City of Duncan, Public Hearing Minutes - November 27, 2017 City of Duncan Public Hearing Minutes A Public Hearing was held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Craig Street, Duncan, BC, on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:00 PM. Present Mayor Phil Kent, Chair Councillor Michelle Bell Councillor Roger Bruce Councillor Tom Duncan Councillor Sharon Jackson Councillor Michelle Staples Councillor John Horgan Also Present Peter de Verteuil, Chief Administrative Officer Michelle Geneau, Manager of Planning Paige MacWilliam, Director of Corporate Services Allison Boyd, Corporate Services Coordinator Jane Armstrong, Acting Director of Corporate Services Call to Order Call to Order The Chair called the Public Hearing for "Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017" to order at 5:02 pm. Public Hearing Process Explanation of Public Hearing Process The Chair provided an explanation of the Public Hearing process. He stated that the Public Hearing was convened pursuant to Section 465 of the Local Government Act to allow the public to make representation to Council respecting matters contained in the proposed "Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017". The Director of Corporate Services stated that notification of the Public Hearing was advertised in the Cowichan Valley Citizen newspaper on November 15 and November 22, 2017. She stated that notice was also posted on the City's public notice posting places, on social media and on the City's website. Proposed Zoning Bylaw Staff Introduction of Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017 The Manager of Planning provided an overview of the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017. She listed the changes that had been made to the bylaw since the last Public Hearing was held on September 18, 2017. Correspondence Received Regarding Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017 The Chair asked the Director of Corporate Services if any written submissions were received regarding the proposed bylaw. The Director of Corporate Services stated that three pieces of correspondence had been received after the meeting agenda was published and before 4:00 pm on November 27, 2017, from Mr. Blumel, Mr. Childs and Ms. Hill, all of which were pertaining to Page 1 of 47
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
City of Duncan, Public Hearing Minutes - November 27, 2017
City of Duncan
Public Hearing Minutes
A Public Hearing was held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Craig Street, Duncan, BC, on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:00 PM.
Present Mayor Phil Kent, Chair
Councillor Michelle Bell
Councillor Roger Bruce
Councillor Tom Duncan
Councillor Sharon Jackson
Councillor Michelle Staples
Councillor John Horgan
Also Present Peter de Verteuil, Chief Administrative Officer
Michelle Geneau, Manager of Planning
Paige MacWilliam, Director of Corporate Services
Allison Boyd, Corporate Services Coordinator
Jane Armstrong, Acting Director of Corporate Services
Call to Order Call to Order
The Chair called the Public Hearing for "Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017" to order at 5:02 pm.
Public Hearing Process
Explanation of Public Hearing Process
The Chair provided an explanation of the Public Hearing process. He stated that the Public Hearing was convened pursuant to Section 465 of the Local Government Act to allow the public to make representation to Council respecting matters contained in the proposed "Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017". The Director of Corporate Services stated that notification of the Public Hearing was advertised in the Cowichan Valley Citizen newspaper on November 15 and November 22, 2017. She stated that notice was also posted on the City's public notice posting places, on social media and on the City's website.
The Manager of Planning provided an overview of the proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017. She listed the changes that had been made to the bylaw since the last Public Hearing was held on September 18, 2017.
Correspondence Received Regarding Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017
The Chair asked the Director of Corporate Services if any written submissions were received regarding the proposed bylaw. The Director of Corporate Services stated that three pieces of correspondence had been received after the meeting agenda was published and before 4:00 pm on November 27, 2017, from Mr. Blumel, Mr. Childs and Ms. Hill, all of which were pertaining to
Page 1 of 47
City of Duncan, Public Hearing Minutes - November 27, 2017
Mr. Blumel's automobile dealership on the Trans-Canada Highway. Copies of the correspondence were provided to all members of Council and made available to the members of public in attendance at the Public Hearing.
