South Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, November 5, 2021

[0:00:00] Voice 3: Thank you for your patience. This is this is my second meeting working with the equipment that is way beyond my pay grade.

[0:00:09] Voice 3: He needed a needed a young child here.

[0:00:15] Voice 2: So

[0:00:16] Voice 3: I think everything's working

[0:00:20] Voice 2: All right.

[0:00:22] Voice 3: All right,

[0:00:22] Voice 8: trustees,

[0:00:26] Voice 3: how are we?

[0:00:27] Voice 3: Good, good, thank you.

[0:00:28] Voice 3: Ready to start?

[0:00:29] Voice 6: Yeah, absolutely.

[0:00:30] Voice 3: All right, I have,

[0:00:31] Voice 6: I

[0:00:33] Voice 3: can warn you,

[0:00:35] Voice 3: I cannot chew gum and walk

[0:00:36] Voice 3: and I now have two computers, a live audience.

[0:00:39] Voice 3: So if I sound, you know,

[0:00:43] Voice 3: it's because I'm trying to try so many things

[0:00:46] Voice 3: and I can't do it.

[0:00:47] Voice 3: So I appreciate your patience and understanding

[0:00:50] Voice 3: as I work my way through this opportunity.

[0:00:53] Voice 3: So as you can see today,

[0:00:55] Voice 3: we have some new equipment in the room.

[0:00:56] Voice 3: We are recording and live streaming the meeting.

[0:00:58] Voice 3: We had intended to have Shannon joining us

[0:01:01] Voice 3: through a Zoom link that she had access to

[0:01:03] Voice 3: so she could be listening live.

[0:01:06] Voice 3: We haven't been able to get her connected.

[0:01:09] Voice 3: Oh, there's a number.

[0:01:10] Voice 3: I'll let you communicate that to Mark.

[0:01:16] Voice 3: And so this is allowing people

[0:01:18] Voice 3: to at least see it live streaming. It's working. We're not at that interaction

[0:01:23] Voice 3: with the electronic folks yet. That's the next stage we're getting to.

[0:01:32] Voice 3: It's a work in progress.

[0:01:36] Voice 3: This pandemic has brought us all to a new world.

[0:01:42] Voice 8: She's attempting to come in.

[0:01:44] Voice 3: Okay, she's attempting to get in.

[0:01:45] Voice 3: I'll try to

[0:01:46] Voice 3: pay attention

[0:01:47] Voice 8: to the microphone.

[0:01:48] Voice 3: You can put this phone back too.

[0:01:53] Voice 3: The camera is seeing the three of us.

[0:01:55] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:01:56] Voice 3: Who's not you.

[0:01:57] Voice 3: But it can hear everything.

[0:01:59] Voice 3: It's a very good microphone.

[0:02:02] Voice 3: Okay. Good morning.

[0:02:05] Voice 3: I'd really like to thank you for coming today.

[0:02:18] Voice 3: So this meeting is being recorded and live-streamed, and I'd like to open this South Pender Local

[0:02:26] Voice 3: Trust Committee, bring this meeting to order, always begin with how fortunate we are to

[0:02:32] Voice 3: be able to gather in traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish people.

[0:02:38] Voice 3: I encourage you as to to read some of the materials of the reconciliation and

[0:02:48] Voice 3: the truth and reconciliation and the residential schools and learn about that

[0:02:52] Voice 3: history and understand it and to come from yourself to read that material I am

[0:03:00] Voice 3: Laura Patrick I am elected on South Spring Island and chair of this local

[0:03:04] Voice 3: trust committee and I'm joined today by trustee Cameron Thor and trustee Steve

[0:03:09] Voice 3: right and together we make up your South Pender Local Trust Committee. This meeting is an

[0:03:14] Voice 3: official forum for your local trust committee to make decisions about land use planning

[0:03:17] Voice 3: matters and discuss relevant business. I also want to add that this is a place of employment

[0:03:24] Voice 3: and our employees have the right to a safe and respectful workplace. Appreciate your

[0:03:32] Voice 3: understanding as we go through all this electronics and the hybrid meeting here. This is new and

[0:03:39] Voice 3: And we will do our best to keep it from, you know, keep it working and not disrupt the meeting.

[0:03:48] Voice 3: Okay, there will be a town hall, and I'll go over how we interact with that in a few moments.

[0:03:54] Voice 3: But I'd like to introduce the staff.

[0:03:56] Voice 3: You can't see her, but Shannon Braford is joining us as a minute taker.

[0:04:01] Voice 3: And good morning and welcome, Shannon.

[0:04:04] Voice 3: We have Robert Kojima, our regional planning manager, and Tim Stockdale, a planner.

[0:04:10] Voice 3: And I really thank you for being here today.

[0:04:12] Voice 3: Trustees, we have an agenda before us.

[0:04:15] Voice 3: Are there any additions or corrections or changes that need to be made to the agenda?

[0:04:18] Voice 18: Not in my mind.

[0:04:20] Voice 3: So we can approve the agenda through general consent.

[0:04:23] Voice 3: Excellent.

[0:04:24] Voice 3: With that, then, we always start with our trustee reports.

[0:04:28] Voice 3: Who would like to begin?

[0:04:32] Voice 18: Well, I mean, we've been meeting fairly regularly in an informal way.

[0:04:39] Voice 18: so i'm not sure if there's a lot of um updates that i need to provide we've had over the course

[0:04:43] Voice 18: of uh three saturdays in october we've had some uh community meetings and a lot of people that

[0:04:50] Voice 18: are here were at some of those which i'm very happy to report so we had um informal uh again

[0:04:58] Voice 18: opportunities for engagement on three topics um that's really i think plus in august we had a

[0:05:04] Voice 18: We had an engagement with the community in the fire hall on house size and setbacks as well.

[0:05:12] Voice 18: So I'm glad that there's been, you know, as we've sort of worked through what hopefully is the last phase of this COVID thing,

[0:05:19] Voice 18: it's been certainly a positive addition to being able to meet in person as opposed to doing everything on a virtual format.

[0:05:30] Voice 18: And I'm just glad people are here today and happy to engage in a conversation again today.

[0:05:35] Voice 18: Thank you.

[0:05:38] Voice 18: You covered it fine.

[0:05:40] Voice 3: All right.

[0:05:41] Voice 3: Well, for my chair report, I'll let you know that a trust council meeting is coming up at the end of the month on November 30th, I believe, and then December 1st and 2nd.

[0:05:52] Voice 3: And this is the beginning of the budget conversations.

[0:05:57] Voice 3: You've probably heard already the rumors are out there and big, big changes coming.

[0:06:01] Voice 3: I mean, well, every budget begins with dreams that we always have, and through the process it gets narrowed down.

[0:06:08] Voice 3: And this Trust Council meeting coming up is that first step that the trustees get to take their hit at the budget,

[0:06:15] Voice 3: and then it'll go through a public consultation through a survey process in the new year where you'll have a chance to have your say.

[0:06:24] Voice 3: And so I'm sure the trustees will be getting that link for that survey out to you.

[0:06:30] Voice 3: and you may also know that we are out for tender for a consultant to support the islands trust

[0:06:37] Voice 3: do the federation work for the consultation for the trust policy statement and the main reason

[0:06:46] Voice 3: for this consultant is to bring good techniques to the engagement and to also make the engagement

[0:06:50] Voice 3: work from a regional perspective so it's just not that we bring it bring it all together because

[0:06:55] Voice 3: because this is a regional federation document

[0:06:59] Voice 3: and looking forward to that process

[0:07:01] Voice 3: and your opportunities to have your input into that process.

[0:07:05] Voice 3: So keep your eyes and ears out.

[0:07:09] Voice 3: There'll be lots of opportunity for you to have your say.

[0:07:14] Voice 3: That's it.

[0:07:15] Voice 3: So this is the town hall portion.

[0:07:18] Voice 3: Now there's a couple of things

[0:07:18] Voice 3: we do know we have on the agenda today

[0:07:21] Voice 3: a potential adoption of the STVR bylaws as it's post-public hearing, we can't talk about

[0:07:31] Voice 3: that during the town hall.

[0:07:33] Voice 3: So I understand some of you may have thoughts on that, but I would ask that you please hold

[0:07:39] Voice 3: your comments.

[0:07:40] Voice 3: We will consider that when we get to that item.

[0:07:46] Voice 3: And other than that, like I said, this is your chance to talk to us.

[0:07:51] Voice 3: We do want to hear your comments and questions because they are important to us to make good decisions.

[0:07:57] Voice 3: Please direct your comments to the trustees and speak about issues, not individuals, and be clear, concise, and respectful, as I know you will be.

[0:08:09] Voice 3: And with that, it's your opportunity.

[0:08:11] Voice 3: You will be able to be heard.

[0:08:13] Voice 3: There is a microphone here.

[0:08:14] Voice 3: it is a very good microphone so you can stay in your your seat and uh we'll be able to hear you

[0:08:20] Voice 3: next so who would like to address uh have any questions or comments i'm

[0:08:25] Voice 20: gonna go first floor

[0:08:25] Voice 20: so three points um first of all when you consider your minutes

[0:08:32] Voice 20: and i understand our last meeting went a long way over and at the end of it i made some comments

[0:08:39] Voice 20: they're not reflected in your minutes and i'd appreciate it if you would consider amending

[0:08:44] Voice 20: them. It was with regard to the shoreline review and the information that was

[0:08:50] Voice 20: mentioned that was provided to the APC as part of their referral. That

[0:08:56] Voice 20: information on mapping and overlays and all the rest of that stuff was not

[0:09:02] Voice 20: provided to the APC as part of that referral. So again, and I've said this out

[0:09:11] Voice 20: out loud before, the APC is ready and willing to take the information, additional information, as available and to consider that as part of a review, which we believe would be much more holistic.

[0:09:26] Voice 3: Thank you for that. We'll consider that when we get

[0:09:30] Voice 20: to the adoption minutes.

[0:09:31] Voice 20: I just

[0:09:31] Voice 20: wanted to bring it forward while

[0:09:32] Voice 3: we had the opportunity.

[0:09:35] Voice 20: If this is a bit of a question, and I don't know if perhaps,

[0:09:41] Voice 20: but we keep talking about minor OCP amendments,

[0:09:44] Voice 20: and there seems to be more and more and more of them.

[0:09:48] Voice 20: And I don't know if we have a count of those.

[0:09:51] Voice 20: But again, if we keep doing this, and I think a number of us have said this,

[0:09:57] Voice 20: if our OCP is not serving us in the fashion that it is written now,

[0:10:01] Voice 20: then and and as we think about all of these things that we're amending it for

[0:10:06] Voice 20: and perhaps what we really need to be doing is sitting down and considering rocp and a more

[0:10:13] Voice 20: again a more holistic approach to what it says and what it should say and what it might say

[0:10:20] Voice 20: um on the house side i've read the bylaw that's included in the package

[0:10:25] Voice 20: pitch one of the conversations that continues to come up is how changes will make homes

[0:10:31] Voice 20: legal non-conforming we had the opinion at our last meeting from a lawyer who knows this stuff

[0:10:40] Voice 20: and it's not just a case of insurance there's a lot of things this could affect your assessment

[0:10:45] Voice 20: value it could you have to disclose it if you're selling

[0:10:49] Voice 6: your home um what was suggested is that

[0:10:59] Voice 20: possibly and i don't it's again as a question um through to the planners

[0:11:04] Voice 20: is that a bylaw could be written that would say from this time forth this is this and from that

[0:11:09] Voice 20: time back you're okay jack so those are my points today

[0:11:13] Voice 3: thank you thank you darling yeah who else

[0:11:17] Voice 3: would like uh to to uh yes

[0:11:20] Voice 17: please stand up it'll it's probably easier for you to hear me i was

[0:11:24] Voice 17: gonna say

[0:11:24] Voice 3: if you could also say your name because shannon's not in the room who would readily

[0:11:27] Voice 3: recognize you.

[0:11:29] Voice 17: Bruce McConkey, 8806 Canal Road, South Bender Island.

[0:11:34] Voice 17: Just first of all I just want to actually thank the trustees for being

[0:11:38] Voice 17: open to informal discussions about these topics. We may not agree on results or

[0:11:44] Voice 17: anything like that or even even agree with you about anything but we're

[0:11:49] Voice 17: discussing it and that's the biggest thing in the community is you like to

[0:11:51] Voice 17: have an open and formal discussion and thank you for making yourself available

[0:11:55] Voice 17: for those informal discussions. There's gonna be a lot of formal discussions

[0:11:58] Voice 17: to come. Just have a couple of comments on what you're going to be addressing

[0:12:03] Voice 17: today. In regards to the shoreline, I encourage you to really consider the

[0:12:09] staff recommendation to go to your second option there to increase the

[0:12:14] ability to discuss

[0:12:15] Voice 17: more fully and also First Nations involvement more and more

[0:12:20] Voice 17: people to involved in this whole whole discussion going forward because it's a

[0:12:23] Voice 17: a very, very good discussion. I do want to point out, though, that no matter what we

[0:12:28] Voice 17: do about the shorelines, we're still being threatened right off of our shores by the

[0:12:32] Voice 17: freighters that continue to anchor there, and that's probably going to be the greatest

[0:12:36] Voice 17: threat to our shorelines going forward. So I consider you, if you could please consider

[0:12:41] very, very carefully their second option on maybe

[0:12:44] Voice 17: not rushing into it, providing more

[0:12:46] Voice 17: opportunity for input um a quick comment on taking the word stairway out of your uh your amendment

[0:12:54] Voice 17: um nowhere in the bylaw does it define stairway so if you take stick out if someone will say was

[0:13:00] Voice 17: this a wooden stairway because what type of stairway actually if you look at the definition

[0:13:04] Voice 17: of it uh elsewhere and then different dictionaries and that it can be a um stone it can be stonework

[0:13:11] Voice 17: so stairway any pathway leading in somewhere else is considered the stairway so consider that when

[0:13:17] Voice 17: you have to take the word stairway out without defining it then the final thing is it's hard

[0:13:22] Voice 17: to talk to these masks house size discussion so you know where i stand on that because i was a

[0:13:30] Voice 17: trustee when we did the last land use bylaw on that so i won't comment on that rather than

[0:13:33] Voice 17: what are you trying to accomplish when you reduce the house size on a particular piece of property

[0:13:39] Voice 17: yet maintain the amount of square footage for including accessory buildings if i just kind

[0:13:46] Voice 17: of look at that first one where you reduce it to 1050 square feet what it enables someone to do

[0:13:53] Voice 17: and we found this out the unintended consequence of of restricting that and not including say a

[0:13:58] Voice 17: garage as part of your house size and those kind of things is you can then build a 1200 square foot

[0:14:06] Voice 17: garage and then you can also add another thousand square foot accessory building and you can build

[0:14:13] Voice 17: a storage building before you even build your house right so what have you done in lock coverage

[0:14:18] Voice 17: there what have you actually accomplished you've made a smaller house but you might add another

[0:14:22] Voice 17: building to your property so the density of the buildings on the property then increases so just

[0:14:27] Voice 17: consider that when you're going forward on that reduction so that's all i have to say right now

[0:14:31] Voice 17: there's probably lots more people to say thank

[0:14:33] Voice 3: you thank you who else would like to go yes uh

[0:14:39] Voice 12: alma light body 8805 ac point road i had written a letter um to the trustee committee just the other

[0:14:48] Voice 12: day but most of the stuff just for all of these things that we're talking about set up people as

[0:14:55] Voice 12: legal non-conforming in some way or another so it might be on one issue on two issues on three

[0:15:01] Voice 12: issues but why i mean you know we we need to go forward and maybe make some changes for new

[0:15:10] Voice 12: properties or whatever that we're concerned about but why put it on the shoulders of all the people

[0:15:16] Voice 12: that have been here a long time i mean we built our house in good faith we followed all the rules

[0:15:22] Voice 12: when we did it and now we get labeled with legal non-conforming and we don't know what the insurance

[0:15:29] Voice 12: companies are going to say what resale it's going to do what the fire hall is going to say

[0:15:34] Voice 12: i mean we don't we don't know that so anyway please when you're when you're looking at making

[0:15:41] Voice 12: changes look forward don't go back and and penalize the people that have done everything

[0:15:49] Voice 12: in good faith thank you thank you it's

[0:15:52] Voice 13: shared hobs i heartily agree 9809 scalding road i

[0:15:55] Voice 13: hardly agree with that comment it will have implications and i think it's unfair to make

[0:15:59] Voice 13: it retroactive you should do it from this point forward only so all right thank you

[0:16:04] Voice 16: oh we love to speak here during town hall or no well

[0:16:08] Voice 3: we we do usually i don't i don't want to get

[0:16:10] Voice 3: into deep dialogues because uh

[0:16:12] Voice 3: we should be listening yeah

[0:16:14] Voice 16: i i i hear this the the concern

[0:16:17] Voice 16: about legal non-conforming it's been here right from the start um and because it has been a concern

[0:16:24] Voice 16: I've kind of done some research into it I've spoken to three insurance companies one on the

[0:16:32] Voice 16: island one in Sydney and one fairly major one in Victoria they have told me that insurance companies

[0:16:40] Voice 16: regardless of legal non-performing status or size or all that sort of stuff they have an obligation

[0:16:45] Voice 16: to replace the existing building size second thing is they said if an

[0:16:53] Voice 16: insurance company is concerned about it you can get a bylaw change policy

[0:16:59] Voice 16: attached which will protect you against any changes in any bylaw anywhere the

[0:17:06] Voice 16: third thing he said is if a broker is giving a homeowner some questionable

[0:17:16] Voice 16: concern about that he said send them my way and I'll give them a quote so the

[0:17:23] Voice 16: second thing is the appraisal I talked to an appraiser and his thing was we

[0:17:30] Voice 16: look at the use of the property we look at the price of the property and we

[0:17:35] Voice 16: looked at the size of the structures and the value of the structures he said

[0:17:38] Voice 16: whether it is lean lock and forming lock does not even answer the question so

[0:17:43] Voice 16: So that is what I've been told, and if that does not resolve your concerns or you're still

[0:17:50] Voice 16: uncomfortable with it, please show me some evidence or some written material or whatever

[0:17:55] Voice 16: you've got that contradicts that information, because I don't get that information from

[0:18:00] Voice 16: the people that I'm speaking to.

[0:18:02] Voice 16: So I'm absolutely happy to look at it.

[0:18:05] Voice 16: With respect to legal law and conforming, if your house is four years or older, you're

[0:18:12] Voice 16: already legal non-performing with respect to the building code because you don't have seismic

[0:18:18] Voice 16: engineering on it so i know the sound that the word legal non-conforming uh sounds ominous but

[0:18:26] Voice 16: from what i have gathered from the people i spoke to you could be legal non-conforming and you don't

[0:18:32] Voice 16: even know it and they said it's not really a big issue it's simply a legal statement and i let me

[0:18:37] Voice 16: Let me ask if any of what I've said is incorrect, Robert, from your experience and all of them.

[0:18:42] Voice 16: No, no, yeah, sounds good.

[0:18:44] Voice 18: Legal nonconformity, it's common.

[0:18:47] Voice 18: Lots of properties have legal nonconforming status for one aspect or another.

[0:18:52] Voice 18: Bylaws change over time.

[0:18:54] Voice 18: Properties predate bylaws in many cases.

[0:18:58] Voice 18: It's not really a significant issue that we've ever seen.

[0:19:00] Voice 18: and also add that with respect to the house size that the local trust committee earlier on in the

[0:19:08] Voice 18: process asked us to come up with some wording that would essentially get in the bylaw say that these

[0:19:13] Voice 18: house sizes um uh new house sizes apply to drawings that exceed that floor area and then

[0:19:22] Voice 18: most recently i think it was the last local trust committee meeting gave direction that they wanted

[0:19:27] Voice 18: to consider site-specific zoning to allow the small number of dwellings that would exceed the

[0:19:34] Voice 18: new floor area to be specifically zoned to allow what they have now.

[0:19:40] Voice 16: So I guess the end result is

[0:19:42] Voice 16: if you have concerns about it let us know we will we hear it we're not oblivious to it

[0:19:49] Voice 16: and we'll do

[0:19:51] Voice 16: whatever we can to mitigate or whatever it takes in order to resolve your concerns but

[0:19:56] Voice 16: there are ways we can do to do it. Any by-law that we do put in cannot be retroactive. It always

[0:20:05] Voice 16: applies to those from the day of the adoption of the by-law. So it's not going to affect

[0:20:13] Voice 16: existing buildings unless they in some manner change either through an addition or through

[0:20:21] Voice 16: major renovation or such and such and if and as i as we've said if your house is destroyed by fire

[0:20:27] Voice 16: by wildfire or something like that um wherever decided and whatever floor area you have now

[0:20:33] Voice 16: you will be able to replace i just turned to the bible i

[0:20:37] Voice 18: guess i just uh it is just

[0:20:39] Voice 18: it is and that's where i'm going to keep my comments short this obviously this comment has

[0:20:46] Voice 18: come up it's going to be further in the agenda i'm going to keep my comments very limited at

[0:20:50] Voice 18: this point in time except to say i'm looking forward to a more fulsome discussion on this

[0:20:55] Voice 18: when we get further into the agenda because i stated right from the outset that i um regardless

[0:21:00] Voice 18: of whether legal non-conforming is a fairly common um occurrence across uh many municipalities i

[0:21:07] Voice 18: think all municipalities in the province we take we look to take steps specifically given the

[0:21:13] Voice 18: concerns we've heard about this topic so that any changes that were made to the bylaw would not

[0:21:18] Voice 18: render homes that were built prior to the bylaw as legal non-conforming and that has been my push

[0:21:23] Voice 18: right from the from the get-go so that this didn't become sort of a dominant issue that overshadowed

[0:21:29] Voice 18: the the the concept of looking at house sides so i'll talk about it later but i i i hear a lot and

[0:21:35] Voice 18: clear the comments my

[0:21:36] Voice 14: thinking yes uh

[0:21:38] Voice 18: paul petrie south canada islands um

[0:21:40] Voice 4: to commend the trustees

[0:21:44] Voice 4: for the leadership that are not divided,

[0:21:46] Voice 4: especially in the last while.

