2014 March RAC Agenda by Angela Lund

RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING Open Meeting Agenda Date:

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Time:

1:00 pm

Location:

RDCK Board Room, 202 Lakeside Dr., Nelson, BC

Members:

Director Andrew Shadrack Director Garry Jackman Director John Kettle Director Larry Binks Director Ramona Faust Director Ron Mickel Director Hans Cunningham Director Walter Popoff Director Gordon Zaitsoff Director Paul Peterson Director Andy Davidoff

In Attendance:

Sangita Sudan Joe Chirico Uli Wolf Angela Lund Brian Carruthers

Directors will have the opportunity to participate in the meeting electronically. Proceedings are open to the public. Pages 1.

CALL TO ORDER

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: The agenda for the March 19, 2014 meeting be adopted as circulated.

DELEGATIONS

No Delegates 4.

PLANNING & BUILDING 4.1

BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - WEBER

8 - 11

File #: 3135-20-G-707-5685-975 BP3339 6085 Portco Rico Ymir Road, Ymir, BC (Douglas Harry Weber) Area G i) The Committee Report dated February 25, 2014 from Lee Voykin, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 3, District Lot 1238, Kootenay District, Plan 18469(Weber), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 6085 Porto Rico Ymir Road, Electoral Area G , currently owned by Douglas Harry Weber, legally described as Lot 3, District Lot 1238, Kootenay District, Plan 18469 , and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.2

BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - MARTIN File #: 3135-20-I-709-8956-010 BP2336 1701 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek, BC (Tatjana Elizabeth Martin) Area I i) The Committee Report dated February 11, 2014 from Lee Voykin, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 2, District Lot 7455, Kootenay District, Plan 6202(Martin), has been received.

12 - 15

RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 1701 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek, Electoral Area I, currently owned by Tatjana Elizabeth Martin, legally described as Lot 2, District Lot 7455, Kootenay District, Plan 6202 , and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenayon normal working days during regular office hours. 4.3

BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION - MORELLI

16 - 20

File #: 3135-20-I-709-9398-215 BP3220 2181 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek (Angelo Raffaele Morelli) Area I i) The Committee Report dated February 12, 2014 from Lee Voykin, Building/Plumbing Official, re: Building Bylaw Contravention for property legally described as Lot 44, District Lot 8640, Kootenay District, Plan 4923(Morelli), has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to fiie a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 2181 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek, Electoral Area I, currently owned by Angelo Raffaele Morelli, legally described as Lot 44, District Lot 8640, Kootenay District, Plan 4923, and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours. 4.4

ELECTORAL AREA G COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW File #: 5100-20 G - Area G OCP

21 - 54

Community Plan Review Area G i) The Committee Report dated February 21, 2014 from Meeri Durand, Planning Manager, re: Electoral Area G Community Plan Review, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the RDCK Board endorse the Project Charter for the Electoral Area G Comprehensive Land Use Bylaw enabling review of existing policy and regulations to more accurately reflect changed circumstances in the community and as required every five years under Part 26 of the Local Government Act. 4.5

AINSWORTH TOWN-SITE LOCAL AREA PLAN

55 - 86

File #: 5100-20 D AINSWORTH Community Plan Review Area D i) The Committee Report dated February 21, 2014 from Meeri Durand, Planning Manager, re: Ainsworth Town-site Local Area Plan, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the RDCK Board endorse the Project Charter for the Ainsworth Town-site Local Area Plan enabling reveiw of existing policy and regulations to more accurately reflect changed circumstances in the community and as required every five years under Part 26 of the Local Government Act. 4.6

ZONING BYLAW 1675 - TEXT AMENDMENTS File #: 4600-20-Z1401 Zoning Bylaw 1675 - Text Amendments i) The Committee Report dated February 17, 2014 from Greg Sauer, Planner, re: General Housekeeping Text amendment to Zoning Bylaw 1675, has been received.

87 - 114

RECOMMENDATION: Be it resolved that Regional District of Central Kootenay Bylaw No. 2385, 2014be given FIRST READING and forwarded to PUBLIC HEARING to amend the Bylaw 1675, 2004 with respect to various housekeeping text amendments and to add the "Campground" use to the Tourist Commercial (C3) zone along with relevant development regulations. 4.7

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS POLICY

115 - 134

File #: 4950-30-GMP_RAC_REPORTS_POLICY Geotechnical Reports (Internal& External Use) Policy i) The Committee Report dated March 4, 2014 from Cory Davis, Planning Technician, re: Geotechnical Reports (Internal & External) Policy, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt a policy pertaining to securities of geotechnical reports and hazard risk assessments; and further, to incorporate fees for printing off and photocopying reports. 4.8

IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL MARIHUANA REGULATIONS File #: 4800-20-MMG Implementation of Regulations i) The Committee Report dated March 6, 2014 from Megan Squires, Planner, and Meeri Durand, Planning Manager, re: Implementation of Medical Marihuana Regulations, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the RDCK Board move forward with proposed general regulations amendments to address licensed medical marihuana production facilities and licensed medical marihuana research facilities within applicable development reglations in the RDCK; and further, that the RDCK move forward with proposed implementation of development permit areas for licensed medical marihuana production and research facilities within applicable official community plans within the RDCK.

135 - 154

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 5.1

COMMUNITY WORKS FUNDS APPLICATION - KOOTENAY REGIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

155 - 182

File #: 1850-20-CW-89 Building Upgrade Project i) The Committee Report dated March 3, 2014 from Nicole Ward, Environmental Services Coordinator, re: Community Works Fund Application - Kootenay Regional Association for Community Living (KRACL) Building Upgrade, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the Community Works Fund application for the Kootenay Regional Association for Community Living (KRACL) building upgrade project in the amount of $10,000 BE APPROVED for disbursement from Community Works Funds allocatied to Electoral Area C for the year 2014. 5.2

COMMUNITY WORKS FUNDS APPLICATION - NORTH CANYON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT File #: 1850-20-CW-90 Water System Upgrades i) The Committee Report dated February 6, 2014 from Nicole Ward, Environmental Services Coordinator, re: Community Works Funds Application - North Canyon Improvement District Water System Upgrades, has been received. RECOMMENDATION: That the Community Works Funds application for the North Canyon Improvement District Water System Improvements in the amount of $39,173.43 BE APPROVED for disbursement from Community Works Funds allocated to Electoral Area B for the year 2014.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

No Items

183 - 192

RURAL ADMINISTRATION 7.1

DISCUSSION ITEM - BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR APPROVING NEW SMALL WATER SYSTEMS File #: 0270-20-SWS Critique: Best Practice Guidelines i) The email dated March 5, 2014 from Director Shadrack, Electoral Area D, re: Critique: Best Practice Guidelines for Approving New Small Water Systems, has been received.

ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION: The meeting be adjourned at ______

193 - 205

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY

NOTICE ON TITLE REQUEST DATE OF REPORT:

February 12, 2014

DATE & TYPE OF MEETING:

March 19, 2014 Rural Affairs Committee

AUTHOR:

Lee Voykin

FILE: REGISTERED OWNERS: CIVIC ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

3135-20-G707.5685.975 BP3339 Douglas Harry Weber

6085 Porto Rico Ymir Road Lot 3 District Lot 1238 Kootenay District Plan 18469

SECTION 1: BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION To carry out the work in compliance with the Building Code

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS October 30, 2008

Stop Work order posted at the above address on the construction of a cabin. Provided a field inspection notice requesting a building permit for construction,

including a site plan and construction drawings; copy of BC Safety Authority electrical permit and copy ofseptic approval; November?. 2008

Stop Work order letter forwarded to homeowner;

April 29, 2009

Building Permit 3339 obtained for residential renovation (cabin renovation);

February 29, 2012 May 10, 2012

Expiry notice sent;

February 8, 2013

Building official attempted to contact homeowner, phone not in service;

February 13, 2014

No further contact. No inspections to date;

Final expiry notice sent;

Page 2

SECTIONS: DETAILED ANALYSIS a. Financial Considerations - Cost and Resource Allocations:

In keeping with past practice, and further to Building Bylaw Section 22, the following estimate of penalties and costs are provided: Notice on Title Removal Fee

750.00

RDCK Building Permit Fee based on construction remaining or total construction in

302.00

the case of a Stop Work Order

Penalty as per Clause 22.3 of Building Bylaw (25% of the Building Permit Fee) Minimum $200.00

200.00

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws): 1. Section 57 Community Charter;

2. BC Building Code; 3. RDCK Policy No. 400-01-03 Action for Compliance - Notice on Title Procedures; 4. Building Bylaw Contravention - This contravenes RDCK Building Bylaw 2200,4.3 It is the full and sole responsibility of the owner (and where the owner is acting through a representative, the representative) to carry out the work, in respect of which a permit is issued under this Bylaw, in compliance with the Building Code, this Bylaw and other applicable enactments respecting safety.

SECTION 4: OPTIONS & PROS /CONS ^ 1. Do not accept recommendation as presented; the property will remain in contravention of the BC

Building Code and RDCK Building Bylaw. 2. Accept recommendation as presented - file Notice on Title.

Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 6085 Porto Rico Ymir Road Electoral Area G , currently owned by Douglas Harry Weber, legally described as Lot 3 District Lot 1238 Kootenay District Plan 18469 , and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normal working days during regular office hours.

Respectfully submitted, ' ^l/

Lee Voykin, Building Official

CpNCURRENCE Initials: CAO General Manager of Development Services

Building Manager

Regional District of Central Kootenay Box 590, 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC V1L 5R4 Web: www.rdck.bc.ca

Jelephone (250) 352-6665 Email: info@rdck.bc.ca BC Toll Free 1-800-268-7325 Fax: (250) 352-9300

BY REGISTERED MAIL Date February 26,2014 File: 3135-20-G-707.5685.975 BP3339 REGISTERED OWNERS: Douglas Harry Weber PO Box 228 YmirBCVOGZKO SUBJECT: Bylaw contravention on property legally described as: Lot 3 District Lot 1238 Kootenay District Plan 18469 CIVIC ADDRESS: 6085 Porto Rico-Ymir Road The Rural Affairs Committee members (RAC) hereby invite you to attend and address their meeting. The next meeting date is as follows: Date: March 19, 2014 Time: Delegations will be received beginning at 1:00 pm. Please enter the Boardroom and be

seated in the gallery seating to wait until your item is called to be dealt with by the Committee. (Maximum 15 minutes for each delegation)

Location: RDCK Boardroom [entrance at front of building) 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC At this time committee members will consider making a recommendation to the Regional District Board

to direct the Secretary to file a Notice, in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter, against the above noted property. Please advise in advance whether you and/ora representative, who may be legal council, will be present

at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting by contacting the Legislative and Committee Clerk at 250 352 8160 or by email alund@rdck.bc.ca no less than 3 business days prior to the meeting.

Should you prefer not to attend the RAC meeting and have no objection to the filing of the subject Notice, please sign and return the attached statement in the stamped, self-addressed envelope. All owners named on the statement must sign this statement. This will allow the secretary to proceed with

filing of the Notice against your property in the Land Title Office. A copy of the Notice will be forwarded for your records.

A copy of the building official's report relative to your property is attached for your reference, as well as a copy of Section 57 of the Community Charter. In order to avoid a Notice on Title, you must contact the building department to resolve concerns noted in the building official's report no later than 2 business days prior to the meeting. For specific building inspection inquiries respecting the above, you may contact the writer at either 1-800-268-7325 or 250352-8156. Yours truly,

Building Official Enclosures CC: Electoral Area G Director

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY FILING OF SECTION 57 NOTICE

Building / Plumbing Official Regional District of Central Kootenay

Box 590 202 Lakeside Drive NELSON, BC

V1L5R4

I, Douglas Harry Weber, hereby confirm that I have no objection to the Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay filing a Notice in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter against our/my property legally described as Lot 3

District Lot 1238 Kootenay District Plan 18469.