Public Comment Period
The Chair asked for a first time whether anyone wished to present their views about the proposed bylaw. Mr. Childs - Duncan Street, Duncan, BC
Mr. Childs spoke about his concerns regarding excluding automobile dealerships as a permitted use in the City of Duncan. Mr. Blumel - TransCanada Highway, Duncan, BC
Mr. Blumel provided a history of his family's car dealership currently located on the highway within the City of Duncan. The proposed bylaw excludes automobile dealerships as a permitted use in the City of Duncan, which would make Mr. Blumel's dealership a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Blumel stated he is concerned that this would mean that they would not be able to do any renovations and would not be able to rebuild if the building were to be damaged. Mr. Blumel requested that Council consider allowing automobile sales as an allowable use or provide a site- specific exemption for his existing car dealership. Mr. Mikel - Sherman Road, Duncan, BC
Mr. Mikel Representing the Duncan Curling Club, spoke in praise of Mr. Blumel's car dealership, which provides sponsorship to the Curling Club. He was against the proposed Zoning Bylaw excluding automobile sales as an allowable use. Mr. Johnstone - Victoria, BC
Mr. Johnstone spoke against excluding automobile sales as an allowable use. He is a property owner in the Cowichan Valley Regional District and has experienced a rezoning that established the current use of his property as legal non-conforming. He expressed his frustration regarding the rezoning of his property. The Chair asked for a second time whether anyone wished to present their view about the proposed bylaw. Ms. Dunn - Evans Street, Duncan, BC
Ms. Dunn owns two single-family houses in an area currently zoned multi-family. She expressed concern that if 75% of her house is damaged, she will be unable to rebuild a single-family home on the property. She has been advised by her insurance provider that her insurance will lapse in the spring as her house is legal non-conforming.
Page 2 of 47
City of Duncan, Public Hearing Minutes - November 27, 2017
Mr. Arnold - Maple Bay, North Cowichan, BC
Mr. Arnold owns commercial property in the City of Duncan. He spoke in support of Mr. Blumel's dealership.
Mr. Yolden - Victoria, BC
Mr. Yolden owns a property on Evans Street. He expressed concerns about the set-back provision for Evans Street, stating that it would be a liability as a future potential side-walk would be built on private property. He also spoke about the 40 metre frontage shared access requirement included in the bylaw being an issue as his lot has less than 40 metre frontage. He stated that there was a potential buyer for the property who has backed out due the new zoning bylaw provisions.
Mr. Ritter - Duncan, BC
Mr. Ritter requested that Council grant a site-specific exemption for automobile sales for the two existing car dealerships on the highway. He pointed out the other site-specific exemptions included in the bylaw.
The Mayor called for a third and final time for any additional speakers.
Ms. Dunn - Evans Street, Duncan, BC
Ms. Dunn stated that she is against the set-back requirements included for Evans Street as the street is already narrow.
Mr.Yolden - Victoria, BC
Mr. Yolden stated that the City had offered to purchase his Evans Street property and he expressed concern that the set back requirements and shared access provisions in the Zoning Bylaw are a deliberate attempt to devalue his property.
Adjournment Adjournment The Chair read the closing remarks and declared the Public
Hearing for "Zoning Bylaw No. 3166, 2017" closed at 5:48 pm.