[0:21:48] Voice 4: And I second Bruce

[0:21:49] Voice 18: McConkie's comment

[0:21:51] Voice 18: about the informal gatherings to hear dialogue

[0:21:57] Voice 18: and the three folks to hear each other.

[0:21:59] Voice 18: Unfortunately, I was off island for two of those dates

[0:22:01] Voice 18: and not available for another one.

[0:22:04] Voice 18: So I have catch-up to do, but I'll do that.

[0:22:06] Voice 18: I'd like to speak in support of Bylaw 123,

[0:22:11] Voice 18: 23 draft 501 23 that's coming to you today. I think it's really important now to move on the

[0:22:20] Voice 18: issue of First Nations acknowledgement statement. I think timing is important. I would not want to

[0:22:26] Voice 18: see that delayed. So if possible, I'd like to see that as well as the rights of nature. I mean,

[0:22:32] Voice 18: we're looking at COP26 right now and all of the implications of climate change and that factors

[0:22:38] Voice 18: is into that. So those are two really important things, I think, for the community. I certainly

[0:22:43] Voice 18: know a lot of people that I speak with feel strongly about that. The draft bylaw 122 with

[0:22:54] Voice 18: house size, et cetera, I believe you're headed in the right direction. I also believe there's

[0:23:00] Voice 18: more work to be done there and more communication in the community. And I think we're hearing your

[0:23:06] Voice 18: responsiveness to that. I am quite honestly relieved to hear your comments, Mr. Wright,

[0:23:11] Voice 18: about the non-conforming issues. I think that is helpful. The issue of Shoreline Review Project

[0:23:20] Voice 18: is a complex one, and I must confess I have more work to do to better understand and appreciate

[0:23:28] Voice 18: that. So I look forward to your discussion today on those two options that are put before you,

[0:23:34] Voice 18: because I'm still looking for my own views to gel on that, so thank you very much.

[0:23:42] Voice 3: Who's next? I think someone's hand was over on this side of the room, any of them?

[0:23:48] Voice 1: Yes, Christophe, sorry, did you want to go? Go ahead.

[0:23:51] Voice 1: May 8th of 7th, Spaldinger. In the previous meetings, the one question, I raised one question

[0:23:58] Voice 1: is changes to bylaws with regards to house houses and so on where they are being instituted are we

[0:24:06] Voice 1: having any issues on the island that people build too big homes or something like this

[0:24:13] Voice 1: clearly was established if something happens to our properties and we have 10,000 square foot

[0:24:19] Voice 1: homes not that I do I will be able to rebuild it so nothing changes in the past with regards to

[0:24:27] Voice 1: to new homes which can be constructed on the island.

[0:24:32] Voice 1: We have around 50 properties which are not buildable.

[0:24:37] Voice 1: We don't know how many of those are buildable.

[0:24:39] Voice 1: And I labeled this particular law

[0:24:42] Voice 1: as a solution looking for a problem

[0:24:44] Voice 1: because I don't see what the problem is

[0:24:46] Voice 1: that we have to limit the size of the properties

[0:24:50] Voice 1: out of the sandbox.

[0:24:52] Voice 1: Is this response because community has an issue?

[0:24:56] Voice 1: Because I live on a rock, if you tell me I can't build because I have a large coverage,

[0:25:03] Voice 1: which was suggested, I can't do anything, I cannot plant anything there, it's a rock.

[0:25:10] Voice 1: So what is this response to what kind of issue this is done, and what are we supposed to

[0:25:18] Voice 1: solve it?

[0:25:19] Voice 1: Because it's nice, we can just keep going and pushing the size of the properties down,

[0:25:24] Voice 1: but why?

[0:25:25] Voice 1: Why? And I never heard the answer.

[0:25:28] Voice 1: What problem are we really addressing?

[0:25:32] Voice 3: Thank you very much.

[0:25:36] Voice 20: Yes.

[0:25:36] Voice 20: Shelly Henshaw, I have a flower farm in the valley

[0:25:40] Voice 20: and I live at the foot of Craddock Road.

[0:25:44] Voice 20: And I concur with your comments.

[0:25:46] Voice 20: I don't know what is the problem with big houses.

[0:25:49] Voice 20: I don't know where the issuers and what the problem is,

[0:25:53] Voice 20: but I do think there is,

[0:25:55] Voice 20: if you have a bias for finding houses that gets in the way of understanding why some people with

[0:26:05] Voice 20: big families or whatever reason they want a larger house and i don't know why on some large

[0:26:10] Voice 20: properties where that is a problem um when it comes to the building design and citing guidelines

[0:26:17] Voice 20: i found out or kim confirmed is that no other island has any guidelines like that as part of

[0:26:24] Voice 20: their OCP are added on, nor are there any other

[0:26:28] Voice 20: islands who are in the process of drafting

[0:26:32] Voice 20: things.

[0:26:32] Voice 20: So I think you're trailblazing there, and I think it's unnecessary, and I don't think

[0:26:38] Voice 20: people want to be told about what kind of siding they can have and

[0:26:41] Voice 7: what their driveway

[0:26:42] Voice 20: should look like, et cetera, et cetera.

[0:26:45] Voice 20: When it comes to right to nature, I think everybody on the island totally, completely

[0:26:52] Voice 20: appreciates the environment.

[0:26:54] Voice 20: I mean, isn't that why we're here?

[0:26:56] Voice 7: And

[0:26:57] Voice 20: right to nature is very new.

[0:27:02] Voice 20: There is no legislation in Canada or in British Columbia on rights of nature, but a few places,

[0:27:08] Voice 20: Wales, somewhere in England, New Zealand.

[0:27:11] Voice 20: So again, that's trailblazing in my opinion.

[0:27:14] Voice 20: And I don't know why we have to be the trailblazers in that regard.

[0:27:19] Voice 20: And when it comes to shoreline protection, I do feel very strongly that, well, by the way, the trust, go online, there's a really good map of South Pender Island, and it has a color coding all around the perimeter of South Pender Island, which is something that we were kind of looking for to identify rocky shores, cliffs, sensitive areas, et cetera, et cetera.

[0:27:44] Voice 20: I think that's an excellent map. I didn't quite understand it. There's a table that's really comprehensive to the side about the different types of rock and sand and sediment and all that sort of thing.

[0:27:56] Voice 20: But nowhere do I think you can just carte blanche and say we need a perimeter around with a permanent area all around the island.

[0:28:04] Voice 20: I think that's completely unnecessary, but I think it would be really helpful to identify something that is very, very sensitive and that we might not be aware of.

[0:28:13] Voice 20: and when it comes to bruce when you showed the photos of the canal i do think that's a serious

[0:28:19] Voice 20: problem what's happening in the canal that is a problem that north pender has and south pender has

[0:28:25] Voice 20: and i would understand that that's minister of highways the environment and other ministers that

[0:28:30] Voice 20: are involved not south pender it's not for us to get in there and say shore it up do this do that

[0:28:35] Voice 20: we need to be getting those ministers involved to help and protect the canal

[0:28:42] Voice 20: and we haven't done that and we have lots of problems here like the roads and

[0:28:46] Voice 20: things that I

[0:28:48] Voice 20: think things and I think we should really be as opposed to

[0:28:54] Voice 20: trailblazing. And that's my comment.

[0:29:02] Voice 3: I understand. We really want to make this a safe place for

[0:29:07] Voice 3: people to talk because there could be someone who has a different opinion. And I do ask for

[0:29:11] Voice 3: your respect. And that's why I'm asking you not to boo or applaud a speaker because it is

[0:29:20] Voice 3: important. We want to hear all voices. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address this today?

[0:29:27] Voice 12: Yes, me again about

[0:29:29] Voice 12: legal non-conforming.

[0:29:32] Voice 12: You know, we say that insurance companies would look after us and all of these things,

[0:29:38] Voice 12: but they change their opinions too.

[0:29:41] Voice 12: Just like we're changing all of our bylaws, they can change theirs as fast as we can change ours.

[0:29:47] Voice 12: And then all of a sudden they can say, well, it was costing too much, so we stopped covering that.

[0:29:52] Voice 12: I mean, I think we have to be really careful about who we believe.

[0:30:00] Voice 12: and decide that other people aren't going to change things as well.

[0:30:04] Voice 12: If we're willing to change all this stuff,

[0:30:07] Voice 12: then other societies and other things are going to change too,

[0:30:11] Voice 12: and insurance companies will be one of them for sure.

[0:30:13] Voice 12: They changed the word earthquake.

[0:30:15] Voice 12: So just be cautious about that.

[0:30:18] Voice 5: I'm going to let this person go that hasn't spoken yet.

[0:30:21] Voice 5: If I could just reinforce that a couple of years ago,

[0:30:26] Voice 5: we were forced to change insurance companies on our house

[0:30:31] Voice 5: because they would no longer cover guests in our cottage using a robo.

[0:30:37] Voice 5: And this was just a decision that Lloyds of London made.

[0:30:42] Voice 5: And, you know, that's a risky thing to not have coverage for that.

[0:30:47] Voice 5: And we had to find another company.

[0:30:49] Voice 5: It turned out to be the local insurance company that had coverage for that aspect.

[0:30:53] Voice 5: So what she's saying is a very real thing.

[0:30:57] Voice 5: The insurance company, the minute it costs money,

[0:31:01] Voice 5: I mean, right now we can't get the earthquake insurance

[0:31:04] Voice 5: for our business in Richmond,

[0:31:07] Voice 5: again, because they just said,

[0:31:09] Voice 5: too risky for us, too many fires.

[0:31:13] Voice 16: We're not covering that anymore.

[0:31:16] Voice 16: There has been some instances

[0:31:19] Voice 16: where insurance companies are not covering properties,

[0:31:23] Voice 16: even within the Southern Gulf Islands because of wildfires.

[0:31:27] Voice 16: But, you know, what insurance companies do

[0:31:29] Voice 16: and the decisions they make and the policies they make,

[0:31:32] Voice 16: it's kind of beyond our jurisdiction.

[0:31:34] Voice 16: There's not much we can do.

[0:31:35] Voice 16: We have to go on what is same as everybody else here.

[0:31:38] Voice 16: We have to go on what is present and what's in front of us.

[0:31:41] Voice 16: We can't, there's just no way we can look into the future

[0:31:44] Voice 16: and say, well, that might happen and that might happen

[0:31:45] Voice 16: and that might happen because we can't, I guess.

[0:31:50] Voice 16: But yeah, you're right, the insurance companies,

[0:31:53] Voice 16: It's going to be a problem. It's going to increase because of the climate change and the cost of repair of the damage that is being done by these more severe weather events.

[0:32:06] Voice 11: Hi,

[0:32:07] Voice 13: it's Jared Hobbs of 9809 Spalding.

[0:32:09] Voice 13: And with all due respect, and Mr. Wright, thanks for addressing the comments, but I still see some valid questions that I don't share.

[0:32:17] Voice 13: I share Christoph's sentiment. I don't understand why we're making these changes.

[0:32:20] Voice 13: I do have concerns I share your concerns as well about insurance companies changing their policy

[0:32:25] Voice 13: and I've been victim to that over the course of my experience with real estate and again with all

[0:32:31] Voice 13: due respect regarding the assessed value of a home and that was supported by you there's an

[0:32:36] Voice 13: intangible that you can't touch and I've made my entire living with real estate investment and I

[0:32:40] Voice 13: know that intangible all too well and when you assign a stigma a label like legal non-conforming

[0:32:44] Voice 13: it has an intangible effect on the value of the home and I'm it's against our interests at least

[0:32:50] Voice 13: in my opinion to proceed with that for no real purpose the risk of insurance coverage going up

[0:32:56] Voice 13: and the stigma that gets attached to a home why are we doing this i don't understand well you know

[0:33:03] Voice 13: i

[0:33:03] Voice 3: was gonna say yeah we

[0:33:04] Voice 13: don't need i

[0:33:05] Voice 3: think we've heard loud and clear and we're going to have some

[0:33:08] Voice 3: discussions and a bit

[0:33:09] Voice 18: more i don't want anybody to be legal on conformity that's the whole thing

[0:33:13] Voice 18: that i've been saying for the last number of weeks and i think some people either are not

[0:33:17] Voice 18: listen to what I'm saying or maybe not getting what I'm saying so let's have a

[0:33:22] Voice 18: conversation I'm hearing people's comments about legal non-conforming very

[0:33:25] Voice 18: clear so looking forward to getting into the conversation all

[0:33:30] Voice 3: right I'm gonna let

[0:33:32] Voice 3: you go first as you haven't spoken

[0:33:37] Voice 18: legal non-conforming is a big concern of mine

[0:33:40] Voice 1: it stares you're talking about

[0:33:43] Voice 1: taking stairs out all of a sudden there's a potential of 52 percent of the properties

[0:33:48] Voice 1: on south pender island which is waterfront properties could become legal non-reformings

[0:33:53] Voice 1: they happen to have

[0:33:53] Voice 18: stairs um minor amendments uh to the ocp and one and draft 122 setbacks

[0:34:01] Voice 18: how many people are going to become if you increase those uh

[0:34:05] Voice 1: setbacks to the your proposed

[0:34:08] Voice 1: setback on the sides and then of course with foreshore one you're talking about

[0:34:14] Voice 1: a 50-foot setback on those waterfronts again again to create non-conformity and

[0:34:21] Voice 1: so a lot of properties with the bylaws

[0:34:25] Voice 18: even that you're proposing here right

[0:34:27] Voice 18: now are targeted

[0:34:28] Voice 1: for non-conform and the question comes back again again why and

[0:34:34] Voice 1: And to say that the insurance companies is fine, that's probably valid, but I think this is more of a legal concern.

[0:34:45] Voice 1: And there are a lot more things involved than just the

[0:34:50] Voice 16: burning of

[0:34:52] Voice 4: the house down.

[0:34:53] Voice 4: You know, there's all the

[0:34:56] Voice 16: other issues that have been addressed here already.

[0:35:00] Voice 1: so I think that we need to seriously find out the staff presented in one of

[0:35:07] Voice 1: the previous things where non-conformity would work for setbacks and all that

[0:35:12] Voice 1: which is one issue and that's fine it's addressed.

[0:35:16] Voice 16: Just one other statement on

[0:35:19] Voice 16: the OCP the minor amendments I find that descriptor

[0:35:24] Voice 1: a little bit objectionable

[0:35:26] Voice 1: in that there's eight pages being proposed to add to a 61-page document.

[0:35:31] Voice 1: In other words, our existing OCP is 61 pages long,

[0:35:36] Voice 1: and this minor amendment that's coming on adds another eight pages.

[0:35:42] Voice 1: That's my estimation of a minor amendment.

[0:35:46] Voice 5: So I think that we should be, in addition to all this,

[0:35:52] Voice 5: this, every one of these topics is being addressed at the trust policy statement level. And

[0:36:00] Voice 18: here

[0:36:01] Voice 16: we are, shall use the term

[0:36:03] Voice 1: trailblazer, proceeding along on our line. Meanwhile, we could be

[0:36:08] Voice 1: told very

[0:36:09] Voice 16: shortly that this all has to be readjusted

[0:36:12] Voice 1: because of a new

[0:36:12] Voice 16: trust policy statement.

[0:36:14] Voice 16: So I think there's a lot happening here in

[0:36:18] Voice 18: kind of a parallel fashion. Maybe we need

[0:36:21] Voice 18: to step back thank you

[0:36:23] Voice 21: thank you very much um yes um just one comment that i just thought about

[0:36:28] Voice 21: right now because i've been assured by both trustees now that the setbacks will only apply

[0:36:34] Voice 21: to dwellings um to dwellings so that the 10 foot setback would still apply to accessory

[0:36:41] Voice 21: buildings which which is definitely what we want but it just occurs to me that um

[0:36:48] Voice 21: when you're building a home you can occupy your garage or or whatever that accessory building is

[0:36:56] Voice 21: for a period of whatever you've changed it to now that should be noted in there as well that um

[0:37:04] Voice 21: that you would be able to occupy whatever it is in a 10-foot setback until you have your home

[0:37:12] Voice 16: that's not being changed so there's no change we don't have to change it

[0:37:17] Voice 16: there's nothing to change it's going to remain i

[0:37:19] Voice 20: think the point is you could be in a you could

[0:37:23] Voice 20: be have have be living in an accessory building 10 feet from yeah yeah

[0:37:28] Voice 16: that's right good for a

[0:37:31] Voice 16: specific length of time while you build your house thank

[0:37:34] Voice 3: you anyone else yes

[0:37:38] Voice 11: um dorset north

[0:37:40] Voice 11: young uh i just like to uh support the right to nature bill that's one of the things that most

[0:37:46] Voice 11: impressed me when I was reading this document and if anybody else hasn't read David Savoy's book,

[0:37:52] Voice 11: I think it's welcome. It's very important we live on these islands for the environment and we are

[0:38:01] Voice 11: actually progressive just living here. The people in the cities are finding out now as you see the

[0:38:07] Voice 11: that's coming to pender. And I think it's really important that we should pender, we're only talking about $1,000, I support this bill completely.

[0:38:26] Voice 3: Thank you.

[0:38:27] Voice 20: Anyone else?

[0:38:31] Voice 20: I just wanted to offer a last comment about the insurance thing. And with all respect to Trustee Wright, it's great to talk to salesmen.

[0:38:39] Voice 20: the reality is if you don't talk to the underwriter then that information can be

[0:38:44] Voice 20: completely skewed and i have some really good things so i happen to work for some of the largest

[0:38:52] Voice 20: companies in the world the cruise lines and we'll go down why you like them or not at this point but

[0:38:58] Voice 20: that's not consistent insurance companies right now if you want to buy travel insurance you can

[0:39:05] Voice 20: buy it but they won't insure you against anything that would be related to COVID so to the point

[0:39:12] Voice 20: they can change any time and if Canada removes its travel advisory that will change again so

[0:39:21] Voice 20: it's it's we're at their mercy

[0:39:25] Voice 2: thank

[0:39:26] Voice 20: you very much your

[0:39:28] Voice 3: questions your comments your thoughts

[0:39:30] Voice 3: are always very important oops I'm not gonna let Donna have the last word there we go

[0:39:36] Voice 3: I

[0:39:37] Voice 1: have a question since we are concerned with the environment we are very well aware about the

[0:39:43] Voice 1: climate change and the impact it will create it does create and will create somehow in all the

[0:39:50] Voice 1: conversations and what we could do for the island and community water is not really anywhere

[0:39:57] Voice 1: were significant why not start talking how all the islands can bend together and provide additional

[0:40:05] Voice 1: water storage who is aware that we actually don't have the fire evacuation plan for south bender

[0:40:13] Voice 1: none zero nothing and even if it is if there is a fire on the canal road how do we go and get

[0:40:22] Voice 1: that get out of here so perhaps we could think how to build up the fire suppression for the island

[0:40:29] Voice 1: that is the water is more available around to me those are the issues not the house size i don't

[0:40:36] Voice 1: care if somebody builds 10 000 square foot home on the lot okay but to me the water is something

[0:40:42] Voice 1: which we will all face and it will be the destruction of the properties the values our

[0:40:48] Voice 1: where I believe thank

[0:40:50] Voice 3: you very much all right like I said your comments if

[0:40:56] Voice 17: you

[0:41:00] Voice 17: could provide us perhaps with an update on your interactions with the Ministry

[0:41:05] Voice 17: of highways addressing the new exciting ride that we have on South Pender called

[0:41:11] Voice 17: the dip before that we isolate our self Pender communities from each other is

[0:41:16] Voice 17: there any update on what's going to happen there? None whatsoever.

[0:41:22] Voice 3: Okay, last time your comments are

[0:41:25] Voice 3: very important. Please send emails and contact us. It's good to copy southinfo at islandstrust.bc.ca

[0:41:36] Voice 3: when you do send your emails so that your email goes on the record and really appreciate and your

[0:41:43] Voice 3: your feedback is very important to us so we're going to be going into our meeting we will be

[0:41:48] Voice 3: having dialogue uh on the various topics coming forward and uh i please ask your respect to let

[0:41:55] Voice 3: us have that that dialogue and we'll we'll see where things go today sorry could you repeat that

[0:42:02] Voice 3: email address oh sorry um south info at islands with an s trust.bc.ca

[0:42:11] Voice 3: so one

[0:42:12] Voice 4: question so i'm not asking one of my first dollars trust me this is quite embarrassing but

[0:42:16] Voice 4: what i'd like to find out during this discussion we just observe and you're observing

[0:42:21] Voice 4: and we don't

[0:42:22] Voice 4: we've done our there's no comments at this point that's correct but we just have to find out what

[0:42:26] Voice 4: you're then the next information the next feeling we comment on these notes and what you've decided

[0:42:31] Voice 4: today are talking about the meeting there's another time i see okay yeah

[0:42:35] Voice 3: each each item on

[0:42:36] Voice 3: the agenda i will make sure that i and if i don't please wave at me um make it clear that uh they're

[0:42:42] Voice 3: uh you know what is where we're going next right because that's important for you to under

[0:42:46] Voice 3: understand okay yeah about how long is that going to take or we can speak

[0:42:53] Voice 20: i

[0:42:53] Voice 3: don't know

[0:42:55] Voice 22: just because we have meetings

[0:42:58] Voice 3: we're gonna i can't promise how long i you know how long it's going to take us to speak um there

[0:43:04] Voice 3: will be a town hall again at the end but again you can email and contact us at any time the only

[0:43:10] Voice 3: decision that's potentially done today is the STDR one which all others will have community

[0:43:18] Voice 3: process following them official community processes and including public hearings and

[0:43:25] Voice 3: so forth so there's process yet coming so today is not it's like what you're saying today is not

[0:43:31] Voice 3: we're not going to, we're not making a final decision

[0:43:33] Voice 3: on those items.