DATE Douglas Harry Weber

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY

NOTICE ON TITLE REQUEST DATE OF REPORT:

February 11, 2014

DATE & TYPE OF MEETING:

March 19, 2014 Rural Affairs Committee

AUTHOR:

Lee Voykin, Building Official

FILE:

3135-20-1-709.8956.010 BP2336

REGISTERED OWNERS:

Tatjana Elizabeth Martin

CIVIC ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

1701 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek Lot 2, District Lot 7455, Kootenay District, Plan 6202

SECTION 1: BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION To carry out the work in compliance with the Building Code.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS November 20, 2007

! March 18, 2008 I September 1, 2010 September 8, 2010 September 15, 2010

Building Permit 2336 issued for a garage; Siting and footing inspection completed; Notice of Pending expiry letter sent; Homeowner sent email requesting an inspection; Framing inspection completed. Advised a re-inspection is required and P. Eng. stamped beam ad truss specs required;

December 2, 2010 January 4,2011 November 2, 2011

I November 19, 2011 I December 5, 2011 Decembers, 2011

First Expiry letter sent; Final Expiry letter sent; Expiry Notice sent; Building permit expired; Final Expiry Notice sent; Framing inspection completed. Advised a re-inspection is required and P. Eng. Stamped beam and truss specs required

November 1, 2012

Failed final inspection completed. Advised a re-inspection is required and P.Eng. Stamped beam ad truss specs required and also advised the building permit has

April 26, 2013

expired and a new permit must be applied for within the next 14 days; Building Secretary spoke to Tatjana's husband and advised that the RDCK requires truss and beam specs. Tatjana's husband advised that he will get in touch with

Selkirk Truss and forward paperwork to RDCK; July 22, 2013

Building Secretary spoke to Tatjana. Tatjana advised that she will forward truss and beam specs;

January 9,2014

Left message requesting truss and beam specs.

SECTION 3: DETAILED ANALYSIS a. Financial Considerations - Cost and Resource Allocations:

In keeping with past practice, and further to Building Bylaw Section 22, the following estimate of penalties and costs are provided: Notice on Title Removal Fee RDCK Building Permit Fee based on construction remaining or total construction in

750.00 50.00

the case of a Stop Work Order

Penalty as per Clause 22.3 of Building Bylaw (25% of the Building Permit Fee) Minimum $200.00 12

200.00

Page 2

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws): 1. Section 57 Community Charter;

2. BC Building Code; 3. RDCK Policy No. 400-01-03 Action for Compliance - Notice on Title Procedures;

Building Bylaw Contravention - This contravenes RDCK Building Bylaw 2200, 4.3 It is the full and sole responsibility of the owner (and where the owner is acting through a representative, the representative) to carry out the work, in respect of which a permit is issued under this Bylaw, in compliance with the Building Code, this Bylaw and other applicable enactments respecting safety.

SECTION 4: OPTIONS & PROS / CONS 1. Do not accept recommendation as presented; the property will remain in contravention of the BC

Building Code and RDCK Building Bylaw. 2. Accept recommendation as presented - file Notice on Title.

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATION(S) TO THE BOARD The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to file a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamloops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board relating to land at 1701 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek Electoral Area I, currently owned byTatjana Elizabeth Martin, legally described as Lot 2, District Lot 7455, Kootenay District, Plan 6202 , and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenayon normal working days during regular office hours. Respectfully submitted,

/^ 14,,Lee Voykin, Building Official CONCURRENCE Initials: CAO

â&#x20AC;˘

General Manager of Development Services

Building Managejp^'7;

Regional District of Central Kootenay Box 590, 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC V1L 5R4 .Telephone (250) 352-6665 BC Toll Free 1-800-268-7325

Web: www.rdck.bc.ca Email: info@rdck.bc.ca

Fax: (250)352-9300

BY REGISTERED MAIL

Date February 26,2014 File: 3135-20-1-709.8956.010 BP2336

REGISTERED OWNERS:

Tatjana Elizabeth Martin 1701 Pass Creek Road Castlegar BC V1N 4S5

SUBJECT:

Bylaw contravention on property legally described as: Lot 2 District Lot

7455 Kootenay District Plan 6202 CIVIC ADDRESS:

1701 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek

The Rural Affairs Committee members (RAC) hereby invite you to attend and address their meeting. The next meeting date is as follows: Date: March 19, 2014 Time: Delegations will be received beginning at 1:00 pm. Please enter the Boardroom and be

seated in the gallery seating to wait until your item is called to be dealt with by the Committee. (Maximum 15 minutes for each delegation)

Location: RDCK Boardroom (entrance at front of building) 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC At this time committee members will consider making a recommendation to the Regional District Board to direct the Secretary to file a Notice, in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter, against the above noted property. Please advise in advance whether you and/ora representative, who may be legal council, will be present

at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting by contacting the Legislative and Committee Clerk at 250 352 8160 or by email alund@rdck.bc.ca no less than 3 business days prior to the meeting.

filing of the Notice against your property in the Land Title Office. A copy of the Notice will be forwarded for your records.

Building Official Enclosures CC: Electoral Area I Director

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY FILING OF SECTION 57 NOTICE

Building / Plumbing Official Regional District of Central Kootenay

Box 590 202 Lakeside Drive NELSON, BC

V1L5R4

I, Tatjana Elizabeth Martin, hereby confirm that I have no objection to the Secretary of

the Regional District of Central Kootenay filing a Notice in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter against our/my property legally described as Lot 2

District Lot 7455 Kootenay District Plan 6202.

