This could be interesting,

How about accountability. Now that would be something positive to discuss.

apparently Skakun doesn’t care about bylaws.

Posted on Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 7:52 AM by PG101

apparently Skakun doesn’t care about bylaws.

—-

Or laws in general.

Are we to believe that with two local MLA’s and John Rustad to the West, we are not included in the Provinces 10 year transportation plan??? If we are not, then perhaps we should be having a meeting with these MLA’s to determine why they are not looking after our interests.

Highway 16 West, needs a hell of a lot more money spent on it than they did this past year, and it needs it sooner rather than later.

Its time that the Government did some serious investment in infrastructure in the Northern Interior, and they should do it now, rather than just before an election to make things look good.

I have seen many Rv’s in front driveways, I think this will be hard to police, and many don’t have room
to get to their backyards. How are they going to police the Rv’s if the trailer has yearly insured ICBC plates
on them, good luck with that one. If insured can’t be considered STORED.

As to the comment about Skakun not caring about bylaws: He is making an effort to serve his constituents by having a bylaw suspended. It is in the interest of any one in this community that that owns an RV over 6.1 meters. Do you know what 6.1 meters is? It is a total length of 20.0131 feet. my 18 foot RV is just under that for its total length. If you have an 18 foot boot on a trailer, that unit would exceed the bylaw and be subject to a fine.

The bylaw is about parking these recreational units in the “FRONT” YARD. No worries. A home owner may install a fence 15 feet back from the street side boundary of their property, and the area behind that fence is considered the back yard. Problem solved, have a 15 foot front yard and park your unit behind the front fence and you are no longer in contravention of the bylaw.

Have a nice day.

PG politicians have long been negligent in this area of securing provincial dollars to upgrade the provincial highways that run through PG. It is glaringly obvious when one drives through other parts of the province.

Most important is that Peden Hill is already at capacity and needs to be alleviated. This is why I think priority number one should be a Ospika overpass just above Walmart. Not only to relieve the local traffic congestion on Peden Hill, but also to improve safety for those leaving Walmart and crossing the highway to Tyner/Ospika and points west… the current off ramp and mad dash across two lanes of heavy down hill highway traffic is a recipe for disaster.

West of town to up hill run from Mud River to the Blackwater turn off causes huge miles long line ups of traffic on a dangerous single lane traffic section of highway in the winter months due to black ice that often builds up there from heavy traffic and blowing snow. This east bound section needs a passing lane more than any other section in Northern BC, and ideally would have with it an eventual bypass route for a South Fraser Crossing linking Beaverly with the Boundary Road side.

I seen this last week new sidewalk infrastructure going in at the Hart Chevron… my guess is it was paid for by the city. The province needs to step up to the plate and provide pedestrian access from the Hart to town. It is unacceptable that after 50-plus years the province has still not provided pedestrian access along the highway from the Hart where 20,000 people commute daily into the city. Seeing children walking on the highway that has no highway shoulders, and no street lighting… children walking on this highway in snow after dark in the winter months is just an unacceptable safety hazard for all involved. Our MLA’s show their lack of interest in the safety of the citizens they represent by remaining silent on this issue.

PG needs our city advocating loudly on these issues if party politics is interfering with our MLA’s doing their part representing the city to Victoria.

‘The bylaw is about parking these recreational units in the “FRONT” YARD. No worries. A home owner may install a fence 15 feet back from the street side boundary of their property, and the area behind that fence is considered the back yard. Problem solved, have a 15 foot front yard and park your unit behind the front fence and you are no longer in contravention of the bylaw.’

Nice try Loki. For the purposes of enforcing this type of bylaw, the back yard is typically considered to be anything behind the back corner of the house. Anything on the street side of that point is the front yard. Sorry, no dice.

The fact that Council is considering micro-managing City admin at this level speaks volumes about their understanding of their and City management’s roles. We elect them to do the high level stuff, City admin is responsible to make it happen. If the bylaw doesn’t work then you ammend it so that it will work; you don’t just say “ignore it, it doesn’t work”. Burrying your head in the sand doesn’t solve anything Mr. Skakun. Direct admin to bring back solutions if you think it doesn’t work!

So, three years ago when I purchased my home, a selling feature was the large driveway, for RV parking. Now, the city wants to fine, or tax us if these are in our driveways (I have a 27 foot trailer) due to the unsightly view.

In my neighborhood, we have homes that are so UNSIGHLTY they should be condemned, there is a junk yard of cars, trucks etc. in our neighborhood and this is ok?? A new trailer on MY property, that I pay too much tax on currently to the city of Prince George, is an issue!

So, come fine me for my trailer, and collect the rain water tax on my nice large driveway!!!

I see a for sale sign in my future to leave PG.

What Skakun has mentioned that just before winter there seems to be a threat to enforce the bylaw after ignoring it for seven years. How about being civil and add a note to the tax notice that this bylaw will be enforced next year.

But in the mean time in my area there are rv’s encroaching into the sidewalks and roads that have been ignored with this bylaw anyhow or any other bylaw for that matter.

it boggels my mind that people think they should be exmept to by-laws. Just because the city hasn’t enforced them in the past doesn’t mean they should continue that practice.

