The City of Pitt Meadows

Transcription

1 The City of Pitt Meadows Land Use Bylaw Review Regulating Residential and Related Uses in the Agricultural Zone Agricultural Discussion Paper November, 2008 #62044v1

2 Executive Summary Because it has become out of date, Council directed staff to undertake a review of the Land Use Bylaw. This is the first of a series of Discussion Papers proving background to foster informed participation by stakeholders, businesses and residents into the preparation of a new Land Use Bylaw. Council chose to focus the review first on the Agricultural Zones. This Discussion Paper focuses on issues related to regulating residential structures on agricultural lots larger than 0.8 ha. (2 acres) These smaller agricultural lots are subject to then regulation of the Suburban Residential (RS) Zone. This discussion paper takes into consideration the policy directions in the Official Community Plan (the OCP ) adopted by Council in September These policy directions include: Updating City regulations to support and encourage farming in Pitt Meadows; Establishing residential building placement envelopes and height restrictions on agricultural lands; Consider restricting the size of residential dwelling units; One of the most apparent facts is that agriculture remains the predominant land use in Pitt Meadows with the land within the ALR comprising 86% of the total land base in the City. The successful future of this land will depend on several factors, but perhaps the most important is ensuring the existing land base is dedicated to productive agriculture. Recent trends in housing market indicate that the attractiveness of agricultural land for estate houses is on the rise in Pitt Meadows. This trend has some adverse effects on the effective use of farmland including: a) Extensive land consumption caused by large building setbacks and site coverage of residential buildings and outdoor residential amenities; b) Conflicts between bona fide farmers and rural estate residents; c) Increasing land values of farmland that makes farmland less affordable for bona fide farmers. In order to protect the farmland, the Agricultural Plan and the Official Community Plan recommend to locate residential and accessory residential uses within a farm home plate (FHP), a portion of an agriculturally zoned property where the principal dwelling, employee house, excluding seasonal migrant worker housing, and accessory residential uses are to be located. The analysis in this Discussion Paper suggests that the size of a farm home plate depend on the size of farm parcels. For parcels less than 5 ha (12.3 acres), the proposed arm home plate size is 0.2 ha (0.5 acres). For parcels larger than 5 ha, the proposed farm home plate is 0.36 ha (0.9 ha). Residential uses are already subject to a number of existing regulations, however these were determined to be insufficient to protect agricultural land and facilitate efficient farming. Therefore, two options in relation to the existing regulation and historical practices of locating residential uses in the residential areas of Pitt Meadows were identified. Agricultural Discussion Paper 2

3 These options are: Option 1: Proposes to regulate residential uses within the FHP by existing setback regulations from each property line and the maximum height as provided in Land Use Bylaw No.1250 for the Agricultural Zone. This option does not propose to limit the size of residential buildings and structures. Option 2: Proposes that in addition to the existing regulations, to place an absolute maximum on the size of houses in agricultural areas (a House Cap ), as follows: For AG Zoned lots 5 ha (12.3 acres) and smaller - the proposed maximum FHP size is 0.2 ha (0.50 acres). The proposed House Cap is 600 m 2 (6,458 ft 2 ); For AG Zoned lots over 5 ha (12.3 acres) - the proposed maximum FHP size is 0.36 ha (0.9 acres). The proposed House Cap is 1,080 m 2 (11,625 ft 2 ) The Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) has advised Council they support the option two. The AAC believes that this option is simple to implement from the regulatory point of view and that the size of the FHP is adequate for parcels of all sizes. All lots that do not comply with the proposed regulations will become legal non-conforming if the proposed regulations are adopted. They could continue to be occupied and used as usual after the new regulation is in place. A development variance permit would need to be approved by Council in the event that future additions, reconstruction or new construction is proposed that would not adhere with the new regulations. With respect to land use and density relaxations, a rezoning would be required. Agricultural Discussion Paper 3

