Zoning Bylaw Update

Share Zoning Bylaw Update on Facebook Share Zoning Bylaw Update on Twitter Share Zoning Bylaw Update on Linkedin Email Zoning Bylaw Update link

Consultation has concluded

Latest News

Phase 1 of the Zoning Bylaw update is now complete and Zoning Bylaw No. 2299 has been adopted by Council. The bylaw is uploaded on the City of Revelstoke's Document Center. If you have any questions about the new regulations, please contact Development Services.


Zoning Bylaw Review: Phase 1

This page has been created to inform the Revelstoke community of the proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw.

OVERVIEW

The City of Revelstoke is undertaking a comprehensive zoning bylaw review to update, modernize, and provide more clarity to the bylaw. A comprehensive review is a complex undertaking and

Latest News

Phase 1 of the Zoning Bylaw update is now complete and Zoning Bylaw No. 2299 has been adopted by Council. The bylaw is uploaded on the City of Revelstoke's Document Center. If you have any questions about the new regulations, please contact Development Services.


Zoning Bylaw Review: Phase 1

This page has been created to inform the Revelstoke community of the proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw.

OVERVIEW

The City of Revelstoke is undertaking a comprehensive zoning bylaw review to update, modernize, and provide more clarity to the bylaw. A comprehensive review is a complex undertaking and takes substantial time and resources.

The first phase of the project seeks to improve the functionality of the current bylaw by improving clarity, consolidating regulations, updating/adding definitions, introducing minor updates to parking regulations, and providing more flexibility for urban food production as well as infill residential development.

The next phase of the project will seek to complete a comprehensive review of all zones and the uses/regulations contained within, revisions to supplementary regulations, and revisions to the parking regulations.

WHY IS THE PROJECT BEING COMPLETED?

The City’s current zoning bylaw was originally adopted in 1984, and since that time has been amended 133 times. To ensure the bylaw is meeting the overall objectives of the community, best practices typically seek to update zoning bylaws every 5 years. The current bylaw has outdated, contradictory regulations that cause confusion with interpretation. The intent with the first phase of the bylaw update is to align with current legislation and to add clarity to ensure consistency in interpretation and application.

HIGHLIGHTS

The project is anticipated to be completed in phases. The first phase seeks to undertake two types of amendments: Administrative Amendments and Bylaw Content Changes.

The Administrative Amendments do not alter the intent of the regulations but reduce ambiguity and improve clarity. This includes:

  • Some reorganization of the document to improve readability
  • Clarification on definitions, the inclusion of diagrams
  • Updated references to current legislation.

The Bylaw Content Changes are more substantial and alter the intent of the bylaw. This includes:

  • Amendments to allow for minor forms of food production throughout the City
  • Inclusion of allowances for infill residential development including accessory dwelling units (carriage and garden suites) and secondary suites within multi-family buildings
  • Regulations to allow for density bonusing in medium/high-density residential zones
  • Addition of new parking regulations to promote walkability in certain areas of the City and reduce reliance on vehicular transportation
  • Regulations to control parking and storage on residential properties
  • Updated density bouncing regulations to make standard high density residential zones more widely used and reduce the reliance on comprehensive development zones
  • Amended regulations to provide greater clarity regarding temporary buildings
  • Amendments to the minimum lot sizes for standard residential zones to allow for greater infill development on larger lots.
Consultation has concluded

Please submit your questions here, a response will be sent to you as soon as possible.

  • Share What happens now? when will the new bylaw be adopted? on Facebook Share What happens now? when will the new bylaw be adopted? on Twitter Share What happens now? when will the new bylaw be adopted? on Linkedin Email What happens now? when will the new bylaw be adopted? link

    What happens now? when will the new bylaw be adopted?

    David E asked about 3 years ago

    Hi David, 


    The Bylaw received Third reading on December 7, 2021. Staff are awaiting approval from the province (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) and once approved, then it will be brought back for Council to consider bylaw adoption.  TalkRevelstoke has been updated now with this information. Thanks for the question! 

