a dilemma to contain

7/29/2019 A Dilemma to Contain

1/28

A DILEMMA TOCONTAIN

SHIPPING CONTAINERS IN KITIMAT

D I S T R I C T O F K I T I M A T

C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G & D E V E L O P M E N T

S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1


2/28

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development A Dilemma to Contain

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......i

INTRODUCTION: ADAPTING TO CHANGING NEEDS....................................................................... 1

1.0 INTERMODAL STEEL BUILDING UNITS & CONTAINER HOMES ......................................... 2

1.1 HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... 21.2 CURRENT USE IN KITIMAT.......................................................................................................... 31.3 CONTAINER SOURCES ............................................................................................................... 5

2.0 COMPARATIVE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 OTHER COMMUNITIES............................................................................................................... 62.2 CONTAINER USE ........................................................................................................................ 82.3 PERMIT ISSUANCE...................................................................................................................... 92.4 WILLIAMS LAKE.......................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 KITIMAT: REGULATORY CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 11

4.0 KITIMAT: RECOMMENDATIONS?.......................................................................................... 11

5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 12

6.0 APPENDIX

APPENDIX A:PHOTOS......................................................................................................................... 14APPENDIX B:CONTAINER SOURCES..................................................................................................... 16APPENDIX C:CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE.................................................................................................. 18APPENDIX D:2002 MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL & BYLAW ................................................................ 21

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Primary research was conducted by Ms Robin Chang BPl., principal authorof this report. Editing was completed by John Chapman and GwendolynSewell, CIP RPP.

Kitimat Planning staff wish to specifically thank Brad McRae, Senior BylawOfficer, Williams Lake and Kitimats Advisory Planning Commission forassistance and advice received during this project.

For more information please contact:

Community Planning & DevelopmentDistrict of Kitimat.

270 City Centre, Kitimat BC Canada V8C 2H7

[email protected]


3/28


INTRODUCTION: ADAPTING TO CHANGING NEEDS

Accessory buildings are necessary for Kitimat residents who wish to protect personal items

stored outdoors and exposed to the elements. The District of Kitimat has been exploring

regulatory mechanisms to control the impact of temporary structures in residential areas since

October 2002. The challenge of resolving conflicts between the visually negative impacts and

the effectiveness of shipping containers for ancillary uses on residential lots is worthy of

discussion for District of Kitimat Staff and relevant advisory bodies. Details requiring regulation

include permanency, permit issuance, siting, and accompanying signage guidelines. The

purpose of this report is two-fold: first, to introduce and explore the current status of shipping

containers as accessory structures in Kitimat, and second, to discuss a comparative study of

how other communities are responding to the use of shipping containers as accessory

buildings. It is hoped that from this overview of shipping containers in Kitimat,

recommendations can be drawn to inform bylaw drafting and amendment processes, subject

to recommendation from the Advisory Planning Commission (APC), public comment, and

approval by the Kitimat Council.

** For the sake of consistency, this report will use shipping container to refer to the topic ofdiscussion. This is not intended to direct any terminology decisions for the drafting and approval of

potential regulations.

1


4/28

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development A Dilemma to Contain

1.0 INTERMODAL STEEL BUILDING UNITS & CONTAINERHOMES

1.1 HISTORY

Formally called Inter-modal Steel BuildingUnits, shipping were invented and patented in

1956 by Malcolm McLean (ISBU Association.

2011). McLean developed a mobile metal

container that helped standardize and

improve the efficiency of transferring cargo

between trucks, ships, and warehouses.

These containers are theft resistant,

stackable, and easy to load and unload for

storage. These features allow containers to

be used in creative and innovative ways, and

have necessitated the development of

regulations and bylaws in several

municipalities in British Columbia. (ISBU

Association. 2011). In the 1970s, the US

military and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created globally

standardized shipping container dimensions, which encouraged the use of containers in

global trade and hence their accessibility for reuse (ISBU Association. 2011). According to

the Inter-modal Steel Building Association (a voluntary international organization), shipping

containers have become very popular for home, storage, and prefab purposes, and for

business construction (ISBU Association. 2011).

Standardized shipping containers are referred to as TEUs, or twenty foot equivalent units

(The Shipping Container Housing Guide. 2011). While the height and the length of shipping

containers vary, the width of 1 TEU is typically 8 feet (2.44 m). The height of a shipping

container may vary from 4 3.5 (1.22 m) to 9 (2.74 m); and length may vary from 18 (5.49

m) to 40 (12.19 m). The technical term, TEU, is not used in regulating land use, but is a

common unit of measurement in transportation and shipping contexts.

