Land Use Bylaw (LUB)

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

What is the Land Use Bylaw?

The Land Use Bylaw (LUB) guides what can take place and be built on any piece of land across our region. It impacts issues like parking, signage, home businesses and accessory buildings.

The current LUB was adopted by Council in Oct. 1999. While it has been amended several times since then, a revised LUB is necessary to remove inconsistencies, consider new development trends and align with recently approved policy documents.

Did we get it right?

Review the draft LUB or take a look at a short summary of changes for the urban and rural areas of our region.

Then, let us know if we got it right! Participate in the following ways:

  • Answer some Quick Poll questions.
  • Join your neighbours in the online Forum.

What we heard

How we addressed it

  • A key concern was prohibiting sea cans in rural areas.
  • We modified the LUB to allow sea cans as a discretionary use in these areas with provisions in place to ensure adequate screening and that the structures do not become unsightly.
  • Many residents voiced concerns regarding landscaping requirements and not allowing chain link fences in Saprae Creek Estates.
  • The landscaping requirements have been simplified and chain link fences are now allowed.
  • Some residents wanted to see the proposed bylaw instead of summaries of changes.
  • The new LUB is now available for your review!


What is the Land Use Bylaw?

The Land Use Bylaw (LUB) guides what can take place and be built on any piece of land across our region. It impacts issues like parking, signage, home businesses and accessory buildings.

The current LUB was adopted by Council in Oct. 1999. While it has been amended several times since then, a revised LUB is necessary to remove inconsistencies, consider new development trends and align with recently approved policy documents.

Did we get it right?

Review the draft LUB or take a look at a short summary of changes for the urban and rural areas of our region.

Then, let us know if we got it right! Participate in the following ways:

  • Answer some Quick Poll questions.
  • Join your neighbours in the online Forum.

What we heard

How we addressed it

  • A key concern was prohibiting sea cans in rural areas.
  • We modified the LUB to allow sea cans as a discretionary use in these areas with provisions in place to ensure adequate screening and that the structures do not become unsightly.
  • Many residents voiced concerns regarding landscaping requirements and not allowing chain link fences in Saprae Creek Estates.
  • The landscaping requirements have been simplified and chain link fences are now allowed.
  • Some residents wanted to see the proposed bylaw instead of summaries of changes.
  • The new LUB is now available for your review!


Discussions: All (7) Open (0)
  • Hamlet Districts

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Welcome to our online forum! Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to the Hamlet Districts? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    We heard that having residential uses meet a minimum size did not meet the needs of residents in the hamlets. We have removed the minimum size of residential uses, are you in support of this change?

    Question 2

    In order to provide more flexibility within the hamlet residential districts, we created two new residential districts rather than just having one residential district. HR 1 preserves the current rural character of hamlets, while HR 2 allows for different and more compact housing choices in those hamlets that want to see this type of development. Do you support this change in the LUB?


    Replies Closed
  • Residential District

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to the Residential District? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    Do you think future residential lots with access to a rear lane should:

    1. Remain the same depth they are now, and have enough space for a detached garage and minimal backyard space?
    2. Be required to be deeper to allow for both a detached garage and a moderate sized rear yard?

    Question 2

    The proposed maximum height for low density building typologies, including: single detached, semi-detached (commonly referred to as duplexes) and townhouses has been increased from 10m to 12m. This change allows for a third storey to be added. Are you supportive of this change?

    Replies Closed
  • Commercial and Institutional Districts

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to the Commercial and Industrial Districts? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    The proposed commercial districts include provisions that will promote pedestrian-friendly development and active storefronts. Do you think this will encourage better commercial development in Urban Service Area?

    Question 2

    The number of commercial land uses has been decreased and many have been combined. The result is, it is less likely that a new tenant will require a development permit when moving into another space. Do you feel this will support businesses?

    Replies Closed
  • Industrial and Airport Districts

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to the Industrial and Airport Districts? Please review a targeted question below.

    The proposed LUB has increased the number of Industrial Districts from one in the existing LUB to three. This change will allow for diversification of future industrial areas, prevent heavy industrial uses from being located close to residential areas and provide flexibility to allow businesses to be located to other similar or complementary areas. Do you think new three types of Industrial Districts will address this concern?

    Replies Closed
  • General Regulation

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to the General Regulations? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    Earlier drafts of the LUB did not allow for sea cans as accessory buildings in hamlet residential districts. Based on public feedback, this has been changed to allow sea cans as a discretionary use with provisions requiring screening and for sea cans to not be unsightly. Are you supportive of this change?

    Question 2

    The current LUB only allows for basement suites (except for Parsons Creek, where other types of secondary suites are allowed). The proposed LUB provides options for four different types of secondary suites:

    1. Basement suites
    2. Loft suites which are located on the third storey of a dwelling
    3. Garden suites which are self contained structures located in a rear yard
    4. Garage suites which are located on a second storey of a garage

    Are you supportive of these options being available?

    Replies Closed
  • Parking

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

     Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to Parking? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    The LUB is changing the minimum parking requirements for Single Detached Houses based on the feedback received that streets in the Urban Service Area are congested. Do you support the change from 2 to 4 parking stalls?

    Question 2

    The proposed LUB includes a parking stall requirement for designated senior parking stalls, similar to requirements for accessible parking stalls. This requirement is only applicable to non-residential uses. Do you support this change?


    Replies Closed
  • Signs

    9 days ago
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
    CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    Do you have any feedback on the proposed changes to Signs? Please review some targeted questions below.

    Question 1

    It is now possible to apply for a digital sign throughout the region. Are you supportive of the requirements related to these signs under the proposed LUB (Part 8 Section 5.4)?

    Question 2

    A portable sign is mounted on a frame or stand which can be relocated to another location. Portable signs frequently include copy that can be changed manually using detachable characters. What do you think about the ability of each property to have one portable sign, subject to approval, for up to one year?

    Replies Closed