    Paul Simon

  • Share Hello, I'm just wondering if the proposed R1 bylaw changes will allow me to build a suite above my attached double garage and a loft above the suite for a new mstr bedroom. The height of the new roof would be higher than the existing roof of the main house. As it stands currently I am not allowed a loft above the proposed suite as it is greater than the one half storeys which is currently permitted. I hope that council allows for the terminology "one half storeys" to be removed from the bylaw. Having said that, if that were to be removed can I build higher than the current height of the roof to allow for a new mstr bedroom for the main house? If not then is this something that could be added into the bylaw to be allowed? Also do I have to dedicate any outside yard space to the suite for use as I would not agree to this being in the new bylaw. Regards. on Facebook Share Hello, I'm just wondering if the proposed R1 bylaw changes will allow me to build a suite above my attached double garage and a loft above the suite for a new mstr bedroom. The height of the new roof would be higher than the existing roof of the main house. As it stands currently I am not allowed a loft above the proposed suite as it is greater than the one half storeys which is currently permitted. I hope that council allows for the terminology "one half storeys" to be removed from the bylaw. Having said that, if that were to be removed can I build higher than the current height of the roof to allow for a new mstr bedroom for the main house? If not then is this something that could be added into the bylaw to be allowed? Also do I have to dedicate any outside yard space to the suite for use as I would not agree to this being in the new bylaw. Regards. on Twitter Share Hello, I'm just wondering if the proposed R1 bylaw changes will allow me to build a suite above my attached double garage and a loft above the suite for a new mstr bedroom. The height of the new roof would be higher than the existing roof of the main house. As it stands currently I am not allowed a loft above the proposed suite as it is greater than the one half storeys which is currently permitted. I hope that council allows for the terminology "one half storeys" to be removed from the bylaw. Having said that, if that were to be removed can I build higher than the current height of the roof to allow for a new mstr bedroom for the main house? If not then is this something that could be added into the bylaw to be allowed? Also do I have to dedicate any outside yard space to the suite for use as I would not agree to this being in the new bylaw. Regards. on Linkedin Email Hello, I'm just wondering if the proposed R1 bylaw changes will allow me to build a suite above my attached double garage and a loft above the suite for a new mstr bedroom. The height of the new roof would be higher than the existing roof of the main house. As it stands currently I am not allowed a loft above the proposed suite as it is greater than the one half storeys which is currently permitted. I hope that council allows for the terminology "one half storeys" to be removed from the bylaw. Having said that, if that were to be removed can I build higher than the current height of the roof to allow for a new mstr bedroom for the main house? If not then is this something that could be added into the bylaw to be allowed? Also do I have to dedicate any outside yard space to the suite for use as I would not agree to this being in the new bylaw. Regards. link

    Hello, I'm just wondering if the proposed R1 bylaw changes will allow me to build a suite above my attached double garage and a loft above the suite for a new mstr bedroom. The height of the new roof would be higher than the existing roof of the main house. As it stands currently I am not allowed a loft above the proposed suite as it is greater than the one half storeys which is currently permitted. I hope that council allows for the terminology "one half storeys" to be removed from the bylaw. Having said that, if that were to be removed can I build higher than the current height of the roof to allow for a new mstr bedroom for the main house? If not then is this something that could be added into the bylaw to be allowed? Also do I have to dedicate any outside yard space to the suite for use as I would not agree to this being in the new bylaw. Regards.

    Concerned Local asked about 3 years ago

    Hello Concerned Local, 

    If you are proposing to have a suite included in a portion of the building that is attached to the principle dwelling, it would be considered a secondary suite in which case the secondary suite regulations apply. For secondary suites that are located within the principle dwelling, whether that be above an attached garage or within a basement, the height requirements for principle dwellings would apply at the 10 m max. If you have questions pertaining to specific development proposals, we encourage you to reach out to Development Services at development@revelstoke.ca 

    Thanks for the question!