4 1.0 INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of this Discussion Paper is to describe the issues related to residential land uses and their impact on farmland in the ALR that will be addressed through the upcoming review of the Land Use Bylaw, and to present possible regulatory options that address the issues discussed in the paper for City Council and general public consideration. 2.0 BACKROUND Agriculture remains the predominant land use in Pitt Meadows with the land within the ALR comprising 86% of the total land base in the City. The successful future of this land will depend on several factors, but perhaps the most important is ensuring the land base, as it presently exists, is dedicated to productive agriculture. Today, over 80% (6, ha) of the City s land base (8, ha) is in the Agricultural Land Reserve and it is occupied by roughly 15% of the population. 1 The City s vision is to support a viable and progressive agriculture industry and will strive to optimize the use of all designated agriculture lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The City will be proactive in fostering a strong and progressive agriculture industry by supporting farmers in cooperation with the Farm Practices Protection Act (Right to Farm) Legislation, by seeking provincial regulatory reform to ensure fair and equitable taxation, and by establishing policies that encourage farmers to maintain a healthy, prosperous, and sustainable agriculture industry. 2 With this vision as a guide, the City developed the Agricultural Plan in the year 2000 and the Official Community Plan in 2008, which contain the recommendations related to the future of the agriculture industry. Both documents also recognize a growing trend of rural estate use and its negative impact on farmland. This Discussion Paper explores three specific issues related to adverse impacts of residential uses on agricultural land, including housing sizes, site coverage and siting, and also outlines possible regulatory options for Council consideration and public input. 3.0 DISCUSSION ISSUE I: Size of Residential Dwellings in the ALR Background The Agricultural Land Commission Act and most zoning bylaws in the province do not limit the size of residential homes in the ALR. Farm homes come in every shape and size, and it is not uncommon for a farm home to be larger than its urban counterpart. The size of farm parcels affords greater siting flexibility and is less confining than urban residential lots. 1 The Future of Agriculture, Agricultural Plan Steering Committee, May The Future of Agriculture, Agricultural Plan Steering Committee, May 2000 Agricultural Discussion Paper 4

5 There are a number of impacts of this trend, including: a) poor building siting that creates a building footprint that is land consumptive and makes farm management more difficult. b) Non farmers ownership that contributes to the exclusion of farmland from agricultural production and creates potential conflicts between bona fide farmers and rural estate residents. c) Increase in land values of farmland attractive for rural estate development that makes farmland less affordable for bona fide farmers. 3 Recent Trends in Pitt Meadows The analysis of building permits indicates that the attractiveness of agricultural land for large residential dwellings is on the rise in Pitt Meadows. Between 1997 and 2007, 30 building permits were issued for houses in the ALR. Out of thirty building permits, twelve were for houses larger than 464 m 2 (5,000 sq. ft). An analysis of the residential building permits indicates that the average size of houses in the agricultural area has increased from 319 m 2 / 3,442 ft 2 in 1997 to 511 m 2 /5,509 ft 2 in As Tables 1 and 2 show, the large house trend accelerated from the year Table 1: Average House Size Built in ALR from Average House Size From House size in square feet http: alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/planning/planning for Agriculture/Agricultural Issues and Opportunities Agricultural Discussion Paper 5

6 Table 2: Building Permits Issued for Houses in the ALR from Year Number of Building Permits Average House Size (sq. ft) Size Range (sq. ft) ,442 1,939 5, ,970 2,577 3, ,678 2,163 3, ,466 1,728 3, ,407 4,517 7, ,100 NA ,484 2,958 7, ,841 3,101 10, ,509 3,211 9,302 Source: Building Permits Statistics Number and Spatial Distribution of Large Houses The analysis of building permits and BC Assessment data indicates that there are 39 houses ranging from 325 m 2 (3,500 ft 2 ) to 464 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ) and 31 houses larger than 464 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ) (see Attachment A ). Other municipalities addressing the issue of large homes in agricultural areas typically consider houses larger than 464 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ) as mega homes as they exceed the average size of their urban counterparts. The City adopted this approach and included in this analysis, houses larger than 464 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ). Large houses vary in size from 464 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ) to 1,022 m 2 (11,000 ft 2 ) and are located on various size parcels ranging from 0.4 ha. (1 acres) to 22.4 ha (55.3 acres). The largest percent (29%) of houses are located on parcels between 2 ha (4.9 acres) and 4 ha (9.9 acres). The second largest parcels occupied by large homes are those between 6 ha (14.7 acres) and 8 ha. (19.7 acres). (See Table 3). Site visits indicate that while large parcels with mega homes are mainly used for agriculture, smaller parcels (up to 4 ha. or 9.9 acres) are often used for residential purposes with a little or no farming taking place. Spatial distribution analysis shows that the majority of parcels with large homes (17) are located north of Lougheed Highway, in the Area No.3 (Kennedy) Drainage Catchment (See Attachment B). Large homes in this area are located on parcels of various sizes, but the largest concentration (35%) is on parcels between 6 ha (14.8 acres) and 8 ha. (19.8 acres). Large houses are also located on parcels of other sizes: 18% is on parcels from 8 ha (19.8 acres) to 10 ha (24.7 acres), 24% on parcels larger than 10 ha. (24.7 acres) and 24% on parcels up to 4 ha. (9.8 acres). (See Attachment C ). Agricultural Discussion Paper 6