2

Figure 1. Malcom McLeanPhoto Credit: http://www.moveoneinc.com/blog/logistics/enthe-history-shipping-container/. 11 August, 2011


5/28


1.2 CURRENT USE IN KITIMAT

The versatility of the shipping container is as apparent in Kitimat as it is on docks around the

world. While Kitimat residents may not yet be reusing shipping containers as homes or as

market vendor stalls, the number of containers located on private lots is increasing.

The visibility of shipping containers in Kitimat, and increasing numbers of inquiries from

residents, demonstrate that there is interest in using shipping containers as accessory

storage structures and mobile workshops. There are benefits to using shipping containers as

accessory structures. According to the Shipping Container Housing Guide, adaptive reuse of

shipping containers will divert them from the waste stream. Shipping containers are routinelydisposed of after only a few ocean crossings (The Shipping Container Housing Guide. 2011).

Readily available in port locations, shipping containers are affordable, built to withstand harsh

weather, and provide easy alternatives to more expensive structures (The Shipping

Container Housing Guide. 2011).

A recent inventory of Kitimat properties currently using shipping containers is provided below:

Residential:

859 Columbia

3 Dunn

4 Cranberry

24 Blueberry

Industrial:

2200 Forest Avenue

717 Commercial Western Industrial

611 Commercial Emporium Builders Supplies

3


6/28


710 Enterprise Versatile Sandblasting

724 Enterprise T.L. & T. Electronic

256 3rd Zanron

245 3rd 101 Industries

236 Enterprise Anchor Tire Sales

222 Enterprise Wayne Watson Construction

317 Enterprise Viking Construction

Please see Appendix A for photographs of selected properties.

4


7/28


1.3 CONTAINER SOURCES

Through phone interviews and online research, one company in Kitimat was found to be

offering shipping containers. Other suppliers of shipping containers are located in Prince

Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, and the Lower Mainland. Most companies

located in the Lower Mainland are head offices with satellite yards in nearby communities. A

sample directory of shipping container sources is provided in Appendix B of this report. The

local Kitimat company, D & J Container Services, provides shipping containers to residents,

however, but struggles to keep pace with local demand. Other satellite yards in Terrace,

Smithers and Prince George maintain a supply of shipping containers for companies based in

in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and the Interior of British Columbia. Kitimat residents

must individually arrange, or pay for delivery and off-loading of the shipping containers from

all locations. Some companies will provide delivery services from farther locations such as

those in the Lower Mainland or Okanagan. The dispersion of where shipping containers can

be sourced is illustrated below.

5


8/28


2.0 COMPARATIVE STUDY

2.1 OTHER COMMUNITIES

In the comparative background research, we profiled ten municipalities from across Canada

and the United States. The communities were chosen to represent a range of varied

approaches to regulations on location, duration, signage, and permitting. This was done to

explore how communities representative of a current Kitimat and a potential Kitimat have

chosen to regulate shipping containers.

Terrace was not included in the comparative assessment as they currently do not have

regulations addressing shipping containers. The communities included in the comparative

assessment are listed below:

A table provided to facilitate discussion by the Advisory Planning Commission is available onspecial request. This table summarizes regulations used in the following set of samplecommunities.

1. Prince Rupert, BC

2. Williams Lake, BC

3. Penticton, BC

4. Kent Agassiz, BC5. Dalmeny, Saskatchewan

6. Milton, Ontario

7. Springfield, Missouri

8. Tukwila, Washington

9. Portland, Oregon

10. Lawndale, California

6


9/28


Figure 3. Breakdown of Container Permitting Zones in Sample Communities

Above is a depiction of land use zones in the sample communities where shipping containers

may be located temporarily or permanently. The zones represented are industrial,

commercial, residential, and agricultural/park. Commercial and industrial uses are the most

common, while residential uses are allowed in just over half of the communities sampled.

Only one-third of Canadian communities examined regulate shipping containers in residential

areas, while all the American communities sampled do so. This may be attributable to the

fact that shipping containers were first popularized in the United States. Shipping containers

are also widely used for disaster management and response. Recent natural disasters in the

United States have highlighted the need for cost-effective and efficient housing, inspiring

people to reuse and adapt shipping containers for emergency shelter. This is perhaps

another explanation for the comparatively advanced regulations existing in the American

communities selected for this study.