Phil Kent, Mayor Paige MacWilliam, Director of Corporate Services
Page 3 of 47
CUNNINGHAM & RIVARD APPRAISALS LTD. [email protected] w www.crisland.com
Victoria Office Nanaimo Office Duncan Office 103 – 771 Vernon Avenue 70 Prideaux Street 300 – 394 Duncan Street Victoria, BC V8X 5A7 Nanaimo, BC V9R 2M5 Duncan, BC V9L 3W4 Tel: (250) 381-4455 Tel: (250) 753-3428 Tel: (250) 737-1777
DAVID L. KIRK, AACI, P.APP., RI(BC), JASON MIKES, AACI, P.APP., GREG ROUNIS, BBA, AACI, P.APP., P. SIMON WAINWRIGHT, BBA, AACI, P.APP., DOYLE CHILDS, AACI, P.APP., K. ALLAN BROWN, B.COM, AACI, P.APP., DAVID T. OSLAND AACI, P.APP, FELLOW,
ROBERT FLEMING, AACI, P.APP., KATIE SNELL, AACI, P.APP., HUGH P. GALVIN, CRA DAVID VAN VEEN, BA, MA, CRA, DAVID MATKOVICH, CRA, CRP, MARIA CHAPELLE, CRA, DAVID THOMPSON, CANDIDATE, KELLY SAYERS, CANDIDATE, JAY TEARE, CANDIDATE
November 27, 2017 Our File: CR17-14007 Peter de Verteuil, CPA, CGA CAO, City of Duncan 200 Craig Street, Duncan, BC, V9L 1W3 By E-mail: [email protected] Dear Mr. de Verteuil: Re: City of Duncan - Proposed Zoning Rewrite At the request of local property owner Todd Blumel I am writing to provide comment on the Rezoning Rewrite that is in progress with the City of Duncan as it relates to the valuation of automobile dealership properties. I have reviewed the City of Duncan Zoning Bylaw Rewrite page posted at the following link:- https://duncan.ca/city-hall/planning-and-development/zoning-bylaw-rewrite/ I note in particular that the proposed Highway Corridor Commercial Zone does not list Automobile sales as a permitted use. In fact, none of the proposed zones allows for automobile sales. If the proposed zoning is enacted it would create ‘legal non-conforming use’ situation for the two major existing automobile sales outlets and it would preclude any other property owner from selling automobiles. A property that is deemed to be developed with a legal non-conforming use has a lower value than a property that is developed in conformity with the zoning bylaw, all other things being equal. Without more detailed research it is not possible to quantify the extent of the negative impact; however, it is certain that some lending institutions would not provide mortgages and some insurance companies would no longer provide coverage to property that is deemed to have a ‘legal non-conforming’ use. Before proceeding with 3rd reading of the proposed zoning bylaw I strongly recommend a more detailed study of existing uses do determine how the proposed Zoning Rewrite will impact existing businesses. Kind regards,
The proposed zoning change from C-3 to HCC deletes auto dealerships as a
permitted use along portion of Trans Canada Highway.
Todd Blumel owns lands on which there is a Chrysler and Nissan Dealership, both
of which would be now excluded under the new zoning.
Family owned business which has been operating on the Lands for 50 years.
Employ 60 people. Put money back in local economy. Extensive community
involvement.
Roughly $11 million has been invested into these facilities in the last 10 years to
substantially upgrade them, which money has been spent locally.
These upgrades are specific to car dealerships and would be lost if such uses do
not continue.
What is the City’s purpose of excluding car dealerships? Why are dealerships
being singled out, as gas stations and auto repair shops are permitted under HCC
zoning?
If the City wishes to exclude car dealerships, at a minimum Todd Blumel’s land
should be given a SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION.
Other businesses adversely affected by the bylaw changes have been given site
specific exemption. Why not Todd? I
Site-specific Exemption is consistent with the OCP which says that “No New
Dealership” willbe permitted BUTexisting dealership willnot be affected.
“Legal Non-Conforming Use” is NOT consistent with the OCP as existing
dealerships are not being left alone.
“Legal Non-Conforming Use" have significant drawbacks under the Local
Government Act and generally.
In summary, such designation
(a) limits expansion of the business,
(b) limits changes to the lands;
(c) is lost after 6 months of non use (for example a tenant vacates); and
(d) is lost if fire or other calamity partly destroys the building.
Page 7 of 47
- “Legal Non-Conforming” Status will:
(a) inhibitthe ability to obtain financing on the land;
(b) increase the cost of insurance and risk of calamity;
(c) significantly impair l_emd_value and availability of buyers; and
(d) damage ability to sell the business and price received.
- We ask Council to either include auto dealerships back in the HCC zoning or.
provide a site specific exemption for Todd Blumel’s lands.
Page 8 of 47
ll. BACKGROUND
A. Lands
These submissions relate to lands municipally described as 461 and 467 Trans
Canada Hwy. and legally described as follows:
1. PlD 107-658-489Lot 1, Section 17, Range 6, Quamichan District, Plan VIP 53706
2. PID 005-015-073Lot A, Section 17, Range 6, Quamichan District, Plan VIP 44109
3. PlD 026-937-905Lot A, Section 17 Range 6, Quamichan District, Plan VIP 82436
4. PlD 001-378-937Lot 1, Section 17, Range 6, Quamichan District, Plan VIP 29603
(the “Lands”)
A copy of the titles to the Lands is set out in Exhibit A. The owners of the Lands
are Little Eagle Holdings Ltd., Marnette Holdings Ltd. and Crow Enterprises Ltd.,
which companies are controlled by Todd Blumel and the Blumel family.