7 Table 3: Parcels with Houses Larger than 5,000 ft 2. PARCEL SIZES COUNT % Up to 2 ha ha ha ha ha More than 10 ha Total (Source: Building Permit Records and BC Assessment Data Base) The second largest concentration of mega homes is in the Area No. 2 (Fenton) Catchment Drainage (see Attachment B). This area has 10 houses larger than 465 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ). However, the Fenton area has the highest concentration of large houses on smaller parcels. Sixty percent of mega houses are on parcels up to 4 ha or 9.8 acres (See Attachment C ). In respect to the number of parcels with no houses, and parcels that might have development potential in the future, research shows that there are 30 parcels up to 5 ha (12.3 acres) and 74 parcels larger than 5 ha (12.3 acres) without houses in the ALR. (See Attachments D and E ). Smaller vacant parcels are distributed as follows: 11 parcels are in the Fenton catchment area, 12 in the Kennedy North catchment area, 6 in the Kennedy South catchment area and 1 in the Polder/Alloutte area. Data presented above indicates that the number of rural estate homes in Pitt Meadows is on the rise. It appears that smaller agricultural parcels up to 4 ha are the most attractive for estate houses. The largest concentration of estates is in the Fenton area that is gradually converting to an upscale residential neighborhood. Instead of being used as start-up farms, many parcels are taken over by residential uses and converted to rural estates with large residences and outdoor amenities such as pools and tennis courts. The total number of smaller agricultural parcels (up to 5 ha) without residences is relatively small. The number of parcels that might have development potential primarily depends on housing market conditions. If the existing housing market continues and the land use regulations do not introduce any limits to siting and/or size of residences in the ALR, future proliferation of estate homes can be expected. Agricultural Discussion Paper 7

8 ISSUE II: Siting and Site Coverage of Residences in ALR An increasing concern within the farming community has also been the impact of residential siting on efficient farming practices and extensive site coverage caused by the amount and location of outdoor recreational amenities. Some estate homes are placed in the middle of agricultural parcels requiring lengthy driveways, consuming agricultural land and making farm management more difficult. Smaller agricultural parcels are especially affected by large setbacks as a large portion of land is taken for residential uses. The following figures show a few examples of insensitive residential siting in Pitt Meadows agricultural area. Figure 3 shows the 3.5 ha (8.6 acres) parcel with a house that is setback 205 meters (672 feet) from the front lot line. Figure 4 shows a house with a 152 meters (498 feet) front setback on the property of 2.4 ha (5.9 acres). Figure 5 shows a house with 65 meters (213 feet) front setback located on the 2.8 ha (6.9 acres) parcel. Figure 3: A property divided by a long driveway and a long front setback. Figure 4: 2.4 ha property with a small portion left for farming due to two long driveways and sitting of residential dwellings and accessory buildings Agricultural Discussion Paper 8

9 Figure 5: Large estate home with a pool and a long driveway Another adverse impact of rural estates on farmland is extensive site coverage caused by the size and siting of outdoor recreational amenities. As shown below, in some cases outdoor amenities occupy large portions of agricultural parcels. Figure 6: An estate home with an artificial river site coverage approximately 100% Figure 7: An estate home with a few accessory buildings, landscaping and large amount of impervious surfaces site coverage approximately 37% Agricultural Discussion Paper 9