    Paul Simon

  • Share I very much welcome these bylaw changes. Infill is so much more sustainable than sprawl. We have a fairly lot in the city and would like to build a carriage house to replace our very old dilapidated garage. However, I'm concerned about the "carriage house cannot be taller than principal dwelling requirement". My house is 1.5 storeys (two upstairs bedrooms have sloping ceilings and highest point is 6' 2". I can't see how we can build a liveable unit above a garage and stay below our home height. The entire suite would be 6'2" clearance ... and this would not really even be worth building. Can there be flexibility for carriage houses when the principal dwelling is only 1.5 storeys high? on Facebook Share I very much welcome these bylaw changes. Infill is so much more sustainable than sprawl. We have a fairly lot in the city and would like to build a carriage house to replace our very old dilapidated garage. However, I'm concerned about the "carriage house cannot be taller than principal dwelling requirement". My house is 1.5 storeys (two upstairs bedrooms have sloping ceilings and highest point is 6' 2". I can't see how we can build a liveable unit above a garage and stay below our home height. The entire suite would be 6'2" clearance ... and this would not really even be worth building. Can there be flexibility for carriage houses when the principal dwelling is only 1.5 storeys high? on Twitter Share I very much welcome these bylaw changes. Infill is so much more sustainable than sprawl. We have a fairly lot in the city and would like to build a carriage house to replace our very old dilapidated garage. However, I'm concerned about the "carriage house cannot be taller than principal dwelling requirement". My house is 1.5 storeys (two upstairs bedrooms have sloping ceilings and highest point is 6' 2". I can't see how we can build a liveable unit above a garage and stay below our home height. The entire suite would be 6'2" clearance ... and this would not really even be worth building. Can there be flexibility for carriage houses when the principal dwelling is only 1.5 storeys high? on Linkedin Email I very much welcome these bylaw changes. Infill is so much more sustainable than sprawl. We have a fairly lot in the city and would like to build a carriage house to replace our very old dilapidated garage. However, I'm concerned about the "carriage house cannot be taller than principal dwelling requirement". My house is 1.5 storeys (two upstairs bedrooms have sloping ceilings and highest point is 6' 2". I can't see how we can build a liveable unit above a garage and stay below our home height. The entire suite would be 6'2" clearance ... and this would not really even be worth building. Can there be flexibility for carriage houses when the principal dwelling is only 1.5 storeys high? link

    I very much welcome these bylaw changes. Infill is so much more sustainable than sprawl. We have a fairly lot in the city and would like to build a carriage house to replace our very old dilapidated garage. However, I'm concerned about the "carriage house cannot be taller than principal dwelling requirement". My house is 1.5 storeys (two upstairs bedrooms have sloping ceilings and highest point is 6' 2". I can't see how we can build a liveable unit above a garage and stay below our home height. The entire suite would be 6'2" clearance ... and this would not really even be worth building. Can there be flexibility for carriage houses when the principal dwelling is only 1.5 storeys high?

    PtboRelic asked about 3 years ago

    Hi PtboRelic, 

    The intent of the regulations is to ensure that the carriage/garden suite remains subordinate to the primary dwelling onsite. If you cannot comply with the regulations, there are options available including construction of a one storey garden suite to ensure compatibility with the primary dwelling unit on site, or, apply for a Development Variance Permit. 

    Thanks for the question and have a great week!

    Paul Simon 

  • Share If the current existing dwelling is on a septic system, is the proposed detached suite expected to have an additional septic system installed? on Facebook Share If the current existing dwelling is on a septic system, is the proposed detached suite expected to have an additional septic system installed? on Twitter Share If the current existing dwelling is on a septic system, is the proposed detached suite expected to have an additional septic system installed? on Linkedin Email If the current existing dwelling is on a septic system, is the proposed detached suite expected to have an additional septic system installed? link

    If the current existing dwelling is on a septic system, is the proposed detached suite expected to have an additional septic system installed?

    Craig asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Craig, 

    With all applications that are submitted to Development Services, adequate site servicing needs to be demonstrated. Septic systems are managed and regulated through Interior Health so they would ultimately be the approving authority for new or expanded systems developed under the supervision of a Registered Onsite Wastewater Practioner. Typically, development on the same lot would tie into the existing system, but this would need to be proven out to be feasible by the registered professional to ensure that sufficient capacity exists.

    Have a great week, 

    Paul Simon 

  • Share Progressive! I like it. Can you define what the secondary, garden, and carriage suite is? And is this the possibility of having another single family dwelling on the same residential lot? on Facebook Share Progressive! I like it. Can you define what the secondary, garden, and carriage suite is? And is this the possibility of having another single family dwelling on the same residential lot? on Twitter Share Progressive! I like it. Can you define what the secondary, garden, and carriage suite is? And is this the possibility of having another single family dwelling on the same residential lot? on Linkedin Email Progressive! I like it. Can you define what the secondary, garden, and carriage suite is? And is this the possibility of having another single family dwelling on the same residential lot? link

    Progressive! I like it. Can you define what the secondary, garden, and carriage suite is? And is this the possibility of having another single family dwelling on the same residential lot?

