Quarterly (1st Quarter) Report – January 1 to March 31, 2016

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

New Applications 2016

Current Applications (summary)

*2016 fees calculated to March 31, 2016

Applications Received to Date (by year and type)

Fees Collected (by month and year) — Selected rows

Monthly totals (Jan–Mar 2016 shown):

Selected annual totals:

(Fees Collected By Type of Application by Month and By Year)

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Subdivision Applications Received this Quarter

TOTAL LOTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THIS QUARTER: 39

Average Processing Time (in number of days)

Subdivision Revenue

Land Development Administration Synopsis

There have been several high profile subdivision start-ups including the development of the PCC lands on both the north side and south side of the TCH. North side works are nearly complete, and south side is in the clearing and grubbing phase.

In north Langford, Bear Mountain continues to be restricted by insufficient Hydro service, however there are now several alternatives to serving the lands; via Skirt Mountain via the extension of Bear Mountain Parkway through the lands, and/or via improvements along Millstream Road and Hannington Road. Ecoasis continues to work closely with Hydro, but as of today, BC Hydro has not provided notice to the Approving Officer that the Hydro restriction is no longer necessary. Ecoasis continues to plan, work with staff and move toward subdivision on the understanding that BC Hydro is close. BC Hydro agrees, and the delay is subject to funding commitment from Ecoasis, and a work order (which will occur after funding commitment).

In south Langford, Westhills and the Happy Valley / Latoria area are significant areas of subdivision activity, with residents along Klahanie starting to ask questions of potential and road planning and services.

Staff (Parks, Planning & Engineer) have recently met to discuss the asset of boulevard trees. Boulevard trees are an appreciating asset for the City, but remain a difficulty for the development community due to the narrow nature of road right-of-way presently requested and that right-of-way being full of services. With the narrow nature, there isn’t room to plant trees without those trees being on private property with rights given to the City. This is presently enabled in the City’s development and Servicing Bylaw (BL 1000). This enablement is provided by a SRW (Statutory right-of-way) at the time of subdivision. Staff discussion raised the question of whether this meets the intent of “tree-lined streets” as in at least one instance, the City boulevard trees have been planted too close to the home (making them a tree by their front door). Another potential concern is that home owners aren’t aware of the covenant on their lands, and then they just trim or cut the tree and then ask forgiveness when caught. The end result may be a new tree, but with difficulty.

FUS continues to be a struggle. Any developer when working with their architect should/could engage an engineer to review their water supply, but often it is not until they reach Building Permit and are forced to consider FUS that this is done; seemingly catching the developer by surprise and unaware of what their design Engineer has submitted. This continues to be a struggle as it appears “late” in the process. Continued work with the development community has suggested that this could occur as early as the developer wishes, and should be part of their project review during their pre-planning phase.

Subdivision Activity (Number of Lots)

Submitted / Concurrence

Respectfully submitted,

Submitted by:
Trina Cruikshank, Assistant, Land Development

Concurrence:
Brent Molnar, Manager of Land Development

Concurrence:
Matthew Baldwin, Director of Planning, MCIP, RRP

Concurrence:
Jerry Worobec, Acting Chief Building Inspector

:tlc/sc