10 To address the issues of insensitive siting and extensive site coverage, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands recommends that local government zoning and rural land use bylaws require residences within the ALR to be located within a Farm Home Plate. The City of Pitt Meadows Official Community Plan (OCP) housing policies also support establishing farm home plates to control the location of residential uses. The OCP also considers restriction of house sizes in the ALR. Current Zoning Regulations Existing zoning regulations has a little influence on the size and siting of residential dwellings in the ALR. Residential uses are subject to lot coverage, height, and setbacks provisions. Due to large parcel sizes, the site coverage of 7% has a little influence on limiting house sizes Table 4 shows the examples of maximum permitted site coverage for residential uses on parcels from 1 ha (2.47 acres) to 5 ha (12.3 acres) indicating that large residential dwellings can be built even on smaller lots. Table 4: Maximum Permitted Site Coverage for Residential Uses on Agricultural Parcels from 1 ha - 5 ha Parcel Size Maximum Site Coverage 1 ha (2.47 acres) 700 m 2 /7,534 ft 2 2 ha (4.94 acres) 1,400 m 2 / 15,068 ft 2 3 ha (7.41 acres) 2,100 m 2 / 22,602 ft 2 4 ha (9.88 acres) 2,800 m 2 / 30,136 ft 2 5ha (12.35 acres) 3,500 m 2 / 37,670 ft 2 Setback zoning provisions only regulate minimum setbacks from front, interior or exterior property lines providing opportunities for extensive residential setbacks. Experiences of Other Municipalities The communities of Delta, Abbotsford and Surrey are each at various stages of implementing Farm Home Plates ( FHP ) in their communities. Their proposals all have three common threads limiting residential activity to part of a farm parcel referred to as the FHP; relying on existing regulatory powers like setbacks; and setting a maximum house size rather than having a Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ). Some more specific details include the following: Delta: In 2005, the Corporation of Delta amended the Zoning Bylaw to introduce FHP regulations and to regulate the size of residential dwellings in the ALR. The maximum floor area for a farm house on a lot less than 8 ha is limited to 330 m 2 (3,553 ft 2 ) and to 465 m 2 (5,005 ft 2 ) on lots 8 ha and greater. This absolute maximum residential floor area on a parcel of land is referred to in this report as the House Cap. Agricultural Discussion Paper 10

11 Their zoning regulations allow development variance permits to be considered and issued by Council to vary the area of the FHP or to allow new houses to be located outside of established FHP s. Rezoning is another option particularly if use or density is an issue. Abbotsford: Abbotsford Council is proposing a FHP of 1,600 m 2 (17,222 ft 2 ). The home plate shall not be less than 60 meters (18.3 feet) from the frontage road. The total area of the principle dwelling should not exceed 800 m 2 (8,611 ft 2 ). A second dwelling is proposed to be an additional 650 m 2 (6,996 ft 2 ) of home plate area resulting in a maximum home plate of 2,250 m 2 (24,218 ft 2 ). The maximum floor area for any additional dwelling is 325 m 2 (3,498 ft 2 ). Surrey: In Surrey, the proposed maximum size of a farm home plate is 0.4 ha (1 acre), except for parcels less than 4 ha (10 acres), where the maximum size of the farm home plate is 0.2 ha (0.5 acre). Maximum site coverage on the farm home plate is 20%. One side of the farm home plate has to be located along a dedicated road. Only one farm plate would be permitted on any lot. The farm home plate would be up to a maximum of 60 meters (196 feet) in depth measured from the front property line along a legally opened road. The specific location of the farm home plate would be determined by the landowner, in keeping with good agricultural practices POSSIBLE REGULATORY CHANGES In an attempt to reduce the impact of residential development on the productivity of Pitt Meadows agricultural land, regulations may be considered that will limit the location of all residential uses within a front portion of an agricultural parcel described in this paper as a Farm Home Plate (FHP). The FHP is a portion of an agriculturally zoned property where the principal dwelling, employee house, excluding seasonal migrant worker housing, and accessory residential uses are to be located. Accessory residential facilities would include any buildings and structures that are ancillary to the residential activities such as attached or detached garages, carports, decorative landscaping, residential related workshops, tool and storage sheds, artificial ponds not serving drainage or irrigation needs, septic tanks excluding sewage disposal fields and recreational areas (e.g. swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.). The FHP is proposed to have a maximum depth of 60 metres (196 feet). The FHP would be located along a fronting or abutting road from which vehicular access is obtained. Where possible, it would be encouraged to have FHPs located at the corner of lots. The size of FHPs is proposed to depend on the size of the farm parcel. 4 City of Surrey Council Report No. RO29, February 25, 2008 Agricultural Discussion Paper 11

