SOUTH PENDER ISLAND
LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE
LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
The proposed Land Use Bylaw is using Floor Area Ratio to calculate the total square footage of all buildings
permitted on a lot. What is Floor Area Ratio and how is it different from the current lot coverage method of
calculating allowable building area?
Floor area ratio means the figure obtained by dividing the floor area of all buildings on a lot by the lot area (in the
proposed Bylaw, this would exclude the floor area of all buildings less than 10 metres2 (107 ft2) floor area.
Buildings less than 10 m2 do not require a building permit and would be onerous to include.)
Examples: a one acre lot would be permitted 404 m2 (4348 ft2) of buildings on all levels
A two and a half acre lot would be permitted 1010 m2 (10,870 ft2) of buildings on all levels
A ten acre lot would be permitted 4040 m2 (43480 ft2) of buildings on all levels
Lot coverage uses the footprint of all buildings and structures to arrive at the maximum buildable area, but does
not include the floor area of all levels of the buildings.
Using Floor Area Ratio provides more flexibility to property owners when deciding how to build on their lot; this
may be important for lots with challenging topography with limited sites suitable for building. At the same time,
Floor Area Ratio limits the total amount of building development on all lots, according to their size.
The Local Trust Committee is proposing that there be a maximum floor area of 560 m2 (6028 ft2) for dwellings.
How would this affect existing houses that exceed the maximum floor area? Are there any options for owners
who may wish to build a larger house?
An existing house that is larger than a new maximum floor area would be legally non-conforming for floor area.
This means that the house could be repaired, maintained, or reconstructed within the same footprint and to the
same size, but not expanded. It is fairly common to have buildings that are lawfully non-conforming for siting, size
or dimensions, for example an older house built into a setback, and this doesn’t affect the owners’ ability to repair
or even replace the non-conforming part of the house.
Sometimes references are made to a “rule” that if 75% of a non-conforming building is destroyed it cannot be
rebuilt. This circumstance would only apply where the use of land, building, or structures does not conform to the
bylaw (for example a retail store on a lot zoned for residential use). The legislation is different for non-conforming
siting, size or dimensions: a building can be replaced above the foundation provided it doesn’t further encroach
into a setback or exceed the original size.
If an owner wanted to build an addition or construct a new house larger than the permitted maximum floor area
there is the option of applying for a variance. An application for a development variance permit could be made to
the Local Trust Committee or an appeal could be made to the Board of Variance.
The proposed Land Use Bylaw increases the allowable size of a cottage. What is the difference in size?
The cottage size is being increased slightly (from 56 sq2 /603 ft2 to70 m2/750 ft2). The intent is not to make the
cottage a second dwelling and therefore increase density on the lot.
The proposed Land Use Bylaw places a limit of 140 m2 (1507 f2t) on any one accessory building. Why is this limit
being placed on the size of an accessory building?
The current bylaw has very strict limits on the total square footage of all outbuildings on a property:
Lot Size
Total Floor Area
0.4 hectares (1 acre) or less
70m2 (750ft2)
Greater than 0.4 hectares (1 acre) to 2
hectares (5 acres)
93m2 (1000ft2)
Greater than 2 hectares (5 acres) to 4
hectares (10 acres)
186m2 (2000ft2)
Greater than 4 hectares (10 acres)
372m2 (4000ft2)
(from the current LUB)
Property owners have indicated that this size is often insufficient for a property owner who wants a garage,
workshop, and garden sheds. The proposed Floor Area Ratio allows for a substantial amount of building on the
larger lots, so this maximum was set so that particularly large accessory buildings do not overwhelm a property or
negatively affect neighbours. The size may be altered by variance.
One proposed change is to require 18,000 litre (3960 gallon) cisterns for rainwater catchment for new dwellings.
Most property owners on South Pender have installed cisterns for water storage. But many only realized that they
needed a storage system after completing development and subsequently experiencing issues with wells in dry
summer months. Since adjacent lots share a common water table, this requirement heightens awareness of the
need for water conservation and ensures a secondary (to a well) source of water for newly developed lots. This
requirement may be altered or eliminated by variance in situations where it can be demonstrate that rainwater
collection is unnecessary.
What other Local Trust Areas have such a requirement?
Galiano requires new dwellings in Water Management Areas to install a rainwater storage cistern of 3500
gallons. Mayne requires a minimum 3000 gallon cistern for dwellings with a secondary suite. Saturna
requires all new dwellings and additions in the East Point Water Management Area to install a 4800 gallon
cistern for rainwater storage.
Does the water have to be potable?
No, it is up to the owner how the water is used. Building infrastructure like plumbing and water treatment
systems are regulated by the BC Building Code and the BC Plumbing Code, which are under the jurisdiction
of the CRD’s Building Permits and Inspections. The intent of the proposed regulation is to ensure that new
houses are designed and constructed for rainwater catchment and that cisterns for storage are installed
on the property when a new house is built.
Would a cottage require a cistern?
No, the regulation would be for new single family dwellings only, cottages are a separate use in the bylaw.
The proposed changes to subdivision regulations would require an engineer or hydrogeologist to certify that
groundwater extraction for proposed lots will not adversely affect the quantity or quality of water obtainable
form any existing well. How would the professional be able to fulfill this requirement?
The North Pender Land Use Bylaw has had this regulation since 1999 and the Galiano LUB has had this
requirement since 2000. This type of requirement is considered a “professional reliance” approach, where the
determination is made by a qualified professional with relevant experience. Hydrogeologists have several methods
of determining if extraction of groundwater from a new well would adversely affect existing wells, including
monitoring nearby wells during pump tests and using water balance models.
The draft Land Use Bylaw would add a new definition for an Outbuilding. What is this and how is it different
from the current accessory buildings?
An ‘accessory building’ by definition can only be constructed once the main dwelling is under development on a
residential lot. This been a problem for some people who want to have a storage, or other non-residential,
building before constructing their house. ‘Outbuilding’ is a new term that is proposed to be added to the LUB to
address this specific situation. One ‘outbuilding’, limited in size, is proposed to be allowed on an otherwise vacant
residential lot. Once a house is constructed the regulations for accessory buildings would apply for additional
buildings. On lots were farming is occurring, buildings for farm use would continue to be permitted regardless of
whether or not there is a dwelling.
The proposed bylaw would change the shoreline zoning, limiting the allowable locations for docks to those
already in existence. Why is this change proposed and is it still possible for a property owner to apply for a
dock?
The current zoning followed a 1992 study of the shoreline. That study cautioned against the proliferation of docks
and the negative impact they can have on the shoreline. In the twenty-five years since the report, we have
become more aware of shoreline habitat issues, including the value of eelgrass and impacts of structures on
natural shoreline processes. First Nations cultural, archaeological and title considerations play a more prominent
role than they did at the time of the study. In addition, we have increased erosion on all shorelines of South
Pender, a situation that is exacerbated by docks. The new technologies for dock construction and the willingness
of owners to pay large sums of money to build docks makes it possible to build docks in areas previously thought
to be too open to storms for safe dock construction; this is a situation we have seen on other islands. The
objection raised by property owners to this proposal has been that their property value is enhanced by the
possibility of constructing a dock so that the limitation will have the potential of decreasing their property value in
the future. It is possible that that may be the case, but it also possible that an individual’s property value may be
decreased if an adjacent neighbour builds a dock which juts out directly in front of their lot. Individuals wanting a
dock may apply for a rezoning which will allow for input from neighbours, and for environmental and First Nations
considerations to be taken into account during the rezoning process.