7


10/28


2.2 CONTAINER USE

Most of the sample communities regulate shipping containers for storage use. Nine out of

ten communities permit shipping containers for storage (Prince Rupert is the exception). Thesecond most common regulated use for containers is for moving purposes; six of ten local

governments include moving as a permitted use of shipping containers. It is of interest to

note that all local governments who permitted shipping containers in residential areas for

moving purposes also permitted container structures for storage. Only one of the ten

assessed communities allows shipping containers to be used for habitation.

8

Figure 4. Breakdown of Container Use in Sample Communities


11/28


2.3 PERMIT ISSUANCE

Most of the assessed communities require

permits for shipping container use. Six often communities require a building permit,

a construction permit, or special

permission for keeping a metal container

and specify residential zones as an area

permitting shipping containers. Some

communities, such as Williams Lake, have

waived permit fees. A shipping container

permit provides a means to track the

duration on individual lots, and use of the

shipping container for bylaw enforcement.

Another strategy is to require a permit for

an existing condition such as construction

activity. In both cases, it is evident that permit issuance is positive for the enforcement

responsibilities of local government. Issuing permits is recommended.

2.4 WILLIAMS LAKE

Williams Lake, in the Caribou region of central interior British Columbia, was selected as a

case study municipality in this report. The City of Williams Lake recently implemented

shipping container regulations. Senior Bylaw Officer Brad McRae provided an up-to-date

account of this process. As reported during a phone interview with Mr. McRae on July 5th,

2011, the process for implementing shipping container regulations in the City of Williams

Lake began in January 2011 when new residents inquired about regulations for a 35 (10.67

m) shipping container that they wanted to store on their lot. The novelty of this inquiry, as

well as an increasing number of complaints regarding the aesthetic impacts of existing

shipping containers in residential areas, impelled city staff to investigate the situation.

9

Figure 5. Breakdown of Permit Issuance inSam le Communities


12/28


Background information was collected and it was found that there was approximately one

container for every five blocks in Williams Lake. It was also noted that shipping containers

were more prevalent on lots in areas of town associated with lower socio-economic

circumstances. Commercial establishments such as the A & W restaurant were also found to

be using shipping containers. Two public meetings were organized to gather public input.

The public consultation sessions occurred May 12 & 19, 2011 to discuss shipping container

regulations for residential and industrial areas. Eight people attended the meetings, but

nonetheless there was good discussion and feedback collected.

Williams Lake City staff found shipping containers as permanent structures were not desired

by area residents. Despite the potential merits of converting shipping containers into

habitable structures, staff discovered that the cost to bring a shipping container up to BC

Building Code standards would amount to approximately, $175,000. Staff considered

banning shipping containers for habitation, but in the end make no reference to habitation in

the new bylaw.

The bylaw adopted in 2011 allows shipping containers in residential zones with the provision

of a permit for 30 days. There is no permit fee. The permit is renewable for one month or

less, and this provides a means for city staff to monitor shipping containers. Williams Lake

also permits shipping containers in commercial zones with similar requirements for permits

and duration of use, with the additional condition that shipping containers are screened.

Screening requirements also apply to shipping containers on site in Industrial zones.

Appendix C includes a copy of the Williams Lake bylaw.

10


13/28


3.0 KITIMAT: REGULATORY CONTEXT

Starting in mid-1999, the District of Kitimat began to adjust bylaws addressing set-backs and

maximum height of accessory buildings, with an emphasis on single- and two-family

residential zones. Initial motivation for these amendments were attributed to difficulties

enforcing requirements for accessory structures constructed in backyards that a drive by

could not adequately assess, and a lack of specificity in regulations. Repeat experiences

monitoring accessory buildings and structures demonstrate a need to further amend local

regulations. Up-to-date bylaws, define standards that Kitimat residents desire for their

neighbourhoods, and facilitate enforcement. A sensible approach to improving the Kitimat

Municipal Code is to review of existing regulations, followed by consideration of new

provisions for shipping containers. To date, improvements to Kitimat bylaws for accessory

buildings and structures have omitted any reference to shipping containers.

Please see Appendix D for staff reports to the Kitimat Advisory Planning Commission. A

report prepared in 2002 regarding setbacks for accessory buildings is included.