12 An analysis suggests the following FHP sizes: 0.2 ha (0.5 acres), which is equal to the RS zone lot size, for parcels 5 ha (12.3 acres) and smaller; and 0.36 ha (0.9 acres), which is about double the RS zone lot size, for parcels, larger than 5 ha (12.3 acres). Options for Regulating Residential Uses within a FHP The City Council is considering two options to regulate residential uses on farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve. Option 1: Home Plate Regulations This option proposes to regulate residential uses within the FHP by existing setback regulations from each property line and the maximum height as provided in the Land Use Bylaw No.1250 for the Agricultural Zone. This option does not propose to limit the size of residential buildings and structures. The diagram in Figure 8 depicts an agricultural parcel and the FHP that adheres to the proposed regulations. Respecting the required setbacks, 1,527.5 m 2 (10,763 ft 2 ) would be available for residential uses on the FHP of 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) and 2,992.5 m 2 (32,211 ft 2 ) on the FHP of 0.36 ha (0.9 acres). Figure 8: A comparison of the Farm Home Plate on smaller and larger farm lots Advantages of Option 2 are: All residential uses will be confined within the FHP maximizing the farming potential of agricultural parcels and preventing insensitive residential siting. Agricultural Discussion Paper 12

13 Proposed regulations would allow bona fide farmers to build houses that meet their needs without limiting the size of residential buildings and structures. Simple to implement from an administration point of view Disadvantages of Option 1: The FHP might have extensive site coverage. The size of the FHP and existing buildings and structures might preclude future development of residential buildings or accessory residential uses. Option 2: House Cap Regulations This option proposes a limit on the size of houses in the ALR referred in this report as a House Cap. The House Cap presented in this Discussion Paper is based on a formula that uses the existing site coverage regulations for urban areas and density regulations used for establishing House Caps in other municipalities. As described below, a maximum house size would depend on the size of a parcel. Using 30% of the FHP size, Floor Area Ratio of 0.3, the following House Caps are recommended for Council and general public consideration: For AG Zoned lots 5 ha (12.3 acres) and smaller - the proposed maximum FHP size is 0.2 ha (0.50 acres), which is 2,000 m 2 (21,528 ft 2 ). Applying the 30% factor results in a House Cap of 600 m 2 (6,458 ft 2 ); For AG Zoned lots over 5 ha (12.3 acres) - the proposed maximum FHP size is 0.36 ha (0.9 acres), which equals to 3,600 m 2 (38,751 ft 2 ). Applying the 30% factor results in a House Cap of 1,080 m 2 (11,625 ft 2 ). Advantages of Option 2: All residential uses will be confined within the FHP maximizing the farming potential of agricultural parcels. A maximum floor area would be established. Disadvantages of Option 2: Setting a limit on the size of residential uses would affect bona fide farmers who want to build large homes on parcels 5 ha or less. Setting a limit on the size of residential uses would affect lifestyle of farmers who prefer to have large houses for extended family members. Difficult to implement on parcels that already have large accessory residential structures as their size would limit the size of future residential dwellings. Agricultural Discussion Paper 13

