Official Community Plan (OCP) Minor Update for Modernization

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

Latest News

OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2297 and 2298 have been adopted by Council. The updated OCP will be uploaded to the Document Center on the City's webpage.

A Public Hearing was held November 9, 2021 at the Revelstoke Community Centre. The Public Hearing is now closed and no further input can be accepted. The City would like to thank all stakeholders for their participation in the Public Hearing.


At the August 10, 2021 Council meeting, Council passed resolutions to 'uncouple' items related to designating a “Resort Fringe” land use to the Thomas Brook neighbourhood from the OCP amendments bylaw No. 2297, and create a separate amending bylaw to consider the “Resort Fringe” land use designation for Thomas Brook neighbourhood. The “Resort Fringe” land use designation for the Thomas Brook area will be considered as Bylaw No. 2298.

OCP Amendment Bylaw No, 2298 to designate the Thomas Brook neighbourhood as “Resort Fringe” Land Use received First and Second reading on August 24, 2021.

OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2297 for the remainder of the OCP amendments received First Reading on August 10, 2021, and received Second Reading on September 14, 2021.

Project Overview

A comprehensive review of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1950 (OCP) is underway. Phase 1 includes project plan development, OCP vision check-in and update (completed July 2020), as well as minor updates to modernize the current OCP. The bylaw presented to Council for consideration on August 10, 2021 is not a new OCP - the intent is to address historical amendments that have created conflict within the OCP and the Zoning Bylaw, creating inconsistency in interpretation by staff and the public. Staff recommend amendments to Bylaw No. 1950 (the current OCP) to implement the changes outlined in the discussion section of the staff report to Council: https://revelstoke.civicweb.net/FileStorage/8FB380933F7F450490477769D3EB2C0D-Dev-OCPBylaw%20No.%202297%20Amendment%20Report%202021-08-10.pdf

Here is a brief overview of the changes being proposed:

General Amendments

General amendments include:

  • Renumbering
  • Formatting
  • Spelling/Punctuation/Grammar
  • Updates to references to Legislation that has changed
  • Update cross references within document as required

Currently, the OCP presents unique challenges when staff and applicants are working to review applicable sections for a development proposal given the lack of a numbering structure. This also impacts how staff currently prepare reports and present the findings of their policy analysis to Council. The intent of these changes is to drastically enhance accessibility of the document for the public, applicants, Council and staff. Items like numbering and formatting will help with the next phase of the OCP process when there is comprehensive policy review with stakeholders. This will allow everyone to understand easily which policy is being discussed.

Vision and Priorities

Amend the OCP to include the updated Vision and Priorities the community was engaged on between December 2019 and June 2019.

Density Table

Replace the density table with general descriptions of the development form that constitutes high, medium, and low density. The zoning bylaw contains prescriptive information regarding the maximum permitted density and is the more appropriate bylaw for this measure.

Unified Development Bylaw and Transect Land Uses

Due to numerous OCP amendments in the past, these elements were not fully flushed out and therefore not implementable. This causes confusion on land use items and amendments. Staff are proposing to remove transect land uses and reference to the Unified Development Bylaw and streamline land uses identified in the OCP.

Thomas Brook Neighbourhood

This amendment brings recently annexed properties in the Thomas Brook neighbourhood under a proposed Resort Fringe land use. When the lands were annexed into the City, the land use was not changed and therefore they are currently governed by CSRD Bylaws. The intent is to bring this area into alignment with Revelstoke policy. As per Council direction on August 10, this change is being considered as a separate OCP amending bylaw no. 2298.

Development Permit Areas

Staff propose expanding the list of exemptions to align with the legislative requirements for each DPA, rather than having one standard exemption list applicable to each DPA. Why? One of the major challenges with administering the City’s current OCP is with respect to Development Permit Areas (DPAs). The current OCP does not include a prescriptive list of exemptions within a DPA that would provide clarity and consistency to the public and staff regarding what forms of development need and do not need a Development Permit (DP).

Floodplain Exemption Policies

Staff propose to create policies to guide development in the floodplain that are in line with provincial legislation. This will provide clarity to those that fall within the City’s floodplain areas.

Appendices - Smart Growth Checklist and Illustrative Plans

Appendix 6 and 7 are recommended to be removed as they are not implementable, outdated, and reference bylaws like the UDB that were never adopted by Council.



Latest News

OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2297 and 2298 have been adopted by Council. The updated OCP will be uploaded to the Document Center on the City's webpage.

A Public Hearing was held November 9, 2021 at the Revelstoke Community Centre. The Public Hearing is now closed and no further input can be accepted. The City would like to thank all stakeholders for their participation in the Public Hearing.