4.0 KITIMAT: RECOMMENDATIONS?

As a result of research completed through this report and preliminary discussion with the

Advisory Planning Commission, recommended amendments to current regulations have

been drafted. These recommendations are intended to serve as a spring board for further

discussion with District of Kitimat Staff, relevant advisory bodies, Council and community

members. Please refer to Appendix E for the spreadsheet of proposed amendments.

[Note: Appendix E spreadsheet is available from the Department on request].

11


14/28


5.0 REFERENCES

ISBU Association. All About Shipping Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

The Shipping Container Housing Guide. The 20 Foot Shipping Container. Accessed 11 &16 August, 2011 at

Brad McRae, Senior Bylaw Officer, City of Williams Lake. Phone Interview on 5 July, 2011.

City of Prince Rupert. Zoning Bylaw 3286, 2009. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

City of Williams Lake. Regulating Metal Shipping Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at Town of Milton. Shipping Containers Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 144-2003. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

The Corporation of the City of Penticton. Bylaw No. 2007-29 Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

The Corporation of the District of Kent. Bylaw No. 1447. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

Town of Dalmeny. Bylaw No. 4/10. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

City of Tukwila, Washington. Title 18 Zoning. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

City of Portland, Oregon. Use of Cargo Containers as Buildings and Accessory Structures.Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

City of Lawndale, California. Ordinance No 1043-10. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

Springfield, Missouri. Storage Trailers and Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

12


15/28


6.0 APPENDIX


16/28


APPENDIX A: PHOTOS

3 Dunn

4 Cranberry

14


17/28


18/28


APPENDIX B: CONTAINER SOURCES

Container sources for Kitimat residents include, but are not limited to, the following suppliers:

Kitimat:D & J Container Services

38 Char Street,Kitimat250-632-1246

Owner sources own containers out of Vancouver. Prices listed below:

For Rental OnlyDuration Rate

1 TEU or 20 Monthly $125-130Weekly $50Daily $25

Terrace & Prince Rupert:BigSteelBox3752 Highway 16 East

RentalPrice

NewPrice

Used Price Dimensions Weight(lbs)

20 $155/month $4800 $3400-3800 20x8x8.6 480020 Office $395/month $14200 20x8x8.6 8000

Critek1800 665 9651

RentalPrice

NewPrice

Used Price Dimensions Weight(lbs)

20 $110/month $4250 $2800-3200 20x8x8.6 480020 Office 20x8x8.6 8000

Kelowna:Secure-Rite10-2070 Harvey Avenue

Rental Price NewPrice

UsedPrice

Dimensions

Weight(lbs)

20 Unit $150/month $4500 $3100+ 20x8x8.5 482020 Double Door Unit $170/month $5050 20x8x8.5 5180

16


19/28


Interior

Container It

Head Office: 150 Mile House /Williams LakeOther locations: Dawson Creek, Smithers

Rental Price New Price UsedPrice

Dimensions

Extras

20 Unit N/A currently $4125 $3300+ 20x8x8.5 Lock box provisionand installation,delivery andoffloadingdependent onfrequency andlocation

Lower Mainland

Container WestHead Office: RichmondOther locations near Kitimat: Houston, Prince George, 150 Mile House, Kamloops

Insta Space StorageHead Office: Delta

RentalPrice

NewPrice

UsedPrice

Dimensions

Extras

20

Unit

$135/month $4100 $2850+ 20x8x8.5 Lock box provision and

installation, delivery andoffloading

17


20/28


APPENDIX C: CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE

18


21/28


19


22/28


20


23/28


APPENDIX D: 2002 MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL & BYLAW

Date: 11 December 2002

File: 7.1.4.1

To: Mayor and Council

From: Municipal Manager

Re: Accessory Building Setbacks: Recommended Changes

Shed setbacks have been the subject of Building and Planning staff discussion since mid-1999. This reporprovides background information, describes current regulations and some common misconceptions, andoutlines recommended changes to Municipal Codeprovisions for land in one-family and two-family residentiazones. Council is asked to confirm intended scope of proposed changes and to provide preliminary comment.

