To give the benefit of the doubt to Mrs. Kennedy, we consulted again
with our solicitors, the Municipalities of Port Moody, Coquitlam, Delta
and Surrey. We confirm that Mrs. Kennedy's interpretation is not shared
in the region.

"When the M-3 zone was amended the intent was create zoning regulations
"streamlined and uncomplicated", to allow for a lot of flexibility in
interpreting permitted uses, including the light industrial uses."

Mrs. Kennedy is right in that the current M~3 zone is substantially less
complicated than the previous one. She is wrong, however, in assuming
that light industrial uses are permitted, as explained above.

"Since processing and finishing of manufacturing woods are permitted
under M-—3 zone, then light manufacturing is also permitted.”

The M-1, M-2 and M~3 zone allow for "finishing and processing". The M-1
and M-2 zones allow also for manufacturing and fabrication. The M-3
zone does not mention manufacturing and fabrications, therefore, their
uses are not permitted.

Mrs. Kennedy indicates that the wording of the proposed light industrial
definition is too restrictive. She is concerned about who will decide

the meaning of "...that may in any way interfere...".

The attached letter from our solicitors indicates that the definition of
light industrial can be interpreted and applied by a court, and a
"restriction (of the uses to) to light industrial" will be enforceable
provided some discretion is exercised in the circumstances in which
enforcement is sought.

The letter from our solicitors quote further “examples of court cases
(London Drugs Ltd. versus City of North Vancouver and City of Montreal
versus Arcade Amusements Inc.) where the courts have upheld similar
bylaws although the interpretation may be difficult.

Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that "difficulty of
interpretation is not to be confused with vagueness and uncertainty to
the point of invalidity". The court went further to indicate that "each
case is practically unique, and the Courts have to determine each time
whether the true meaning of the bylaw in question can be understood by
the persons to whom it applies".

Mrs. Kennedy is concerned that people living within industrially
designated areas, but not yet ready to develop their own lands, may
prevent the reasonable operation of neighbouring, already developed
industrial lands, by claiming "interference with their residential use".