14 Legal Non-Conforming Uses The Local Government Act gives Council the ability to establish zones and regulate uses in those zones. The Act also recognizes that regulation may need to be changed or to be added to over time and has established a way to allow existing uses to continue, even if the regulation impacts them. Some refer to this as grandfathering. Grandfather under the Act means lots and their buildings can continue and used as usual, and residential uses can continue to be occupied after new regulations are adopted by Council. Buildings can also be repaired or maintained. Other than a building permit, no other approvals would be required for addition to be constructed provided the addition complies and does not make the non-conformity worse. For example, if a building is site too close to a side lot line, the portion of the building in the side lot line cannot be extended to reduce the side lot line setback further, but could be extended on the other sides. An analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of Council adopting the proposed FHP regulations. It revealed that the majority of the agricultural lots (59%) would comply with the proposed home plate requirements. The Act does seek compliance be archived in some circumstances. If a building or a house is damaged and the damage is not greater than 75% of its value above its foundations as determined by the building inspector, it can be rebuilt. If a building or a house is demolished or burns down to 75% or more of its value above the foundation (i.e. totally destroyed), then under the Act requires compliance with zone regulations. The Act affords owners with the right to apply to the Board of Variance to appeal building inspector s assessment of the value of damage and rebuild non-conforming structures. The Board of Variance has a number of grounds upon which to reverse a Building Inspector s determination, including hardship, and allow a building to be rebuilt exactly as it was before. The Act also extends to Council the power to vary any regulation in its land use bylaw provisions and issue a development variance permit reflecting such an approval. Therefore, even if a building is damaged by more than 75% of its value, Council may approve it being rebuilt This is done by way of issuing a development variance permit to modify the FHP regulations or other regulations like setback or height that may prevent owners from re-building a structure exactly as it was before it was destroyed. Development variance permits will not be required for owners of land that become legal non-conforming to the FHP regulations unless construction or additions are proposed. Council could enable that minor additions or renovations would not require a development variance permit through the residential regulations that are considered for adoption. Agricultural Discussion Paper 14

15 CONCLUSION This Discussion Paper has been prepared as part of a Land Use Bylaw review in order to present a number of issues related to the impact of residential uses on the agricultural land, and to propose possible regulatory options for discussion with stakeholder, farmers and residents before Council considerations making changes to the residential regulations in the Agricultural zones. In summary, the Discussion Paper reveals that the number of rural estate homes not used for farming purposes has been on the rise in the last several years resulting in a loss of farmland and a potential conflict between rural and residential uses in the ALR. In order to protect farmland from future impact of residential uses, it is proposed to introduce zoning regulations that will limit the siting of residential uses within a building placement envelope and to consider restricting the size of dwelling units. The proposed regulatory options are consistent with the OCP Agricultural Policies on Housing in Agricultural Areas. List of Attachments: Attachment A : Houses Larger than 3,500 ft 2 Attachment B : Clusters of Homes Larger than 5,000 ft 2 Attachment C : Summary Table Attachment D : Parcels ha Attachment E : Parcels Larger than 5 ha Agricultural Discussion Paper 15

16 ATTACHMENT A Agricultural Discussion Paper 16

17 ATTACHMENT B Agricultural Discussion Paper 17

18 ATTACHMENT C Summary All Homes Greater than 5000 Parcel Size Count Percentag e Average Size Less than 2 ha % 610 m² (6,572 sq. ft) 2 4 ha % 628 m² (6,760 sq. ft) 4 6 ha % ha % 652 m² (7,024 sq. ft) 8 10 ha % 516 m² (5,560 sq. ft) More than 10 ha % 590 m² (6,360 sq. ft) TOTAL % Summary Fenton Road Homes Greater than 5000 Parcel Size Count Percentag e Average (sq. ft.) Less than 2 ha % 615 m² (6,630 sq. ft) 2 4 ha % 584 m² (6,296 sq. ft) 4 6 ha % ha % 910 m² (9,800 sq. ft) 8 10 ha % 0 More than 10 ha % 624 m² (6,721 sq. ft) TOTAL % Agricultural Discussion Paper 18

19 Summary Kennedy Road, North of Lougheed Highway Homes Greater than 5000 Parcel Size Count Percentag e Average (sq. ft.) Less than 2 ha % 575 m² (6,192 sq. ft) 2 4 ha % 548 m² (5,900 sq. ft) 4 6 ha % ha % 609 m² (6,562 sq. ft.) 8 10 ha m² (6,263 sq. ft) More than 10 ha m² (5,429 sq. ft) TOTAL % Agricultural Discussion Paper 19

20 ATTACHMENT D Agricultural Discussion Paper 20

21 ATTACHMENT E Agricultural Discussion Paper 21