Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project

Hi Byron,
Thanks for your suggestion.  "Grandfathering" provisions are in the Local Government Act under Section 528 and 529.  This is a Provincial-wide legislation that allows for a use to continue as non-conforming after a zoning bylaw is adopted and outlines the conditions to keep up those permissions.  We would look to the Local Government Act, not the zoning bylaw itself, when dealing with "grandfathering".  

Thank you for your query.

In answer to your question "If this is the case then the guidelines for engaging the community with respects to Steering Committee meetings are laid out in the Local Govt Act within the charter are they not?" 

The Steering Committee meetings are open meetings. They were advertised in accordance with the RDKB's Procedure Bylaw No. 1720 (local governments are required to adopt procedure bylaws). 

Bylaw No. 1856 refers to those meetings which must be advertised by public notice. Committee meetings do not apply. Public notices are required for land dispositions, public hearings, elections, etc.

The RDKB has advertised its committee meetings in accordance with legislation and policy. A review has shown that we have met our obligations and in fact, exceeded them (dedicated public engagement page - Join the Conversation).

 You  state that [you] "would suggest that being an advocate for public participation should result in more than just one person from the public's attendance of one out of two meetings held by the Steering Committee (second meeting had no public attendance)." The RDKB has followed the pertinent legislation and bylaws; we are not responsible for how many people choose to attend a meeting, something over which we have no control.

We use our Facebook page, our Join the Conversation page (which has clearly laid out the relevant process), and our website meeting calendar to advertise meetings. Meetings are often advertised in the Christina Lake E-Blast as well.

Thank you. 

Thanks for your suggestions.   

Notice and publication of committee meetings are in accordance with RDKB Procedure Bylaw No. 1720.   Minimum notice of a committee meeting is 72 hours in advance.  Notice is provided by sending an email to committee members, and posting a copy of the agenda on the RDKB website.  Paper copies of the agenda are available upon request (See 4.15).

For the two steering committee meetings held for this project, the agenda was posted over 3 days in advance of the meeting on the RDKB website in three locations (on the meeting calendar, in the meeting agendas folder, and on the join the conversation page).

Thanks for your comments.  We are looking into addressing the issue of replacement of materials within the setback (which would affect both zoning and floodplain bylaws).  We have noted your list of replacement scenarios as items for discussion and clarification.  

First off, we would like to clarify that the bylaw you mentioned (RDKB Publications Bylaw #1856) does not apply to RDKB Committee meetings.  RDKB Committee meetings are published in a similar manner to our Board of Directors meetings (which, for the public, means a copy of the agenda is published on the RDKB meeting calendar).  

Steering Committee meetings are open meetings (meaning that a member of the public can attend and observe); however, the public does not participate.  These Steering Committee meetings are for the Steering Committee (who are members of the community that have been appointed to this role).  

There are a lot of moving parts in a zoning bylaw update, including the zoning map and the supporting text. As mentioned in both presentations, and throughout the join the conversation page, the main purpose of the zoning bylaw update is to align with the OCP.  The updated zoning map reflects the land use designation of the Official Community Plan (OCP), not the current zoning (except in a few cases that are listed as an amendment to the OCP).  

Thanks for your comments about our adopted Official Community Plan and Floodplain Bylaw.  

To put it simply, the requirements for adopting an Official Community Plan are different from adopting a Floodplain Bylaw in the Local Government Act.  While an Official Community Plan requires a public hearing and consideration of appropriate consultation, there is no such requirement for a floodplain bylaw.  That said, we strive to go above and beyond minimal requirements for consultation.  The floodplain bylaw (1844) was an update to the previous floodplain bylaw that was in place since 1994. There was a public meeting about the updates to floodplain mapping in advance of bylaw adoption.

The Building in a Setback Info Sheet is consistent with the floodplain bylaw (1844).  To clarify:

• The general exemptions for Flood Construction Level (FCL) in Section 404 of floodplain bylaw you quoted do not apply to the floodplain setback, only FCL (see section 404.2 that states “for greater certainty, the General Exemptions of the preceding section apply only to FCLs and not to the Setback requirements of this Bylaw and the Local Government Act.do not relate to the floodplain setback”).   Section 606 is again different in dealing with the alluvial fan, not the floodplain.

As for the diagram, thanks for pointing out that there is a different between the diagrams in the OCP and floodplain bylaw.  It is noted for correction.

Thanks for your comments about the implications of the floodplain bylaw.  We are looking into addressing the issue of replacement of materials within the setback (which would affect both zoning and the floodplain bylaw).  

To your comment about the FCL, the floodplain bylaw already has general exemptions for Flood Construction Level (FCL) for existing buildings and structures so this is not quite the same issue as the setback and is less restrictive.  For FCL (not setbacks), there are allowances for non-structural alterations, and for structural alteration that doesn’t create more habitable space for legal non-conforming buildings. See section 404.1 of the floodplain bylaw 1844 available here: https://rdkb.com/Regional-Government/Who-we-are-what-we-do/Policies-and-Bylaws.  

Thanks for your comments.   To your comment about “less engagement than was intended by the law”, the requirements under provincial legislation are minimal (one public hearing, with notices advertised as specified in our bylaw on the RDKB website, Facebook and on the notice boards at the RDKB offices) and our efforts for engagement have gone above and beyond that.

We have used several methods to get the word out about this project and we are just shy of 1,000 individual visitors on this webpage and have had 3 well-attended public meetings.   We have been advertising electronically on our social media, webpage, Christina Lake e-blast, and by direct email.  We have been advertising in physical locations on our notice boards at the RDKB offices, and, more recently, the reader board along the highway in Christina Lake.

We will pass along your suggestion about the sign to our Communications Specialist as an idea for future communication efforts.  

Thanks for your comments.   We acknowledge your, and others, concerns regarding replacing materials for non-conforming homes and are taking these concerns seriously.  The Building in a Setback Info Sheet explains the RDKB’s interpretation of what is/is not allowed under Section 529, based on legal council.   While repairs might include the isolated replacement of a material (like a rotten deck board or broken window or roof shingle), it is not to be confused with “replacement”.   “Replacement” is not a word used in Section 529 and is not used interchangeably with repair, extension or alteration.  

We hear your, and others concerns, about the limitations of replacing materials for buildings in a setback. The information in the Building in a Setback Info Sheet is consistent with the RDKB's interpretation of what is permitted under the Local Government Act.