March 9 Council Notes: Industrial Development and Housing Proposals Approved

Council addressed two development proposals at its Monday night meeting. Back in 2024, Council issued a development permit for a proposed two-building, multi-unit, small-bay industrial project at 5721 Production Way.

View of Self-Storage Building from 196th Street Overpass.

View of Industrial Building Project from Production Way.

The development applicant returned with a new design that includes one multi-unit, small-bay industrial building and one self-storage facility. Because it is a significant departure from the original 2024 proposal, it required a new development permit.

The City’s Advisory Design Plan made several recommendations, and the applicant incorporated the following into the project:

• Incorporate more design features to break up both southeast corner walls
• Add more variation to the west building’s roofline
• Provide weather protection structures in both outdoor amenity areas
• Consider using pavers in front of business entrances
• Consider greater use of ornamental plantings in the Production Way outdoor amenity area

Council approved issuing the development permit.

Council also gave final reading and issued a development permit for a 26-unit townhome development at 20815 45A Avenue & 4560, 4570 and 4580 208 Street. You can read more about this in a previous post.

March 9 Council Notes: Speeding Up Simple Development Applications, New Zoning Bylaw in Effect

As Langley City continues to grow, Council and City staff are looking at how we can efficiently process housing and commercial development proposals while maintaining high-quality standards and appropriate oversight. Currently, with the exception of detached houses, all development proposals require a development permit. Development permits help ensure that certain design and quality-of-life measures are met for each development proposal. A triplex or small addition to an industrial building follows the same process as a 300-unit apartment project.

While larger projects should always have a full review process, including through the City’s Advisory Design Panel, which includes architects and landscape architects, adding a garbage room to a restaurant, building a duplex, or changing the location of a driveway by 1 metre, does not.

City staff presented a proposal at Monday’s Council meeting, which would allow staff to issue a development permit without requiring the Advisory Design Panel or Council approval for simple applications that don’t require a rezoning, such as:

• Residential project with 6 units or fewer (in alignment with provincial recommendations)
• Small commercial (max. 1,000 m2 floor area) and industrial (max. 2,000 m2 floor area) projects outside of Downtown

Council also currently approves Development Variance Permits; I can recall only two such permits over the last decade, for a duplex and a garbage enclosure. Minor Development Variance Permits are also proposed to be delegated to staff. Minor means small changes, such as changing the lot setback to allow a coach home by less than 1.5 metres, increasing lot coverage by no more than a percentage, making small changes to parking requirements (by no more than 10%), and landscaping.

Example of a garbage enclosure that could be a staff-delegated Development Variance Permit process.

To ensure transparency, all development permit applications would still be posted to the City’s website as they are today, with full details.

Council was generally supportive of this approach, and staff will present an updated Development Application Procedures Bylaw for Council's consideration at an upcoming meeting.

Before Christmas, Council gave third reading to our new zoning bylaw. Last night, Council gave the bylaw its final reading and adopted it. The delay was caused by the provincial government, as the Ministry of Transportation and Transit needs to approve all zoning within 400 metres of a provincial highway (the Langley Bypass).

Improving the Governance Model at the Metro Vancouver Regional District - Upcoming Consultation

Last year, the Metro Vancouver Regional District received the results of a report it commissioned on potential recommendations to improve regional district governance. While almost all of BC has regional districts, the Metro Vancouver Regional District is home to over half the province's population, creating unique challenges. As mentioned earlier this year, the board currently has 41 directors; this number is determined by the provincial government.

Local governments, including regional districts, are set up more like a strata council, non-profit, or corporate board. The legislation that enables local government is designed to encourage meaningful discussion at meetings. The current Metro Vancouver Board, which is expected to grow to 50 members shortly, would make it impossible for everyone to have meaningful discussions at meetings. It would take days to get through a simple Metro Vancouver Regional District agenda. In practice, it would need to operate more like a legislature to be effective with that number of members, though I believe that goes against the general idea of how local government should work in our province.

We don’t need to look far to see what a potentially smaller Metro Vancouver Regional District Board would look like. The TransLink Mayors' Council has 23 members, including the same representation as the Metro Vancouver Board. I sit on the Mayors’ Council, and I can say that the Mayors’ Council itself operates very effectively. I’m not suggesting that the region’s mayors control the Metro Vancouver Board, but the size and weighted vote structure at the Mayors’ Council seems to strike a good balance.

Another challenge at the regional district is that the water and sewer utilities are extremely complex, so the governance review is also looking at how to best ensure that the elected board members have access to independent technical expertise advice, such as by having a major project committee or smaller water and sewer boards with elected representatives and independent technical experts appointed by the main regional district board.

The Regional District is planning a comprehensive consultation on proposed governance changes, likely running from May to June 2026. It will include opportunities for everyone to participate.

Governance isn’t a cure-all, but it is always good to identify changes that can improve the decision-making process. While I’m all for making changes, I also believe that it matters more who is elected or appointed rather than the governance structure. Good people can get a lot done even with a challenging governance structure.

Metro Vancouver Seeking Feds to Ban Large Nitrous Oxide “Whip Cream Charger” Cylinder

In December of last year, the Metro Vancouver Regional District issued a media release noting that large nitrous oxide cylinders being thrown out are dangerous, causing explosions at the regional waste-to-energy facility, damaging equipment, and endangering workers' safety.

People can recycle gas cylinders, such as nitrous oxide cylinders, for free by dropping them off at a Metro Vancouver Recycling and Waste Facility. While the Regional District has seen a sizable increase in people recycling these cylinders since the media release, they are still being thrown in the garbage, and explosions continue.

Post Combustion Nitrous Oxide Cylinders. Select the image to enlarge.

Nitrous oxide cylinders are typically used for whipping cream chargers and are small in size. When used, the cylinder is punctured, which depressurizes the container, removing the risk of explosion when it is recycled or accidentally thrown into the garbage. The nitrous oxide cylinders of concern are larger and are sold in many vape shops in our region and online. They do not have pressure release valves. These larger containers are typically not used for making whipped cream.

The Regional District is seeking to ask the federal government to prohibit the import and sale of large single-use valved nitrous oxide cylinders. The current ad hoc approach by Health Canada to recalling these products appears to be on a retailer-by-retailer basis, which is ineffective. A quick search online shows that there are many vendors able to ship to addresses in our region.

It will be interesting to see what actions, if any, the federal government will take.