REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
DATE: June 12, 2023 Report No. EPW-23-007
TO: Dan Horan, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Joel Clary, Director of Engineering and Public Works
SUBJECT:
Title
Subdivision and Development Bylaw Update
End
ESSENTIAL QUESTION:
Does the Committee of the Whole have any additional input, questions, or concerns on how to address undergrounding overhead utilities, sidewalks, and bike lanes in the subdivision and development bylaw?
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the COTW recommend to Council that staff be directed to update the Subdivision and Development Bylaw to:
- add a requirement for sidewalks to be installed on at least one side of every street;
- add a requirement for protected bike lanes to be installed on Major Roads; and
- not require undergrounding of the mainline of overhead utilities;
as described in Staff Report No. EPW-23-007.
Body
BACKGROUND:
The Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw, 1997, No. 2175 (Bylaw) deals with required Works and Services for when a property either subdivides or undergoes improvement. Works and Services means all public services, facilities and utilities which are required to be installed as a condition of Subdivision or building permit approval and without limitation includes: highways (including bike lanes); sidewalks; boulevards; boulevard crossings; street lighting; underground wiring; water distribution system; fire hydrant system; sewage collection system; drainage collection system; and drainage disposal system pursuant to Section 506 and 507 of the Local Government Act (as defined in the draft bylaw and as based on LGA s.506).
The Local Government Act permits Works and Services be required “on that portion of a highway immediately adjacent to the site being subdivided or developed, up to the centre line of the highway.” Works and Services can be requested at either approval of subdivision or at issuing of a building permit. Requests at building permit are guided by the Township’s Council Policy No. Plan-27 (Plan-27) for which services can be required based on the zoning of the property and the value of the building permit.
Staff have been working on an update to the Bylaw to reflect modern standards and to address any issues with the existing Bylaw. At the end of 2021, staff sought feedback from the Committee of the Whole (Committee) on the following significant changes to the Bylaw, as discussed in EPW-021-028:
• Undertaking of Works and Services
• Plan-27 incorporation
• Use of Master Municipal Construction Document (MMCD) specification and specific standards
• Levels of Service for infrastructure systems
• “Orphan sidewalks”
Feedback provided from the Committee addressed some of these changes, including the following:
• Public Works crews will have the right of first refusal to complete Works and Services based on capacity and capability;
• Plan-27 will be incorporated into the Bylaw with updated thresholds;
• MMCD will define the specifications and standards for municipal infrastructure; and
• Levels of Service for infrastructure systems will be removed and defined within the requirements of the individual systems in the Bylaw.
Staff are seeking further feedback from the Committee on the following items:
• Undergrounding of mainline overhead utilities (hydro, telephone, cable);
• Sidewalks; and
• Bike lanes.
ISSUES:
Undergrounding of Mainline Overhead Utilities
The existing Bylaw requires all properties, except single family homes, to be serviced underground from the mainline to the building for hydro, telephone, and cable utilities. For aesthetic purposes, there has been a desire to underground mainlines of overhead utilities; however, there are several challenges associated with undergrounding the mainline, including:
• Each location is unique. The scope to underground the infrastructure depends on several factors, including:
o BC Hydro pole locations on the frontage and adjacent properties. BC Hydro requires that more poles are removed than added, which often extends the scope beyond the frontage, so a full block is underground at a time.
o Type of BC Hydro infrastructure (examples: 3-phase vs single phase, number, and type of transformers, etc.)
o Service connections for adjacent properties. Other adjacent properties tied into the mainline will be affected and have to give permission for their service to go from overhead to underground, which may require upgrades to private property.
o Overhead utilities like Telus and Shaw share the overhead infrastructure with BC Hydro and will need to underground their infrastructure as well.
o Space to accommodate pad mounted transformers that replace overhead transformers.
o Existing underground utility locations (example: sewer main) restrict the space available for BC Hydro infrastructure underground. BC Hydro requires their infrastructure be outside of the roadway, which may require additional road dedication to obtain necessary space for the new duct.
• Delays
o To underground a BC Hydro mainline a design from BC Hydro is required. This design can’t be initiated until a deposit is received and can take 6-18 months to complete. As changes occur to the development, the BC Hydro design may require changes causing further delays.
• Costs
o Costs to underground the mainline are significant. To complete a frontage can range from $100,000 to $1,500,000 as the scope often extends beyond the frontage in order to meet BC Hydro requirements.
The current Bylaw does not address the undergrounding of mainline overhead utilities. The mechanisms for developments to underground the mainline of overhead utilities are:
1. Requirement in Bylaw
a. The Bylaw could require undergrounding for the frontage, but due to the challenges listed above, staff do not see this as a feasible option. The scope of the work would extend beyond the frontage which would be treated as extended services and require latecomers agreements. The Bylaw could restrict this requirement for larger developments (i.e. $5,000,000+), but would still result in most of these developments seeking a variance.
