Regional Zoning Bylaw

Share Regional Zoning Bylaw on Facebook Share Regional Zoning Bylaw on Twitter Share Regional Zoning Bylaw on Linkedin Email Regional Zoning Bylaw link

The Peace River Regional District (PRRD) is creating a new Regional Zoning Bylaw to replace the five existing ones, some of which date back to 1976. These bylaws dictate property use, including the number of homes allowed, building setbacks, maximum sizes for accessory buildings, and home business regulations. They also specify if land can be used for agriculture, residential, industrial, or commercial purposes.

Why Update the Bylaw?

The new bylaw aims to:

  • Simplify: Combine multiple bylaws into one for better accessibility.
  • Update Regulations: Incorporate community feedback on:
    • Accessory building sizes
    • Home-based business rules
    • Secondary and Detached Suites
  • Reduce Red Tape: Streamline processes to support local residents, agriculture and industries.
  • Modernize: Replace outdated regulations from 1976.

The project will gather public input through surveys and community events. Subscribe on this project page for updates!

The Peace River Regional District (PRRD) is creating a new Regional Zoning Bylaw to replace the five existing ones, some of which date back to 1976. These bylaws dictate property use, including the number of homes allowed, building setbacks, maximum sizes for accessory buildings, and home business regulations. They also specify if land can be used for agriculture, residential, industrial, or commercial purposes.

Why Update the Bylaw?

The new bylaw aims to:

  • Simplify: Combine multiple bylaws into one for better accessibility.
  • Update Regulations: Incorporate community feedback on:
    • Accessory building sizes
    • Home-based business rules
    • Secondary and Detached Suites
  • Reduce Red Tape: Streamline processes to support local residents, agriculture and industries.
  • Modernize: Replace outdated regulations from 1976.

The project will gather public input through surveys and community events. Subscribe on this project page for updates!

Q & A Forum

Have a question about the Regional Zoning Bylaw? Ask it here! A member of the project team will respond to your question publicly in 1-2 business days.


Forum Content Guidelines

All content submitted to this forum will be reviewed by a moderator. Submissions containing self-promotion, hate speech, misinformation, or vulgarity will be removed from the questions and answer forum.

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now or Sign in with
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Hi. It appears that all rural lots will have to be a minimum of 4.5 acres, unless on a community water system. This is very restrictive, as community water systems are rare in rural environments. Please clarify this. Thank you. on Facebook Share Hi. It appears that all rural lots will have to be a minimum of 4.5 acres, unless on a community water system. This is very restrictive, as community water systems are rare in rural environments. Please clarify this. Thank you. on Twitter Share Hi. It appears that all rural lots will have to be a minimum of 4.5 acres, unless on a community water system. This is very restrictive, as community water systems are rare in rural environments. Please clarify this. Thank you. on Linkedin Email Hi. It appears that all rural lots will have to be a minimum of 4.5 acres, unless on a community water system. This is very restrictive, as community water systems are rare in rural environments. Please clarify this. Thank you. link

    Hi. It appears that all rural lots will have to be a minimum of 4.5 acres, unless on a community water system. This is very restrictive, as community water systems are rare in rural environments. Please clarify this. Thank you.

    Justme asked 27 days ago

    Good morning, 

    Yes, that is generally correct. The majority of zones propose to have a minimum parcel size of 4.5 acres as this is the minimum size required in order to have a lagoon on a property. 

    Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact ashley.murphey@prrd.bc.ca. 

    Thank you.


  • Share Your proposed bylaw 2582 with respect to use of private aircraft prohibits the landing and takeoff on land or water other than on areas zoned 12.9 Tourist or Commercial or 12.13 Civic, Assembly and Institutional. Is this not an overreach of Federal jurisdiction? How do you expect to enforce this? The proposed bylaw interferes with the normal and safe use of private aircraft on private land and on public waterways. Perhaps you had in mind commercial operations? I have advised the B.C. General Aviation Association and then Canadian Pilots and Owners Association of this overreach. I believe your definition of Airstrip is to broad and therefore very problematic and un enforcable on Facebook Share Your proposed bylaw 2582 with respect to use of private aircraft prohibits the landing and takeoff on land or water other than on areas zoned 12.9 Tourist or Commercial or 12.13 Civic, Assembly and Institutional. Is this not an overreach of Federal jurisdiction? How do you expect to enforce this? The proposed bylaw interferes with the normal and safe use of private aircraft on private land and on public waterways. Perhaps you had in mind commercial operations? I have advised the B.C. General Aviation Association and then Canadian Pilots and Owners Association of this overreach. I believe your definition of Airstrip is to broad and therefore very problematic and un enforcable on Twitter Share Your proposed bylaw 2582 with respect to use of private aircraft prohibits the landing and takeoff on land or water other than on areas zoned 12.9 Tourist or Commercial or 12.13 Civic, Assembly and Institutional. Is this not an overreach of Federal jurisdiction? How do you expect to enforce this? The proposed bylaw interferes with the normal and safe use of private aircraft on private land and on public waterways. Perhaps you had in mind commercial operations? I have advised the B.C. General Aviation Association and then Canadian Pilots and Owners Association of this overreach. I believe your definition of Airstrip is to broad and therefore very problematic and un enforcable on Linkedin Email Your proposed bylaw 2582 with respect to use of private aircraft prohibits the landing and takeoff on land or water other than on areas zoned 12.9 Tourist or Commercial or 12.13 Civic, Assembly and Institutional. Is this not an overreach of Federal jurisdiction? How do you expect to enforce this? The proposed bylaw interferes with the normal and safe use of private aircraft on private land and on public waterways. Perhaps you had in mind commercial operations? I have advised the B.C. General Aviation Association and then Canadian Pilots and Owners Association of this overreach. I believe your definition of Airstrip is to broad and therefore very problematic and un enforcable link