DATE Tatjana Elizabeth Martin

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY

NOTICE ON TITLE REQUEST DATE OF REPORT: DATE & TYPE OF MEETING:

February 12, 2014 March 19, 2014 Rural Affairs Committee Lee Voykin, Building Official

AUTHOR: FILE:

3135-20-1-709.9398.215 BP3220

REGISTERED OWNERS:

Angela Raffaele Morelli

CIVIC ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

2181 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek

Lot 44 District Lot 8640 Kootenay District Plan 4923

SECTION 1: BUILDING BYLAW CONTRAVENTION To carry out the work in compliance with the Building Code i i

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS September 9, 2008 October 22, 2008 October 24, 2008

Stop Work order posted at the above noted address on an addition;

Building Official left message advising of the stop work order; Building permit 3220 issued for an accessory building (wood shelter) to Kyle Hryniw and Jennifer Calestagne-Morelli;

January 19,2011

Change of ownership to Angela Raffaele Morelli;

August 22,2011 October 24, 2011

Expiry Notice sent;

November 7, 2011

February 15, 2012

Building permit expired; Final Expiry Notice sent; Building Official completed a siting and footing inspection. Also a framing inspection was completed. The following deficiencies were noted - Framing is not as per plan, roof joints must be 2x6 and beam must be 3-ply 2x10 and wood wall sheathing must be a minimum 6" above grade. A re-inspection is required. The

building official also advised the owner that building permit 3220 has expired and a new permit is required to complete the construction

February 27, 2012

Building Official spoke to previous owner Kyle Hryniw (son in law, previous

owner). Kyle advised that a new building permit will be applied for and repair work to follow in the summer time;

I January 30,2013

Building Official sent email to Kyle Hryniw advising that building permit 3220 has expired and a new permit is required at a cost of $50.00;

October 7, 2013

Final Expiry Notice sent; Kyle Hryniw phoned to let us know that he is in the process of applying for a new permit and should have it by October 11, 2013;

January 15,2014

Building Official drove by site and it appears no deficiencies were corrected and a

August 20,2013

new Building Permit has not been applied for;

-0

su CPO

N»

':.!:':

a. FinandaECorssJdergtiOEiS-- and

in keeping with past practice, and further to Building Bylaw Section 22, the following estimate of penalties and costs are provided: 750.00

Notice on Title Removal Fee RDCK Building Permit Fee based on construction remaining or total construction in

50.00

the case of a Stop Work Order

Penaity as per Clause 22.3 of BuJiding Bylaw (25% of the Building Permit Fee) Minimum $200.00

200.00

for

1. Section 57 Community Charter;

2. BC Building Code; 3. RDCK Policy No. 400-01-03 Action for Compliance -- Notice on Titie Procedures;

4. Building Bylaw Contravention - This contravenes ROCK Building Byiaw 2200,4.3 it is the fui! and sole responsibility of the owner (and where the owner Is acting through a representative, the representative) to carry out the work, in respect of which a permit is issued under this Byiaw, in

compliance with the Building Code, this Bylaw and other applicable enactments respecting safety.

1. Do not accept recommendation as presented; the property wiii remain in contravention of the BC

Building Code and RDCK Building Byiaw. 2. Accept recommendation as presented - file Notice on Title.

The Secretary of the Regional District of Central Kootenay be directed to fiie a Notice at the Land Title Office in Kamioops, British Columbia, stating that a resolution has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter by the Regional District Board reiating to land at Pass Creek Road, Creek Electoral Area I, currently owned by EVSorelli , !ega!!y described as lot 44 lot Kootenay District Plan , and that further information respecting the resolution may be inspected at the office of the Regional District of Central Kootenay on normai working days during regular office hours.

Respectfully submitted,

vCC V^/lV'

lee Voykln, Building Offidsi SBI%ISES?: ^

CAO General Manager

Building Manaj

Lv^jopment Services

Regional District of Central Kootenay Box 590, 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC V1L 5R4 /Telephone (250) 352-6665

Web: www.rdck.bc.ca

Email: info@rdck.bc.ca

Fax: (250) 352-9300

BC Toll Free 1-800-268-7325

BY REGISTERED MAIL

Date February 26,2014 File: 3135-20-1-709.9398.215 BP3220

REGISTERED OWNERS:

Angela Raffaele Morelli 2181 Pass Creek Road Castlegar BC V1N 4S9

SUBJECT:

Bylaw contravention on property legally described as: Lot 44 District Lot

8640 Kootenay District Plan 4923 CIVIC ADDRESS:

2181 Pass Creek Road, Pass Creek

The Rural Affairs Committee members (RAC) hereby invite you to attend and address their meeting. The next meeting date is as follows:

Date: March 19, 2014 Time: Delegations will be received beginning at 1:00 pm. Please enter the Boardroom and be

seated in the gallery seating to wait until your item is called to be dealt with by the Committee. (Maximum 15 minutes for each delegation)

Location: RDCK Boardroom (entrance at front of building) 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC At this time committee members will consider making a recommendation to the Regional District Board

to direct the Secretary to file a Notice, in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter, against the above noted property. Please advise in advance whether you and/or a representative, who may be legal council, will be present

at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting by contacting the Legislative and Committee Clerk at 250 352 8160 or by email alund@rdck.bc.ca no less than 3 business days prior to the meeting.

filing of the Notice against your property in the Land Title Office. A copy of the Notice will be forwarded for your records.

Building Official Enclosures CC: Electoral Area I Director

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY FILING OF SECTION 57 NOTICE

Building / Plumbing Official Regional District of Central Kootenay

Box 590 202 Lakeside Drive NELSON,BC

V1L5R4

I, Angela Raffaele Morelli, hereby confirm that I have no objection to the Secretary of

the Regional District of Central Kootenay filing a Notice in the Land Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter against our/my property legally described as Lot

44 District Lot 8640 Kootenay District Plan 4923.

DATE Angela Raffaele Morelli

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

From: Andy Shadrack [mailto:ashadra@telus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:19 PM To: John Kettle Cc: Hans Cunningham; Ramona Faust; Garry Jackman Subject: Critique: Best Practice Guidelines for Approving New Small Water Systems

Kaslo Wednesday, March 5th Chair, below please find a critique of the UBCM's Small Water System Working Group paper entitled The Best Practice Guidelines for Approving New Small Water Systems. With the assistance of Directors Faust and Jackman this critique is presented to you for consideration by the RDCK Board, with the recommendation that the Board ask the UBCM Executive to circulate it to all Regional Districts and EA Directors in the province. I would also request that the Rural Affairs Committee make an informal review prior to the Board considering it. The financial implications of the RDCK taking on responsibility for the design, development and long term management of all the current and future proposed Nano (2 - 4 connections) and some Micro (5-24 connections) water systems is incalculable. What each Municipal Director at the Board needs to consider, if this download were to come to pass, is that a much larger proportion of rural property tax assessment, much like the province's tax revenue requirement for Health Care, would have to be used to manage water systems, and therefore would not be available for other rural services and joint municipal-rural services. ************************************************ Critique of The Best Practice Guidelines for Approving New Small Water Systems. In the fall of 2010 the UBCM Executive struck the Small Water Systems Working Group (SWSWG) as a means to try to find common ground in what had become a stand-off over water treatment in small water systems throughout British Columbia. The issues were: Lack of orderly development: A refusal to grant construction permits by Health Authorities, prohibiting infrastructure improvement, until expensive treatment systems were installed. Paradoxically some poor water tests originated as a result of old and decaying water delivery systems or poor headwater protection but inflexibility from Health Authorities prevented communities from addressing these issues by requiring them to install expensive treatment infrastructure before fixing the distribution and water quality intake issues. Scale: The lack of flexible solutions for small systems, wells, consortiums and small subdivisions.