[0:43:35] Voice 3: Could

[0:43:35] Voice 5: I just ask a question of,

[0:43:37] Voice 5: because I haven't been to the recent one,

[0:43:40] Voice 5: we're all, it's called COVID-19,

[0:43:42] Voice 5: we're in a pretty tight place here with the ventilation.

[0:43:45] Voice 5: And when I go to a restaurant,

[0:43:47] Voice 5: I have to show my proof of vaccination.

[0:43:50] Voice 5: And when I get on a plane now, I'll have to show it.

[0:43:55] Voice 5: Do we not make that a requirement

[0:43:57] Voice 5: for people that come to this meeting?

[0:43:59] Voice 5: thank you well

[0:44:01] Voice 3: um government uh the

[0:44:04] Voice 3: rules have all been made that they don't want to get in the

[0:44:06] Voice 3: way of democracy uh so uh democracy

[0:44:09] Voice 16: and and

[0:44:11] Voice 3: just last week uh build uh whatever you want to say

[0:44:15] Voice 3: interior spaces were removed of the not the exemption not exemptions the

[0:44:20] Voice 6: limit on the

[0:44:20] Voice 3: limits on the numbers thank you um so you know we're trying to do our best through the techniques

[0:44:26] Voice 3: that we have we'd like to get to the point where we can be interactive that's the next step to get

[0:44:31] Voice 3: to that you could be home and interact you know be able to raise your hand and talk to us through

[0:44:35] Voice 3: this way like we did kind of when we were the zoom so we're one step shy of getting there we want to

[0:44:40] Voice 3: get there and um so yeah it's a it's a democracy trumps uh covid rules for uh access to meetings

[0:44:49] Voice 3: we you know other than the interior the mask coverage and so forth and you know we're we're

[0:44:55] Voice 3: here we all have our personal concerns of uh of it and our own personal safety but democracy is uh

[0:45:01] Voice 3: more important it

[0:45:02] Voice 16: could open the door

[0:45:05] Voice 16: in the

[0:45:06] Voice 15: old days years ago when we had a large crowd they took the fire trucks out

[0:45:11] Voice 15: and we met in there and we had large groups and we we can social distance out there

[0:45:16] Voice 15: so i i'm suggesting if our group gets bigger and i'm i'm feeling a bit tight in here why could we

[0:45:22] Voice 15: not move move into the actual fire hall no

[0:45:26] Voice 3: i appreciate and as we plan the uh the the official

[0:45:31] Voice 3: community information if these uh proceed uh we will take that into account and make sure

[0:45:37] Voice 3: that the space is uh adequate for what's anticipated i

[0:45:42] Voice 20: have one last question um

[0:45:44] Voice 20: just want to make sure i understand today would be the last day that we could really say anything

[0:45:52] Voice 20: regard to the STVR bylaw. Is that correct?

[0:45:55] Voice 20: Well, we can't accept any new information because we're

[0:45:57] Voice 20: not

[0:45:57] Voice 3: offering new information.

[0:45:59] Voice 3: But we are that we would we're

[0:46:02] Voice 3: considering an adoption of those bylaws today.

[0:46:05] Voice 3: I'd like to point out that I object to the adoption of that

[0:46:08] Voice 20: bylaw.

[0:46:08] Voice 3: Okay,

[0:46:10] Voice 9: sorry. I just didn't want to comment until later, but I'm

[0:46:16] Voice 9: gonna have to scoot off and load some ferries very soon. I just

[0:46:20] Voice 9: wanted to have a little bit more information before i made any comments um i own a sort of

[0:46:26] Voice 9: unique shaped property um and one of my concerns is the new setbacks i haven't built anything yet

[0:46:32] Voice 9: and i'm literally weeks away from applying for my building mortgage um and the new setback does

[0:46:38] Voice 9: have the potential it could honestly quite make my property useless essentially um because of

[0:46:45] Voice 9: it's sort of this funny pizza pie shape um and where i was planning on building a reasonably

[0:46:52] Voice 9: sized house um yeah it could really be a problem for me so that was that's a concern for me it's

[0:46:59] Voice 9: especially i know i've looked at the maps on south pender and there's some

[0:47:02] Voice 9: pretty uniquely shaped properties and i think that really needs to be addressed

[0:47:07] Voice 9: yeah thank you can you tell me what size property it's just uh it's two

[0:47:11] Voice 3: just over two acres yeah

[0:47:14] Voice 3: Yeah. So any decisions made, you might explain, when they don't go into effect anyway, like today's rules exist for what you're facing.

[0:47:30] Voice 18: Yeah. So those amendments, even if they proceed further, there's a long process ahead to get those bylaws adopted, at least six months, if not more.

[0:47:40] Voice 18: more. And

[0:47:41] Voice 18: then if you've done any sort of work on your property already, with respect

[0:47:47] Voice 18: to building the house, like site clearance or anything, there's a non-conforming protection

[0:47:52] Voice 9: associated with that.

[0:47:53] Voice 9: Okay. I might be a little on the cusp of that, but yeah, we'll see.

[0:47:57] Voice 16: And then there's, you know, there's variances, there's, yeah.

[0:47:59] Voice 16: Okay.

[0:48:00] Voice 3: But thank you for your overall point about irregular lot sizes being taken into

[0:48:06] Voice 3: Okay, thank you.

[0:48:07] Voice 3: And it's important to load those fairies.

[0:48:10] Voice 3: All right, so

[0:48:11] Voice 3: we'll let, if anyone wants to leave,

[0:48:12] Voice 3: we'll let that turn out.

[0:48:14] Voice 3: We're going to carry on with our conversations.

[0:48:16] Voice 3: And like I said, please get your comments.

[0:48:18] Voice 3: They are important.

[0:48:20] Voice 3: We have

[0:48:21] Voice 3: a moment for, for,

[0:48:22] Voice 2: all right.

[0:48:27] Voice 2: Okay, we're

[0:48:28] Voice 7: going to proceed.

[0:48:31] Voice 2: Okay, thanks.

[0:48:33] Voice 3: Thank you for coming.

[0:48:35] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:48:40] Voice 3: we're going to carry on here. We have, and I do really appreciate your comments. On page

[0:48:46] Voice 3: three, we have the minutes from our September 24th meeting for adoption. We did have one

[0:48:53] Voice 3: request in the town hall for a change to those minutes. Trustee, what would you like to do?

[0:49:04] Voice 16: Well, I have no problem if there's been a comment missed and it should be included in

[0:49:09] Voice 16: the minutes.

[0:49:09] Voice 16: and that's true it says town

[0:49:13] Voice 3: hall none so we would um acknowledge uh donald's balding spoke

[0:49:20] Voice 3: and um addressed uh materials that um oh that's right materials weren't the maps and things were

[0:49:30] Voice 3: not in the package i do remember that conversation and um uh and that the apc is ready and willing to

[0:49:38] Voice 3: take on further review of shorelines. Is that okay? I'm hopeful that Shannon heard that and Shannon you can always pipe in if you look I've got thumbs up from Shannon. You can't see her but I could. Hello Shannon. Okay so should we can we adopt the minutes as amended through general consent?

[0:50:07] Voice 3: The

[0:50:07] Voice 16: only small item is on top of page 5 in the agenda.

[0:50:14] Voice 16: Under 8.2 on the second bullet, it says Trustee Thorne suggests an amendment to 5.3.1 to change the wording.

[0:50:21] Voice 16: I don't believe that was Trustee Fernandes.

[0:50:24] Voice 16: Go

[0:50:25] Voice 3: ahead and take the credit, Steve.

[0:50:26] Voice 3: I believe

[0:50:26] Voice 16: that was me.

[0:50:28] Voice 16: Because it was referring to the shoreline.

[0:50:31] Voice 16: Yeah, it probably was, Steve.

[0:50:32] Voice 16: Working during.

[0:50:33] Voice 3: All right.

[0:50:34] Voice 3: So for Shannon, that's item 8.2 second bullet just to change from being a trustee Thorne to trustee Wright

[0:50:43] Voice 3: Okay, any other amendments?

[0:50:47] Voice 3: Okay, can we approve the minutes as amended through general consent so

[0:50:51] Voice 4: group access

[0:50:53] Voice 3: Okay

[0:50:55] Voice 3: So the next item here is we have the follow-up action list on page 9

[0:51:00] Voice 3: Is there any questions for staff or anything that staff wish to?

[0:51:03] Voice 3: I will note that correspondence has been received and it's available on the internet.

[0:51:26] Voice 3: And okay, so that moves us on to item 13.1, which is the short-term vacation rental project.

[0:51:35] Voice 3: we have a staff report on page 10. Thank you.

[0:51:41] Voice 20: So the purpose of this report is to

[0:51:44] Voice 20: present proposed bylaw number 119 and 120 for consideration of final adoption. So bylaw 119 would add guidelines to the Official Community Plan in relation to short-term vacation rentals and bylaw 120 would remove short-term vacation rentals as a

[0:52:03] Voice 20: own business in the South Tenderland use by-law. Last time the LTC had these by-laws in front of

[0:52:11] Voice 20: them was back in March. It went to executive committee in April for approval and it took

[0:52:19] Voice 20: quite some time to get the signature for approval for by-law 119 which is the OCP by-law from the

[0:52:27] Voice 20: minister. But that has been done so the two by-laws now are back in front of the LTC and there are

[0:52:33] Voice 20: are two recommendations there for LTC's consideration, both for adoption of each by-law.

[0:52:40] Voice 3: All right. Thank you very much. Trustee, is there any questions for staff, or

[0:52:44] Voice 18: would you like to proceed?

[0:52:46] Voice 18: Thank you, staff. The one thing, just to go back in time a little bit, we initially started

[0:52:54] Voice 18: talking about this back in 2019, and at the time, what we put in place at the time in December of

[0:53:04] Voice 18: 2019 as we put in bylaw 117 which effectively put a moratorium on the creation of any new

[0:53:14] Voice 18: stvrs until such time as it can be replaced by a comprehensive new bylaw following a lot of public

[0:53:22] Voice 18: input which we went through so the one thing that i don't i don't see there and i just want to

[0:53:26] Voice 18: understand how this factors into it is and i know at the time a lot of people had said well you know

[0:53:31] Voice 18: know what you know we're doubtful we're concerned that bylaw 117 will never be rescinded there's

[0:53:36] Voice 18: going to be a perpetual moratorium on the creation of on the opportunity for new spbrs and so i

[0:53:42] Voice 18: again i i took a lot of flack at the time and i want to make sure that we rescind bylaw 117

[0:53:49] Voice 18: we went through again as you pointed out in the spring um a fair bit of discussion at ltc meetings

[0:53:57] Voice 18: about the language as it related to the operation of STVRs,

[0:54:08] Voice 18: distances, you know, notification of neighbors

[0:54:10] Voice 18: and a lot of great input from STVR operators at the time.

[0:54:15] Voice 18: I also looked at examples from other islands.

[0:54:17] Voice 18: So I think we got a fairly dialed in set of draft bylaws for that.

[0:54:24] Voice 18: But I do want to be clear that we very clearly wanted

[0:54:27] Voice 18: to remove bylaw 117 and um and then the other thing that was the idea that and again we wanted

[0:54:35] Voice 18: to be very very uh back this whole thing about legal non-conforming and grandfather you know i

[0:54:41] Voice 18: my personal objective is not to create i don't want to penalize anybody that's done things

[0:54:47] Voice 18: according to the bylaws that you know whether it's building a house or operating an stvr a lot

[0:54:51] Voice 18: of people operated an stvr uh or started the operation of an str stvr when there was really um

[0:55:00] Voice 18: no limitations on their operation and and that's they were following all the rules so i don't want

[0:55:04] Voice 18: to do anything that that that um that somehow penalizes them from being able to do that and

[0:55:10] Voice 18: one of the things that we talked about was a registry so that people that um that have

[0:55:17] Voice 18: have operated STVRs in the past would have a confidence

[0:55:20] Voice 18: in the assurance that they're recognized on the registry

[0:55:23] Voice 18: so that they don't get,

[0:55:25] Voice 18: so there's not an obligation for them to apply

[0:55:29] Voice 18: for a TUP to operate an STVR.

[0:55:31] Voice 18: So those are really important things to me.

[0:55:33] Voice 18: I think it's about transparency,

[0:55:34] Voice 18: it's about community trust

[0:55:36] Voice 18: and following through what we said we would do.

[0:55:40] Voice 18: So it just, yeah, really wanna make that point clear

[0:55:42] Voice 18: and that we that we would remove rescind bylaw 117 and in conjunction with these bylaws

[0:55:53] Voice 5: so bylaw 117 amended the land use bylaw right remove those remove the vacation rental

[0:56:00] Voice 18: as

[0:56:01] Voice 5: an outright use

[0:56:01] Voice 18: right so they're not

[0:56:03] Voice 18: putting it back in so will the bylaw 120

[0:56:07] Voice 18: automatically receive will robert will that remove the the moratorium then

[0:56:13] Voice 18: Well, you are, in effect, removing the moratorium in the sense that you're now, there's now a pathway through the temporary use permits, right, for, excuse me, standalone.

[0:56:24] Voice 18: That's the bylaw amendment to the OCP that puts those guidelines in place.

[0:56:28] Voice 18: Fair enough,

[0:56:29] Voice 18: fair enough. I know we used at the time, I think in the language we used back in the, at the time we went to a public hearing, we said that we would rescind bylaw 117.

[0:56:38] Voice 18: So I don't know, just in the interest of clarity, you know, to give people assurances that, you know, it is, that would be the one, I guess that would be the one friendly amendment.

[0:56:49] Voice 18: Maybe it doesn't really change the underlying intent of what you're doing, but that it would indicate that at the same time we're rescinding bylaw 117, because I think some of that stuck in the craw of some people at the time.

[0:57:00] Voice 18: You can't rescind file 117 because it's what it did, it was removed that use and you're

[0:57:10] Voice 18: not like you're putting that use back, so it's still removed and replacing.

[0:57:16] Voice 18: You did indicate that this would be an interim measure while you went through the process of

[0:57:26] Voice 18: of reviewing and may or may not change at the end of that and there are some change further changes

[0:57:32] Voice 18: with bylaws 119 and 120 in particular like like you said earlier the temporary use permit

[0:57:38] Voice 18: option is there so that's the outcome and then where are we on the registry we we were gonna

[0:57:45] Voice 18: so there is a list of vacation rental operators i think as of last year um spreadsheet okay

[0:57:54] Voice 18: If anyone is operating today, I guess, depending on what decision you make, let us know.

[0:58:01] Voice 18: Contact Kim, contact the bylaw

[0:58:04] Voice 5: enforcement staff, let them know you're operating, and they'll add you to that.

[0:58:09] Voice 5: Maybe send them a link to your ad or something,

[0:58:11] Voice 18: and they'll add

[0:58:12] Voice 5: you to that.

[0:58:12] Voice 5: But

[0:58:12] Voice 18: to your knowledge, those folks that have operated STBRs prior to the adoption of Bylaw 117 have had the opportunity to get their name on the registry?

[0:58:22] Voice 18: and we call it a

[0:58:23] Voice 18: registry in the century it's a list a list fair enough yeah yeah anyone is

[0:58:29] Voice 18: anyone operator encourage you to contact staff give us like i said probably just a link to your

[0:58:34] Voice 18: ad put

[0:58:36] Voice 5: it on that and then

[0:58:40] Voice 18: finally can and can we just talk briefly i know alma had sent an email

[0:58:44] Voice 18: yesterday about about um the the duration of time by which you would fall out of uh grandfather

[0:58:51] Voice 18: father clause protection if you didn't operate your stvr and the six month time frame now my

[0:58:57] Voice 18: understanding is that that is a sort of a a lot of general application that it's not it's certainly

[0:59:02] Voice 18: not a number i came up with but can you speak to that a little bit yeah it's in provincial

[0:59:06] Voice 18: legislation that's where that's where it comes from and uh yeah for ongoing uh uses that cease

[0:59:15] Voice 18: for more than six months

[0:59:16] Voice 18: then

[0:59:17] Voice 7: the non-conforming

[0:59:19] Voice 18: protection ends. But there's a

[0:59:20] Voice 18: provision for seasonal uses

[0:59:23] Voice 18: so where vacation rentals

[0:59:25] Voice 18: would like to be considered a seasonal use

[0:59:26] Voice 18: also non-conforming

[0:59:29] Voice 18: protection, if your property's available

[0:59:31] Voice 18: for rent

[0:59:33] Voice 18: that provides

[0:59:35] Voice 18: that non-conforming protection. Regardless of whether somebody

[0:59:37] Voice 18: actually showed up. Yeah, exactly.

[0:59:39] Voice 18: So the analogy that's sometimes used

[0:59:41] Voice 18: is like a retail store

[0:59:43] Voice 18: that's in a zone

[0:59:45] Voice 18: that's, you know, in Vancouver somewhere, a corner store is no longer permitted. It's also

[0:59:49] Voice 18: residential. That store could be vacant as long as it's available for use. Okay, thank you.

[0:59:55] Voice 18: The non-conforming protection carries on. Okay.

[1:00:00] Voice 16: only question i have is at the top page 14 it's uh b um and so i'm old and daughter and i can't

[1:00:08] Voice 16: quite remember what the purpose of that is it says the local trust committee may consider issues of a

[1:00:12] Voice 16: short-term vacation rental temporary use permit provided the short-term vacation rental use

[1:00:19] Voice 16: wouldn't there's a lot of repetition on that phrase would not alter the residential appearance

[1:00:23] Voice 16: of the residents and what is that what was the purpose of adding that in because it doesn't look

[1:00:28] Voice 16: like a hotel basically oh

[1:00:31] Voice 18: okay yeah we went through this back in the spring

[1:00:36] Voice 18: about because we got into conversations about screening and all sorts of things

[1:00:43] Voice 18: as I recall at the time and we wanted to effectively as you say we didn't want to

[1:00:49] Voice 18: make it we didn't want to alter their residential character the neighborhood

[1:00:52] Voice 18: HUD in terms of operating STVRs.

[1:01:00] Voice 16: And the only other thing that has been sort of front and center is the use of the temporary

[1:01:06] Voice 16: use permit.

[1:01:06] Voice 16: And I'd just like to reiterate that's the only tool we have.

[1:01:10] Voice 16: I hate it as much as you do.

[1:01:12] Voice 16: And we are continuing to try and get the ability for the Islands Trust to issue permits which

[1:01:19] Voice 16: which might CRD issue. Yeah. That

[1:01:23] Voice 16: may be a future change, I hope, because I agree that the temporary

[1:01:28] Voice 16: permanent is not a permanent solution, but because it's the one we have, it's the one we're going to

[1:01:33] Voice 16: have to use. So I guess we're done with another bit. Would you like to proceed? So I would note

[1:01:51] Voice 16: that the South Penner Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw 1119 cited the South Penner Island Official

[1:01:56] Voice 16: Official Community Plan By-law Number 107-2011,

[1:02:00] Voice 16: Amendment Number 1-2020 be adopted.

[1:02:04] Voice 16: Is there a second?

[1:02:05] Voice 16: I second that.

[1:02:06] Voice 3: Any discussion?

[1:02:10] Voice 3: I know this at least is a path forward,

[1:02:13] Voice 3: as right now the use has been removed,

[1:02:15] Voice 3: and this provides a path forward

[1:02:17] Voice 3: for those who wish to operate.

[1:02:21] Voice 3: All right, I'll call the vote,

[1:02:22] Voice 3: and all those in favor?

[1:02:25] Voice 3: And that is carried.

[1:02:28] Voice 16: There's a second recommendation, yes.

[1:02:31] Voice 16: I will move that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee By-law No. 120, cited the

[1:02:37] Voice 16: South Pender Island Land Use By-law No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 1, 2020, be adopted.

[1:02:44] Voice 16: Is there a second?

[1:02:45] Voice 3: Second that.

[1:02:46] Voice 16: By Trustee Thorne.

[1:02:47] Voice 3: Is there any discussion?

[1:02:49] Voice 3: Call the vote.

[1:02:50] Voice 3: All those in favour?

[1:02:51] Voice 3: And that's carried.

[1:02:54] Voice 3: All right, thank you.

[1:02:55] Voice 3: And so that is adopted.

[1:02:59] Voice 3: We can receive new information now and discuss what that means, I guess, so I don't know.

[1:03:13] Voice 3: The

[1:03:14] Voice 18: implications, I guess, are that, really, like we were saying earlier, now there's guidelines

[1:03:21] Voice 18: for temporary use permits, so if a new operator wanted to enter the business on self-tender

[1:03:28] Voice 18: vacation rentals we have the option and

[1:03:32] Voice 16: there's guidelines associated with that

[1:03:34] Voice 8: yes of course

[1:03:36] Voice 16: now what um what i'd like to um suggest is that um um trust have sent out

[1:03:45] Voice 16: a notification to all property owners on south pender island

[1:03:52] Voice 16: signifying that a registry or a list is up and that they need to sign on with some evidence that

[1:04:00] Voice 16: they were operating prior to the adoption of this bylaw well they don't need to sign on right

[1:04:05] Voice 16: yeah pardon me so they wouldn't need to no but it may uh

[1:04:09] Voice 16: it may avoid a complaint coming in

[1:04:11] Voice 16: um and interaction with the bylaw person um so notification email notification that would be

[1:04:21] Voice 3: I mean, I

[1:04:21] Voice 16: just need to get the word out.

[1:04:23] Voice 3: Do you want that as a business room?

[1:04:27] Voice 3: No, I think that's it.

[1:04:30] Voice 3: All right.

[1:04:31] Voice 3: Thank you.

[1:04:32] Voice 3: Any other comments?

[1:04:33] Voice 3: No?

[1:04:34] Voice 3: We'll move on to the next item here, which is 13.2, Shoreline Review.