    Craig asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Craig, 

    Thanks for the question. Definitions are as follows: 

    CARRIAGE SUITE means a detached, subordinate dwelling unit that contains a garage or similar storage space on a ground floor, with a dwelling unit on an upper floor, located on a permanent, continuous foundation.

    GARDEN SUITE means a detached, subordinate dwelling unit, typically on a ground floor, located on a permanent, continuous foundation.

    For standard residential zoning (R1, R2 etc.), only one primary dwelling is permitted per lot. The intent of the amendments is to now allow for one of the three types of dwellings on a lot that contains a single family dwelling: garden suite; carriage suite; or secondary suite. This allows for infill development on lots that can accommodate another secondary dwelling. 

    If you have a specific project in mind, please do not hesitate to contact Development Services. 

    Have a great week, 

    Paul Simon 

  • Share Hi, I have a concern with the proposed storage bylaw for boats and RVs. I request that the requirement to be on a developed parking space be removed from the requirements. Many owners including myself store our boats on our yards not in developed parking spaces, such as on an area of lawn. If the concern is that some people might not trim the grass and it could become unsightly, I'm sure that could be dealt with under other bylaws about unsightly premises. I would rather not have to gravel additional areas of my yard to meet this unnecessary requirement. The main point of the bylaw change seems to be to control the number of recreational vehicles which it would cover adequately without this additional requirement. In my case the summer and winter storage locations are on different parts of the yard to accommodate snow clearing and storage so would entail gravelling 2 areas to meet these requirements. Thank you. on Facebook Share Hi, I have a concern with the proposed storage bylaw for boats and RVs. I request that the requirement to be on a developed parking space be removed from the requirements. Many owners including myself store our boats on our yards not in developed parking spaces, such as on an area of lawn. If the concern is that some people might not trim the grass and it could become unsightly, I'm sure that could be dealt with under other bylaws about unsightly premises. I would rather not have to gravel additional areas of my yard to meet this unnecessary requirement. The main point of the bylaw change seems to be to control the number of recreational vehicles which it would cover adequately without this additional requirement. In my case the summer and winter storage locations are on different parts of the yard to accommodate snow clearing and storage so would entail gravelling 2 areas to meet these requirements. Thank you. on Twitter Share Hi, I have a concern with the proposed storage bylaw for boats and RVs. I request that the requirement to be on a developed parking space be removed from the requirements. Many owners including myself store our boats on our yards not in developed parking spaces, such as on an area of lawn. If the concern is that some people might not trim the grass and it could become unsightly, I'm sure that could be dealt with under other bylaws about unsightly premises. I would rather not have to gravel additional areas of my yard to meet this unnecessary requirement. The main point of the bylaw change seems to be to control the number of recreational vehicles which it would cover adequately without this additional requirement. In my case the summer and winter storage locations are on different parts of the yard to accommodate snow clearing and storage so would entail gravelling 2 areas to meet these requirements. Thank you. on Linkedin Email Hi, I have a concern with the proposed storage bylaw for boats and RVs. I request that the requirement to be on a developed parking space be removed from the requirements. Many owners including myself store our boats on our yards not in developed parking spaces, such as on an area of lawn. If the concern is that some people might not trim the grass and it could become unsightly, I'm sure that could be dealt with under other bylaws about unsightly premises. I would rather not have to gravel additional areas of my yard to meet this unnecessary requirement. The main point of the bylaw change seems to be to control the number of recreational vehicles which it would cover adequately without this additional requirement. In my case the summer and winter storage locations are on different parts of the yard to accommodate snow clearing and storage so would entail gravelling 2 areas to meet these requirements. Thank you. link

    Hi, I have a concern with the proposed storage bylaw for boats and RVs. I request that the requirement to be on a developed parking space be removed from the requirements. Many owners including myself store our boats on our yards not in developed parking spaces, such as on an area of lawn. If the concern is that some people might not trim the grass and it could become unsightly, I'm sure that could be dealt with under other bylaws about unsightly premises. I would rather not have to gravel additional areas of my yard to meet this unnecessary requirement. The main point of the bylaw change seems to be to control the number of recreational vehicles which it would cover adequately without this additional requirement. In my case the summer and winter storage locations are on different parts of the yard to accommodate snow clearing and storage so would entail gravelling 2 areas to meet these requirements. Thank you.