193

Fairness: Lack of equality between what was being required of Nano (2-4 connections), Micro (5-24 connections) and Small (25-124 connections) systems versus requirements for government facilities such as hospitals and schools which have single barrier or on-site treatment plants and restaurants. Different standards within the provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health authorities regarding Point-of-Entry (POE) and Point-of-Use (POU) treatment for small water systems where central treatment was cost prohibitive, and a consistent refusal to cede that legal liability could be transferred to the individual homeowner where no legal water purveyor existed. Testing requirements: Without provincial government support, testing requirements for Nano, Micro and some Small systems could reach upwards of $14,000 per year. To address some of these issues the SWSWG created a sub-committee that has reported out with a document entitled The Best Practice Guidelines for Approving New Small Water Systems. It begins by explaining that: "...decisions...made 20 or 30 years ago when the system was created, may limit the ability of the system to provide safe and reliable drinking water...[and they] have not had the organizational or financial resources to meet new requirements" (p 4). At page 6 the document asks: What is a "small water system"? The text then goes on to state: "These BPGs have been created to address issues that arise with the approval of a new "small water system", meaning any new, small drinking water system serving more than a single residence." The footnote to this text then goes on to state: The Drinking Water Protection Regulation defines a small system as "a water supply system that serves up to 500 individuals during any 24 hour period". There is currently some consideration being given to potential changes to this definition. While the SWSWG, in its recommendations paper, uses an appropriate concept for better defining sub-classes of small water system, including Nano and Micro, it falls short in addressing how these two sub-categories are currently organized and governed in BC, and in discussing how their maintenance and operations could be managed in the future.

194

Under the jurisdiction of the Interior Health Authority (IHA), for example, there are some 1,900 identified systems - of which 1,800 are designated small under current Drinking Water Protection Regulations (DWPR) (Norlin email, November 29th, 2013). In an earlier discussion at the December 2010 SWSWG meeting the then head of IHA's Health Protection branch identified 1,100 water systems as having 13 connections or less. In accordance with recommendations proposed by SWSWG, that means that 57.9% of all systems under IHA jurisdiction would be either Nano (2-4 connections) or Micro (5-24 connections), and according to the IHA's latest analysis 94.7% of the systems they have identified are designated Small. With this kind of statistical assessment the first question that might arise is to ask whether the IHA area is unique in having identified this number of small water systems. According to the 2011 Canada Census, eight Regional Districts have population densities of less than 1 residence per square kilometer, of which 6 are in the north or on the northern coast, 1 in the central interior and 1 on Vancouver Island. At an Electoral Area and District Municipality organizational level, some 92 jurisdictions have densities of less than 1; 29 less than .1, 17 less than .2 and 23 less than .5. An additional 45 jurisdictions have densities of less than 5 per square kilometer. The sum of these represents 68.1% of all Electoral Areas in the province. Clearly then the Interior Health Authority experience is not an isolated one. In the summer of 2012 the planning departments within the three Regional Districts of the Association of Kootenay Boundary Local Governments (AKBLG) were contacted to determine the typical size of subdivisions built over the last decade. Ninety-four percent of all subdivision approvals were for 2 to 9 lots, 4% for 10 to 24 and 2% for 25 or over. Further, in the summer of 2013, the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK), as an example, reported that it had only approved one subdivision over 10 lots in that calendar year. So the second question that has to be asked of the Guidelines is why, if this is a go forward document, would it also not begin by determining the size of subdivisions being built in Electoral Areas across BC. Without that kind of analysis it is impossible to propose solutions, when one obviously does not know the scope and extent of the problem being faced? In Area D of the Regional District Central Kootenay (RDCK), as an example, there are in excess of 18 unincorporated communities, sub-divisions and hamlets scattered across approximately 5,786 square kilometres. The population density, at .244 persons per square kilometre and .175 residences per square kilometre, is denser than most of the remote and rural northern BC Electoral Areas. The largest water system, however, outside of one served by the Village of Kaslo, has only 52 working connections. Here it is also noted that the Guidelines do not discuss the range in size of lots currently being used for residential and recreational residences. In some parts of the Kootenays there is a proliferation of small property parcels, whereas in other remote and rural areas there are large ranch-style holdings. It will therefore be almost impossible for local government, with limited to no powers (and other agencies), to encourage landowners on thousands of remote and rural

195

parcels to consolidate themselves into an urban or suburban model of water treatment and delivery. Yet we read under the heading of Long Range Land Use Planning at p 12, under "How the BPG addresses the issue" the following:: By concentrating development in specific areas, these plans should effectively eliminate the proliferation of small, unsustainable water systems. Such an approach to the existence of and creation of future Nano and Micro small water systems, rather than focusing on affordable ways for householders to treat their water, simplistically proposes to eliminate (their words) proliferation of all small and unsustainable water systems effectively writing off the experience of 68.1% of all the Electoral Areas in the province. This sentiment is underscored by the immediately previous sentence which states that: Local governments can significantly improve the sustainability of development by establishing long range land use plans that direct and concentrate future developments to identified "village" areas and protect rural areas How, one must ask, will Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) Approving Officers and Regional Districts deal with citizens who own lots outside of these "residential zones"? Are the Guidelines proposing that the owners of pre-existing residential lots in remote rural areas of British Columbia will no longer be allowed to build on these lots, even as vacation properties, unless they only have individual wells or surface water intakes? Even earlier in this section, again at page 12, is the statement that: "Very small communities are up against multiple challenges with respect to water service provision, including financial constraints, an inability to achieve economies of scale, and difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified staff". Beyond the cost of drilling a well or installing an intake, building a distribution box and laying a pipe, what is it that constrains a Nano and Micro system...indeed all small systems? Where are the economies of scale applied in large systems? It is the added cost of treatment and more recently improving the treatment of the water. With larger systems the more people on them, the lower the per household cost of treating the water with a centralized system. Few, if any, of these Nano and Micro systems, can afford to recruit staff, let alone retain them. In contrast to large systems, Nano and Micro systems in particular are often a loose agglomeration of family, friends and neighbours, in which there is usually a common intake, distribution box and possibly a main line. Spur lines, especially once they reach large rural properties, are the sole responsibility of the property owner. Further, unlike many large urban connections on smaller systems, less than 10% of the water intake is for human consumption. Treating water outside of the residence or residences on a property makes absolutely no sense and is cost prohibitive. Further complicating matters in many remote and rural areas of BC, non-