[1:04:38] Voice 3: It's page 17 of the agenda package.

[1:04:41] Voice 3: We have a report, and I believe that'll be...

[1:04:44] Voice 18: Okay.

[1:04:44] Voice 3: That's you.

[1:04:45] Voice 18: Yeah.

[1:04:45] Voice 8: So

[1:04:46] Voice 18: the report essentially provides two options for the local trust committee to consider

[1:04:51] Voice 18: in terms of the process that they want to move forward with on this

[1:04:55] Voice 18: project. I'm assuming the LTC does want to move forward on this.

[1:05:00] Voice 18: There's an option not to proceed. So the last meeting, the September meeting,

[1:05:06] Voice 18: the Trust Committee asked us to come back with these two options.

[1:05:10] Voice 18: The first option would be to implement a development permit

[1:05:15] Voice 18: area for the shoreline,

[1:05:19] Voice 18: the upland around the shoreline of South Pender Island. That project is the first project charter

[1:05:30] Voice 18: which is attached. A project charter is just a project management tool that has brings together

[1:05:35] Voice 18: the timeline, the budget, the steps in the process in a basic way all in one one simple document.

[1:05:42] Voice 18: So the development permit area approach would be the more streamlined if you like projects

[1:05:51] Voice 18: fewer resources, less engagement, less consultation associated with that, a shorter timeline.

[1:05:58] Voice 18: The other option, the comprehensive review, which would involve more consultation,

[1:06:06] Voice 16: longer engagement period, development of a discussion paper, perhaps with all the kind of

[1:06:12] Voice 18: issues and options laid out.

[1:06:16] Voice 18: And that would be obviously a longer timeline with some more resources associated with that.

[1:06:22] Voice 18: Yeah, so the two options are there.

[1:06:24] Voice 18: And so seeking

[1:06:26] Voice 5: direction from the Local Trust Committee on how to proceed.

[1:06:30] Voice 3: Thank you.

[1:06:32] Voice 3: Trustees, questions?

[1:06:38] Voice 18: You know, a question.

[1:06:39] Voice 18: I know at the last meeting in September, you know, I had some questions about, you know,

[1:06:44] Voice 18: know what could be achieved through the lub um as opposed to a dpa to achieve some of the things and

[1:06:54] Voice 18: um i i recall steph was going to look into into that and and have thought that there were things

[1:07:01] Voice 18: that it might be achievable um without the dp can you speak like do we have any tool i mean i know

[1:07:08] Voice 18: what the what i can think of under the land use byline obviously that's citing and yep

[1:07:16] Voice 8: You

[1:07:17] Voice 18: can't do anything about removal of trees.

[1:07:21] Voice 18: I mean, some of the things that I think appear to be areas of concern

[1:07:27] Voice 18: and areas that are covered off under, you know,

[1:07:30] Voice 18: if one was to pursue a development permit would be, for example,

[1:07:34] Voice 18: protection of even regardless of whether you're building in that zone or not,

[1:07:38] Voice 18: is things like Gary Oaks and Arbutus and some of the more fragile plants

[1:07:44] Voice 18: that go along the shoreline. I guess there's my understanding there's no way of being able

[1:07:50] Voice 18: to protect those through any other mechanism except through the development permit designation?

[1:07:56] Voice 18: No really the the other alternatives are using a soil removal bylaw which North Bender is looking

[1:08:03] Voice 18: at that would have a that could include some protection for areas within the setback from

[1:08:10] Voice 18: the sea for example. Heritage alteration permits for protection of archaeological resources or

[1:08:15] Voice 18: heritage conservation area is another option but basically for in terms of zoning yeah it's citing

[1:08:22] Voice 18: setbacks size permitted structures maybe limited in size or footprint through zoning

[1:08:30] Voice 18: so you didn't want to just you didn't you weren't increasing the setback from its current seven and

[1:08:36] Voice 18: a half meters to 15 meters for everything you could allow smaller structures say within that

[1:08:44] Voice 18: The soil protection, remind me, does North Panther have a DP designation on the shoreline?

[1:08:56] Voice 18: Not specifically on the shoreline, we've got

[1:08:58] Voice 18: development permit areas for sensitive

[1:09:00] Voice 18: ecosystems, riparian areas, raptor nests,

[1:09:03] Voice 18: form

[1:09:04] Voice 5: and character for commercial and industrial

[1:09:06] Voice 18: land.

[1:09:06] Voice 18: Right, which of course we have for Polar's Cove too.

[1:09:09] Voice 18: but in terms of the of a more comprehensive uh dp areas such as what's been considered here

[1:09:16] Voice 18: that they don't but with the soil with this soil bylaw can you explain how that might be applied

[1:09:22] Voice 18: or what what's intended to be achieved by that yeah so the purpose of a soil bylaw is to manage

[1:09:27] Voice 18: excavation of large quantities of soil on the property or the bringing in of soil onto a

[1:09:34] Voice 18: property and um it's generally intended for safety and also some element of environmental impacts

[1:09:42] Voice 18: including including things like um restricting invasive species from coming in like invasive

[1:09:48] Voice 18: weeds and stuff being brought in um but it can have it can regulate how soil removal and deposit

[1:09:56] Voice 18: occurs and it can require permits under certain conditions and then have conditions in those

[1:10:02] Voice 18: permits. It's kind of similar to the development permit area but not.

[1:10:10] Voice 16: Thank you. Well I've always maintained that if we're going to try and do

[1:10:16] Voice 16: something, we should try and make it as effective and efficient as possible and

[1:10:20] Voice 16: not attack it from so many different areas. So my understanding has

[1:10:25] Voice 16: been that a development permit area is the best tool that we have and until

[1:10:33] Voice 16: proven wrong I guess I'm gonna I feel like I'm going to stick to that opinion. I did ask staff

[1:10:40] Voice 16: to have a look at the discussion paper that I had written and just to see if there was any

[1:10:50] Voice 16: problems missing items or inefficiencies that that you could find and I'm wondering if that

[1:10:57] Voice 16: was done. I haven't looked at it. I looked at

[1:10:59] Voice 18: it when you first sent it. Okay for a while but

[1:11:03] Voice 18: depending on what direction you want to go.

[1:11:10] Voice 16: Well I'm not I'm okay the number the first one

[1:11:16] Voice 16: option that you provided is certainly I'm more happier than that than the second simply because

[1:11:25] Voice 16: of the time frame and even with the with the first one I have some issues with the time frame so

[1:11:30] Voice 16: we can discuss those later but one thing that I did not include in here because I didn't want to

[1:11:37] Voice 16: presume I knew anything about Indigenous culture but when this is referred or if

[1:11:44] Voice 16: it is referred to First Nations I would like to invite them not just to comment

[1:11:49] Voice 16: on what they think but if they have any suggestions and wording that they think

[1:11:55] Voice 16: is applicable I'd like to see it I'd like to hear from them about that so

[1:12:01] Voice 16: So, where you go from here, I guess the next step is to try and get some idea of something

[1:12:10] Voice 16: on paper.

[1:12:11] Voice 16: So, I would suggest that we go follow with Project Charter 1, albeit some amendments

[1:12:19] Voice 16: to the timelines, and I'd like to ask staff to place this paper in some form of by-law

[1:12:29] Voice 16: form for discussion to bring forward to the next trust committee meeting and that it could

[1:12:35] Voice 16: be referred out to the APC and we can carry on with discussions using this as a focus

[1:12:43] Voice 16: paper to the community. So I'd like to hear from my co-trustee on that.

[1:12:51] Voice 3: trustees um i'd like to talk yeah um i favor the second approach and and the reasons for it

[1:13:00] Voice 3: are you know it's getting that clarity of what is it we're trying to do um because it's important

[1:13:11] Voice 3: to me that we sort of have we have a goal in mind we have an expectation that if we're putting

[1:13:16] Voice 3: something in place it's going to achieve what protecting ecosystems it's you've got or what

[1:13:23] Voice 3: is it that we're trying to do so that we can measure its performance and its effect um the

[1:13:30] Voice 3: other is to have that conversation with the community and first nations before deciding

[1:13:35] Voice 3: what path we're taking uh so that you know there could be something else that we haven't thought of

[1:13:42] Voice 3: because part of this is also about education and communication because a dpa is affecting

[1:13:49] Voice 3: more development or added activities whereas the existing people have uh you know so much

[1:13:58] Voice 3: that they can contribute to the protection of the shoreline by knowing what to do as well

[1:14:03] Voice 3: it's the stewardship the activities that i as a landowner do with my property in in this area

[1:14:09] Voice 3: And I think it's just, and I think there's an opportunity to work closely with Thetis and I don't mean to be selling Thetis, but I think they're at the same point you are.

[1:14:18] Voice 3: And they are taking the version two approach of looking at this closely with First Nations and the community to understand what the problem is and what are the best tools to go forward to solve it.

[1:14:35] Voice 3: and i think there's a real opportunity to have some efficiencies of working together

[1:14:38] Voice 3: all your discussion papers will have you know differences clearly but some of the

[1:14:43] Voice 3: base materials of what are the options what are the choices and um um are potentially very similar

[1:14:52] Voice 16: well with all respect i don't think um any of the things that i've suggested would would they

[1:14:57] Voice 16: negate that other than instead of taking five years it maybe it may take one um i think um

[1:15:04] Voice 16: I think there's a tendency within the trust to enjoy talking about stuff and

[1:15:09] Voice 16: and we talk a lot but I'm not sure exactly what comes out of that talk it's

[1:15:16] Voice 16: like if we talk about it long enough the problem is solved I just think that from

[1:15:24] Voice 16: what I've heard from my community that they want to make the rules that apply

[1:15:29] Voice 16: to this island within this community and i agree with that concept and i'd like to i i'd like to

[1:15:36] Voice 16: follow their their advice and their wishes on that so this is not disrespectful to you or to

[1:15:40] Voice 16: thetis island or to the regional planning committee though um if uh if the next trust committee wishes

[1:15:48] Voice 16: to reopen this issue and revise it and add stuff to it um that is fine but um as i said a lot of

[1:15:57] Voice 16: this was borrowed from Galeano and from my discussions with people in Galeano.

[1:16:04] Voice 16: It seems to cover most of the issues that they had and it's been well accepted and received by

[1:16:08] Voice 16: the community. So unless it can be demonstrated to me that this is not, that this modification for

[1:16:15] Voice 16: Soutlander Island is somehow problematic, then I'm willing to change my mind. But at the moment,

[1:16:22] Voice 16: I don't see the need to extend it for another two, three, four years.

[1:16:26] Voice 16: And if the next trust committee wants to throw it out, then I guess they will throw it out.

[1:16:40] Voice 2: Any other comments, thoughts?

[1:16:43] Voice 18: This is a complex issue.

[1:16:45] Voice 18: I'm glad that we've got a whole bunch of waterfront property owners all lined up along the back there.

[1:16:55] Voice 18: and um you know i'm we're a community we can disagree i mean i can look out during the ice

[1:17:01] Voice 18: and say i disagree with you on something i'm always up for that but but i also am aware that

[1:17:07] Voice 18: there's a lot of things going on in this community you know there's a lot of initiatives that we're

[1:17:12] Voice 18: undertaking which i i believe are in the best long-term intent of the island but i'm also

[1:17:18] Voice 18: looking to make sure that they're that for something like this it is a an application

[1:17:26] Voice 18: of a development permit is a new instrument.

[1:17:31] Voice 18: It's the application of a new instrument that doesn't exist

[1:17:34] Voice 18: except in discrete areas of the island.

[1:17:37] Voice 18: And I'm just reticent about bringing something in

[1:17:45] Voice 18: with the best of intentions and not necessarily be aware

[1:17:48] Voice 18: of the long-term implications of how it plays out

[1:17:56] Voice 18: if it works as intended or bringing something in that doesn't um that has has been seen as um

[1:18:04] Voice 18: forged from another island that what didn't take into into account the communities used here i mean

[1:18:09] Voice 18: you know just even listen to paul and and and i know you're a very keen lover of the environment

[1:18:16] Voice 18: but even the comments of you know this is a complex thing i'm still trying to sort this

[1:18:21] Voice 18: out of my own mind i'm just reticent about about jumping ahead too quickly in my perfect world

[1:18:28] Voice 18: just like we did with the STVR and you know what other municipalities that I work in when there's

[1:18:36] Voice 18: an issue that is when there's a compelling public policy issue and you want to make sure that

[1:18:43] Voice 18: you're able to sort of protect whatever issue it is that you're trying to further study a lot of

[1:18:49] Voice 18: times they've put a taken a sort of an interim measure to protect whatever is the thing that

[1:18:57] Voice 18: they're trying to protect. So, you know, in my perfect world, I'd say, well, you know,

[1:19:00] Voice 18: how do we protect the removal of Gary Oaks and Arbita's trees, you know, until such time we can

[1:19:06] Voice 18: have a more comprehensive bylaw that's the product of a more fulsome engagement. So I don't know if

[1:19:13] Voice 18: that's a possibility. I just don't want to bring down, you know, a fully equipped DP with all the

[1:19:21] Voice 18: bells and whistles figured out without necessarily knowing whether that's the right fit and then

[1:19:26] Voice 18: trying to amend it is going to be a challenge and i would rather take it take a wider touch and and

[1:19:33] Voice 18: um i don't know if that's i don't know if that's even an avenue but i i'm just concerned about

[1:19:39] Voice 18: proceeding too quickly on something at this point in time do we have options for other things that

[1:19:45] Voice 18: are number two you

[1:19:50] Voice 3: could always amend number two to basically say or something about identifying

[1:19:57] Voice 3: any interim measurement or something about as an in-scope item okay

[1:20:03] Voice 18: yeah i mean uh you know we've

[1:20:05] Voice 18: we've um i mean i guess i know gordy likes to keep data and i i do too and i'm not sure how many

[1:20:12] Voice 18: homes how many undeveloped waterfront properties there are right now i know again most of the folks

[1:20:19] Voice 18: that are in the room have already got their home on the property so that there's nothing happening

[1:20:23] Voice 18: between now and six months from now likely in terms of you know undertaking radical changes

[1:20:30] Voice 18: there's a as we all know there's a house under construction on southlands that they've got a

[1:20:34] Voice 18: valid building permit they've done what they've done that ain't going to change you know whether

[1:20:38] Voice 18: we whether we wish we're going to be different again this ship has sailed um so i'm i'm i'm

[1:20:46] Voice 18: trying to take a precautionary principle here but not necessarily uh get ahead of myself and so

[1:20:51] Voice 18: that's why i'm more interested in if there's something that we can do that is that is that

[1:20:55] Voice 18: that is, you know, a lighter touch to protect things

[1:20:58] Voice 18: like specifically the removal of, you know,

[1:21:02] Voice 18: of Gary Oaks or Budas within the shoreline zone

[1:21:06] Voice 18: until we can have a more comprehensive review

[1:21:09] Voice 18: of how this might play out.

[1:21:11] Voice 18: Could you add that or?

[1:21:13] Voice 18: Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about the trees.

[1:21:16] Voice 18: I think there's, you can do looking in the land use

[1:21:19] Voice 18: bylaw amendments, you're looking at things

[1:21:20] Voice 18: like removing stairways, right?

[1:21:22] Voice 18: right?

[1:21:23] Voice 18: Liblically increasing the setback

[1:21:26] Voice 18: from the sea, say

[1:21:27] Voice 18: for dwellings.

[1:21:30] Voice 18: So you're not creating

[1:21:31] Voice 18: that situation where

[1:21:33] Voice 18: their house

[1:21:36] Voice 18: close to seven and a half metres and then that

[1:21:39] Voice 18: impacts the surrounding.

[1:21:41] Voice 18: Which is one of the comments that came out of a couple

[1:21:43] Voice 18: of our community meetings was that very

[1:21:45] Voice 18: topic. Yeah. The other thing to keep

[1:21:47] Voice 18: in mind is a development

[1:21:49] Voice 18: permit area is adopted by an amendment to the OCP,

[1:21:51] Voice 18: right? And this

[1:21:53] Voice 18: As Kim said, it took six months to get your last OCP amendment

[1:21:57] Voice 18: bylaw back from the minister's office.

[1:21:59] Voice 13: So that

[1:22:01] Voice 18: delay built into an OCP amendment.

[1:22:09] Voice 18: So it's not fast no matter what you, no matter how you look at it.

[1:22:12] Voice 18: Yeah, yeah.

[1:22:14] Voice 18: Well, I just, I feel like maybe there's another,

[1:22:18] Voice 18: I personally feel like we need to take more time

[1:22:20] Voice 18: with the community to figure this thing out.

[1:22:22] Voice 18: And there is, you know, I think a need to,

[1:22:28] Voice 18: to, I mean, I'm proud of the things that we brought forward.

[1:22:31] Voice 18: I know not everybody's agreed with me on things

[1:22:33] Voice 18: and I respect that, but on this one,

[1:22:38] Voice 18: I really feel like I really want to take the time

[1:22:43] Voice 18: to hear people out on this one,

[1:22:44] Voice 18: as opposed to moving forward with something right now,

[1:22:47] Voice 18: in my own personal view.

[1:22:50] Voice 3: And I, the concept of the discussion paper

[1:22:53] Voice 3: in version two, that's like,

[1:22:55] Voice 3: that's the approach we're taking on Thetis is putting,

[1:22:57] Voice 3: taking that time really pulling it together into you know thought piece that we can look at you

[1:23:05] Voice 3: know what what is the problem what are the options you know the range of options and

[1:23:09] Voice 3: they'll put it put it put it in a way that's uh you know fetus but as far as saying it's it's

[1:23:15] Voice 3: written for the audience not that this is the trust eyes document this is writing it the way

[1:23:20] Voice 3: that's understood by the people and so it forms that basis and you really see what it is well i

[1:23:37] Voice 18: I guess I'm I guess I would move option two which is a more comprehensive well obviously there's a motion on the floor did you make a motion no I didn't I

[1:23:48] Voice 7: mean

[1:23:51] Voice 18: is there an opportunity in this this is this you know the STVR one was one that we we we had to make a decision but we had lots of conversation around STVR is there an opportunity chair for some dialogue on this at this point in time with the community or

[1:24:05] Voice 3: we could defer and have further dialogue and defer this to another meeting well I mean

[1:24:10] Voice 18: I don't I don't get

[1:24:11] Voice 18: get David here very often I don't get Stuart here very often or Paul um don't get Gordy here ever

[1:24:16] Voice 18: um I'm just kidding I

[1:24:18] Voice 7: mean I think

[1:24:19] Voice 18: you know if I value I value people's time if if it's possible

[1:24:25] Voice 18: I really want to hear the views of people because I think it's this is part of the dialogue we need

[1:24:32] Voice 18: right now well

[1:24:34] Voice 3: it's your it's your meeting if you wish to take this uh this I mean

[1:24:38] Voice 18: I know some

[1:24:38] Voice 18: people even said during the town hall well there's things we want to talk about when can we talk

[1:24:42] Voice 18: about it and and I'm taking a you know trying to be very mindful of this and and

[1:24:47] Voice 18: so I really would open it up for well

[1:24:50] Voice 3: I'm

[1:24:54] Voice 16: not I'm not sure why the suggestion

[1:24:58] Voice 16: is being made that continuing conversation with the with the community

[1:25:02] Voice 16: would not take place under option one all I'm suggesting is this document

[1:25:08] Voice 16: could be used as a if it's you know if it's reasonable and staff says yes this

[1:25:14] Voice 16: works this doesn't will change this will alter that I don't see what that negates

[1:25:20] Voice 16: any public consultation it's not as if we're putting this forward for first

[1:25:25] Voice 16: reading or moving forward on it it's a discussion paper was always intended to

[1:25:30] Voice 16: be a discussion paper and the discussion will continue so I'm not I'm not really

[1:25:36] Voice 16: sure. I mean it certainly states the objectives of why we're doing it. It gives a list of

[1:25:43] Voice 16: exemptions that would apply so no one has to go through the process of a variance or applying for

[1:25:49] Voice 16: a variance. So I guess it just comes down to the point of do you want to do it now or do you want

[1:25:56] Voice 16: to do it later or not at all and that's a decision that the two of us have to make. So if you're not

[1:26:05] Voice 16: happy with this uh paper and you're not happy with what the idea then um defer choose two and

[1:26:15] Voice 16: have your conversation three years four years from now that's about it

[1:26:19] Voice 3: i'm not opposed to having

[1:26:21] Voice 3: dialogue with you i

[1:26:24] Voice 18: just i mean i mean you know regardless of um i mean i agree with steve the

[1:26:29] Voice 18: conversation will continue but if we have an opportunity at this point well well in sort of

[1:26:34] Voice 18: a rare event where we have as many people here i think it certainly informs my decision making as i

[1:26:41] Voice 18: you know whether it's a decision i'm making today or a decision i'm making some months down the road

[1:26:46] Voice 18: i i value the the input and um and so i i really would like to hear from some people if people are

[1:26:51] Voice 18: interested in talking about it paul since

[1:26:56] Voice 17: you mentioned my name earlier about complexity i

[1:26:58] Voice 17: just wanted to address that. As I said, I haven't read everything yet. I want to

[1:27:05] Voice 17: study the fetus. I want to look at Keats. I'd like to understand Galliano. Those

[1:27:09] Voice 17: are things. That's my deficit. You've had this before the ABC. You've had this

[1:27:14] Voice 17: through a community dialogue, so there

[1:27:17] Voice 18: has been input up until this point. My

[1:27:20] Voice 18: thought is this. Is this really an either-or or could this be both-and? That is to

[1:27:27] Voice 18: to say, get something in place now with a DPA, and there's a four-year

[1:27:34] Voice 17: LTC that will

[1:27:40] Voice 17: come in in

[1:27:41] Voice 18: a year, and at that point, at least you've got something that protects things

[1:27:48] Voice 18: now, and then if further examination, further detail, further discussion papers, further

[1:27:56] Voice 18: input is needed can that can happen and that when i said it was complex and i hadn't studied anything

[1:28:04] Voice 18: i didn't mean that to slow you down i meant to say that's my problem not yours and i uh

[1:28:11] Voice 18: we're listen i'm i'm in drummond bay as are many of my neighbors i've lost three and a half feet

[1:28:19] Voice 18: need a bank. I've lost one large fir tree because the roots are undermined. We're watching

[1:28:27] Voice 18: that happen on

[1:28:28] Voice 4: Goblin Beach. We're watching that happen all along. And I think sooner

[1:28:33] Voice 4: rather than

[1:28:34] Voice 18: later is something that I'm supportive of. It's just the mechanics and the details

[1:28:41] Voice 18: that probably gets worked out with a bylaw discussion,

[1:28:47] Voice 18: adjustment, maybe, you know,

[1:28:50] Voice 18: reference to some further activity down the road,

[1:28:52] Voice 18: all of that.

