7 percent.
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Section 512 of the Local Government Act
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050
Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2646
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
The proposed subdivision (Schedule “A”) supports Council’s strategic objective to, “Support community growth and development consistent with our Official Community Plan.”
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 2015, Council approved Bylaw No. 2849, being a bylaw to rezone the property at 1038 Colville Road from RD-3 (Two-family/Single-family residential) to CD-92 (Comprehensive Development-92). The new zoning allowed the property to be subdivided into two lots. On March 30, 2016, Council approved the development permit for the subdivision. The subdivision application is now ready for approval. However, before it can be approved, Council must grant an exemption to Section 512 (1) of the Local Government Act which states:
512 (1) If a parcel being created by a subdivision fronts on a highway, the minimum frontage on the highway must be the greater of
(a) 10% of the perimeter of the lot that fronts on the highway, and
(b) the minimum frontage that the local government may, by bylaw, provide.
Since the proposed minimum frontage of the two lots is 9.75 percent of the perimeter, it is necessary for Council to grant an exemption pursuant to Section 512 (2) of the Local Government Act which states:
512 (2) A local government may exempt a parcel from the statutory or bylaw minimum frontage provided for in subsection (1).
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
The exemption is very minor in nature (i.e. the difference in width between what is proposed and what would be required to be compliant with Section 512 of the Local Government Act is approximately 22 cm (8.7 inches)). This situation is created because of the relative proportional depth of the lots. In other words, if the lots were approximately 1.1 m shorter (36.5 meters deep as opposed to 37.6 m deep) then the two lots would be compliant with Section 512 (1) of the Local Government Act.
In addition, the proposed subdivision is compliant with the recent rezoning and Council has previously issues a development permit for the subdivision.
2. Organizational Implications
There are no organizational implications.
3. Financial Implications
There are not financial implications.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications
Approval of this subdivision will lead to increased urban densities which have been correlated in the literature with decreased greenhouse gas emissions and increased economic development.
5. Communication & Engagement
There is no public notification required for an Section 512 (2) exemption.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That Council grant an exemption to the proposed minimum frontage on a highway for proposed Lots 1 and 2, Plan EPP59333 (1038 Colville Road) from 10 percent to 9.7 percent.
2. That Council deny the exemption.