Its like the kid who takes form the cookie jar because grandma is home. I, for one, am for the city collecting extra money from law-breakers. We need more funds as a city and this seems like a fantastic way to gather some extra revenue.

I think it’s partially in issue of singling people out, as of two years ago they were giving “warnings” out the those that got complained about, but would ignore the 5 homeowners with over-sized trailers in cul-de-sac. Either treat everyone the same or don’t bother.

Vincent: based on the information my wife researched on this particular bylaw, it is what is behind the fence. At no time she mention or discuss the “typically considered to be anything behind the back corner of the house”.
My argument is based on research of this city’s bylaws, not on hear say or rumour.

I am sorry that I cannot cite the actual bylaw defining the back yard. Are you able to support your premise with any bylaw citation as opposed to what is “generally considered”, or “thought to be”?

I prefer to have complete and correct information, so I look forward to your findings. Please, if you are able to, we are looking at some issues on our property with a similar impacts.

No one is saying anything about being excempt, it is about timing after nonenforcement.

Does anyone know which exact bylaw this is quoted under? I’ve been scanning the bylaws on the city website but can’t seem to find it, and the search function is a joke.

It’s OK with the city to allow large trucks to park long term in residential areas, (against our parking bylaw) but not RV’s. Who is running the ship at city hall anyway, Mayor Favouritism?

250news Editor, would you be able to locate the relevant bylaws? Here we are, a bunch of amateur armchair politicos discussing a bylaw we have not been able to review.
A future suggestion for these bylaw and legislation discussion would be to provide said documentation so there is fact not rumour or opinion.

I have tried to locate this bylaw and got the same results as peegee.

http://www.princegeorge.ca/citybusiness/currentplanning/zoningbylaw/Documents/07.pdf

7.1.14 No more than one camper vehicle, one passenger bus and one trailer shall be
parked or stored on a lot zoned RS or RT, provided that any camper vehicle,
passenger bus or trailer longer than 6.1 m is not parked in the required front yard.

thank you dm.
The clarifying question at hand though is what defines a back yard or a front yard according to bylaw?

Yard, Front: the area between side lot lines extending from the front lot line to
the nearest wall of a building. On a corner lot, it is the yard associated with the
front lot line.

Eagleone- How true.
The MPs for this area spend more time thinking how they can get their next photo in the local paper and online than actually doing any valuable work for their constituents.

OK, now we have 3 assumed definitions of front yard.
I say it is what is in front of the front fence
DM says it is on the street side of the yard as defined by the front corner of the building
Vincent says the back yard is typically considered to be anything behind the back corner of the house

These are 3 very different definitions.

I am willing to listen to someone that can provide the definitive definition according to the bylaws.

Some of the commenters on this site do thorough research and I hope someone can help us get past this fine detail. Now, if a group of presumably equally intelligent literate site users cannot find the definition, that would indicate that the counsel members may be having a similar issue. So now I feel that this sticky point is growing to be more critical to the solution.

DM may even have the closest definition for us. I can’t buy into Vincent’s definition.

To be clear:
What is a front yard?
What is a back yard?
It does not matter what we “think” is the definition. What matters is how it is defined in the Prince George Bylaws.

My definition is from the cities zoning bylaw definitions section. Do I get a cookie?

http://princegeorge.ca/citybusiness/currentplanning/zoningbylaw/Documents/00-full.pdf

Here is the complete zoning bylaw on the City web site. The definitions are in Section 2.3. “front yard” is listed under Y for “yard”. It says what DragonMaster said: “the area between side lot lines extending from the front lot line to the nearest wall of a building. On a corner lot, it is the yard associated with the front lot line.”.

Thank you BP and of course the ever persistent DM.
I shall inform the spouse and we shall discuss.

So according to this definition, as long as the RV unit is back of the front wall of the building, bylaw services can just keep walking, cool.
kind of sucks for my yard though, as my drive way is in front of the front wall of our building.

Another reason why it would be at least silly if not outright stupid for a developer to locate the building as far back as possible. Time to build as close to the front easement as possible.

With regard to building as close to the front as possible, the bylaws set a minimum depth for the front yard. It varies according to the zone; I think the minimum minimum is 4.5 metres.

When I shopped for my house several years ago, I needed RV parking and this is how the bylaw was explained to me.

Measuring in from the curb, the first 3 metres (10 feet) of what most consider their front yard, is actually the boulevard and this is City property. The City has the right to deposit plowed snow on this property, rip it up to put in a sidewalk, etc.

The actual property line for most of us would then be 3 metres (10 feet) from the curb. Starting from this point, the next 6.1 metres (20 feet) would be considered to be the required front yard. The bylaw does not allow for parking of trailers longer than 6.1 metres in the required front yard as a portion of the trailer would then effectively be parked on “City property”.

If your house is set further back with a longer driveway, or has parking extending back alongside your house/garage, it would allow for an RV or trailer longer than 6.1 metres to be parked without any portion of it extending onto the City property.

Does anyone know if the bylaw applies to RV’s that are still insured and plated? They aren’t stored as much as parked.

porter…….

7.1.14 No more than one camper vehicle, one passenger bus and one trailer shall be
parked or stored on a lot zoned RS or RT, provided that any camper vehicle,
passenger bus or trailer longer than 6.1 m is not parked in the required front yard.