[1:28:53] Voice 18: So I'm not sure that it's either or.

[1:28:55] Voice 18: That's my only point.

[1:28:56] Voice 16: Yeah, it's not either or, it's just question time.

[1:29:04] Voice 18: And any other thoughts?

[1:29:06] Voice 18: David.

[1:29:07] Voice 5: Well, like Paul, I don't feel that I'm fully informed.

[1:29:14] Voice 5: But I would like to say that my least superficial reading of the auctions are

[1:29:20] Voice 4: such that they

[1:29:22] Voice 4: have really rather similar overall goals, but different timelines,

[1:29:29] Voice 18: and I, for one, would

[1:29:31] Voice 18: urge us to act sooner with the understanding that if we are clumsy in implementation, that

[1:29:40] Voice 18: That can be undone, but I'm just aware of the fact that as we're talking here, there's a large community meeting

[1:29:52] Voice 5: in Scotland who are somehow finding ways of not acting.

[1:30:00] Voice 5: uh to our peril i would say and and uh i i think that we you know have to take note of that and

[1:30:09] Voice 5: thank you

[1:30:12] Voice 8: my

[1:30:13] Voice 20: hand is right

[1:30:16] Voice 20: i just wanted to say about um you know sitting back on our hands and i don't think that the uh

[1:30:23] Voice 20: i um the um upa is going to

[1:30:28] Voice 12: do something i i think we should be doing actually taking

[1:30:32] Voice 12: in action now. So we have erosion down

[1:30:35] Voice 20: on Drummond Bay and up South Panda, but we all

[1:30:38] Voice 20: sit on our hands and we do nothing about it. So why aren't we saying getting in the engineers

[1:30:43] Voice 20: and getting the opinions and say, how do we shore up the banks? How do we do that? We

[1:30:48] Voice 20: don't need a TVA. Nothing will get done.

[1:30:51] Voice 10: Oh, we've got that in place. Oh, that's wonderful.

[1:30:55] Voice 10: But why can we never have any solutions? We're not a big, big, huge island, but we do have

[1:31:01] Voice 10: very

[1:31:01] Voice 20: sensitive areas around the island which we should identify and address and

[1:31:07] Voice 20: have an action plan for them.

[1:31:09] Voice 16: I don't disagree with you Shelly. I think I think

[1:31:11] Voice 16: you've raised very good points. The problem is that all the people that are

[1:31:17] Voice 16: supposed to be in charge of the federal authorities, provincial authorities,

[1:31:22] Voice 16: they're not interested in acting on the canal or in Drummond Bay saving the bank

[1:31:29] Voice 16: any more than they are fixing the dip yes and

[1:31:31] Voice 16: so and

[1:31:32] Voice 2: so

[1:31:33] Voice 16: well so what they're saying is if it's your

[1:31:36] Voice 16: proper private property then you are responsible for it the information there's a lot of information

[1:31:41] Voice 16: on how to do it there's some suggestions in in here that are are are made because um some people

[1:31:49] Voice 16: go out as as rosa's picture show showed and did some things to try and retain and over the long

[1:31:55] Voice 16: term that created additional problems and there's also evidence that shows

[1:32:00] Voice 16: that someone can put up a wall in this case and all it does is change the

[1:32:04] Voice 16: natural flow of the water and it eats up your neighbor's property so there is

[1:32:08] Voice 16: some suggestions here but I mean I'm not suggesting in any way that putting in

[1:32:16] Voice 16: this DPA is going to solve erosion it's not

[1:32:19] Voice 14: going to so but it

[1:32:21] Voice 16: does offer some

[1:32:22] Voice 16: some information for property owners to act upon but the trust is certainly we're not capable

[1:32:29] Voice 16: and we don't have the means to go out there and fix people's property and so I mean I'm not

[1:32:37] Voice 16: I hear what you're saying but asking us to do something about it we're kind of kind of out

[1:32:44] Voice 20: I'm not asking you to do something I'm saying as a community why aren't we solving the problem

[1:32:50] Voice 20: in doing something about it. You think by putting something called the DPA around the entire cell

[1:32:56] Voice 20: tender, I don't know how that fixes anything. It certainly is a buy-on, it's written up,

[1:33:02] Voice 20: and there's something in writing. I don't know how it fixes per se Drummond Bay, Gallon Point,

[1:33:08] Voice 20: etc. It doesn't. I wish I knew how to do this stuff. But where do you go to get it done?

[1:33:13] Voice 16: We can provide you

[1:33:14] Voice 20: with all the

[1:33:15] Voice 16: information.

[1:33:22] Voice 18: I

[1:33:23] Voice 16: don't think that DPA will stop erosion. I think we agreed, I think Bruce demonstrated that at the community meeting.

[1:33:30] Voice 1: So I think that that's a bit of a false belief that we think by imposing, I think that the DPA is probably,

[1:33:38] Voice 1: probably would

[1:33:41] Voice 16: prevent shoreline strengthening

[1:33:44] Voice 5: as opposed to allowing us to put it in.

[1:33:48] Voice 5: So I think we need to be clear what we're trying

[1:33:50] Voice 18: to do here.

[1:33:52] Voice 18: I think somebody wondered about how many waterfront

[1:33:56] Voice 18: properties are vacant, there's about 22 left.

[1:33:59] Voice 18: So that means that there's about 140 waterfront properties

[1:34:05] Voice 18: that have

[1:34:05] Voice 4: developed, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

[1:34:11] Voice 16: The other thing is that I believe that this DP area

[1:34:16] Voice 16: is more focused

[1:34:17] Voice 18: at stopping things like stairs

[1:34:18] Voice 18: and access to the waterfront.

[1:34:21] Voice 18: And I definitely don't

[1:34:24] Voice 5: believe that that's where we should be going

[1:34:26] Voice 5: and develop at least access to the property,

[1:34:33] Voice 5: given the same situation.

[1:34:40] Voice 20: we haven't touched on repairing and rights and they're very well documented in the province of

[1:34:45] Voice 20: dc when it comes to shoring up your floor line so you know aside from what people have done

[1:34:52] Voice 20: whether if they've done it incorrectly then go and report them but a dpa

[1:34:59] Voice 20: you have some rights and there's other rights that you don't have there's things that you can

[1:35:04] Voice 20: build and things that you can't build there are 141 waterfront lots is that right roughly

[1:35:12] Voice 20: and you know gordy and and and cameron are big on numbers and i try and keep up with them but

[1:35:19] Voice 20: not always i would like to suggest the discussion document idea and that we everybody on the island

[1:35:28] Voice 20: is you know has a a feeling about this and they have and they have some position on it but a

[1:35:36] Voice 20: discussion document and some and some education and comments with 141 people who own those

[1:35:43] Voice 20: properties is not a mess and many of us understand exactly what we need to do the dpa is not going to

[1:35:51] Voice 20: stop trees from falling into the water it's just not going to happen and if all we're talking about

[1:35:56] Voice 20: as aesthetics and that's one thing but we also have a number of things along the waterfront

[1:36:03] Voice 20: that already protect them we have lots that literally couldn't be developed there's some

[1:36:09] Voice 20: on canal road we have lots that have archaeological covenants on them and down my side of the island

[1:36:17] Voice 20: there's a ton of them i don't know about over here all of these things should be taken into

[1:36:22] Voice 20: the consideration eelgrass beds um whatchamacallit seaweed guys and all of that is it's all protected

[1:36:30] Voice 20: it's all documented and we just need to go back and think about those things do we need a whole

[1:36:37] Voice 20: island or do we need to do what north kender has done and to some extent our own island and say

[1:36:43] Voice 20: these are the areas that really need this other areas don't necessarily need it

[1:36:50] Voice 2: thank you

[1:36:54] Voice 11: Don't we also have an issue with the safety you're talking about with

[1:36:59] Voice 11: stairways being built on unstable slopes that will cause the same destruction?

[1:37:06] Voice 11: Isn't that part of what we're talking about here?

[1:37:09] Voice 20: You could build a slide with a rope to get you up and down and you create just as much destruction.

[1:37:14] Voice 16: Well let's not jump to a conclusion that what we're talking about is prohibiting

[1:37:21] Voice 16: stairways or access to the beaches that is not the case. What is being proposed or suggested

[1:37:28] Voice 16: is that there are specific areas of the island of a certain cliff, a certain slope,

[1:37:36] Voice 16: that have a long extended staircase that perhaps should not take place. But anybody having a

[1:37:44] Voice 16: natural egress to the shore or it's a short bank or a narrow bank or it's a slow slope,

[1:37:51] Voice 16: Just anything in here would not impact that at all.

[1:37:54] Voice 16: It doesn't include that.

[1:37:55] Voice 16: So your stairway is being removed as a committed use?

[1:38:00] Voice 16: Well, that came up from a staff report.

[1:38:02] Voice 16: That's one way of dealing with it.

[1:38:05] Voice 16: You simply remove it and include it through other ways.

[1:38:09] Voice 16: But the idea of removing accesses to the beach from private property is not a proposal.

[1:38:16] Voice 16: And it's certainly not something that I'm suggesting.

[1:38:19] Voice 16: So, and to suggest that a development permit prohibits this and prohibits that, quite frankly,

[1:38:28] Voice 16: a development permit area is exactly that.

[1:38:31] Voice 16: It cannot prohibit development.

[1:38:34] Voice 16: It allows development under certain specific conditions.

[1:38:38] Voice 16: Is that not correct?

[1:38:40] Voice 16: Yeah, that's correct.

[1:38:41] Voice 16: Yeah.

[1:38:41] Voice 16: So to phrase it as we're prohibiting something is simply not true.

[1:38:46] Voice 16: It is the exact opposite of that.

[1:38:49] Voice 16: but we cannot stop you from developing your property.

[1:38:52] Voice 16: It's just that in areas that might be related to the map

[1:38:55] Voice 16: with all the overlays that Dawn is showing,

[1:38:58] Voice 16: in those areas, certain-

[1:38:59] Voice 16: I

[1:39:00] Voice 14: didn't get it.

[1:39:01] Voice 16: I know, I've got a copy for you, hang on.

[1:39:04] Voice 14: So

[1:39:04] Voice 16: we'd get those policies within that development firm

[1:39:10] Voice 16: would apply to specific areas.

[1:39:11] Voice 16: So if you have an area that is shown of erosion,

[1:39:15] Voice 16: then the erosion policies would come into effect

[1:39:18] Voice 16: If you have something where you've got a sensitive ecosystem, then the sensitive ecosystem policies

[1:39:24] Voice 16: would come to effect.

[1:39:25] Voice 16: So we're trying to be site-specific here, and it will all be based on the maps and the

[1:39:31] Voice 16: data and the scientific stuff that you've already got.

[1:39:33] Voice 16: So let's not blow this up into more than it actually is, because we're defeating the purpose

[1:39:43] Voice 16: of why we want to put it in and that is simply to protect just the the environment the ecosystem

[1:39:50] Voice 16: both marine and terrestrial and also to try and maintain the character of these islands which is

[1:39:56] Voice 16: important to the rest of the process so

[1:40:02] Voice 4: say it's specific you're saying yeah

[1:40:05] Voice 16: i mean if if

[1:40:06] Voice 16: if if you have a property that is not prone to erosion there's nothing in there's nothing in

[1:40:14] Voice 16: here that would say you have to do this and do this because of erosion you don't have it if you

[1:40:19] Voice 16: have a property that has no oak

[1:40:21] Voice 16: trees on it then of course there's nothing in this piece of paper

[1:40:25] Voice 16: that would say you can't cut down and you can't cut down any tree it's there is

[1:40:32] Voice 16: i mean i don't want to look at this thing or start a conversation at the end of it when we're

[1:40:39] Voice 16: actually at the beginning of it so all i'm saying is this was presented

[1:40:43] Voice 7: weeks

[1:40:44] Voice 16: ago it was given to the apc um as a discussion paper to try and focus our attention

[1:40:49] Voice 16: on the objectives what we're trying to do why we're trying to do it and how we may how we may

[1:40:55] Voice 16: be able to deal with some of these issues and if some of this is garbage fine we'll determine that

[1:41:03] Voice 16: if some of it is missing then we'll add to it if some of it makes sense then we'll keep it that's

[1:41:08] Voice 16: all i'm saying here i'm not not trying to jam anything down your throats we haven't made a

[1:41:12] Voice 16: decision is simply a discussion paper and I frankly I don't I don't have a

[1:41:19] Voice 16: problem with talking about different ideas. So then right now the only thing

[1:41:27] Voice 16: that we have to decide is whether we're going to take one year to do it or

[1:41:30] Voice 16: whether we're going to take three or four years to do it.

[1:41:36] Voice 3: I know there's more comments coming but I want to look at because I'm also sensitive to time in the next conversations we have.

[1:41:42] Voice 3: Yeah, I'm just

[1:41:42] Voice 18: looking if you wanted to

[1:41:43] Voice 3: get some input before we move on.

[1:41:45] Voice 3: Are you getting it?

[1:41:46] Voice 18: Yeah, I am.

[1:41:47] Voice 18: I mean, I don't think there's a lot of,

[1:41:49] Voice 18: I don't think there's a great degree of variance between what people are saying.

[1:41:53] Voice 18: I think people are saying that they all care about the shoreline.

[1:41:58] Voice 18: They want to protect it.

[1:41:59] Voice 18: There's concerns about erosion.

[1:42:03] Voice 18: Shelley's right.

[1:42:04] Voice 18: A DP doesn't in and of itself naturally put a bunch of riprap there to solve the problem.

[1:42:10] Voice 18: um and and gordy possibly you're right i'm the unintended i guess i'm concerned also about the

[1:42:16] Voice 18: unintended consequences if it frustrates somebody's ability to put riprap in an area where they needed

[1:42:21] Voice 18: to do it to bring to bring about um you know mitigation of erosion so i just what i've what

[1:42:28] Voice 18: i'm just not convinced of is that the dp is the right tool for the outcome that we're seeking we

[1:42:34] Voice 18: all want the right we all i think we're all looking for the same outcome but is the dp the

[1:42:37] Voice 18: the right instrument to achieve that outcome and that's where i'm not really i'm i'm just

[1:42:42] Voice 18: really hesitant because i think it could be perhaps um to again unintended consequences

[1:42:50] Voice 18: of things that we didn't want to do with it if for example we can talk about this another

[1:42:55] Voice 18: another segment of the meeting but you know we're talking later about setbacks one of the things

[1:43:00] Voice 18: that possibly could be looked at on on on the remaining 22 undeveloped properties is is bringing

[1:43:07] Voice 18: about the change that the provincial government has recommended and it's in

[1:43:11] Voice 18: place many other islands which would be a 15 foot 15 meter setback from from the

[1:43:16] Voice 18: ocean on those 22 properties that would go a long ways to dealing with some of

[1:43:21] Voice 18: the concerns that we've heard about so it would achieve some of the things that

[1:43:25] Voice 18: would might otherwise be within the DP without necessarily bringing in DP and

[1:43:31] Voice 18: so I just I just I'm not convinced that the DP is the instrument to solve the

[1:43:35] Voice 18: problem

[1:43:35] Voice 3: so my

[1:43:40] Voice 18: my motion is that we look at and maybe at the end of the day you know dp is an

[1:43:51] Voice 18: instrument that you know can be crafted tailor-made to suit the needs of a particular

[1:43:57] Voice 18: island community and and and i i just i guess what i'm wanting to do is make sure that it's

[1:44:04] Voice 18: tailored to best meet the circumstances of our island i i don't know you know i mean david and

[1:44:12] Voice 18: and and paul you both made the point about erosion i just don't know if there was a dp in place

[1:44:18] Voice 18: tomorrow what that's going to do to stop to stop the

[1:44:22] Voice 18: erosion is it going to bring us magical new

[1:44:24] Voice 18: funding from the provincial government probably not so i'm i'm that's why i say i think we need

[1:44:30] Voice 18: an option to you need to think this out i just feel like i'm going a bit blind on this and and

[1:44:34] Voice 18: and I would like to look at increasing the setbacks

[1:44:38] Voice 18: for undeveloped properties on the waterfront

[1:44:40] Voice 18: as we look at a separate item under the agenda.

[1:44:45] Voice 3: So how would you like to proceed?

[1:44:47] Voice 18: Well, then I would make a motion

[1:44:49] Voice 18: that we endorse a project charter

[1:44:53] Voice 18: for the shoreline review project following option two.

[1:44:57] Voice 3: Is there a second?

[1:45:00] Voice 3: I'll second the motion for discussion purposes.

[1:45:03] Voice 18: If you could just add comprehensive review.

[1:45:05] Voice 18: A comprehensive review of allowing for a broader review of regulatory options and more community consultation.

[1:45:13] Voice 18: And I would hope that it may not necessarily need to go to 2023.

[1:45:16] Voice 18: I mean, you know, I take Steve's point that we want to move as quickly as we can.

[1:45:23] Voice 18: You know, again, I wouldn't want to be held up by whatever's going on in Thetis because from the sounds of it, it's gone on for an awfully long time.

[1:45:32] Voice 18: I wouldn't want to you know tie our ourselves to somebody else's process I'm just really interested

[1:45:39] Voice 18: in the community comprehensive community review not not married to a 2023 timeline if it can be

[1:45:44] Voice 18: done quicker I

[1:45:45] Voice 3: just want to look to Shannon did you get the motion that we have on the

[1:45:48] Voice 3: on play I

[1:45:51] Voice 19: have it as that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee endorsed the project

[1:45:55] Voice 19: charter for the shoreline comprehensive review project

[1:46:02] Voice 3: okay you're fine um i just wanted to because it hasn't been going on for a long time the

[1:46:08] Voice 3: conversation the trustees have been talking about it and ended up with basically the conversation

[1:46:13] Voice 3: where you are here is um that they want to have this conversation further with the community and

[1:46:20] Voice 3: first nations together um and it doesn't stop uh you know if it's through that conversation

[1:46:28] Voice 3: an obvious solution starts to form, then things can move.

[1:46:34] Voice 3: I like to use the expression,

[1:46:35] Voice 3: sometimes you have to go slow to go fast.

[1:46:37] Voice 3: It's if you start to see something, you know,

[1:46:40] Voice 3: form around an obvious solution,

[1:46:43] Voice 3: then you've kind of got that path to build on quickly

[1:46:45] Voice 3: rather than trying to move the other way.

[1:46:49] Voice 3: So you're actually at exactly the same point

[1:46:52] Voice 3: as Cetus today.

[1:46:55] Voice 3: And all I'm saying, some of your tools

[1:46:58] Voice 3: as they get developed and written in a way to understand what that means can be shared but you

[1:47:05] Voice 3: have to have conversations independently with your communities.

[1:47:09] Voice 4: I'm just curious are you concerned

[1:47:12] Voice 4: about the slowness of it in the sense that you worry the problems will be developed more quickly

[1:47:28] Voice 16: It seems to take an awful long time to get to get from a proposal stage through the public

[1:47:40] Voice 16: process through all the legal stuff in order to get anything done.

[1:47:43] Voice 16: right so um if if there is um a sense on the trust committee that they want to get something

[1:47:53] Voice 16: accomplished in their term right um they have to be very careful in what they choose

[1:47:57] Voice 16: right and a number of things that they want to choose right because otherwise it turns up

[1:48:01] Voice 16: and um we only have uh less than a year left in our term so if we want to if we feel something

[1:48:09] Voice 16: is important and we want to get something done then we've got to move on and if in this case

[1:48:21] Voice 16: for some reason I'm not sure why but I haven't grasped the arguments yet but

[1:48:29] Voice 16: for whatever reason if it's put off then it will not get accomplished this year and

[1:48:37] Voice 16: And the Honest Trust did, the Council passed a

[1:48:41] Voice 2: climate

[1:48:42] Voice 16: change emergency a number of years ago.

[1:48:45] Voice 16: And they have completely, in my opinion, redefined the whole definition of emergency because I don't see any real, I mean, we've talked a lot, but I don't see, again, anything on the ground that's actually responding to climate emergency.

[1:49:00] Voice 16: I think everybody is aware that we do have more frequent events climate events they are more

[1:49:11] Voice 16: intense and those are having the impact on the environment the ecology and because of that I

[1:49:19] Voice 16: thought it was important to move this thing forward in order to try and make sure that at

[1:49:25] Voice 16: least some provision might not be perfect I don't know what perfect is anymore but it may at least

[1:49:30] Voice 16: it's a stopgap measure it's some sort of measure that we could put in just to at least get our foot

[1:49:35] Voice 16: in the ground to have something in place and we could start moving out from there and um and you

[1:49:41] Voice 16: know i'm sorry that that didn't happen but you know that's the politics it's not environmental

[1:49:50] Voice 16: we'll

[1:49:50] Voice 5: we'll accept it carry on has the motion been

[1:49:55] Voice 5: voted on no

[1:49:56] Voice 3: i was gonna say is there any

[1:49:57] Voice 3: further discussion i

[1:50:02] Voice 18: mean i guess the only thing i would say is is is if there's you know i stand

[1:50:07] Voice 18: by my by the motion i put forward but but i do believe that if there are i think you need to

[1:50:13] Voice 18: point to um uh chair is that if there's takeaways is it as as we begin to understand things and we

[1:50:20] Voice 18: we look for some quick wins okay you know we've had this conversation we're taking we're we're

[1:50:26] Voice 18: looking at okay the biggest problem is in this part of the island uh in that part of the island

[1:50:31] Voice 18: What can we do? Can we even,

[1:50:33] Voice 8: you

[1:50:34] Voice 18: know, put a specific action in place to deal with this?