196

resident ownership is now sometimes in excess of 50% of the properties, as former permanent residences are now used primarily for recreation and as vacation rentals. Thus, beyond the lack of economies of scale is added the issue of lack of permanent governance as well. Paramount must be the question that in the absence of a truly collective entity and funds to sustain it, is there anything that can be done to improve water quality and potability in the home? The only response of the Guidelines is to say, on page 12: Under these types of plans, most new developments would, by design, be serviced via the expansion of an existing community water system, or by individual wells/lake intakes. If a new water system were to be warranted, it would be (or would have the potential to be) relatively large and therefore, have a better chance at being sustainable. This kind of response is likely appropriate where the density of residences is 5 per square kilometer and higher, and where subdivision growth and infilling next to urban communities is the experience. It does not address, however, the kind of response needed in remote and rural BC where very small subdivisions, hamlets and communities are scattered across the landscape and separated by mountain passes, etc, etc. In some of these communities a variety of water systems arise around several streams, a well or lake intake, as there is no one system that can meet the entire community's needs. The initial decision to build small discrete water systems clustered around a small stream or well is, in and of itself, a sustainable action, in that no single water source is then tapped out by a "municipal style water supply" built for the whole community. Rather, Nano and Micro systems are designed to consume discrete amounts of water and are much more easily managed during a drought than a community-wide system from a single small water source. Thus, again, the Guidelines do not appropriately look at geography and source supply availability when it comes to Nano and Micro systems, and yet these are the majority of small systems in, for example, the IHA jurisdiction. It also fails to ask the question: if 94% of the approved subdivisions over the last decade are for nine lots or fewer, what impact will banning or discouraging the building of subdivisions of less than, say, twenty-five lots have on the rural housing industry? Is it even legal to say that subdivisions cannot be built below a certain size? And/or do we only want a proliferation of single wells and single lot water intakes below twenty-five lot subdivisions? Fortunately, as far back as the 1930's, an alternative to use of mass disinfection of the water supply was developed, so that today individual residences can either treat their water whole house or at a single point of consumption. Known as Point-of-Entry (POE) and Point-of-Use (POU), the only achievable economy of scale would come in the bulk buying of each treatment unit. These household treatment systems are relatively easy to install by a certified plumber, or by someone who maintains their own water system, and simple to maintain with filter cartridge and bulb replacement specifications readily available. This brings treatment options to the household level - an essential ingredient where no legal entity and/or true collective water purveyor exists.

197

Sadly, after nearly nine years of legally allowing these systems to exist under the DWPR, only 14 agreements for their use apparently exist province-wide. One agreement signed in September, 2013 does, for the first time, acknowledge the role to be played by individual property owners and households in operating and maintaining these individual treatment systems. As their use becomes more widespread, it is anticipated that small rural service companies may arise that would allow rural and remote homeowners to contract their maintenance for a small fee. This would be much like the septic pumping services that have arisen around the province. The question remains, however: are we simply going to legislate and regulate Nano and Micro systems out of existence or are we going to allow individual property owners and households living on or desirous of building such systems the right to be responsible for making their own water inside their homes potable? As stated earlier nearly 60% of the identified small water systems in the IHA area are Nano or Micro and this fact, when coupled to the knowledge that 94% of all rural subdivisions being built in south east BC are nine lots or less, should give cause to ponder what is being proposed in the Guidelines document. Further, many small water system users are already fearful of contacting Health Authorities, whom they perceive as being authoritarian, unhelpful and obstructive, when trying to find affordable ways of improving water quality and potability. In this context the Guidelines, rather than supporting taxpayers, come across as being designed to divvy up how various provincial ministries, agencies and local governments will deny landowners, developers and homeowners easy-to-understand regulations when building small water systems: "...at each of these points, regulating authorities have the ability to withhold approval if certain conditions are not met.â&#x20AC;? Considering the fact that many local governments have subdivision bylaws which require proof of potable water, this statement is unnecessarily threatening. Trust and fairness will not be achieved under any matrix of responsibilities, as long as a health engineer and/or drinking water officer retain the absolute power to arbitrarily overrule the reasoned decision of a homeowner, developer and water purveyor. Clearly there is a need to be able to send permit disputes and water treatment requirements to some form of mediation and arbitration by a body set up to protect the public interest from arbitrary and capricious decisions. In subsequently reviewing specific sections of the Guidelines it is noted that Appendix A of the SWSWG UBCM Recommendations Paper to the BC provincial government specifically states that Nano (2-4 connections) systems will be exempt from most Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) requirements and all Water Utility Act requirements, and that these systems cannot become a Water User Community and will have no financial oversight from other agencies. Micro (5-24 connections) systems would be exempt from some DWPA requirements, but all Water Utility Act and Strata Property Act requirements would apply, and Water User Community requirements under the Water Act could apply where applicable. Page 12: Local governments are given eight responsibilities, Health Authorities one, Comptroller of Water Rights one, Provincial Approving Officers two and Ministry of Community Services none. This begs the question as to whether or not the province will be

