Report from the Director of Development Services Re: Town Initiated Rezoning – Hydro Lands
A staff report recommending Council direct staff to prepare bylaws to amend the OCP and rezone the 'Hydro Lands' between Heddle and Prince Robert Drive to the P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone.
8.1 STAFF REPORTS
a) Town Initiated Rezoning – Hydro Lands
1. Report dated June 28, 2011 from the Director of Development Services
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Director of Development Services DATE: June 28, 2011 SUBJECT: Town Initiated Rezoning – Hydro Lands
PURPOSE To request Council's direction to prepare the necessary bylaws to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) and rezone the "Hydro Lands" between Heddle Road and Prince Robert Drive to the P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone.
RECOMMENDATION THAT Council direct staff to prepare the necessary bylaws to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) and rezone the "Hydro Lands" between Heddle and Prince Robert Drive to the P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone.
BACKGROUND The area commonly referred to as the "Hydro Lands" consists of several parcels owned by BC Hydro that are part of the transmission corridor between the Horsey Substation in Saanich and the Vancouver Island Terminal in Langford. These lands traverse the Town of View Royal from east to west, generally following the Trans-Canada Highway corridor. A portion of these lands, located between Heddle Avenue and Prince Robert Drive, is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and designated as Urban Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP).
BC Hydro has historically maintained this corridor for its transmission lines, with limited other uses. However, the Town's OCP identifies this corridor as a potential future transportation link, specifically for active transportation (cycling and pedestrian paths) and potentially for transit infrastructure.
EXISTING CONDITIONS The Hydro Lands in this specific section (between Heddle and Prince Robert Drive) are largely undeveloped, characterized by a mix of natural vegetation and cleared areas beneath the power lines. The topography is relatively flat, making it suitable for pathway development. Adjacent properties are predominantly single-family residential.
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN (OCP) The current OCP designates these lands as "Urban Residential." This designation allows for single-family homes, which is inconsistent with the long-term vision for this corridor as a transportation link. The OCP also contains policies encouraging the development of a comprehensive active transportation network throughout the Town, including the utilization of existing corridors like the Hydro Lands.
The Town's Master Transportation Plan (MTP), adopted in 2009, specifically identifies the Hydro Lands as a key component of the future active transportation network, connecting residents from the west side of the Town to the east, and providing connections to regional trails. The MTP recommends that the Town work with BC Hydro to secure easements or acquire portions of these lands for trail development.
CURRENT ZONING The lands are currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). This zoning permits single-family dwellings and accessory uses. It does not accommodate public infrastructure such as multi-use pathways or transit corridors without a rezoning or variance.
PROPOSED REZONING – P-6 (TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR) ZONE Staff propose a Town-initiated rezoning of these specific Hydro Lands to a new P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone. This new zone, if adopted, would:
- Reflect the strategic importance of this corridor for public transportation infrastructure, including multi-use pathways, transit facilities, and potentially road improvements.
- Align the zoning with the recommendations of the Master Transportation Plan and the long-term vision of the Official Community Plan for active transportation.
- Facilitate future discussions and agreements with BC Hydro regarding the use of the lands for public benefit without requiring individual rezoning applications for each specific infrastructure project.
- Remove the residential development potential, which is inappropriate given the existing high-voltage transmission lines and the intended public use.
The P-6 zone would permit uses such as:
- Public multi-use pathways (pedestrian and cycling)
- Transit facilities (e.g., bus stops, transit shelters, potential future light rail)
- Utility infrastructure
- Open space and environmental protection areas
- Maintenance and emergency access
IMPLICATIONS The rezoning would formalize the Town’s intention for these lands, making it clear to BC Hydro and the public that this corridor is intended for transportation and public utility purposes. It would provide a consistent regulatory framework for future development within this corridor.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION A public consultation process would be required as part of the OCP amendment and rezoning process. This would involve:
- Notice to adjacent property owners.
- Public information meeting.
- Public Hearing.
Staff will prepare a detailed public engagement plan to ensure that residents and stakeholders are informed and have opportunities to provide feedback.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The costs associated with preparing the bylaws and conducting the public consultation process would be absorbed within existing departmental budgets. Future costs associated with the acquisition or development of pathways would be subject to separate budget approvals and funding strategies.
ALTERNATIVES
- Maintain current R-1 zoning and Urban Residential OCP designation: This alternative is not recommended as it conflicts with the MTP and the long-term vision for active transportation in the OCP. It would also require individual rezoning or variance applications for any public infrastructure development.