At the August 10, 2021 Council meeting, Council passed resolutions to 'uncouple' items related to designating a “Resort Fringe” land use to the Thomas Brook neighbourhood from the OCP amendments bylaw No. 2297, and create a separate amending bylaw to consider the “Resort Fringe” land use designation for Thomas Brook neighbourhood. The “Resort Fringe” land use designation for the Thomas Brook area will be considered as Bylaw No. 2298.

OCP Amendment Bylaw No, 2298 to designate the Thomas Brook neighbourhood as “Resort Fringe” Land Use received First and Second reading on August 24, 2021.

OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2297 for the remainder of the OCP amendments received First Reading on August 10, 2021, and received Second Reading on September 14, 2021.

Project Overview

A comprehensive review of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1950 (OCP) is underway. Phase 1 includes project plan development, OCP vision check-in and update (completed July 2020), as well as minor updates to modernize the current OCP. The bylaw presented to Council for consideration on August 10, 2021 is not a new OCP - the intent is to address historical amendments that have created conflict within the OCP and the Zoning Bylaw, creating inconsistency in interpretation by staff and the public. Staff recommend amendments to Bylaw No. 1950 (the current OCP) to implement the changes outlined in the discussion section of the staff report to Council: https://revelstoke.civicweb.net/FileStorage/8FB380933F7F450490477769D3EB2C0D-Dev-OCPBylaw%20No.%202297%20Amendment%20Report%202021-08-10.pdf

Here is a brief overview of the changes being proposed:

General Amendments

General amendments include:

  • Renumbering
  • Formatting
  • Spelling/Punctuation/Grammar
  • Updates to references to Legislation that has changed
  • Update cross references within document as required

Currently, the OCP presents unique challenges when staff and applicants are working to review applicable sections for a development proposal given the lack of a numbering structure. This also impacts how staff currently prepare reports and present the findings of their policy analysis to Council. The intent of these changes is to drastically enhance accessibility of the document for the public, applicants, Council and staff. Items like numbering and formatting will help with the next phase of the OCP process when there is comprehensive policy review with stakeholders. This will allow everyone to understand easily which policy is being discussed.

Vision and Priorities

Amend the OCP to include the updated Vision and Priorities the community was engaged on between December 2019 and June 2019.

Density Table

Replace the density table with general descriptions of the development form that constitutes high, medium, and low density. The zoning bylaw contains prescriptive information regarding the maximum permitted density and is the more appropriate bylaw for this measure.

Unified Development Bylaw and Transect Land Uses

Due to numerous OCP amendments in the past, these elements were not fully flushed out and therefore not implementable. This causes confusion on land use items and amendments. Staff are proposing to remove transect land uses and reference to the Unified Development Bylaw and streamline land uses identified in the OCP.

Thomas Brook Neighbourhood

This amendment brings recently annexed properties in the Thomas Brook neighbourhood under a proposed Resort Fringe land use. When the lands were annexed into the City, the land use was not changed and therefore they are currently governed by CSRD Bylaws. The intent is to bring this area into alignment with Revelstoke policy. As per Council direction on August 10, this change is being considered as a separate OCP amending bylaw no. 2298.

Development Permit Areas

Staff propose expanding the list of exemptions to align with the legislative requirements for each DPA, rather than having one standard exemption list applicable to each DPA. Why? One of the major challenges with administering the City’s current OCP is with respect to Development Permit Areas (DPAs). The current OCP does not include a prescriptive list of exemptions within a DPA that would provide clarity and consistency to the public and staff regarding what forms of development need and do not need a Development Permit (DP).

Floodplain Exemption Policies

Staff propose to create policies to guide development in the floodplain that are in line with provincial legislation. This will provide clarity to those that fall within the City’s floodplain areas.

Appendices - Smart Growth Checklist and Illustrative Plans

Appendix 6 and 7 are recommended to be removed as they are not implementable, outdated, and reference bylaws like the UDB that were never adopted by Council.



CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Please provide them here and we will be sure to get back to you.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Proposed OCP Amendments #72 to #76 - Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area The amendments proposed to Appendix 3: Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area represent a major restructuring of the Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed amendments substantially change the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and there is wording that directly contravenes the Local Government Act. These are not ‘minor updates’ and therefore not consistent with the stated purpose of the Phase 1 OCP amendments. Additionally, these amendments are not mentioned in the staff report to Council nor the public summary. Instead they are hidden in lengthy background documents. There are 140 owners of Protected Heritage Property in the HCA who will be impacted, each with a Heritage Status Notification on title. Yet they have not been informed of the proposed amendments. The City is required to properly notify residents before proceeding to Public Hearing. Map of the Heritage Conservation Area: Section 9.0 Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area Boundary is the correct legal map for the area and the only map that should be in the OCP. Appendix V, Map 7 (Heritage Conservation Area and Properties Map) was a preliminary planning tool showing properties built prior to World War II listed in the Heritage Inventory. The Heritage Inventory is not a list of Protected Heritage Properties, and Map 7 should not be used to identify Protected Heritage Properties. There is no reason to include this map in the OCP. 2.0 Designation - The proposed revisions to this section are incorrect and legally confounding. As noted above, the map reference is incorrect. Additionally, proposed Amendment #72 is not compliant with the Local Government Act. The Act stipulates that exemptions to Heritage Alteration Permit requirements must be listed in the OCP, not ‘subject to policies’. The assertion that Heritage Alteration Permits are not required for Protected Heritage Property outside the HCA is not compliant with the Act. Heritage Alteration Permits are required for development or alteration of all Protected Heritage Properties, unless specifically exempt. For clarity, there is only one Protected Heritage Property outside the Heritage Conservation Area. Mountain View School was protected by Municipal Heritage Designation Bylaw in April 2015. There are no Protected Heritage Properties in Development Permit Areas, although there are properties in these areas that are listed in the Heritage Inventory but have no formal heritage status. Proposed Amendment #72 should be revised or deleted. The bylaw establishing the Heritage Conservation Area was prepared with substantial legal advice. Subject to further advice, it may be acceptable to explicitly reference Section 615 of the Local Government Act that a Heritage Alteration Permit must be issued in order to subdivide land, start construction of a building or structure or an addition to an existing building or structure, alter a building or structure, or alter a feature that is Protected Heritage Property in the Heritage Conservation Area. 6.0 Exemptions from Permit Requirements - The proposal to exempt Accessory Buildings from Heritage Alteration Permit requirements (Amendment #73) is a major revision to the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Area. This proposal appears to be a reaction to the ongoing conflicts between the Zoning Bylaw and the guidelines for the Heritage Conservation Area. A primary objective of the HCA is to preserve the historic streetscapes of steep roofed buildings as described in the guidelines. Accessory buildings are referenced multiple times in 11.0 Guidelines for Alterations and Development in the Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area. Section 11.3.2 states that guidelines for site layout and building massing ‘shall be’ considered in the construction of accessory buildings. Proposed Amendment #73 implies that accessory buildings make no contribution to the historic character of the streetscapes. This is not true. Accessory buildings, whether old garages or new carriage houses, are highly visible features of the area and contribute significantly to the pattern of the streetscapes. The proposal in Amendment #73 to exempt Accessory Buildings from Heritage Alteration Permit requirements should be deleted. The solution to the conflicting requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines is to create a Heritage Zone that reflects the actual subdivision and land use pattern of the area. These proposed amendments to Appendix 3 have not been reviewed by the Heritage Advisory Commission, or publicized to affected property owners. Nor does it appear they have been reviewed for accuracy by the Heritage Consultant on contract with the City. Why are these amendments proceeding at this time? There is a high degree of frustration with the City’s management of the Heritage Conservation Area and lack of engagement with property owners. Should the Heritage Conservation Area simply be dismantled?

    emf asked 10 months ago

    Hello emf,

    Thank-you for reaching out and engaging regarding the minor amendments to the OCP. With respect to amendment 72, this is not intended to alter current practise, all properties in the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) still require a Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP). This is intended to clarify that the listed Heritage Inventory Properties on City mapping that do not fall within the HCA do not require a HAP unless they are a designated Protected Heritage Property. Staff will review the wording in this section to ensure it reflects this intent and that it is aligned with applicable legislation. Staff have reviewed the changes with the consultant assisting with the City’s heritage review and will follow up.

     

    The current guidelines for accessory buildings will still be applicable for new development within the HCA, and those guidelines are to be considered as part of a building permit application review. They currently stipulate that new accessory buildings should match the character of the principle building and this will be a consideration as part of the building permit. Staff note that should pending Zoning Bylaw amendments allow for secondary detached housing units (i.e. carriage suites), these would still require a HAP as they are not considered an accessory building but a separate use entirely and would therefore not qualify under this exemption.    

     

    With respect to the mapping, the boundary shown in Appendix III, Section 9,  is the same boundary as shown on Appendix V Map 7. The boundary of the HCA is not being altered as part of this minor OCP update.

     

    We appreciate your insight and hope that this clarifies the intent of the minor amendment. Please let us know if we missed answering one of your questions. 

     

    Paul Simon, RPP, MCIP
    Senior Planner, Revelstoke