[1:50:38] Voice 18: Can we come up with a plan to mitigate erosion?

[1:50:41] Voice 18: I wouldn't want to say, well, until we completely got a perfect machine that we don't take any actions,

[1:50:48] Voice 18: I would look at it as things that make sense as the conversation evolves and then take action on those points.

[1:50:54] Voice 18: And it can build upon itself.

[1:50:56] Voice 3: Absolutely. I'm an advocate of planning with the community.

[1:51:01] Voice 3: And through that lid part, that is where, you know,

[1:51:06] Voice 3: if we start to see that there's a path

[1:51:08] Voice 3: or something that we need to do,

[1:51:10] Voice 3: now it's like, we've got that permission to move quicker.

[1:51:13] Voice 3: And then we can have a quicker speed,

[1:51:17] Voice 3: but if we're pushing it, then it just takes longer.

[1:51:22] Voice 16: Yes, I agree.

[1:51:23] Voice 16: Well, I'd check with you, use the language there,

[1:51:25] Voice 16: and I'll let it go.

[1:51:28] Voice 3: Is there any further discussion?

[1:51:32] Voice 3: I will call the vote then all those in favor all those opposed and that's

[1:51:38] Voice 3: carried thank you and I believe we're gonna reach the same same place okay any

[1:51:49] Voice 3: further discussion on that one we will move to the next item which is the land

[1:51:54] Voice 3: use amendments project on page 21 of the agenda package and we have a

[1:51:59] Voice 20: staff report

[1:52:00] Voice 20: Thank you. I'm just going to touch on a few things in the interest of time here.

[1:52:04] Voice 20: So this report is to present a draft bylaw for the LTC's bylaw amendments project.

[1:52:11] Voice 20: And at the last meeting, the LTC gave direction to staff to draft this bylaw with three specific points.

[1:52:19] Voice 20: So those three, two of those three specific points have been included in the bylaw.

[1:52:24] Voice 20: One currently has not, and I'll touch on that in just a bit.

[1:52:28] Voice 20: so the first one is um increasing the setback for all rural residential dwellings and cottages

[1:52:38] Voice 20: from three meters or ten feet to six meters or 20 feet for interior side lot lines and from 4.5

[1:52:46] Voice 20: meters which is 15 feet to six meter for exterior side lot lines so staff have included um that

[1:52:54] Voice 20: amendment in the land use bylaw but at the last meeting there was a discussion that this

[1:52:58] Voice 20: regulation would be only applicable to lots with a width greater than 100 feet

[1:53:05] Voice 20: and adding something like that would be or adding that measurement would be quite difficult because

[1:53:09] Voice 20: most or a significant amount of lots um on south pender are irregular shapes so how do you

[1:53:16] Voice 20: determine where that width is

[1:53:18] Voice 6: so

[1:53:19] Voice 20: one item that staff um or one item that the ltc could consider

[1:53:24] Voice 20: is the increase to the setback would only be applicable for larger lots.

[1:53:32] Voice 20: In the staff report, there was an example of 0.4 hectares, but that could be larger.

[1:53:37] Voice 20: So those increased setbacks for dwelling units or closets

[1:53:40] Voice 20: would only be applicable for larger lots, not for smaller lots.

[1:53:45] Voice 20: Another item that wasn't included in the draft by-law

[1:53:48] Voice 20: was the site-specific zoning for those nine properties

[1:53:51] Voice 20: that would exceed the maximum floor area included

[1:53:54] Voice 20: in the draft by-law.

[1:53:56] Voice 20: Staff will work with the LTC to identify

[1:54:00] Voice 20: those amount of properties and include their exact

[1:54:03] Voice 20: floor areas in the draft by-law.

[1:54:06] Voice 20: So that is something you still have to do.

[1:54:08] Voice 20: The next item for the LTC's consideration

[1:54:11] Voice 20: is regards to shipping containers.

[1:54:15] Voice 20: The draft by-law includes a new regulation

[1:54:17] Voice 20: that permits only one shipping container

[1:54:19] Voice 20: on properties over 0.4 hectares

[1:54:24] Voice 20: in the rural residential zone.

[1:54:26] Voice 20: So those lots that are less than 0.4 hectares

[1:54:29] Voice 20: in the rural residential zone one, two, and three

[1:54:31] Voice 20: wouldn't be allowed to have shipping containers

[1:54:35] Voice 20: on their property.

[1:54:37] Voice 7: One

[1:54:37] Voice 20: item the LCC may want to consider

[1:54:39] Voice 20: is regulating the number of shipping containers

[1:54:43] Voice 20: in other zones, for example, the forestry

[1:54:46] Voice 20: or agriculture or the commercial resource zone.

[1:54:50] Voice 20: As the draft plot zone for those properties,

[1:54:55] Voice 20: there would be no regulation on the number of shipping containers

[1:55:00] Voice 20: placed on those properties.

[1:55:04] Voice 20: So there is a timeline included in the staff reports for this meeting.

[1:55:10] Voice 20: it's to

[1:55:11] Voice 20: primarily to give direction to staff

[1:55:14] Voice 20: to make any further amendments

[1:55:16] Voice 20: and then at the next LTC meeting

[1:55:18] Voice 20: that is potentially scheduled

[1:55:20] Voice 20: for February 4th

[1:55:22] Voice 20: that's where the LTC could

[1:55:24] Voice 20: consider first reading of the draft bylaw

[1:55:26] Voice 20: and then the community

[1:55:28] Voice 20: information meeting would follow in March

[1:55:30] Voice 20: and a public hearing in May

[1:55:32] Voice 20: but if the LTC

[1:55:34] Voice 20: wishes to hear

[1:55:37] Voice 20: from the community in a

[1:55:39] Voice 20: a formal setting by means of a community information meeting that timeline can be amended

[1:55:44] Voice 20: so a CIM could be scheduled for February 4th and then first reading potentially for March 4th.

[1:55:52] Voice 20: So the there's a draft bylaw attached so staff's recommendation is to provide further

[1:55:59] Voice 20: clarification or direction in terms of shipping containers and with regards to the setback

[1:56:08] Voice 20: requirements for cottages

[1:56:11] Voice 3: and growing lots and nothing but the setback to the boundary of the sea

[1:56:16] Voice 3: that so

[1:56:17] Voice 20: that has been included um in the draft bylaw so they it removes stairways as an exemption

[1:56:23] Voice 20: um the natural setback to the natural boundary of the sea so what that would mean is

[1:56:28] Voice 20: if somebody would want to construct stairs um on their property within the natural boundary the

[1:56:35] Voice 20: 7.6 meter setback they would be required to apply for a development variance permit to allow that.

[1:56:45] Voice 3: Trustees over to you.

[1:56:55] Voice 16: There's a couple of things I'm going to leave the maximum floor thing alone for a minute.

[1:57:00] Voice 16: um the agricultural uh agriculture regulations which are um changing with respect to the ALR

[1:57:09] Voice 16: um is um is one thing but we also have properties just as owned as agriculture and are not in the

[1:57:18] Voice 16: ALR um so I'd like to have um some some further thoughts on that shipping containers uh frankly

[1:57:27] Voice 16: I don't understand why shipping containers would be exempted from any rural residential

[1:57:34] Voice 16: property.

[1:57:35] Voice 16: We already have them and the idea was to recognize them.

[1:57:39] Voice 16: I think that the numbers are important, I certainly do.

[1:57:47] Voice 16: I think that if it's a one acre, then perhaps one, if it's two acres, perhaps two, and then

[1:57:52] Voice 16: would consider more. I know that in my conversations with people who have

[1:57:59] Voice 16: agricultural lands said that they're really handy for storage of feed and

[1:58:04] Voice 16: equipment and stuff out of the rain. That's a cheap form of accessory

[1:58:10] Voice 16: building. They can be picked up and moved at any given time and they are

[1:58:16] Voice 16: are secure. So I think that one owner said to me that they could easily use four. And

[1:58:26] Voice 16: if they continue to increase their level of agriculture, then they might, they might want

[1:58:36] Voice 16: to go more than that. So I think I think that would take a little more conversation and

[1:58:40] Voice 16: and find out what those expectations are

[1:58:43] Voice 16: from agricultural property owners.

[1:58:47] Voice 16: Setback to the natural boundary of the sea, the stairways.

[1:58:49] Voice 16: The stairways, I have never intended to be excluded.

[1:58:54] Voice 16: What I have suggested is that those

[1:58:56] Voice 16: that are over a specific grade

[1:59:00] Voice 16: and take over a certain length

[1:59:04] Voice 16: and require a number of landings

[1:59:06] Voice 16: to pop all the way down the shoreline

[1:59:08] Voice 16: does not add to the character of the islands and those perhaps should be required to have a permit

[1:59:17] Voice 16: so that we can see how that design and how that construction is going to more tie in with the

[1:59:26] Voice 16: surroundings rather than have them on sheer rock walls as I'm going to take a chance here.

[1:59:33] Voice 16: if you go to Main Island you'll be able to go into Village Bay and all over

[1:59:40] Voice 16: Village Bay on the rock tops this is what you see and I'm not I just for me

[1:59:47] Voice 16: personally for a lot of other people who I've spoken to they don't think that

[1:59:50] Voice 16: particularly is aesthetically wonderful for the coastlines and so that is the

[1:59:56] Voice 16: idea and even friends of mine on Main Island would like to discuss

[2:00:00] Voice 16: that it could possibly be something we wish to prohibit.

[2:00:06] Voice 8: So it's

[2:00:07] Voice 16: not a question of getting rid of all staircases.

[2:00:13] Voice 16: What else was there?

[2:00:15] Voice 16: I guess that's probably enough for me to kick around.

[2:00:19] Voice 18: Okay, thank you.

[2:00:23] Voice 18: Phil, there's just a couple things.

[2:00:27] Voice 18: Just initially, I'd like to talk about the first items that were raised,

[2:00:30] Voice 18: raise which is the house size and the and the setbacks um you know again we've been having a

[2:00:36] Voice 18: number of conversations over over a period of time on this topic um and then relating to it of course

[2:00:42] Voice 18: is the grandfather perception issue so let's let's just sort of break those all out um on house size

[2:00:50] Voice 18: and again i i um i do believe that that there are certain things that we have within our powers

[2:00:58] Voice 18: as trustees under using the very few tools that we do have to positively support the OCP and the

[2:01:10] Voice 18: values that are in it. And certainly some of the more paramount values is protection of the rural

[2:01:16] Voice 18: character, visually pleasing aesthetics, separation between neighboring properties. I'm not going to

[2:01:24] Voice 18: to make any apologies for being a strong supporter of those i respect the fact that everybody's got

[2:01:31] Voice 18: an opinion there was a gentleman here that said i have no problem with 10 000 square foot houses

[2:01:34] Voice 18: he's entitled to that opinion i do believe that um that the character of our of our island would be

[2:01:43] Voice 18: forever changed if we had no um curbs on the size to which homes could be built and if we had no

[2:01:52] Voice 18: and if we weren't thoughtful in how we develop setbacks

[2:01:56] Voice 18: to create horizontal separation between neighbouring properties.

[2:02:00] Voice 18: So I do believe those are important tools

[2:02:03] Voice 18: that will protect what we value as our community.

[2:02:09] Voice 18: There is also, as I think a lot of you are aware,

[2:02:12] Voice 18: is the way that our land use by-law has been written,

[2:02:14] Voice 18: which is different than in many other places,

[2:02:17] Voice 18: is the size of a house on this island is not a measurement of density so the

[2:02:25] Voice 18: number of homes on a property is a measurement of density and the reason

[2:02:28] Voice 18: I'm bringing this up is because density is something that you can't vary then

[2:02:33] Voice 18: density and use require a public hearing but because the way our bylaws written

[2:02:38] Voice 18: because houses are not the size of the house is not a measurement of density

[2:02:42] Voice 18: there are circumstances where if somebody came forward and said look at

[2:02:46] Voice 18: the you know under the land use bylaw that the size of a maximum house is x but i got a really

[2:02:52] Voice 18: compelling reason why i wanted wanted to be x plus one that can be achieved through a variance

[2:02:58] Voice 18: without requiring a public hearing so that's really actually a very interesting little anomaly

[2:03:01] Voice 18: of our of our land use bylaw um so so i i um also want to talk a little bit about grandfather

[2:03:13] Voice 18: father clause because or legal non-conforming because it has been you know this it just feels

[2:03:20] Voice 18: like we're spinning our wheels on this topic because we've been going around around and one

[2:03:24] Voice 18: person says you don't know what you don't know another person said it's fine i've talked to the

[2:03:28] Voice 18: i've talked to this person it's not a big deal i'm not sure where they where the ultimate truth

[2:03:34] Voice 18: is but the fact is it remains an issue of discomfort for people that being said in any

[2:03:40] Voice 18: and other municipality it's not an issue as the city makes decisions in the advancement of their

[2:03:47] Voice 18: their evolution of their of their their bylaw uh regime properties become legal non-conforming and

[2:03:55] Voice 18: and and that's just the way it is and and homes trade regularly we're a small community um i felt

[2:04:03] Voice 18: like the dialogue that we were trying to have on on the ideas of setbacks and and

[2:04:11] Voice 18: house size as I said earlier in the meeting were being overshadowed by this

[2:04:15] Voice 18: is dominant concern about legal law conforming it was really precluding just

[2:04:20] Voice 18: a really open dialogue about things we had a one of our community meetings that

[2:04:25] Voice 18: we had in in mid-october I think there was a bit of an aha moment with with a

[2:04:29] Voice 18: lot of people in in the in the in the in the meeting where people said well if there's a way

[2:04:35] Voice 18: that we can be proactive and look to the future and look at at the suggested uh changes to house

[2:04:43] Voice 18: sizes and setbacks but not negatively impact the people that have built the homes under the bylaws

[2:04:49] Voice 18: today well if we can do that then that's not a bad idea and and i think you know i agree i think

[2:04:57] Voice 18: that's where we want to be. I don't want to do anything that puts somebody into legal non-conforming

[2:05:03] Voice 18: because of a change in a bylaw. So I had a suggestion, and I know my friend Gordy's got

[2:05:10] Voice 18: some other ones, and I want to bat them around a little bit, because I think we're both looking

[2:05:13] Voice 18: for the same outcome, but we're trying to make sure that we do it in a way that is airtight

[2:05:18] Voice 18: and um and not too complicated so one of the suggestions that i came up with um was similar to

[2:05:28] Voice 18: uh well one of the suggestions i came up with was to say if there's a number of homes

[2:05:33] Voice 18: in uh in in the island on the island that could become legal non-conforming by virtue of a change

[2:05:39] Voice 18: in house size uh bylaws because we're a small island because there's not that many homes as

[2:05:46] Voice 18: as far as I can tell from the data,

[2:05:47] Voice 18: then we could recognize them as a schedule to the land use bylaws.

[2:05:51] Voice 18: So they would be protected specifically saying, you know,

[2:05:56] Voice 18: Peter Smith's house is this size. It's recognized, it's provided for,

[2:06:01] Voice 18: it's in the land use bylaw.

[2:06:02] Voice 18: It doesn't fall into a legal non-conforming category.

[2:06:09] Voice 18: So I still think that possibly is the most airtight way to do it.

[2:06:15] Voice 18: um and again similar to um minnesotas where i do work there's a there's a zoning bylaw

[2:06:24] Voice 18: notwithstanding the zoning bylaw that says you can only build to this height or this density

[2:06:27] Voice 18: there'll be a a schedule to the land use bylaw that says you know you'll give your pid number

[2:06:34] Voice 18: and it will say you can do this so the issue is closed so that was my suggestion um gordy sent

[2:06:42] Voice 18: sent an email out to us yesterday and i think there was a lot of really good ideas in it um

[2:06:47] Voice 18: and i uh it's it's sort of the mechanics that i think that we're trying to think about here is

[2:06:52] Voice 18: what's the best mechanics to achieve the outcome so you already know my thoughts on it the other

[2:06:57] Voice 18: one that i want to throw to to staff because i think in some ways gordy's suggestion was based

[2:07:03] Voice 18: on some of the thinking that that staff had raised but in its most conceptual form it would be that

[2:07:08] Voice 18: you would effectively have um on a going forward basis a provision in the land use bylaw that would

[2:07:17] Voice 18: say this is the setbacks and this is the house size but then you'd also have in the land use bylaw

[2:07:25] Voice 18: uh a set of setback regulations and and house size regulations that would that would also coexist but

[2:07:33] Voice 18: it would be dated until i'm just going to make january 1st 2022 just making the number up so

[2:07:38] Voice 18: So this would be in effect for homes that had achieved a building permit by that date,

[2:07:44] Voice 18: and this one would be in effect for the other ones.

[2:07:47] Voice 18: It's an elegantly simple solution.

[2:07:49] Voice 18: I like it if it's going to provide the same measure of protection as the suggestion that I had.

[2:07:55] Voice 18: And if it does, then, you know, that would be a great idea.

[2:08:01] Voice 18: Let the LTC discuss that.

[2:08:03] Voice 18: Go ahead, Kim.

[2:08:05] Voice 20: going back to the september 24th staff report that was an option so you could have two different sets

[2:08:12] Voice 20: of regulations for maximum floor area and setback so those properties that exist or those dwelling

[2:08:18] Voice 20: units that exist today the current regulations would apply but for any new dwelling units the

[2:08:25] Voice 20: new regulations would apply so that is another option as well and

[2:08:29] Voice 18: and thank you kim and to be

[2:08:30] Voice 18: be clear because both of those are within the land use bylaw it would avoid this issue of legal

[2:08:37] Voice 18: non-conforming yes

[2:08:38] Voice 6: okay

[2:08:39] Voice 18: i mean i think you know and credit to gordy i like the fact that you dig

[2:08:43] Voice 18: deep um i i um um i think the one thing that would be good about that is that you know you and i did

[2:08:54] Voice 18: a lot of data uh investigations on house size but it was very difficult to get data on setbacks

[2:09:00] Voice 18: through um through the you know through the government information that was available so if

[2:09:05] Voice 18: we were to have a bylaw uh if we were to do what we just discussed then that would cover off any

[2:09:12] Voice 18: of the issues of setbacks as well and that would make me very happy so you know that's um you know

[2:09:20] Voice 18: that's what happens when people come together and you get a series of good ideas but so i do

[2:09:23] Voice 18: do i do um i do like that idea uh quite a bit i mean we don't want to be right now just to be

[2:09:34] Voice 18: clear there's properties right now that by virtue of the changes that were made back in 2017

[2:09:41] Voice 18: there's a number of properties right now that are legal non-conforming and so what we want to do

[2:09:46] Voice 18: is make sure that i mean that's the interesting thing there's a couple of properties right now

[2:09:53] Voice 18: that

[2:09:53] Voice 7: there

[2:09:55] Voice 18: are yeah about nine that are legal non-conforming no it's actually less than nine

[2:09:59] Voice 18: i think nine is nine is what would be legal non-conforming pursuant to the changes that i

[2:10:06] Voice 18: had but if we had two sets of bylaws and the nine would fall away but beyond that there's still a

[2:10:10] Voice 18: couple we know which homes they are that are that are bigger so you know without creating a third

[2:10:15] Voice 18: set of of land use bylaws maybe in that case you say those couple of properties could be under the

[2:10:22] Voice 18: the schedules of the bylaw i really would like to to avoid well

[2:10:25] Voice 14: that would be the date going forward

[2:10:27] Voice 14: so they

[2:10:27] Voice 18: don't already exist they're not conforming right now so i would really like to address those

[2:10:33] Voice 18: at the same time if we can we can have a breakup conversation on that later i just okay so in terms

[2:10:39] Voice 18: of the time because the three of us have to get a ferry

[2:10:42] Voice 8: that's

[2:10:43] Voice 18: our point um a resolution to

[2:10:48] Voice 18: to, we'll say amend the by-law even though it's not exactly reading, amend the by-law

[2:10:53] Voice 18: to include a provision regarding non-conformity for setbacks and for area.

[2:11:01] Voice 18: Yeah and the only thing that I would want to say is in the, maybe this is after the

[2:11:11] Voice 18: fact because right now there's the three items which is to increase setbacks and it should

[2:11:16] Voice 18: should say side yard setbacks to the 20 feet

[2:11:20] Voice 18: as opposed to setbacks.

[2:11:21] Voice 18: But maybe that's the old amendment

[2:11:25] Voice 18: that it's at the top of the staff report.

[2:11:26] Voice 18: So maybe as long as the point is,

[2:11:28] Voice 18: we wanna talk about side yard setbacks to the 20 feet.

[2:11:31] Voice 18: And I guess the other thing I would wanna,

[2:11:34] Voice 18: if we're moving quickly in the interest of time,

[2:11:36] Voice 18: is to the earlier conversation is looking at

[2:11:39] Voice 18: for to increase the shoreline setback to 15 meters

[2:11:46] Voice 18: for new for new properties for undeveloped properties yeah for the undeveloped properties

[2:11:54] Voice 20: we just need a clear direction yeah we

[2:11:55] Voice 18: need a resolution i i would i would move that that the

[2:12:00] Voice 18: um shoreline setback i don't know if that's the right word or the high water the setback

[2:12:05] Voice 18: from the high water mark be be at 15 meters for undeveloped properties before

[2:12:11] Voice 3: before you

[2:12:12] Voice 3: second that i'm going to give shannon i was looking for clarity

[2:12:16] Voice 19: she's looking for clarity

[2:12:18] Voice 19: I just, so Robert had provided the wording that to amend the bylaw for including a provision for non-conforming for setbacks and floor areas.

