It’s a great idea. I totally support it and yes, even in my own back-yard. I’m sure the NIMBYs will say otherwise.

yep, i think its a great idea. She is very passionate about it.

Sometimes, young adults do need a little help to get themselves on track.

They just hauled a couple dumpsters to the Haldi site on Friday so they also must know something which the public doesn’t on the court case there…?

RR7 covers dwelling house and multifamily. Regional District may be forced to change the zoning to RR7 and push it through due to ‘bad advise’ from a lawyer…but like they say until it is challenged in court they can do whatever they want

Not for or against the project atm, I do not live in the area so reserving my comments to the zoning question

“The question being asked by some of the neighbours is how is it that this program is moving forward in a rural residential neighbourhood without going through the rezoning process?”

That is simple. The RDFFG has an archaic zoning bylaw. The PG Zoning bylaw has considerably more and clearer definitions around such uses which have become relatively common in the last decade or so.

In addition, we have these statements:
“the services offered at the Marvin Road home will be … “
“There are the matters of an operating licence”

Here are some definitions that are important to this case, in my opinion.

RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY means residential use within one DWELLING UNIT.

DWELLING UNIT means all or part of a building or structure operated as a housekeeping unit, used
or intended to be used as a domicile by 1 or more persons, and usually containing cooking, eating,
living, sleeping and sanitary facilities.

HOME OCCUPATION means a use carried on from a DWELLING UNIT as a business by the
occupants of that DWELLING UNIT, as set out in Section 7.0.

I believe given the content of the zoning bylaw, the contemplatged use is allowed as long as section 7.0 is complied with.

Here is the wording from Section 7.0

7.1 Where RESIDENTIAL – SINGLE FAMILY or RESIDENTIAL – TWO FAMILY is a PERMITTED USE
within a zone, HOME OCCUPATION is an ACCESSORY use, subject to the following provisions.

7.2 A HOME OCCUPATION use may only be established within a DWELLING UNIT, and may only be
conducted by the occupants of that DWELLING UNIT.

7.3 The FLOOR AREA within a DWELLING UNIT used for a HOME OCCUPATION use shall not exceed
25% of the FLOOR AREA of the DWELLING UNIT, to a maximum of 50 sq.m. [540 sq.ft.] except for BED AND BREAKFAST use.

7.4 HOME OCCUPATION shall be limited to one or more of the businesses as listed below:
a) licensed day care/babysitting.
b) catalogue sales agent.
c) private tutoring – on an individual tutor/student basis.
d) professional business office or studio, hairdresser or pet groomer – on an individual client
basis.
e) arts and crafts manufacture, and sale of such products manufactured on the premises.
f) sale of meat/produce grown or produced primarily on the premises.
g) BED AND BREAKFAST to a maximum of four (4) bedrooms. Only one BED AND
BREAKFAST use shall be permitted on a LOT.
h) food production [such as baking or candy making] and sale of such products manufactured
on the premises. Food production shall not include a restaurant or take out food outlet.

It looks like there will be probelkms with the following

7.2 if they have hired help

7.3 if they use more than the allowed area, which is highly likely

7.4 because the use proposed is not one of the listed uses.
————————-

Again., a great use, but someone is trying to push this through without complying with the Zoning Bylaw.

Time to get with the times…….

I don’t see this being much different than a foster home.

If you are against this perhaps you should consider adopting a child in care and providing a family for someone who doesnt have one. Imagine being a child without a family just left to forge out a life on your own. I remember going through some tough times when I first left home and I had a supportive family to help me out. It is simply not fair that some kids have to start out life this way simply because they were born into less than ideal circumstances.

Fabulous idea and they can build it right next door to me if they like. Honestly, what is wrong with people? These aren’t “bad” youth. Just some young people who didn’t have parents to provide life skills learning. Gasp!

There is a reason that people move out of town. It is for the peace and quiet and to get away from the pit falls of the city. Now the city and regional district have taken it upon them selves to try and ruin what these people have built for themselves away from all that goes with city living. There goes another neighborhood in PG.