    Martin asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Martin, 

    Thank-you for your question and interest in the Zoning Bylaw. It is very typical for the parking of vehicles in the front yard to be required on a development parking space to ensure that the yard does not become a parking area. The regulations in proposed Section 5.13 require this for the front yard area as this is where impacts from parking of these vehicles can be most prominent. The proposed regulations in Section 5.13(3) with respect to parking in the rear yard do not require parking in a developed parking space.

    Thanks again for the question, have a great week!

    Paul Simon 

  • Share Accessory Dwelling Units with up to 90 square metres of usable floor space are being proposed in all residential zones except mobile home zones. Ninety square metres (968 square feet) is large enough for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Even with other requirements such as the ADU must be less than 40% of the usable floor space of the principal dwelling, limits on lot coverage and setbacks it will be possible to construct a 3 bedroom garden suite or carriage suite almost everywhere, even on relatively small lots. Several details remain unclear: Will finished basements in principal dwellings be included in the usable floor area; will finished basements be permitted in garden suites in addition to one and half to two storey building height; will the 6.0m minimum building width apply to garden suites and carriage houses? All of these details will impact the maximum size of ADU that can be built on a lot, and the cumulative impact on neighbourhoods. Was it intended that the density of neighbourhoods, including Central Revelstoke where density is already high, will be virtually doubled by allowing 3 bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units everywhere? on Facebook Share Accessory Dwelling Units with up to 90 square metres of usable floor space are being proposed in all residential zones except mobile home zones. Ninety square metres (968 square feet) is large enough for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Even with other requirements such as the ADU must be less than 40% of the usable floor space of the principal dwelling, limits on lot coverage and setbacks it will be possible to construct a 3 bedroom garden suite or carriage suite almost everywhere, even on relatively small lots. Several details remain unclear: Will finished basements in principal dwellings be included in the usable floor area; will finished basements be permitted in garden suites in addition to one and half to two storey building height; will the 6.0m minimum building width apply to garden suites and carriage houses? All of these details will impact the maximum size of ADU that can be built on a lot, and the cumulative impact on neighbourhoods. Was it intended that the density of neighbourhoods, including Central Revelstoke where density is already high, will be virtually doubled by allowing 3 bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units everywhere? on Twitter Share Accessory Dwelling Units with up to 90 square metres of usable floor space are being proposed in all residential zones except mobile home zones. Ninety square metres (968 square feet) is large enough for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Even with other requirements such as the ADU must be less than 40% of the usable floor space of the principal dwelling, limits on lot coverage and setbacks it will be possible to construct a 3 bedroom garden suite or carriage suite almost everywhere, even on relatively small lots. Several details remain unclear: Will finished basements in principal dwellings be included in the usable floor area; will finished basements be permitted in garden suites in addition to one and half to two storey building height; will the 6.0m minimum building width apply to garden suites and carriage houses? All of these details will impact the maximum size of ADU that can be built on a lot, and the cumulative impact on neighbourhoods. Was it intended that the density of neighbourhoods, including Central Revelstoke where density is already high, will be virtually doubled by allowing 3 bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units everywhere? on Linkedin Email Accessory Dwelling Units with up to 90 square metres of usable floor space are being proposed in all residential zones except mobile home zones. Ninety square metres (968 square feet) is large enough for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Even with other requirements such as the ADU must be less than 40% of the usable floor space of the principal dwelling, limits on lot coverage and setbacks it will be possible to construct a 3 bedroom garden suite or carriage suite almost everywhere, even on relatively small lots. Several details remain unclear: Will finished basements in principal dwellings be included in the usable floor area; will finished basements be permitted in garden suites in addition to one and half to two storey building height; will the 6.0m minimum building width apply to garden suites and carriage houses? All of these details will impact the maximum size of ADU that can be built on a lot, and the cumulative impact on neighbourhoods. Was it intended that the density of neighbourhoods, including Central Revelstoke where density is already high, will be virtually doubled by allowing 3 bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units everywhere? link