[2:12:31] Voice 19: I didn't catch the last thing because Cameron started

[2:12:33] Voice 3: speaking as well.

[2:12:34] Voice 3: We haven't made that motion yet.

[2:12:36] Voice 3: So set that one aside

[2:12:37] Voice 3: for a second.

[2:12:38] Voice 3: They may make that one.

[2:12:39] Voice 3: This is, you made a different one.

[2:12:41] Voice 18: So Shannon, all I was adding is, is I also move that.

[2:12:45] Voice 3: You're adding to that one that he said.

[2:12:47] Voice 18: or are you know i'm

[2:12:49] Voice 18: confused we

[2:12:50] Voice 3: could potentially have two motions or put them together in one

[2:12:54] Voice 3: yeah you can either combine it all into one or so

[2:12:57] Voice 18: okay so i so i make a motion that we uh uh amend

[2:13:03] Voice 18: the land use bylaw to create a a second you're gonna have to help me with the wording here but

[2:13:07] Voice 18: a second set of regulations relating to setbacks and house size um for

[2:13:13] Voice 2: new

[2:13:14] Voice 18: confer for new construction

[2:13:16] Voice 18: and and while retaining the existing side yard and house size setbacks as exist in the current

[2:13:25] Voice 18: bylaw and that we also amend the the setback from the high water mark of undeveloped properties to

[2:13:35] Voice 18: 15 meters.

[2:13:39] Voice 3: All right, Shannon, let's see how you're doing. No worries, take your time.

[2:13:50] Voice 3: I can see her, you can't.

[2:13:53] Voice 16: Take your time, the ferry will wait. No, she's ready to load you.

[2:14:02] Voice 19: I'm just going to need some clarification on the middle, but I'll read back where I got.

[2:14:05] Voice 19: amend the bylaw to create a second set of regulations for setback and floor size for

[2:14:10] Voice 19: new construction while maintaining the existing regulations for

[2:14:13] Voice 18: setbacks in house say the same

[2:14:16] Voice 18: things will exist for current

[2:14:18] Voice 19: properties existing existing structures existing

[2:14:22] Voice 16: structures i'm going

[2:14:27] Voice 19: to start at the beginning amend the bylaw to create a second set of regulations for setback

[2:14:30] Voice 19: and floor size for new construction while maintaining the existing regulations for

[2:14:34] Voice 19: existing structures and also amend the setback from the high water mark for new construction to

[2:14:40] Voice 19: 15 meters i

[2:14:41] Voice 18: think that's correct sounds

[2:14:43] Voice 3: good all right is there a second to this motion

[2:14:45] Voice 3: seconded by trustee wright discussion well

[2:14:48] Voice 16: i'm beginning to understand um the confusion

[2:14:53] Voice 16: um about this issue because when i got gory's email i went back to my notes of over a year ago

[2:15:00] Voice 16: and the whole concept of starting this whole thing was to address new development only yeah

[2:15:07] Voice 7: so

[2:15:07] Voice 16: i'm really glad we've come around this long year-long circle and come to it um so yeah

[2:15:13] Voice 16: this is what we always intended in my opinion so i'm not sure where the confusion came but

[2:15:19] Voice 16: i'm glad to see the motion made and i fully support it that's good all

[2:15:24] Voice 3: right any further

[2:15:25] Voice 3: the discussion no

[2:15:26] Voice 16: no no

[2:15:28] Voice 3: i'll call the vote then all those in favor and that's kerry

[2:15:34] Voice 3: stairs

[2:15:34] Voice 18: within the setback we've

[2:15:37] Voice 12: gotten rid of non-conforming yes

[2:15:39] Voice 18: in

[2:15:40] Voice 4: terms

[2:15:42] Voice 18: of the setback removing the stairs um there's a permitted structure within the setback

[2:15:47] Voice 18: from the seat do you want to just take that out of this draft and consider it as part of the

[2:15:51] Voice 18: the shoreline. Yes. Yeah. I

[2:15:53] Voice 16: know that we remove stairways from this bylaw amendment.

[2:16:04] Voice 3: Shannon, did you hear that?

[2:16:08] Voice 19: I just didn't catch the end remove stairways from this

[2:16:11] Voice 3: bylaw amendment.

[2:16:13] Voice 3: From this bylaw amendment. All right. Is there a second? Seconded by Christy Thorne. Any

[2:16:22] Voice 3: discussion I'll call the vote all those in favor and that's Kerry and the other

[2:16:29] Voice 16: issue is shipping shipping containers I'd like to remove this from this bylaw

[2:16:35] Voice 16: amendment as well until we've had some discussions with property owners about

[2:16:40] Voice 16: the number of other requirements and what their needs are because there seems

[2:16:46] Voice 16: to be some confusion between what staff has got here and what was initially intended

[2:16:50] Voice 16: yeah

[2:16:50] Voice 18: let's just I agree with Steve let's just remove this right now have a better

[2:16:53] Voice 18: conversation on this one there's lots of balls in the air i mean you know part of it comes down

[2:16:58] Voice 18: to screening part of it comes down to the you know whether there should be any allowed on properties

[2:17:01] Voice 18: less than one acre arguably there's perhaps a need for those you know screening is something

[2:17:07] Voice 18: that came up but then also you want to make provisions so that when somebody's you know

[2:17:11] Voice 18: somebody's building a house and they bring a shipping container on for their tool storage

[2:17:14] Voice 18: that you don't want them to have to screen it so i think it's maybe better to pull this one away so

[2:17:19] Voice 18: So,

[2:17:19] Voice 16: the resolution is?

[2:17:20] Voice 16: The recommendation.

[2:17:21] Voice 18: I'm not sure on this one, though.

[2:17:22] Voice 3: Janet, did you get that?

[2:17:24] Voice 3: Okay.

[2:17:26] Voice 3: Who's making that motion?

[2:17:28] Voice 3: That's a motion being made by Trustee Wright.

[2:17:30] Voice 3: Is there a second?

[2:17:31] Voice 3: Second by Trustee Thorne.

[2:17:33] Voice 3: Trustee Cameron.

[2:17:35] Voice 3: Is there any discussion?

[2:17:37] Voice 3: I'll call the vote.

[2:17:38] Voice 3: All those in favor?

[2:17:40] Voice 20: Carried.

[2:17:41] Voice 20: Anything else?

[2:17:42] Voice 16: And then in

[2:17:42] Voice 16: terms of-

[2:17:42] Voice 20: Next steps would be that I'd make the changes

[2:17:45] Voice 20: to the Draft Amendment By-law,

[2:17:46] Voice 20: and I'd bring it back at the next meeting

[2:17:48] Voice 20: for recommendation for first reading after that would be a community

[2:17:51] Voice 20: information meeting scheduled for March and

[2:17:53] Voice 9: in the meantime if you could

[2:17:56] Voice 18: give us

[2:17:56] Voice 18: any specifics about the agricultural properties yeah I'll do that I'm not

[2:18:00] Voice 18: aware of any properties that are zoned agricultural if not in the ALR entirely

[2:18:05] Voice 18: there's some slivers

[2:18:06] Voice 8: around the edges yeah

[2:18:07] Voice 8: we'll

[2:18:09] Voice 16: have more communities just a community gathering shall we say

[2:18:14] Voice 18: chair how are we doing for time because i mean i what you don't want to do is rush things that

[2:18:19] Voice 18: need proper discussion and get your i know we're coming up against time too so we should we should

[2:18:23] Voice 18: be probably looking around too mary

[2:18:27] Voice 3: leaves at 245 245

[2:21:43] Voice 20: That's included in the drug by-law as well.

[2:21:47] Voice 20: and the Rights of Nature will be a new section in the OCP. There's a

[2:21:54] Voice 20: background statement and advocacy policies attached. So there is a timeline

[2:22:01] Voice 20: for the LTC to look over. If the LTC does give first reading to the bylaw today

[2:22:08] Voice 20: staff would also like direction to schedule a community information meeting

[2:22:13] Voice 20: for the February 4th meeting and then a public hearing potentially as of March 4th meeting.

[2:22:24] Voice 20: So three recommendations there. First is to give first reading to the bylaw. The second

[2:22:31] Voice 20: is in terms of the island's trust policy statement. And the third is to schedule a community

[2:22:36] Voice 20: information meeting for the draft bylaw for the February meeting.

[2:22:42] Voice 20: Okay

[2:22:48] Voice 18: so you're right.

[2:22:56] Voice 16: Well I think schedule one with the acknowledgement and reconciliation of

[2:23:03] Voice 16: First Nations is long overdue and incredibly important to everybody so I'd like to see that

[2:23:11] Voice 16: be referred to them and if it has been referred to them then we'll wait for what they have to say

[2:23:17] Voice 16: and I'm going to jump over one because I raised the issue of rights of nature and we often speak

[2:23:24] Voice 16: about sustainability and the wish to ensure that our children have the right to a healthy

[2:23:29] Voice 16: environment and it seems to be a fairly universal feeling but if we're serious about that intention

[2:23:35] Voice 16: then we we need to extend that right to all species of flora and fauna which we directly

[2:23:40] Voice 16: or indirectly rely upon for our well-being and our actual survival. Our current belief

[2:23:47] Voice 16: belief that we are separate from the environment or that our needs are paramount to all others

[2:23:53] Voice 16: is beginning to have serious repercussions leading to the extinction of species and the

[2:23:59] Voice 16: advent of climate change.

[2:24:01] Voice 16: So the expression about the rights of nature by this community, regardless of what anybody

[2:24:06] Voice 16: else is doing out there, whether it's provincial legislation, federal or whatever, is simply

[2:24:11] Voice 16: a recognition that we respect in this community all life ones and by caring for them we actually

[2:24:18] Voice 16: care for ourselves and this statement hopes to raise awareness of the need to provide the

[2:24:22] Voice 16: diversity of the health environment for the future of all generations now since i wrote that i have

[2:24:29] Voice 16: been doing a number of other readings and one of the things that i have been reading quite a bit

[2:24:35] Voice 16: about is first nations and their approach to the environment and it has it's really

[2:24:44] Voice 6: struck a very

[2:24:46] Voice 6: deep that way

[2:24:53] Voice 16: when i was a child and somewhere along the line because i got busy because we

[2:24:58] Voice 16: got families because i started building my approach my relationship with that environment

[2:25:02] Voice 16: has changed and not for the better and so i'm of the opinion right now that rather than i write

[2:25:11] Voice 16: the rights of nature for this community i would like to refer to the first nations and get their

[2:25:16] Voice 16: impressions and get some idea of how they relate and refer and and act towards nature and the

[2:25:24] Voice 16: environment and so i'm not sure if we can do that as a trust committee i'm not sure if we have to

[2:25:31] Voice 16: to go through our community to community people and on the island but I really want to involve

[2:25:42] Voice 16: them because I think their approach to the environment is far more I think it's wiser

[2:25:50] Voice 16: than our own we have a tendency to treat nature as a toilet and I think that needs to change so

[2:25:56] Voice 16: So I'm not sure if I want to proceed with this at this time

[2:26:00] Voice 16: without some input from the WSAMIC leadership council

[2:26:07] Voice 16: or perhaps some elders within their community.

[2:26:10] Voice 16: So I want to explore that.

[2:26:12] Voice 16: So I'd like to, for the time being,

[2:26:14] Voice 16: remove the rights of nature from this OCP amendment

[2:26:20] Voice 16: until I explore that further.

[2:26:25] Voice 3: I like your approach.

[2:26:27] Voice 3: I was just going to say there's a deadline for applying for UBCM community funding of December

[2:26:34] Voice 3: something. It's in December for the springtime and that's to apply for money to use for that kind of

[2:26:44] Voice 3: dialogue with the community.

[2:26:48] Voice 16: I'd certainly like to look into that but I also I'll have some

[2:26:55] Voice 16: some chats with some people within our own community to see if we can carry that through

[2:27:01] Voice 16: and advance that. But at the moment I just want to, I think it's extremely important

[2:27:07] Voice 16: for the rights of nature but I also think it's important to speak with the people who

[2:27:11] Voice 16: actually own this land.

[2:27:16] Voice 20: So would the intention be to after referring it to potentially add that rights of nature

[2:27:23] Voice 20: back into the draft of the

[2:27:25] Voice 20: proposed by-law?

[2:27:26] Voice 7: Okay.

[2:27:28] Voice 20: So it may be worthwhile then,

[2:27:30] Voice 20: rather than amending the by-law,

[2:27:33] Voice 20: is just simply sending the draft by-law

[2:27:35] Voice 20: for early referral to First Nations and the Senate?

[2:27:38] Voice 16: Well, I don't even want to throw that on them.

[2:27:40] Voice 16: I just want to tell them that we're looking

[2:27:42] Voice 16: and exploring rights of nature

[2:27:45] Voice 16: and how do they perceive them to be.

[2:27:48] Voice 16: And we would welcome any other comments

[2:27:52] Voice 16: and perspectives upon that.

[2:27:54] Voice 18: just procedurally if if um if that was to be the case i mean i guess we what we what we wouldn't

[2:28:01] Voice 18: want is that that consultation or feedback would somehow um freeze the evolution of of the other

[2:28:11] Voice 18: two components going forward no that's

[2:28:12] Voice 18: what i said remove it from this

[2:28:13] Voice 16: okay okay you'll just carry on

[2:28:16] Voice 16: so

[2:28:17] Voice 3: you would need an amendment yep a motion to amend or

[2:28:20] Voice 16: to defer this section right

[2:28:24] Voice 16: So I'll move to defer the rights of nature from this by-law amendment, OCP by-law amendment.

[2:28:31] Voice 3: Oh, sorry, Shannon. I don't know if you've heard that.

[2:28:38] Voice 4: Do we?

[2:28:39] Voice 4: I should say.

[2:28:40] Voice 19: So did you hear that?

[2:28:44] Voice 19: I guess I'm just grabbing the title.

[2:28:52] Voice 3: I didn't hear what you said. You got cut off.

[2:28:58] Voice 18: There's a stalemate here.

[2:28:59] Voice 18: yeah

[2:29:00] Voice 3: did you hear that motion now we've disappeared there you are

[2:29:08] Voice 19: no no i'm here i am here i just

[2:29:10] Voice 19: every time um i can't have both screens up so i can't and so one minute gotcha is this bylaw

[2:29:27] Voice 19: referred to as south pender island local trust committee bylaw number one two three so the

[2:29:33] Voice 19: amendment the motion would be that the south pender island local trust committee defer the

[2:29:38] Voice 19: the rights of nature from the south pender island local trust committee bylaw number

[2:29:41] Voice 19: one two three that's correct that's correct yes you

[2:29:45] Voice 3: got it is there a second seconded by

[2:29:47] Voice 3: trustee thorn any discussion i will call the vote all those in favor and that's

[2:29:53] Voice 3: carried so then can

[2:29:54] Voice 18: we come back to the other yes

[2:29:55] Voice 3: yeah yeah yeah and

[2:29:56] Voice 18: again knowing we're in the interest of time here

[2:29:58] Voice 18: so i think um

[2:29:59] Voice 18: Thank you for having me.

[2:30:00] Voice 18: You know, I wholeheartedly agree on, I think, the importance of recognition of First Nations within our OCP.

[2:30:08] Voice 18: I would want to see us move forward on evolving that.

[2:30:12] Voice 18: And again, the specific wording that is attached to these are continuing to be open for refinement as we work through.

[2:30:20] Voice 18: But

[2:30:20] Voice 3: just to get...

[2:30:20] Voice 3: Any time up

[2:30:21] Voice 18: to and including public...

[2:30:22] Voice 18: Yeah, yeah, fair enough. Okay.

[2:30:23] Voice 18: It's

[2:30:24] Voice 3: interesting to note that Saturna did make those changes, and the Ministry still hasn't responded back on it.

[2:30:31] Voice 3: It's been a really

[2:30:33] Voice 20: long time, so

[2:30:34] Voice 3: I don't know what's happening.

[2:30:37] Voice 3: I'm not sure if it's specific.

[2:30:38] Voice 3: And

[2:30:39] Voice 20: these aren't based on Saturna's?

[2:30:41] Voice 20: These are a little different.

[2:30:42] Voice 20: Okay.

[2:30:44] Voice 18: So then I'll talk just very briefly on just the building design and siting guidelines.

[2:30:48] Voice 18: And this thing has been around for a long time and had lots of discussion and lots of disagreements with people.

[2:30:56] Voice 18: And I think that's actually been a very healthy process.

[2:31:00] Voice 18: The way that this thing is drafted, and I would just want to confirm that my understanding is correct on this,

[2:31:08] Voice 18: is that if we were to move forward with the building design guidelines, that they would be, as noted on page 33,

[2:31:18] Voice 18: that they would be considered during the DVP application process to give some guidance

[2:31:25] Voice 18: to the decision makers of a DVP for a variance to the bylaw.

[2:31:31] Voice 18: And I think that's the important thing.

[2:31:32] Voice 18: Right now, and I don't want to be telling people how to design their house.

[2:31:36] Voice 18: I mean, Audrey, I don't.

[2:31:38] Voice 18: I really don't.

[2:31:39] Voice 18: I really, what I want is some aspirational guidelines that would give people some,

[2:31:47] Voice 18: give people a pause from reflection they're not they're not um obligatory just like there's other

[2:31:54] Voice 18: things in the ocp that are not obligatory but they're aspirational i do feel that that we are

[2:32:00] Voice 18: a bit flat-footed if we are asking trustees whether it's steve and i and laura or trustees

[2:32:05] Voice 18: in the future to consider a variance to a development permit but we have absolutely not

[2:32:10] Voice 18: even any basic guidelines that we that are that are part of the community values that would give

[2:32:15] Voice 18: guidance to those decisions that being said and i i will take full credit for perhaps being too

[2:32:24] Voice 18: enthusiastic in trying to to to cover off every possibility when we first drafted the design

[2:32:29] Voice 18: guidelines in uh in december in i think september of 2019 is when we brought something forward

[2:32:35] Voice 18: um full recognition that maybe that caught people by surprise um you know they were based on best

[2:32:43] Voice 18: best practices from around the world in some communities that are, you know, highly desirous

[2:32:48] Voice 18: communities where they've got a very, very beautiful book-built form. I think people took

[2:32:52] Voice 18: them, first of all, I think people felt like we were going to bring them about in terms of making

[2:32:56] Voice 18: them an obligation, which we cannot do. It's just, we don't even have the powers to do that.

[2:33:00] Voice 18: And secondly, I think that we got hung up on some of the concepts like regionally sourced materials,

[2:33:05] Voice 18: and then we really got into this big debate about cutting trees down and, you know, that kind of

[2:33:10] Voice 18: of thing we went back and asked staff to take a crack at them and i think staff did a really

[2:33:15] Voice 18: pretty darn good job made them much more aspirational rather than this is the size of

[2:33:20] Voice 18: your dormer or um you know this is the roof pitch on your house and and so i'm quite i've got a few

[2:33:26] Voice 18: suggestions i don't necessarily need to get into them now but i would like to see this thing move

[2:33:29] Voice 18: forward and and um because i really do believe at the end of the day and the other thing i want to

[2:33:35] Voice 18: make really clear is it's not a cookie cutter you know jared that was here lives in a very

[2:33:39] Voice 18: interesting modern house i really like it somebody else lives in a traditional house there's room for

[2:33:44] Voice 18: all of that in the community and that's that the guidelines are intended to celebrate that rather

[2:33:50] Voice 18: than to try and make everybody house look the same so i do believe there's a place for it um

[2:33:56] Voice 18: in in our ocp so i would um that's my comments

[2:34:05] Voice 3: conversations or thoughts or listening we

[2:34:07] Voice 16: did have a long meeting and a number of issues uh

[2:34:10] Voice 16: that came up. Some of the comments that stuck with me was one about the effectiveness and

[2:34:18] Voice 16: efficiency of building design and citing guidelines being guidelines and not being mandatory.

[2:34:26] Voice 16: There is also a suggestion I think was from one of our APC members who's an architect

[2:34:35] Voice 16: that said that consideration of an architectural panel might be a better

[2:34:42] Voice 16: way of looking at this and I think it was Brad Henshaw that also said, worked up

[2:34:50] Voice 16: his interest and said that he thought that also might be a good idea and that got us

[2:34:54] Voice 16: thinking about if that could be set up and if it was going to be set up and

[2:35:00] Voice 16: then of course the question would evolve and who's going to sit on the panel and

[2:35:04] Voice 16: and where do they get the guidelines from?

[2:35:08] Voice 16: The guidelines that are being put forward here,

[2:35:13] Voice 16: I still think there's a couple of amendments

[2:35:16] Voice 16: to be required, such as the removal of regionally,

[2:35:22] Voice 16: I can't find it, regionally sourced materials,

[2:35:26] Voice 16: regionally sourced, et cetera, et cetera,

[2:35:28] Voice 16: so that we're not getting too detailed in it.

[2:35:32] Voice 16: But I think these principles are,

[2:35:37] Voice 16: I find it difficult to believe anybody has a real problem with them because they're not specific to general principles, and I think they follow fairly decent billing rules.

[2:35:49] Voice 16: So the only thing is, I mean, I like to stick to a principle, and a principle for me has to apply in all instances.

[2:35:59] Voice 16: It's going to apply here, it's got to apply over there, otherwise it's not valid.

[2:36:01] Voice 16: So if we're going to talk about how effective and how efficient it's going to be, then we have to ask ourselves whether these policies are going to be efficiently and effectively capable of changing people's mind or educating people, because we can't force anybody to do them.

[2:36:23] Voice 16: And the question has been raised in this community, if it can't make anybody do any, why do we bother putting them in?