BACKGROUND

Setbacks for accessory buildings are premised on several assumptions and serve many purposes. Primaryfunctions are listed below:

Reduce threat of fire spread from one structure to another. Many items stored outdoors are thosewhich are used outdoors, may track mud inside, produce objectionable odours or may posesome danger if stored indoors. It is likely a typical Kitimat shed would contain garden tools, lawnmower, ladder, bicycles, PFDs and other large pieces of home maintenance or sports equipment.Given the choice of storing fuel outside or inside most people would opt to keep fuel in anaccessory building: a detached garage or a shed

A shed on one property should not adversely impact an abutting property. Water and snowshould not be deposited from a roof onto an abutting yard. Minimum yard should provide ownerwith enough space to maintain building without trespass

An accessory building is a legitimate and economical way to provide on-site storage. Fewdwellings have adequate storage space. The reality is that a typical Kitimat resident today hasmore stuff than a typical resident in the mid-1950s or 1960s, when most local homes were builtLots of storage space is also generally believed to be an important selling feature

Establish a development framework. Property value calculations reflect general standard of theneighbourhood, as determined largely by neighborhood residents themselves. Kitimat MunicipaCode establishes minimum lot size and yard width, and maximum site coverage. Manydevelopers impose additional controls by registering a restrictive covenant at time of subdivision

21

E O


24/28


CURRENT REGULATIONS

Building: Shed Permit or Building Permit?

A permit is required to demolish, move, alter or construct any building or structure, including replacement of anexisting shed, fence or other accessory structure. Exceptions listed in the Municipal Codeinclude: clothes lineposts, landscaping and playground equipment on residential land.

Property owners are responsible for obtaining a permit before work begins. Structure size, not use or valuedetermines permit type.

Shed Permit ($4) will be issued for buildings up to ten square metres. Construction drawings arenot required

Building Permit will be issued for buildings over ten square metres. Construction drawings must besubmitted to ensure Building Codecompliance. Permit cost is based on construction value

Planning: Siting and Setbacks

Siting regulations for one- and two-family residential zones are summarized below. Setbacks for accessorybuildings vary with zone, building size, and location on the lot. To ensure sight lines are maintained aintersections, different standards apply on corner lots. Eaves may project up to.6m over a required yard, bunot over a property line. Sheds may not be built in a required front yard.

For planning purposes, small sheds are less than five square metres and less than two metres high. Suchsheds may be located wholly within a required side yard.

Small Shed (five square metres or less)

Can be built in required rear or side yard of a interior lot with minimum 1.8m rear and zero side setback,and 1.8m separation from dwelling

Corner lot setbacks 4.5m from property lines which adjoin a street, else 2m

Large Shed (more than five square metres)

Permitted in required rear yard of an interior lot with minimum 1.8m rear and side setbacks and 2mseparation from principal building

Corner lot setbacks 4.5m from property lines which adjoin a street, 2m from all other property lines

22


25/28


RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND CONSIDERATION

1. Building Department

Recommended bylaw changes were motivated by desire to reduce bylaw enforcement workload. Inspectorsrarely discovered problems without public assistance, as most sheds were not visible from the streetResolution of complaints registered by neighbourswhose own sheds complied with regulationswashowever, consuming considerable time.

Given that a small shed is allowed zero side setback, Building Department staff believe zero rear yardsetbackwhere lot abuts a public park or walkwayis equally appropriate. Inspectors suggested such aconcession is warranted because there is no increased fire hazard associated with abutting greenbelt land.Yard of 1.8m (side, rear or both) should be standard when abutting land is privately held and building exceedsfive square metres.

2. Planning Department

Regulations express community standards and aesthetic vision in black and white. Persistent advancement oalternative regulations merits attention, as it may indicate community desires have evolved. Eliminatingneedless complexity is change for good reason.

Zero setbacks for accessory buildings abutting parks and walkways may, however, make these public spacesless attractive. Some walkways are quite narrow, eliminating or reducing rear setbacks may create corridorswhich are perceived as less open and less friendly.

3. Advisory Planning Commission

The Advisory Planning Commission gave due consideration to a number of alternative proposals on 29October. Before the Advisory Planning Commission debate, Commissioners were encouraged to study theiown neighbourhood, and visit other residential areas. The questions which follow were used to structureobservations.

What do you see now? What would you like to see? What would you be prepared to accept? Should there be limitsheight, maximum dimension, total area, numberon what accessory

buildings individual property owners may build? Should any or all limits be different in different neighbourhoods or zones?

As reported by the Minutes, Members discussed current side and rear yard setbacks; and noted primarypurpose of setbacks is to manage impact on neighbouring properties (drainage, aesthetics and fire spread)Members determined setbacks must be sufficient to maintain structure without trespass. The following motion

was adopted.