The location of the lands in relation to the proposed new Highway Corridor
Commercial(“HCC”)Zoning is set out in Exhibit B.
The Lands are the ONLY lands occupied and utilized as a car dealership in the
new HCC zoning area.
B. Facilities
Bow-MelChrysler has occupied a portion of the Lands for approximately 50 years.
The other relevant portion of the Lands was also utilized as a car dealership for an
extensive period and was used as a Ford Dealership. Todd Blumel recently
purchased such lands and now leases it to a Nissan Dealership.
Approximately9 years ago the buildings occupied by BowMelChrysler underwent
a substantial multi million dollar upgrade, a significant portion of which was
financed by Island Savings Credit Union.
After Todd Blumel purchased the lands previously occupied by the Ford
dealership 4 years ago, such facilities also went through a substantial upgrade.
‘Further million dollar upgrades were also done by Nissan and were only just
completed.
It is important to note that the relevant upgrades were specific to car dealerships
and such upgrades would essentially be lost if the Lands were no longer operated
in such a manner.
Page 9 of 47
The total cost of upgrades on the Lands in the last 10 years is approximatelyeleven (11) million dollars.
.Family Business
The Blumel family has operated Bow-Mel Chrysler for two generations. GeorgeBlumel became involved in the dealership in 1967 and it is now operated by hisson Todd Blumel and his wife Leslie.
Bow-Mel Chrysler and Nissan of Duncan together employ approximately 60people.
Todd Blumel has spent millions of dollars in the local economy in the last years inconstructing new buildings, renovations and otherwise. He is committed to hisfamily business and the City of Duncan.
Todd Blumel and his family are extensively involved in the community. A list ofsome of their involvement includes:
a) The Duncan Rotary Club
b) Founding member of the Duncan Totem Committee (George Blumel)
c) Cowichan District Hospital Foundation
d) British Columbia Forest Discovery Center
e) Supported: Cowichan Valley Soccer Association, Cowichan SportsPlex,Cowichan Valley Curling Club, Duncan Volunteer Fire Department, andmany more.
Page 10 of 47
III THE PROPOSED BYLAW
A. Bylaw 3166, 2017
The proposed bylaw impacts zoning over a wide area but our submission relates
to a very specific matter only.
The proposed bylaw seeks to change the existing zoning on Todd Blumel’s
lands from C-3 (Commercial) Zoning, which zoning permits car dealerships,
to HCC (Highway Corridor Commercial) Zoning, which does not.
The new HCC Zoning impacts only a fairly small area and that centers on Todd
Blumel’sLands. See Exhibit B. it is important to note that Todd Blumel’s Lands
are the only lands affected by the change to delete dealerships from a permitted
use, being the only lands which have car dealerships.
It is also important to note that AutomotiveFueling Stations, AutomotiveRepairs
and Car Washes are still permitted under the new zoning. Only car dealerships
have been excluded.
Indeed, if one looks at the old C-3 zoning and compares it to the new HCC zoning
it would look fairly similar. One notable exception is the elimination of car
dealerships.
B. Why are Car Dealerships being pushed out?
What is the purpose of a zoning change to eliminate car dealerships? This has not
been fully explained in the Bylaw. If the thrust of the Bylaw is beautificationof the
Trans Canada Corridor, why were existing uses like garages allowed and car
dealerships not? Are car dealerships an eyesore? We would submit that they are
not. Moreover, the Trans Canada Highway would seem to be the perfect place for
such business. This is consistent with what you see in other communities like
Victoria, Nanaimo and Parksville, where dealerships are located on a main road
away from residences. Does the rationale of excluding car dealerships (whatever
it is) justify the harm done to an existing business like that operated by the Blumel
family? We would suggest that car dealerships stimulate the local economy, foster
employment and provide other public goods. Why are they being pushed out from
the Trans Canada Highway?