    Your proposed bylaw 2582 with respect to use of private aircraft prohibits the landing and takeoff on land or water other than on areas zoned 12.9 Tourist or Commercial or 12.13 Civic, Assembly and Institutional. Is this not an overreach of Federal jurisdiction? How do you expect to enforce this? The proposed bylaw interferes with the normal and safe use of private aircraft on private land and on public waterways. Perhaps you had in mind commercial operations? I have advised the B.C. General Aviation Association and then Canadian Pilots and Owners Association of this overreach. I believe your definition of Airstrip is to broad and therefore very problematic and un enforcable

    Bbalfe asked about 1 month ago

    Good morning, 

    Airstrips have certainly been a hot topic through round #2 of engagement! We are aware of this error and are actively working to correct it. Through our initial mapping review we identified several privately owned parcels that contain only a paved airstrip, so we wanted to ensure that the use was expressly permitted to continue on those parcels. Regional Airports are federal lands and therefore are not regulated by our zoning bylaw at all. 

    Our intention is certainly not to try and regulate private airstrips, this would be nearly impossible as ultimately it is up to the capabilities of the pilot to land where they are able! 

    We have compiled a list of interested parties and once we have finalized a solution to this oversight we will share the information out. If you would like to be added to our contact list regarding this matter please contact ashley.murphey@prrd.bc.ca.

    We sincerely appreciate you taking your time to provide feedback on the Regional Zoning Bylaw. 

  • Share Can a Cabin, as defined, be considered a Principal Building (if no other exists on the property)? Will one be required to get a building permit for a Cabin? on Facebook Share Can a Cabin, as defined, be considered a Principal Building (if no other exists on the property)? Will one be required to get a building permit for a Cabin? on Twitter Share Can a Cabin, as defined, be considered a Principal Building (if no other exists on the property)? Will one be required to get a building permit for a Cabin? on Linkedin Email Can a Cabin, as defined, be considered a Principal Building (if no other exists on the property)? Will one be required to get a building permit for a Cabin? link

    Can a Cabin, as defined, be considered a Principal Building (if no other exists on the property)? Will one be required to get a building permit for a Cabin?

    Justme asked 2 months ago

    Hi there, 

    Cabins are only proposed to be permitted as a principal use within the R-4 Zone. 

    Building permits are only required for buildings if your property is within the Mandatory Building Permit Area, however they are still available upon request for any property in the RD. Here's a link to the Building Bylaw which includes maps of the Mandatory Building Permit Areas: https://www.prrd.bc.ca/media-manager/media-pages/bylaws/building-bylaw/

    Thanks for taking time to complete the survey! Have a wonderful weekend!

  • Share The survey didn’t include a comment section; just want to say that it’s great to see that you increasing the number of dwellings allowed as per people’s wants, but stipulations like detached suites be a part of an accessory building is ridiculous. Not looking to have the expense of building an accessory building, want the ability to have kids stay on property in their own home. Regulations on size are fine, but don’t force us to build them a detached unit inside of an accessory building on Facebook Share The survey didn’t include a comment section; just want to say that it’s great to see that you increasing the number of dwellings allowed as per people’s wants, but stipulations like detached suites be a part of an accessory building is ridiculous. Not looking to have the expense of building an accessory building, want the ability to have kids stay on property in their own home. Regulations on size are fine, but don’t force us to build them a detached unit inside of an accessory building on Twitter Share The survey didn’t include a comment section; just want to say that it’s great to see that you increasing the number of dwellings allowed as per people’s wants, but stipulations like detached suites be a part of an accessory building is ridiculous. Not looking to have the expense of building an accessory building, want the ability to have kids stay on property in their own home. Regulations on size are fine, but don’t force us to build them a detached unit inside of an accessory building on Linkedin Email The survey didn’t include a comment section; just want to say that it’s great to see that you increasing the number of dwellings allowed as per people’s wants, but stipulations like detached suites be a part of an accessory building is ridiculous. Not looking to have the expense of building an accessory building, want the ability to have kids stay on property in their own home. Regulations on size are fine, but don’t force us to build them a detached unit inside of an accessory building link

    The survey didn’t include a comment section; just want to say that it’s great to see that you increasing the number of dwellings allowed as per people’s wants, but stipulations like detached suites be a part of an accessory building is ridiculous. Not looking to have the expense of building an accessory building, want the ability to have kids stay on property in their own home. Regulations on size are fine, but don’t force us to build them a detached unit inside of an accessory building

    Jennifer asked 2 months ago

    Hi there, 

    Thanks for completing the survey and catching that! We will look to update the definition of Detached Suite in the bylaw to be clearer. The intention is that a detached suite could be a granny-suite, garden suite, carriage house, suite above a shop etc. so it wouldn't always have to be located inside of an accessory building, but can be if that's what someone wanted. 

    Have a wonderful weekend.

Page last updated: 05 Jan 2026, 11:40 AM