2. Council Resolution before Building Permit
a. On an individual basis, Council could pass a resolution that requires a development to underground the overhead utilities on their frontage. This would be restricted to the frontage of the property, up to the centreline of the road and still have the same challenges listed above.
3. Negotiated at Rezoning
a. This is the option currently being utilized at the Township. As part of rezoning, developers provide undergrounding as an amenity contribution. On large developments in certain locations, undergrounding the mainline overhead utilities may be feasible. The challenges listed above still exist, but staff will work with BC Hydro to determine the feasibility of undergrounding before requesting it.
Staff recommend Option 3 above to continue to utilize rezoning opportunities where it is feasible to do so.
Sidewalks
The Local Government Act permits sidewalks to be installed as part of a subdivision or development as Works and Services for the frontage up to the centreline of the road. The existing Bylaw, along with Plan-27, allows for sidewalks to be installed in front of a development if the cost of the Building Permit exceeds $300,000. The practice has been that if no sidewalk exists, staff will only require a sidewalk if there is a plan to connect the sidewalk for a sidewalk on the block in the next 5 to 10 years. This is to avoid “orphan sidewalks” which have been identified in the past as a concern by Council. If changes are to be made to this practice, the following are the mechanisms to consider for installing new sidewalks as part of a development:
1. Requirement in Bylaw
a. The Bylaw would state which developments that meet the threshold ($500,000 proposed in new Bylaw) are required to install a new sidewalk where one doesn’t exist. This can only be done on the frontage of the development. The following are options for how the Bylaw would identify when a sidewalk is required:
i. Utilize the short-term priorities in the Active Transportation Network Plan
1. This is the current practice where a development on a street that is identified for a new sidewalk in the next 5 years is required to build their portion of the sidewalk now. This approach limits “orphan sidewalks” but restricts the opportunities for sidewalks to be constructed with developments.
ii. Create a new multi-year sidewalk plan
1. Staff could create a new sidewalk master plan for a period of time, as determined by Council (examples: 10 year, 20 years, etc). This would be done to increase locations where sidewalks are installed through development, while still being mindful of “orphan sidewalks” over a longer duration than currently being considered.
iii. Define the ultimate sidewalk network
1. To maximize sidewalks being installed through developments, the Bylaw could outline a full build out of the sidewalk network. This approach would not be influenced by “orphan sidewalks”. Two options for how an ultimate network could be defined are:
a. every street should have a sidewalk on one side of the street, at a minimum; or
b. every street shall have a sidewalk on both sides of the street.
2. Development Cost Charges
a. Instead of setting a requirement for developments to install sidewalks, a DCC program could be used to collect funds from developments and build a network based on a master plan. This would restrict the Township’s ability to require sidewalks on new developments as the developer would be providing a DCC charge instead. If desired by Council, this option would be explored as part of a larger DCC program.
3. Amenity Contribution at Rezoning
a. Utilizing the Bylaw restricts sidewalk only to the frontage of the development. To achieve new sidewalks beyond a development’s frontage an amenity contribution can be considered at rezoning.
Staff recommend defining the ultimate sidewalk network to include a sidewalk on at least one side of every street in the Bylaw to ensure opportunities for sidewalk installation are maximized through developments. Property owners will have the opportunity to seek a variance from Council for this requirement if they are concerned with an “orphan sidewalk” on their frontage.
Bike Lanes
The new Bylaw will utilize the standards outlined in the BC Active Transportation Design Guidelines (Guidelines). This aligns with the standards in the Township’s ATNP. The previous discussion with the Committee identified multi-family developments over $5,000,000 meet the Guidelines but did not address “orphan bike lanes.” To avoid “orphan bike lanes”, staff recommend that protected bike lanes should only be constructed on Major Roads, as defined in the Official Community Plan (see map in Attachment 1). This aligns with the upcoming quick-build network improvements identified in the ATNP on Tillicum, Lampson, and Esquimalt Road. For frontages that have an existing painted facility or quick-build facility on a Major Road, a permanent protected bike lane would be required (examples: a development on Admirals Road with existing painted bike lane would be required to install a permanent protected bike lane; or a development on Tillicum after the quick-build facility is completed, would upgrade the quick-build to a permanent facility). Depending on the timing of the development and installation of quick-build facilities, interim solutions may be required, but will still be required to meet the Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That the COTW recommend to Council that staff be directed to update the Subdivision and Development Bylaw to:
• add a requirement for sidewalks to be installed on at least one side of every street;
• add a requirement for permanent protected bike lanes to be installed on Major Roads; and
• not require undergrounding of the mainline of overhead utilities;
as described in Staff Report No. EPW-23-007.
2. That the COTW provide alternative direction to staff.
3. That the COTW request further information from staff.