198

providing local governments with the financial resources, on an ongoing basis, to take on these additional responsibilities from the Health Authorities and others for all Nano and some Micro systems. Page 14: the text states: Building bylaws create an opportunity for a formal point of contact with local governments, which could result in fewer small water systems being developed "under the radar"...The building bylaw, therefore gives local governments an opportunity to impose design and construction standards for new water systems even if subdivision is not involved This statement transfers the onus for design control and construction standards from the Health Authority to local government, when the relationship should be between the developer/builder/homeowner and the Health Authority. Local government can adopt guidelines developed by Health Authorities, however the usual reference point by local government with regard issuance of building permits requires the developer/homeowner to provide proof of Health Authority or Comptroller of Water rights approval. Why change this? Page 15: Local governments are given six responsibilities, Health Authorities one, Comptroller of Water Rights none, Provincial Approving Officers two and Ministry of Community Services none. This again begs the question as to whether or not the province will be providing local governments with the financial resources, on an ongoing basis, to take on these additional responsibilities from the Health Authorities and others for all Nano and some Micro systems. Further, with regard requests for local government to adopt zoning in all areas, it should be noted that in Electoral Areas the public has the right under the Local Government Act to refuse Official Community Plans and Zoning. While approving officers may consider the public interest in approving new subdivisions in such areas, there is no guidance on dealing with existing systems and their need to upgrade their systems in an affordable manner. Page 18: the text states: While health authorities oversee the design of all new water systems and the Comptroller of Water Rights oversees (in conjunction with the health authority) the design of all new private utilities, not all local governments have up-to-date design standards for community water systems In the preceding sentence the text also states: Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for existing small water systems to have issues due to substandard design and construction practices. It has to be asked again: why are local governments now being tasked with taking up an issue and responsibility that has, up until now, been the jurisdiction of Health Authorities and the Comptroller of Water Rights? The design and construction standards of the day, whether undertaken by professionals and/or knowledgeable lay persons, were the design and construction

199

practices of the day. Where subsequent health needs have been verified, action to upgrade as replacement of infrastructure is undertaken is merited. This, especially for Nano and Micro systems, is likely to only happen if access to capital funding is made available to assist these systems in being upgraded. This constant pressure to create higher and higher standards as a means to avoid "legal risk" needs to be measured against the potentiality for a disease outbreak or illness to occur, especially in remote rural and isolated locations. If we ran the Health Care system, in general, the way these Guidelines are written, it is likely that we would bankrupt the taxpayers of BC. There needs to be a balance between what is feasible and affordable and the risk of waterborne illness and disease. Encouraging boiling the water in some extremely remote and rural locations would be a good first step and sharing how Nano and Micro systems are adopting leading edge techniques in water treatment would be a second. The Gar Creek Water Users Association in Johnson's Landing, for example, faced with constant power failures, are considering borrowing cost-effective backup technology supplied to the Amish communities in the United States, who use UV treatment and filtration without being on the electrical grid. Only by creatively working with Nano and Micro water system users will we as local government and regulators assist them in attaining sustainable potable water. Page 19 begins to convey additional responsibility to local government for design guidelines and consultation with Health Authorities and the Water Comptrollerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office. While a level of consultation currently takes place, this recommendation puts responsibility on local government for matters that require a level of expertise which often resides in the private sector and are usually conducted between the developer and professionals. Page 21: How the BPG addresses these issues. The solution to the problem identified in â&#x20AC;&#x153;Issues addressed by the BPGâ&#x20AC;? with regard to the success of proposed new systems is intrusive, and its application can be subjective and punitive without a scalable ranking system. Having Health Authorities second guess governance, which is not their jurisdiction at all, and finance is going beyond a reasonable mandate and leads to supposition. Page 22: Local governments cannot expect an applicant to have pre-thought water system operators, and conceptual servicing financial and governance issues, at a rezoning exercise. The appropriate entity, the Health Authority, and MOTI should have that conversation with regard to subdivision requirements at their earliest point of contact. Page 25, BPG #5: Local governments cannot continue to absorb all of the new systems created. Bullet 2 under Health Authorities and bullet 2 under Comptroller of Water Rights and bullet 1 under Approving Officer should be deleted. In the Kootenay area there are hundreds of surface water users and, given the subdivision history, there will be more independent systems. Regional districts do not have the capacity to continue to administer an ongoing plethora of old and new systems. The staffing component and workspace requirements are unrealistic. These systems must be seen as autonomous and there must be a recognition that with Nano and Micro Systems, where no legal entity exists, empowerment to transfer responsibility for water quality and potability to the individual property owner and residence is a viable option to

200

be considered. Page 28: Strike Local Government bullet 4. This will stymie development in rural areas. Strike bullet 2 under Comptroller of Water Rights Appendix A. Table A 1., Water Quality Regulatory Context: The entire page reinforces the subjectivity of the current system, does not have a science based criteria, eludes the Canadian Safe Drinking Water Guidelines and ties potable water to an unreliable microbial marker. Local governments cannot develop design criteria for construction of water systems. This is the job of engineers in the private sector as design criteria will be specific to the wide range of source water and size of system. If local governments start enshrining design and construction standards in bylaws, a lengthy process, we will invariably be behind the curve of innovation and new technology, effectively limiting Nano and Micro, all small water system users to "last year's solutions". A simple prescription that the water needs to achieve potability would be the best prescription for these two categories of water systems and all small water systems, and then leave it up to the individual homeowner to determine how to achieve that if they want to use POE and POU as their option. Certification of Officers: This section in its entirety should not apply to Nano and Micro systems and there should be no discretion on the part of the Drinking Water Officer to request conditions more stringent than the DWPA and DWPR. This is cost prohibitive if taken out of context and having one or two people trained per system should suffice. Perhaps a lower level of certification can be developed. The most profound problem with this document is that many in the general public still do not see the need to disinfect water, as it has been drunk raw in their communities for a hundred years or more. They do not see that there is a health issue and if individual homeowners are concerned they have already installed filters and treatment units in their homes. There is a particular revulsion over use of chlorine that has been a barrier to discussing the need for treatment. The current regulations are seen as overbearing, overly complex and many would be shocked to know the cost and intricacy of the required systems. If the provincial government wants to proceed down the Guidelines path they may want to invest in an expensive public information campaign, as the various EA Directors and Regional Districts should not take the fall for the financial burden that this document will create for local government. This document offers no relief for existing systems that might seek Health Authority approval to upgrade their works, and yet this was a driving issue for development of the Small Water System Working Group. Unlike the Recommendations Paper of the SWSWG, the Guidelines appear as a disconnected promotion of large subdivisions which are largely unwanted and not appropriate in many remote and rural areas of BC. It trespasses on the right of owners to use their properties as their economic interests require in the case of small water system approval. For the most part many of the recommendations will promote good practices in finance and planning prior to development, but the flaws are fatal ones. Regional Districts may see a rise in people not applying for building permits to avoid the issue of water treatment altogether.