    Accessory Dwelling Units with up to 90 square metres of usable floor space are being proposed in all residential zones except mobile home zones. Ninety square metres (968 square feet) is large enough for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Even with other requirements such as the ADU must be less than 40% of the usable floor space of the principal dwelling, limits on lot coverage and setbacks it will be possible to construct a 3 bedroom garden suite or carriage suite almost everywhere, even on relatively small lots. Several details remain unclear: Will finished basements in principal dwellings be included in the usable floor area; will finished basements be permitted in garden suites in addition to one and half to two storey building height; will the 6.0m minimum building width apply to garden suites and carriage houses? All of these details will impact the maximum size of ADU that can be built on a lot, and the cumulative impact on neighbourhoods. Was it intended that the density of neighbourhoods, including Central Revelstoke where density is already high, will be virtually doubled by allowing 3 bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units everywhere?

    emf asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Emf, 

    The 90 sq. m maximum size (or 40% of the size of the principle dwelling, whichever is the lesser) is the current standard for secondary suites and has been applied to carriage and garden suites as well to ensure consistency in the regulations. The majority of secondary suites applied for are two bedroom at this size. 

    Finished floor space in a basement will be included in usable floor space calculations as per the definition of "Floor Space, Usable." Basements in garden / carriage suites will depend on how they are proposed and the plans would need to be reviewed by staff (i.e. are they designed as another dwelling unit? Do they comply with the regulations contained in Section 5.7? What is the intended use of the basement?). As per the proposed regulations in Section 5.7, garden suites (those that do not sit upon a garage) will be a maximum of 6 m and carriage suites (with a garage underneath) will be a maximum of 8 m, so long as they do not exceed the height of the principle dwelling. Current regulations in residential zones allow for 10 m maximum building height for principle dwellings, so this ensures that the secondary dwelling units do not exceed the height of principle buildings.

    Thank-you for the questions!

    Paul Simon 

  • Share Are the lot sizes reducing in the Big Eddy if so what would be the new lot size? on Facebook Share Are the lot sizes reducing in the Big Eddy if so what would be the new lot size? on Twitter Share Are the lot sizes reducing in the Big Eddy if so what would be the new lot size? on Linkedin Email Are the lot sizes reducing in the Big Eddy if so what would be the new lot size? link

    Are the lot sizes reducing in the Big Eddy if so what would be the new lot size?

    Leah Parker asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Leah, 

    There are two main changes that will impact lot sizes:

    1) Remove reference to "with and without community services" and instead have one standard minimum lot size in each residential zone. If a lot is on septic, like in the Big Eddy, servicing will need to be proven to be feasible at subdivision stage. 

    2) Reduce minimum lot sizes for R2 and R2A lots (many properties in the Big Eddy are zoned this) as the current lot sizes do not support infill development or party-wall subdivision for two family dwellings. This has been proposed to be reduced to 500 sq. m (250 sq. m for party wall subdivision). Please keep in mind that this is the minimum lot size - at subdivision stage, servicing studies may warrant larger lot sizes to accommodate septic servicing in areas without full municipal servicing like the Big Eddy. 

    If you have any other questions about a specific development project, please do not hesitate to contact Development Services. Thanks for the question!