What makes you think these folks are going to be noisy apester? With all that property between houses does anyone know or care what ones neighbour does? That’s why people move out there isn’t it? They will most likely be better supervised than most folks kid’s are now.

“I don’t see this being much different than a foster home.”
Exactly threejsmom.

How is this any different than a halfway house? Would you feel the same way if it’s recently released criminals being reintegrated into society being moved into your neighborhood?

If you require a corporate entity (registered society) to run the home, with paid staff and an annual budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars….it’s not residential, period.

I believe that we either have zoning regulations or we do not.

I do not have the faintest clue where this is. All I know about this is what it says in the report on this page. The other thing is that I know how to read for content and meaning and even intent.

So, on the face of it, it looks like one can have a group of people living in the building zoned for the single family residence that is composed of 3, 10, 25, 78 people, related or not related. It very clearly states “used as a domicile by 1 or more persons”. A David Koresh wannabee can move right in and no one can do much about it. There is absolutely no limit in the bylaw. The lawyer is completely right in that regard.

However, in this case the use is a business, family or not. In a single family dwelling, no businesses are allowed other than the ones described in the bylaw as I posted above.

Once again, people go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the question of zoning. It has to do with the kind of business it is and how it is a business which is needed in the community and helps the community at large. I support that thought 100+%. But one cannot have the situation that “we’ll close an eye in this case and avoid controversy because we all think it is great and an incovenient little zoning change hearing could undo the whole thing.”

So who determines that one use that does not comply is okay, but another use that does not comply is not okay?

We might as well tear up the zoning bylaw and the bylaw enforcement officer will become king. Basically, we will revert to nepotism and other favouritism practices all based on the belief of the bureaucrats in power. A third world system. Dollars under the table. There will be no end.

Be true to yourself. Face up to what you want to do, and go about the proper way of doing it. Good for the community or bad for the community is NOT an argument in such cases.

As I wrote, the RDFFG zoning bylaw is archaic. It does not recognize AT ALL the type of use contemplated here in a residential zoned district.

In PG, a single family residential area typically allows for the following use:

Community Care Facility, MINOR: the use of a principal dwelling for:

a) the residential care of up to six persons who are not related by blood or marriage, in a facility licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, including supervision provided to minors through a prescribed residential program, or adults who are vulnerable because of family circumstances, age, disability, illness or frailty, and are dependent on caregivers for continuing assistance or direction in the form of three or more prescribed services as defined in the Community Care and Assisted Living Regulation, or
b) a day care licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, for up to ten persons such as nursery school, emergency care, out of school care, family day care, special needs day care, group day care, occasional, casual, or short term supervised child care. This use includes limited overnight accommodation for minors who are supervised under a prescribed program.
A minor community care facility shall comply with the development regulations for the housing type in which it resides.

Simple! They simnply have to change the zoning to allow for that. We have one down the street from us. No big deal.

The one proposed in the RDFFG restricts it to 6 as well. Likely becuase of the nature of the license to operate the facility.

BUT, as far as zoning goes, once they allow it without changing the zoning bylaw, they can enlarge it if they get a licnse for a major facility which means 7 or more people. The RDFFG will have lost all control then. PG allows for a facility that size, but not in a residential zoned area.

Maybe the people who are concerned of the rezoning should look who is on the RDFFG as well as the City Council …….Perhaps one should make it to the meetings and set a date to be heard…….Stick to the facts. Another OCP to deal with perhaps?

If the RDFFG Building Inspector decides that it meets the Zoning requirements there is no hearing required. If they are making some changes to the building, they will need a building permit. Otherwise they will not even need that.

I would get that in writing if I were the owner of the building.

The renovations started last year the permits are in place and everything has been inspected. Lagoon/sepic upgraded, a 24×30 Addition built. All done with volunteers and donations.

That still doesn’t override the fact that only up to 25% of the building can be used for a business or occupation. They perhaps are not looking at bedrooms and washroom square footage as used by the home occupation but maybe only the office staff will use…?