C. Official Community Plan (“OCP”)
The City's Official Community Plan specifically contemplates the siting of car
dealerships along the Trans Canada corridor.
For example, page 106 references that:
“When car dealerships are redeveloped, the building should
be brought forward, with a maximum of a single row of
vehicles perpendicular along the frontage”
Page 11 of 47
Such references make no sense if the city banishes dealerships through rezoning,such as is being contemplated by the proposed bylaw. Indeed, the proposedbylaw is inconsistent with the OCP, which clearly contemplates auto dealerships.
in addition, the University Village Sustainable Local Area Plan (“LAP”) providesthat “no new dealerships" will be permitted, but it does NOT say the existingdealerships willbe pushed out or zoned out of existence.
.Site Specific Exemption
The City has permitted Site Specific Exemptions to various businesses which areadversely affected by the new zoning bylaw.
These site specific exemptions allow the general zoning change, but soften it byexempting certain existing businesses from its application.
Examples of site specific exemptions contained in the proposed bylaw include:
Page 37 (section 5.5)
- 462 Duncan Street (Automotive Repair)
Page 40 (Section 5.10)
- 1006 Government Street (Gas Station)
- 1007 Canada Ave (Gas Station)
- 71 Trunk Road (Car Wash)
See Exhibit C
We would respectfully submit that Todd Blumel’s Lands comprising of BowMelChrysler and Nissan of Duncan both receive similar site-specific exemptions tothose given to others.
This would allow the City to exclude dealerships in the HCC area while preventingthe injustice of rezoning, so no existing long term business is forced into a positionof being non-conforming.
Page 12 of 47
lV LEGAL NON-CONFORMING
A. What does legal non-conforming mean?
When Todd Blumel inquired about the zoning change he was told by Cityadministration “not to worry, the changes would not affect him” as he wasprotected by the designation “Legal Non-Conforming”. This is not true.
The designation that lands are ‘‘legal non-conforming” means that, while they donot comply with the new bylaws, use is allowed to continue, subject to a numberof exemptions.
B. Limitations to Legal Non-Conforming Under the Local GovernmentAct
1. Alterations to non-conforming lands are Restricted
“Subject to this section, a structural alteration or additionmust not be made in or to a building or other structurewhile a non-conforming use is continued in all or any partof it...”(Section 531 of the Local Government Act)
Businesses are organic entities and their needs change. But significantrestrictions are placed on non-conforming buildings and land, that make itdifficult to make alterations to them. Ultimately this makes it impractical toutilize them on the long term.
2. Expansion to non-conforming lands is prohibited
"A building or other structure or spaces to whichsubsection (1) applies may be maintained, extended oraltered only to the extent that (a) the repair, extension oralteration would, when completed, involve no furthercontravention of the bylaw than that existing at the time therepair, extension or alteration was started...”
‘’In relation to /and, section 528 [non-conforming uses]does not authorize the non-conforming use of land to becontinued on a scale or to an extent or degree greater thanthat at the time of the adoption of the /and use regulationbylaw.”(Section 529(2) and 530 of the Local Government Act)
The Act prohibits expansion of the use of non-conforming lands, making itprohibitive to use the lands for related business purposes that are irrelevant tothe major business
3. Fire, Damage and Rebuilding
‘‘Ifa building or other structure, the use of which does notconform to the provisions of a land use regulation bylaw, is
Page 13 of 47
.Practical Problems with Legal Non-Conforming Designation
These include:
damaged or destroyed to the extent of 75% or more of itsvalue above its foundations, as determined by the buildinginspector, the structure must not be repaired orreconstructed except for a conforming use in accordancewith the bylaw. ”
(Section532 of the Local GovernmentAct)
If the building is destroyed to 75%, the land can no longer be used as adealership. This makes it both more difficult and more expensive to insure thebuildings as any coverage would have to include the purchase of new lands,the disruption of the business while a new location for the facilities is beingsourced and constructed and the loss of goodwill associated with the location.