THAT the Commission recommend Council amend Kitimat Municipal Codeto require 1m minimum sideand rear setbacks for accessory structures in residential zones.

23


26/28


Conclusion

Setback regulations address both fire safety and aesthetics. From strictly a safety standpoint, setbacks inresidential zones must balance the need to protect a home (principal structure) from accessory buildings on

the same property; as well as to protect adjacent principal structures and adjacent accessory structuresPushing accessory buildings to the perimeter of a lot, and maximizing separation between accessory andprincipal buildings on the same and abutting lots is the primary fire-safety objective. This runs contrary to theaesthetic mandate of massing of buildings on each property and providing yards at the perimeter.

The recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission, minimum 1m yard in all cases, seems to be areasonable compromise; and its simplicity may eliminate confusion and simplify enforcement. This newstandard would bring Kitimat into the center of the pack as measured by comparing proposed 1m setback tothose used in neighbouring communities. Prince Rupert requires minimum .3m rear yard abutting laneotherwise 1.2m (side and rear); Terrace requires 1.5m (side and rear yard); and Smithers requires .6m (sideand rear yard).

Recommendation

I recommend Council request a bylaw be drafted to establish 1m as standard setback for accessorystructures in one- and two-family residential zones.

Respectfully advised,

Trafford Hall

Encl. Explanatory Plan, Accessory Buildings Permitted (sic) in Required Yards

pc: Advisory Planning Commission

/GJS

24


27/28


DISTRICT OF KITIMAT

BYLAW NO. ________

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE KITIMAT MUNICIPAL CODEWITH RESPECT TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS INSELECTED RESIDENTIAL AREAS

WHEREAS the BC Local Government Actallows local government to divide portions of the municipality intozones and regulate the use of land within zones;

AND WHEREAS Kitimat Council deems it is in the public interest to amend setback regulations for accessorybuildings in selected single-family and two-family residential zones;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Kitimat, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS ASFOLLOWS:

1. This bylaw may be cited as "ACCESSORY BUILDING BYLAW NO. 1, 2003".

2. Part 9, Division 4, Subdivision 1, "General" of the Kitimat Municipal Codeis amended as follows:

a. Delete heading Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures and text in clauses 9.4.1.4 to9.4.1.14;

b. Insert text attached as Schedule A, numbering clauses sequentially starting with 9.4.1.4; andrenumber balance of Subdivision 9.4.1 as required;

3. Part 9, Division 4, Subdivision 3 to Subdivision 13 is amended as follows:

a. Under every occurrence of the heading Building Setbacks on a Corner Lots replace reference to9.4.1.14 with 9.4.1.6

b. Under every occurrence of the heading Accessory Buildings in Required Yards replace See9.4.1.4 to 9.4.1.11 with See 9.4.1.7 to 9.4.1.11;

4. This bylaw shall come into force and be binding on all persons from the date of adoption.

READ a first time this day of , 2003

READ a second time this day of , 2003

A PUBLIC HEARING was held this day of , 2003

READ a third time and passed this day of , 2003

FINALLY ADOPTED this day of , 2003

MAYOR ________________________________

CLERK ________________________________

25


28/28


Schedule APART 9 - PLANNINGDivision 4 - Residential Zoning

Subdivision 1 - General

9.4.1. Buildings on Site

4. Not more than one principal building shall be permitted on a property occupied bya detached or semi-detached dwelling

5. A principal building shall be set back from property lines to provide requiredyards in accordance with Part 9, Division 4, Subdivisions 3 to 14

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 9, Division 4, Subdivisions 3 to 14, albuildings on a corner site shall be set back 4.5m or more from property lines thatadjoin a street; and the principal building shall be set back 2.0m or more from alother property lines

Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures

7. Accessory buildings may be erected in a required side or rear yard provided a yard o1m or more, as measured from eave to property line, is maintained and height doesnot exceed 3m

8. A garage or carport contiguous to a corresponding structure of similar design on theadjoining lot may be erected in a side yard

9. Accessory structures may be no more than 12m high, or 3.0m high if located in arequired yard

10. A patio 0.6m or less above natural grade may be erected in any yard

11. A private swimming pool, paddling pool, pond or other water feature deeper than0.5m may be located in a required rear or side yard and must be enclosed on allsides by a fence of 1.8m or more. Fence design and location shall be approved bythe Building Inspector and all gates provided with a locking device.

26

a dilemma to contain

Documents