201

The financial implications for Regional Districts across BC taking on responsibility for the design, development and long term management of all the current and future proposed Nano (2 4 connections) and Micro (5-24 connections), all small water systems is incalculable. What each Electoral Area Director and the Municipal Directors of Regional District Boards need to consider, if this proposed download were to come to pass, is that a much larger proportion of rural property tax assessment, much like the province's tax revenue requirement for Health Care, would have to be used to manage water systems, and therefore would not be available for other rural services and joint municipal-rural services. We therefore ask the UBCM Executive to ensure that this critique be forwarded to every Electoral Area Director and Regional District Board in the province for their consideration. Respectfully Submitted, John Kettle, Chair Regional District Central Kootenay Addenda A Regional District Population Density Per Square Kilometer Northern Rockies .1 Central Coast .1 Kitimat-Stikine .4 Bulkley-Nechako .5 Peace River .5 Mount Waddington .6 Cariboo .8 Skeena-Queen Charlotte .9 Columbia-Shuswap 1.7 Fraser-Fort George 1.8 East Kootenay 2.1 Squamish-Lillooet 2.3 Central Kootenay 2.6 Powell River 3.7 Kootenay Boundary 3.9 Electoral Area and District Municipality Dwelling Density Per Square Kilometer Kitimat-Stikine A .002 Stikine Region .004 Kitimat-Stikine D .005 Central Coast A .006 Skeena-Queen Charlotte A .01 Skeena-Queen Charlotte B .02 Cariboo K .02

202

Cariboo J .02 Fraser-Fort George G .02 Peace River B .02 Northern Rockies RGM .03 Bulkley-Nechako C .03 Thompson-Nicola B .04 Mount Waddington B .04 Bulkley-Nechako G .04 Columbia-Shuswap B .04 Skeena-Queen Charlotte D .05 Mount Waddington A .05 Fraser-Fort George F .05 Bulkley-Nechako E .06 Fraser-Fort George H .06 Cariboo I .06 Strathcona A .07 Squamish-Lilooet B .08 Skeena-Queen Charlotte E .08 Peace River E .08 Mount Waddington D .08 Cariboo C .08 Central Coast C .08 - 29 Kitimat-Stikine B .1 Thompson-Nicola A .12 Fraser Valley A .12 Thompson-Nicola I .12 Columbia-Shuswap A .13 Kitimat-Stikine F .13 Alberni-Claoquot C .14 Kitimat-Stikine C (Part 1) .14 Squamish-Lilooet A .14 Central Coast E .16 Thompson-Nicola 0 .17 Central Kootenay D .18 Thompson-Nicola N .18 Squamish-Lilooet D .18 North Okanagan E .18 Strathcona C .18 Peace River D .19 - 17 East Kootenay G .2 Thompson-Nicola E .21 Squamish-Liliooet C .21 Alberni-Clayoquot A .21 Fraser Valley B .21

203

Cariboo F .22 Bulkley-Nechako B .24 Bulkley-Nechako D .24 East Kootenay E .25 Central Kootenay K .26 Thompson-Nicola M .27 Thompson-Nicola J .28 Fraser Valley C .29 East Kootenay A .31 Bulkley-Nechako F .31 Mount Waddington C .32 Nisga'a .35 Fraser Valley F .37 Powell River A .37 Okanagan-Similkameen H .39 Cariboo H .38 East Kootenay B .42 Fraser-Fort George E .44 Cowichan Valley F .49 - 23 Central Kootenay G .52 Fraser-Fort George C .55 East Kootenay C .59 Hudson's Hope DM .6 Bulkley-Nechako A .61 Central Coast D .66 Okanagan-Similkameen G .67 Central Kootenay H .68 Kootenay-Boundary D .68 North Okanagan D .69 Columbia-Shuswap E .73 Kootenay-Boundary E .83 Central Kootenay A .84 Central Kootenay J .84 Kootenay Boundary B .84 Alberni-Clayoquot D .85 Central Kootenay C .89 Cariboo G .95 Tumbler Ridge .97 Nanaimo C .99 - 20/89 Cariboo E 1.04 Tlell UNP 1.07 Fraser-Fort George A 1.07 Thompson-Nicola L 1.13 Strathcona D 1.14

204

Wells 1.16 Columbia-Shuswap F 1.21 Sunshine Coast A 1.21 Thompson-Nicola P 1.21 North Okanagan F 1.23 Cariboo B 1.25 Central Kootenay B 1.28 Central Okanagan J 1.31 Sunshine Coast B 1.35 Port Edward DM 1.42 Okanagan-Similkameen F 1.5 Cariboo D 1.64 Cowichan Valley I 1.75 Powell River C 1.8 Okanagan-Similkameen E 1.9 - 17 Okanagan-Similkameen B 2.11 Fraser Valley D 2.24 Fraser Valley E 2.28 Alberni-Clayoquot B 2.3 Powell River D 2.36 Cariboo L 2.47 Central Kootenay E 2.47 Fraser-Fort George D 2.58 Columbia-Shuswap D 2.62 North Okanagan B 2.74 Kootenay-Boundary C 2.85 - 11 Okanagan-Similkameen D 3.1 Kootenay-Boundary A 3.27 Logan Lake 3.32 Cariboo A 3.39 Okanagan-Similkameen C 3.45 Okanagan-Similkameen A 3.51 Comox Valley C 3.59 Powell River E 3.96 Lasqueti Island Trust Area 3.96 - 8 Peace River C 4.15 Cowichan Valley G 4.47 Alberni-Clayoquot F 4.67 Central Kootenay F 4.68 Sunshine Coast F 4.9 - 5/41

205