    Paul Simon

  • Share Regarding 4.5 Within the Home Occupation Supplementary Regulation Section, a section has removed the term "mechanical equipment" and changed it to "industrial mechanical equipment" deemed necessary for home occupation... What will be the definition of Industrial Equipment vs Equipment? I worry this opens the door to more noise in a residential neighbourhood. For example a carpenter may say that his table saw isn't industrial there for he/she could run it 8 hours a day 1.5 metres from my property. Or possibly someone doing metal repair work from their garage... Will there be a full and exhaustive list of Personal Service Profession occupations listed in the bylaws? Aside from that the rest of the updates look good and are much needed. Thank you for your time and effort. on Facebook Share Regarding 4.5 Within the Home Occupation Supplementary Regulation Section, a section has removed the term "mechanical equipment" and changed it to "industrial mechanical equipment" deemed necessary for home occupation... What will be the definition of Industrial Equipment vs Equipment? I worry this opens the door to more noise in a residential neighbourhood. For example a carpenter may say that his table saw isn't industrial there for he/she could run it 8 hours a day 1.5 metres from my property. Or possibly someone doing metal repair work from their garage... Will there be a full and exhaustive list of Personal Service Profession occupations listed in the bylaws? Aside from that the rest of the updates look good and are much needed. Thank you for your time and effort. on Twitter Share Regarding 4.5 Within the Home Occupation Supplementary Regulation Section, a section has removed the term "mechanical equipment" and changed it to "industrial mechanical equipment" deemed necessary for home occupation... What will be the definition of Industrial Equipment vs Equipment? I worry this opens the door to more noise in a residential neighbourhood. For example a carpenter may say that his table saw isn't industrial there for he/she could run it 8 hours a day 1.5 metres from my property. Or possibly someone doing metal repair work from their garage... Will there be a full and exhaustive list of Personal Service Profession occupations listed in the bylaws? Aside from that the rest of the updates look good and are much needed. Thank you for your time and effort. on Linkedin Email Regarding 4.5 Within the Home Occupation Supplementary Regulation Section, a section has removed the term "mechanical equipment" and changed it to "industrial mechanical equipment" deemed necessary for home occupation... What will be the definition of Industrial Equipment vs Equipment? I worry this opens the door to more noise in a residential neighbourhood. For example a carpenter may say that his table saw isn't industrial there for he/she could run it 8 hours a day 1.5 metres from my property. Or possibly someone doing metal repair work from their garage... Will there be a full and exhaustive list of Personal Service Profession occupations listed in the bylaws? Aside from that the rest of the updates look good and are much needed. Thank you for your time and effort. link

    Regarding 4.5 Within the Home Occupation Supplementary Regulation Section, a section has removed the term "mechanical equipment" and changed it to "industrial mechanical equipment" deemed necessary for home occupation... What will be the definition of Industrial Equipment vs Equipment? I worry this opens the door to more noise in a residential neighbourhood. For example a carpenter may say that his table saw isn't industrial there for he/she could run it 8 hours a day 1.5 metres from my property. Or possibly someone doing metal repair work from their garage... Will there be a full and exhaustive list of Personal Service Profession occupations listed in the bylaws? Aside from that the rest of the updates look good and are much needed. Thank you for your time and effort.

    Downtown resident asked about 3 years ago

    Hello Downtown Resident, 

    Clause 5.6(2) restricts light industrial uses as a home occupation. Carpentry or metal repair, depending on the type of equipment used and scale of development could potentially fall within this category. Staff complete a full review at business license stage on a site-specific basis looking at factors such as setbacks, lot size, proximity of adjacent properties etc. 

    The intent of the reference to "industrial mechanical equipment" is to ensure that should minor equipment for agricultural pursuits be required, that it would not be restricted by the home occupation regulations. There is also a reference in 5.6(5) to ensure that the use of equipment is only permitted when it is demonstrated that offsite impacts can be mitigated. This will allow for enforcement and regulation of this type of operation. 

    A prescriptive list of "Personal Service Profession" is not included as it would limit flexibility for new and emerging business or entrepreneurial activities which are common for low-scale home occupations.

    Have a great week,

    Paul Simon

  • Share Are the sewers in the downtown/high school area up to increased use? We have had more than enough problems over the years, without increasing the load. on Facebook Share Are the sewers in the downtown/high school area up to increased use? We have had more than enough problems over the years, without increasing the load. on Twitter Share Are the sewers in the downtown/high school area up to increased use? We have had more than enough problems over the years, without increasing the load. on Linkedin Email Are the sewers in the downtown/high school area up to increased use? We have had more than enough problems over the years, without increasing the load. link

    Are the sewers in the downtown/high school area up to increased use? We have had more than enough problems over the years, without increasing the load.

    M’ers asked about 3 years ago

    Hi M'ers,

    The City's Engineering Department is currently undertaking a Liquid Waste Management Plan to ensure long term viability of our treatment plant. With any application submitted to Development Services, staff complete a review to ensure that all servicing complies with the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw. 

    Have a great week,

    Paul Simon