4. Non-Conforming Use Expires
‘‘Ifa non-conforming use authorized under subsection (1)is discontinued for a continuous period of 6 months, anysubsequent use of the land, building or other structurebecomes subject to the land use regulation bylaw.”(Section 528 (2) of the Local Government Act)
Any discontinuation of the use of the lands for 6 months or more means thatthe status of legal non-conforming is lost and the land can no longer be usedas a car dealership. For example, if a tenant moves out and a new one cannotbe found for 6 consecutive months, the Lands would cease to be useable as adealership. Such a time period is a real risk.
Please see Exhibit D for relevant sections of the Local Government Act. Inaddition, please see the opinion letter from Ramsay Lampman Rhodes, Barristersand Solicitors, with respect to legal problems of non-conforming uses, which isenclosed as Exhibit E.
In addition to the problems or limitations under the Local Government Act, thereare significant practical problems with the legal non-conforming designation.
1. Difficult to Obtain Bank Financing
As can been seen by the Legal Titles set out in Exhibit A, the Lands aremortgaged to lsland Saving Credit Union. These mortgages become due everyfew years. But it is difficult to obtain financing on lands that are legal non-conforming as the financial institutions (rightly) see such lands as inherentlymore risky.
Please see Exhibit F, which is correspondence from Todd Blumel’s bankconfirming the forgoing.
2. More Difficult and Expensive to Insure
See above discussion under Fire, Damage and Rebuilding
Page 14 of 47
A letter from a local insurer confirming that business insurance will be affectedby legal non-conforming designation is attached as Exhibit G.
. Lands more difficult to sell and their value is substantially reduced
Both the Lands occupied by BowMe| and Nissan have purpose built buildings
which are specific to the car industry and not useful in other industries. Both
parcels have been substantially upgraded and improved in the last nine years.The cost of these renovations are in the millions and were financed by banklending.
It is often the case that the value of the Lands are adversely affected by legalnon-conforming status in cases where the highest use of the Lands (as in this
case) is non-conforming.
. Business is more difficult to sell and its value is substantially reduced
In addition to detracting from the value of the Lands, the legal non-conforming
status also detracts from the value of the business itself and makes it more
difficult to sell as Purchasers are reluctant to buy a businesses whose life span
at their existing location is limited or at risk. At a minimum it makes it very
difficult to recoup the cost of recent substantial building upgrades.
10Page 15 of 47
V CONCLUSION
In conclusion the elimination of car dealerships from the proposed zoning changeto HCC have a substantial detrimental effect on the existing long standing
business on these Lands.
An easy means to minimize this detrimental effect is available by granting a site-specific exemption to the Lands.
We make this submission in request that Council either:
a) adds the “car dealerships” back into the HCC zoning; or
b) grants the Lands a site-specific exemption.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Todd and Leslie Blumel
11Page 16 of 47
EXHIBITA
12
Page 17 of 47
,/-=\,
TITLESEARCHPRINT2017-11-23, 11:59:38
File Reference: G00016—005Requestor: Ann Yelland
**CURRENTINFORMATIONONLY- NO CANCELLEDINFORMATIONSHOWN**
Re: Rezoning ofCorridor along Trans Canada Highway fromC3 to HCCZoning / EliminationofCarDealershipsfromZoning
Dear Mayor and Council:
I am writing this letter in support ofTodd Blumeland against any rezoning ofthe lands occupied bythe Chrysler and and Nissan Dealership along the Trans Canada Highway, which would result in suchlands becoming legal non conforming.
Bowmel Motors is a second generation family business that has been in the Duncan area foralmost?fty years. During this time they have made a remarkable impact on the community throughproviding economic development, jobs and supporting community groups, sports and charities.
Ifindit remarkable that the City would consider rezoning Todd's lands so that dealerships are nolonger permitted uses, especially given the contribution that these businesses have made to ourcommunity. I questionthe rational ofsuch changes, especially given that very similar uses likegarages, gas stations and car washes remain permitted.
I understand that the zoning bylaws have exempted certain specific businesses using site specificexemptions, but no such exemptions were provided to lands owned by Todd Blumel.
I consider it alarming that the Citywould consider rezoning lands owned by such a long standing
businessand make it into legal non conforming use. Such legal non conforming use will impact on thelong term viability of these businesses in their locations and is not in the public interest.
I urge Council to vote against such changes or grant a site specific exemption forTodd's lands so thatthese uses may continue, unabated.