The Amacon case is related to 1c(i) of the classification regulation 438. Any portion of value of vacant land or air above, that can be used for residential ONLY based upon zoning must be classified 01 residential. Development sites classed 100% commercial with permitted residential uses in their zoning may qualify for split class.
The proportion of residential use needs to be specific to qualify. Any parcel of land not developed to its full zoning potential could qualify for some portion of the value to be classified residential.
Certain zonings will apply, others will not. It is dependent upon the wording in the zoning bylaw. If a use is “conditional”, it is a permitted use and should be considered. The pattern of development in the area is not evidence to support a change of class.
Relaxations in the bylaw will likely not be allowed in calculating “specificity”.
The volumetric foot print is relevant in determining the amount of commercial space.
Trees acting as a buffer to the adjacent use have the same use. If there are many permutations of mixed uses, the parcel will not qualify for split class.
Relevant Appeal Board decisions are as follows:
Stong’s Grocery, et al. v. Area 09 (2017 PAABBC 20170326)
Hunter McLeod Realty Corp, et al. v. Area 09 (2017 PAABBC 20170882)
Amacon Group et al v. Area 09 (2016 PAABBC 20160202)
Logan Faith v. Area 09 (2018 PAABBC 20180021)
If you have any questions, please contact Peter Austin.