- Amend OCP only, without rezoning: While amending the OCP would align the land use designation, maintaining the R-1 zoning would still present a conflict between the permitted uses and the desired public infrastructure uses. Rezoning to P-6 provides a clearer regulatory framework.
- Initiate discussions with BC Hydro without rezoning: Discussions are ongoing, but having the OCP and zoning aligned with the Town's vision strengthens the Town's position and provides a clear planning framework.
CONCLUSION The proposed Town-initiated OCP amendment and rezoning to a P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone for the Hydro Lands between Heddle Avenue and Prince Robert Drive is a proactive step to align land use planning with the Town's Master Transportation Plan and long-term vision for active transportation and public infrastructure. It will provide a clear regulatory framework for future development within this important corridor.
Staff Recommendation: THAT Council direct staff to prepare the necessary bylaws to amend the OCP and rezone the “Hydro Lands" between Heddle and Prince Robert Drive to the P-6 (Transportation Corridor) Zone.
b) Road Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication – Heddle Avenue, Bylaw No. 775, 2010 - Review of Options for Southerly Boundary
1. Report dated June 29, 2011 from the Director of Corporate Administration
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Director of Corporate Administration DATE: June 29, 2011 SUBJECT: Road Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication – Heddle Avenue, Bylaw No. 775, 2010 - Review of Options for Southerly Boundary
PURPOSE To seek Council’s direction regarding the preferred southerly boundary location for the road closure and removal of highway dedication for a portion of Heddle Avenue, as outlined in Bylaw No. 775, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION THAT Council provide direction to staff as to the preferred southerly boundary location for Road Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication – Heddle Avenue, Bylaw No. 775, 2010.
BACKGROUND Bylaw No. 775, 2010, the "Road Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication (Heddle Avenue) Bylaw," was adopted by Council to facilitate the reconfiguration and disposal of a portion of Heddle Avenue. This section of Heddle Avenue is located adjacent to the new development at 1636 Island Highway. The intent of the road closure is to rationalize the municipal road network in conjunction with the redevelopment of the adjacent property.
Following the adoption of Bylaw No. 775, 2010, and subsequent discussions with the adjacent property owner (developer of 1636 Island Highway) and staff, two options have emerged regarding the precise location of the southerly boundary of the road area to be closed and removed from highway dedication. The southerly boundary is critical as it defines the interface between the closed road area and the retained public roadway/future parkland.
OPTION 1: Straight-Line Southerly Boundary This option proposes a straight-line extension of the existing property line of the adjacent parcel to define the new southerly boundary of the closed road area. This approach offers simplicity in surveying and legal description.
- Advantages: Clear, easy to survey, minimal ambiguity.
- Disadvantages: May create a less aesthetically pleasing transition to future parkland or may not optimally align with future pathway designs.
OPTION 2: Curved Southerly Boundary This option proposes a curved southerly boundary, designed to create a more organic and visually appealing interface, potentially allowing for better integration with proposed parkland and multi-use pathway designs that are anticipated in this area. This option would require more complex surveying and legal description work.
- Advantages: Improved aesthetics, better integration with future parkland/pathway, potentially more flexible for active transportation design.
- Disadvantages: Increased surveying costs, more complex legal description, potential for minor delays in finalizing the road closure process.
IMPLICATIONS The choice of the southerly boundary will impact:
- The exact size and shape of the land parcels involved in the road closure.
- The future design and functionality of the public realm (parkland and pathways) in this area.
- The legal descriptions and surveying costs associated with the finalization of the road closure.
- The adjacent property owner's ability to integrate their development with the new public realm.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION No additional public consultation is deemed necessary for this administrative decision regarding the precise boundary alignment, as the principle of the road closure was established with Bylaw No. 775, 2010, and associated public hearings. This decision is an internal detail to implement the adopted bylaw effectively.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Option 2 (curved boundary) would incur slightly higher surveying and legal description costs compared to Option 1 (straight-line boundary). These costs are expected to be relatively minor and absorbed within existing project budgets related to the Heddle Avenue improvements.
CONCLUSION Council's direction is requested on the preferred southerly boundary option for the Heddle Avenue road closure. Both options are feasible, with Option 1 offering simplicity and Option 2 offering enhanced design integration with future public spaces. Staff are prepared to proceed with either option based on Council's direction.
Staff Recommendation: THAT Council provide direction to staff as to the preferred southerly boundary location for Road Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication – Heddle Avenue, Bylaw No. 775, 2010.