[2:36:32] Voice 16: And so the only question, again, there is aspirational. And those aspirational statements by our community, whether it's to do with the character, whether it's to do with the rights of nature, whether it has anything to do with the environment and where they want to go, they are important.

[2:36:53] Voice 16: They are important because it gives guidance and it also signifies a mindset within a specific community, and it also provides a certain amount of pride within the community that they are separate, that they have thought about these things, and these are important issues that they want considered.

[2:37:10] Voice 16: So I don't have a problem with going forward on these.

[2:37:14] Voice 16: the only question I have and the thing I'd like to make sure that we're all aware of is if we're

[2:37:21] Voice 16: going to implement them we have to come up with something that works and I think quite possibly

[2:37:27] Voice 16: that Mr. Harry's suggestion of an architectural panel may be one way of achieving that so I think

[2:37:38] Voice 16: that's up for further discussion I think that may take some time to do it but I think this still

[2:37:44] Voice 16: need some work so i don't have a problem with with proceeding with this because it again once again

[2:37:49] Voice 16: it does provide a focus and in earlier discussions about it people were jumping to conclusions and

[2:37:55] Voice 16: when asked whether they actually read the material they said no so i think this gives us an

[2:38:00] Voice 16: opportunity to have something in front of people that they can read and then you can refer to and

[2:38:05] Voice 16: they can debate and for that reason alone i'll support a motion to carry on with the

[2:38:11] Voice 16: Bill design and citing guidelines. I'm not going to guarantee it'll go anywhere, but I think the discussion is worthy of taking place.

[2:38:23] Voice 3: Were there any amendments?

[2:38:25] Voice 3: Well,

[2:38:25] Voice 18: we could, I mean, I mean, I guess, sorry, Steve.

[2:38:28] Voice 18: No, no, no.

[2:38:28] Voice 18: I mean, I had, we're saying the same things. Again, this is, this is, this is a first.

[2:38:35] Voice 18: we'd be going to we still have opportunity to amend this but I think I think the thing that

[2:38:39] Voice 18: that on page 42 under the objectives I would again I seem to be everybody's getting hung up on the use

[2:38:46] Voice 18: of the the words the use of regionally sourced building materials let's remove that and and I

[2:38:50] Voice 15: and

[2:38:50] Voice 18: again I realize that maybe that doesn't always apply somebody might build a house a modern house

[2:38:55] Voice 18: using spandrel glass you know and so that's not you're not going to not be made on self-pandering

[2:39:00] Voice 18: so let's remove that

[2:39:01] Voice 7: the

[2:39:02] Voice 18: other the other um thing that um the intent is there but i think it might

[2:39:08] Voice 18: come across the wrong way again on page 42 under guidelines principles of designs it says

[2:39:13] Voice 18: keep the design simple i mean i i agree with that i mean there's a but i think it might mean

[2:39:17] Voice 18: some people might perceive that as dumbing down something so i would prefer again for discussion

[2:39:22] Voice 18: to change that to read avoid ostentatious or complicated designs and then period and then

[2:39:28] Voice 18: And consider designs that carries on with your comments in a restrained, proportional manner that so on as the sentence is read.

[2:39:38] Voice 3: All right. So let's, we have to make these amendments, correct?

[2:39:41] Voice 3: Was that clear?

[2:39:43] Voice 3: I just want to make sure I'm talking to John.

[2:39:45] Voice 3: I understood what you said. I'm looking for Shannon. That's not in the same room.

[2:39:48] Voice 3: We can just take direction on it.

[2:39:52] Voice 7: So

[2:39:52] Voice 3: we don't have to give you, we don't make resolutions on this?

[2:39:55] Voice 3: Just one resolution as discussed.

[2:39:57] Voice 5: As discussed. Okay. Sorry.

[2:40:00] Voice 3: Thank you. All right. Was there any other amendments? So then I

[2:40:06] Voice 3: need a motion to make those amendments to this. As Shannon

[2:40:14] Voice 3: always works are magic, as discussed.

[2:40:19] Voice 3: So

[2:40:19] Voice 18: so I would. Where's the first part of this thing? I'm sorry.

[2:40:26] Voice 3: I moved to

[2:40:29] Voice 18: make the amendments as discussed with respect to the

[2:40:31] Voice 18: awarding changes in the proposed building design and siting guidelines.

[2:40:35] Voice 9: Just

[2:40:36] Voice 20: a clarification, if I may.

[2:40:38] Voice 20: So we're removing keep the design simple and replacing it with?

[2:40:42] Voice 18: Avoid ostentatious and complicated designs.

[2:40:47] Voice 20: Which is as

[2:40:48] Voice 18: tricky as defining something.

[2:40:51] Voice 16: I just think it was.

[2:40:55] Voice 20: Or you can remove all of that and just say consider designs in a restrained.

[2:40:59] Voice 20: There you go.

[2:41:00] Voice 17: For sure.

[2:41:00] Voice 17: why not why not why not all

[2:41:04] Voice 3: right uh shannon did you get the motion um

[2:41:11] Voice 19: was the motion to amend

[2:41:14] Voice 19: bylaw one two three deciding you can say

[2:41:19] Voice 3: as discussed yeah but it's the it's the guy what's

[2:41:22] Voice 3: it called oh sorry the guy building

[2:41:25] Voice 18: design and setting guidelines

[2:41:26] Voice 3: yes thank you rolls off your

[2:41:29] Voice 18: HAB-Masyn Moyer- As discussed

[2:41:30] Voice 19: it i'm sorry so it's not referred to as follow one, two, three, or is it by.

[2:41:38] Voice 19: HAB-Masyn Moyer- Building and setting

[2:41:39] Voice 19: guidelines are discussed.

[2:41:41] Voice 19: HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes,

[2:41:41] Voice 3: I think that just makes it very specific as to

[2:41:44] Voice 3: what we were talking about all right, is there a second second by trustee right, is there any discussion call the vote, then all those in favor and that's carried any other changes or

[2:41:57] Voice 20: are yeah.

[2:41:59] Voice 20: So the option for the LTC now is I can bring this by-law back in draft form at the February

[2:42:06] Voice 20: 4th meeting, or you could consider giving the amended draft by-law first reading.

[2:42:12] Voice 20: What that would do, if you give first reading today, it would start the referral process.

[2:42:16] Voice 20: Yeah,

[2:42:16] Voice 17: okay, so let's do that.

[2:42:18] Voice 20: So we have three then recommendations on page 32 of the agenda for the LTC to consider.

[2:42:28] Voice 20: And for the first one, it would be as amended.

[2:42:32] Voice 20: Yes, thank you.

[2:42:37] Voice 16: I move

[2:42:38] Voice 16: that South Bender Island Local Trust Committee by-law number 123, site of South Bender Island Official Community Fund by-law number 107-2001, amendment number 12021, has been read a first time as amended.

[2:42:53] Voice 3: All right, is there a second? Seconded by Trustee Cohen. Any discussion? If not, I'll call the vote. All those in favor? And that's carried.

[2:43:05] Voice 3: We have a truck running in the background now, you're probably hearing.

[2:43:09] Voice 18: I guess I could read the second one.

[2:43:11] Voice 18: that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee

[2:43:13] Voice 18: has reviewed the Island's Trust Policy Statement

[2:43:15] Voice 18: Directives Open Checklist determined that by-law 123

[2:43:19] Voice 18: cited as South Pender Island Official Community Con

[2:43:22] Voice 18: by-law number 107-20-2011,

[2:43:26] Voice 18: amendment number 1-20-21 as amended

[2:43:28] Voice 18: is not contrary to or in variance

[2:43:31] Voice 18: with the Island's Trust Policy Statement.

[2:43:33] Voice 18: Is

[2:43:33] Voice 3: there a second?

[2:43:34] Voice 16: I don't know if we've done that, but yes.

[2:43:37] Voice 16: Seconded by Trustee Wright.

[2:43:39] Voice 18: I read it this morning.

[2:43:40] Voice 18: is there any

[2:43:40] Voice 3: discussion all about all those in favor and that's carried and

[2:43:46] Voice 18: finally that

[2:43:47] Voice 18: the south pender island local trust committee request direct um

[2:43:51] Voice 3: request

[2:43:55] Voice 18: staff to schedule

[2:43:56] Voice 18: a community information meeting for draft bylaw one two three as amended is

[2:44:01] Voice 3: there a second

[2:44:02] Voice 3: second trustee right any discussion all those in favor and that's carried

[2:44:07] Voice 7: all right

[2:44:09] Voice 3: Right. Thank you. More to come, more community information meetings to come, and lots of opportunities to provide input.

[2:44:20] Voice 3: Okay, so that brings us to our work report on page 49.

[2:44:26] Voice 3: And so our staff are probably saying, don't touch it, don't add.

[2:44:31] Voice 3: But anything that needs to be paid attention?

[2:44:35] Voice 6: No, I don't think so.

[2:44:37] Voice 3: and we have

[2:44:39] Voice 3: our applications

[2:44:41] Voice 3: report

[2:44:42] Voice 20: here

[2:44:44] Voice 20: so nothing new to

[2:44:46] Voice 20: report there is an ALR

[2:44:49] Voice 20: application but we're waiting for

[2:44:50] Voice 20: further information from the applicant

[2:44:53] Voice 20: because they have to apply for a non-farm

[2:44:55] Voice 20: use for the strata road

[2:44:56] Voice 20: across the property

[2:44:58] Voice 20: so to be continued

[2:45:01] Voice 20: hopefully at the next LTC meeting

[2:45:04] Voice 20: alright

[2:45:06] Voice 2: All right, so

[2:45:07] Voice 3: our expense report is here for your information

[2:45:12] Voice 3: and there is the new fees by-law here

[2:45:15] Voice 3: on new business item 15.1.

[2:45:19] Voice 3: So

[2:45:19] Voice 5: I'm looking for a direction

[2:45:20] Voice 5: for the local trust committee if you want to proceed

[2:45:22] Voice 5: with considering amendments to fees by-law

[2:45:25] Voice 5: by adopting the new law.

[2:45:29] Voice 18: And just quickly on that one,

[2:45:32] Voice 18: again, as noted in the report,

[2:45:33] Voice 18: this is the model by-law came to trust council in the past.

[2:45:36] Voice 18: I think one of the things that has been an issue of concern to a number of us as trustees was that the fees that were being, and I think this is fees for new applications, at least what I'm thinking about, the fees that were being charged for new applications were not capturing the cost of processing that application.

[2:45:58] Voice 18: application and so what it really in effect meant is that taxpayers are subsidizing the costs

[2:46:04] Voice 18: of of new applications coming forward and i i think to me that's that's unfair i i think if

[2:46:11] Voice 18: i think we we we need to to make sure that the fees um we can debate whether fees should be

[2:46:17] Voice 18: going up or down in a perfect world they don't go up but one way or another

[2:46:20] Voice 18: my my priority is

[2:46:21] Voice 18: cost recovery from applications so that we're not we're not asking existing property owners

[2:46:26] Voice 18: to subsidize the cost of new development and so in that basis i would support um i would support

[2:46:33] Voice 18: this this uh this recommendation i'll

[2:46:36] Voice 3: just uh just so i was on the committee the regional planning

[2:46:39] Voice 3: committee that worked on the model p by law by the local government we are only allowed to recover

[2:46:45] Voice 3: fees for the average cost of that type so it's if that's through the local government act and

[2:46:51] Voice 3: and uh something over a visit from time to time because it's only the average cost that we can

[2:46:55] Voice 3: and recover through the fee.

[2:47:00] Voice 16: Well, yeah, it's user pay.

[2:47:03] Voice 16: That's a principle that seems to be everywhere,

[2:47:06] Voice 16: and I certainly don't think that anybody in this room

[2:47:08] Voice 16: should have to pay for development

[2:47:10] Voice 16: to get his application through the bureaucracy.

[2:47:15] Voice 16: The only thing that I would like to put on record

[2:47:18] Voice 16: is that whenever any outfit,

[2:47:21] Voice 16: I don't care if it's a corporation or a small business,

[2:47:23] Voice 16: is going to raise their fees,

[2:47:25] Voice 16: that there has to be some indication of that the service that they're getting is going to improve

[2:47:32] Voice 16: and one thing that we have heard throughout the trust area is the length of time it takes to

[2:47:40] Voice 16: process applications so and that came up in our conversation if you're going to put in a

[2:47:45] Voice 16: development permit we need a variance how long is it going to take to get a variance through so

[2:47:50] Voice 16: So I know that staff has received, or the office has received funding in order to look at, explore, and try and improve those processes so they can be sped up.

[2:48:01] Voice 16: I think the community would be happy to hear that.

[2:48:05] Voice 16: So all in all, if we can improve our service and give taxpayers a break on what it's costing them to do that service, then that strikes me as a bit of a win-win.

[2:48:17] Voice 16: So I've got a support to say.

[2:48:19] Voice 16: All

[2:48:20] Voice 3: right, so how would you like to proceed?

[2:48:22] Voice 3: There's a motion on page 55.

[2:48:23] Voice 16: I'll move that the Southerner Island Open Trust Committee request to draft a new fee by-law based on the model fee by-law attached to the Trust Council Policy 5.6.1 application processing services.

[2:48:36] Voice 3: Seconded.

[2:48:37] Voice 3: Seconded by Trustee Thorne.

[2:48:38] Voice 3: Any discussion?

[2:48:40] Voice 3: All those in favor?

[2:48:42] Voice 3: And that's carried.

[2:48:43] Voice 3: All right, thank you.

[2:48:46] Voice 3: We have the...

[2:48:54] Voice 18: Yeah, so the appointments are expiring here. Your options are at this point to reappoint the members, if you're interested, obviously, and or advertise for any questions of interest for new members.

[2:49:12] Voice 18: And there's a draft resolution there that would, in the future, just allow staff to

[2:49:20] Voice 18: initiate the process of inquiring if existing members want to return and put out an expression

[2:49:26] Voice 18: of interest to skip this intermediate step.

[2:49:31] Voice 16: Yeah, we don't need them.

[2:49:36] Voice 16: Yeah, I think I always found it a little odd that we appoint people for three years during

[2:49:42] Voice 16: during trustees for your term but um uh yeah i if they want to uh continue serving um

[2:49:52] Voice 16: uh hopefully they will and uh and if anybody wants out then this is probably a good time for them

[2:49:59] Voice 16: to make that decision um and we can uh look for others that might want to fulfill those vacancies

[2:50:06] Voice 16: if there are any so um let's make

[2:50:09] Voice 3: that motion well

[2:50:11] Voice 16: let me see how my

[2:50:14] Voice 18: co-trustee feels about

[2:50:15] Voice 18: no i feel the same way i mean um in effect both of these scenarios could play out if we were to

[2:50:19] Voice 18: send an email to those members of the apc some some or all may decide they want to stay on in

[2:50:24] Voice 18: which case that solves the problem otherwise it's going to be a combination of the two items because

[2:50:29] Voice 18: we're going to have to go out and seek expressions of interest from others so yes i i'm supportive

[2:50:33] Voice 18: of that.

[2:50:34] Voice 16: The only thing is I don't want to feather a future trustee's LTC's

[2:50:41] Voice 16: ability to call or look for their own advisor so can this be simply extended

[2:50:47] Voice 16: to the end of our term rather than a full three year? I know

[2:50:52] Voice 18: the bylaw says

[2:50:54] Voice 18: the appointments for three years I believe. The new LTC could dismiss for lack of a

[2:51:01] Voice 18: a better word, to existing APC.

[2:51:03] Voice 18: Okay.

[2:51:04] Voice 18: You

[2:51:05] Voice 7: know, it's an interesting thing.

[2:51:06] Voice 7: I'm

[2:51:06] Voice 18: just thinking, you know, if the

[2:51:09] Voice 18: bylaw was for three years, it probably

[2:51:11] Voice 18: made sense, because once upon a time, LTC

[2:51:12] Voice 18: termed for three years. But, you know, it

[2:51:15] Voice 18: almost raises the question is

[2:51:16] Voice 18: that really maybe the LTC, or the

[2:51:18] Voice 18: APC bylaw needs to be

[2:51:21] Voice 18: upgraded so that

[2:51:23] Voice 18: it's consistent with the term of an LTC.

[2:51:25] Voice 18: Yeah, that's one option. Usually, though,

[2:51:27] Voice 18: it takes a while. Like, you get a new LTC

[2:51:29] Voice 18: gets in, and you advertise for members,

[2:51:35] Voice 18: We'll email

[2:51:36] Voice 18: the existing members, and then if there's a vacancy still, one of them doesn't

[2:51:44] Voice 18: want to carry on, then we'll

[2:51:45] Voice 18: come back to you for advertising, but do you want to adopt

[2:51:50] Voice 18: this standing resolution if you like.

[2:51:52] Voice 18: But in future, we just contact the members, advertise,

[2:51:57] Voice 5: and then we just bring you the

[2:52:01] Voice 5: the list, basically, of what a number of other local trust communities have done.

[2:52:04] Voice 18: Yeah, no, I think that's great. Actually, I do like that idea.

[2:52:07] Voice 8: I'd like to

[2:52:07] Voice 16: make that motion.

[2:52:16] Voice 18: Basically, if I'm understanding, like for right now, because we're talking two things here.

[2:52:20] Voice 18: We're talking about what we do in the immediacy, which is step one, invite our existing

[2:52:24] Voice 18: APC members to indicate whether they want to stay on. But on a going forward

[2:52:28] Voice 18: basis, if I understand right, when we got to a scenario like this or when they were expiring,

[2:52:32] Voice 18: and you would reach out and say, Bob, Sue, Helen,

[2:52:36] Voice 18: do you want to be on the APC?

[2:52:37] Voice 18: And at the same time, you'd go out and...

[2:52:39] Voice 18: Put

[2:52:39] Voice 8: a suppression in.

[2:52:40] Voice 18: So we'd really have the advantage, or not we,

[2:52:43] Voice 18: but the future trustees would have the advantage

[2:52:45] Voice 18: of having to cast a fairly wide net of people

[2:52:47] Voice 18: that might be interested.

[2:52:48] Voice 18: All that would happen is, hopefully, you know,

[2:52:51] Voice 18: I would say a month before the APC is expired,

[2:52:53] Voice 18: they'd be able to get a memo that says,

[2:52:56] Voice 18: these members want to return,

[2:52:57] Voice 16: and here's two new people.

[2:52:59] Voice 16: yeah virtually it saves coming here for a motion to direct you to do exactly the same thing

[2:53:05] Voice 3: all right does someone wish to make that motion you

[2:53:11] Voice 18: did i did yeah second uh

[2:53:14] Voice 3: all right so the

[2:53:15] Voice 3: motion's been made and seconded is there any discussion i'll call a vote then all those in

[2:53:22] Voice 3: favor and that's carried your decisions are done my friends we

[2:53:27] Voice 18: still have one

[2:53:27] Voice 3: more yes we do at

[2:53:29] Voice 3: HAB-Masyn Moyer- 16.1 it's your meeting scheduled for next year.

[2:53:32] Voice 18: HAB-Masyn Moyer- Are they on Fridays.

[2:53:37] Voice 20: HAB-Masyn Moyer- There's six meetings scheduled for next year as well.

[2:53:43] Voice 20: HAB-Masyn Moyer- The only ones that if

[2:53:44] Voice 3: HAB

[2:53:45] Voice 18: -Terry Palmos- November for sort of doesn't apply to us, but

[2:53:47] Voice 18: HAB-Masyn Moyer-

[2:53:47] Voice 3: But it also would be a just console that week.

[2:53:52] Voice 3: HAB-Masyn Moyer- I think the just counsels being scheduled like November one to third

[2:53:56] Voice 3: HAB-Terry Palmos-

[2:53:57] Voice 18: So it'd be the Friday after

[2:54:00] Voice 18: HAB-Terry Palmos- We could

[2:54:02] Voice 18: You can always cancel that.

[2:54:03] Voice 18: Okay.

[2:54:05] Voice 16: Sure.

[2:54:06] Voice 16: And we can always call for a special meeting.

[2:54:08] Voice 16: Oh, yeah.

[2:54:09] Voice 18: So we

[2:54:10] Voice 3: just need a motion that you accept these dates.

[2:54:12] Voice 18: I make a motion to proceed with the dates as suggested on item 16.1 of the agenda.

[2:54:22] Voice 3: Sounds good.

[2:54:23] Voice 3: All right.

[2:54:23] Voice 3: Is there a second?

[2:54:24] Voice 3: Second by Trustee Wright.

[2:54:26] Voice 3: Yep.

[2:54:27] Voice 3: Any discussion?

[2:54:28] Voice 3: I'll call the vote.

[2:54:29] Voice 3: All those in favor?

[2:54:30] Voice 3: And that's carried.

[2:54:31] Voice 3: Ferry. That brings us to the end of the decisions to be made at today's meeting, other than, oh, we have a second town hall.

[2:54:40] Voice 3: So, I always forget the second town hall. As you know, we are going to be wanting to rush to a ferry. We have not reworked decisions that we made today. Are there any additional comments that anyone would like to make to this second town hall?

[2:54:53] Voice 3: I

[2:54:54] Voice 4: guess you're getting more information with the crossing of the strata road across the ALR that's what we're waiting for so yes just to be very clear on this was a subdivision so they're what we're seeing on this map is a subdivision of the 20 acres I guess 20 acres of property close to it and they want to subdivide the 10 acres between the two couples and they're going to want to put a strata road across the ALR.

[2:55:23] Voice 4: ALR. Existing will not change the existing room. Yes. What

[2:55:27] Voice 4: about archival? I noticed there was some archival or are we

[2:55:30] Voice 4: waiting? Is there any information on that yet? Do you

[2:55:33] Voice 4: know anything about that? What archival? There was a request

[2:55:37] Voice 4: for archival and we've

[2:55:38] Voice 4: archaeological archaeological.

[2:55:42] Voice 18: Yeah. So that would have been a

[2:55:45] Voice 18: condition of the subcommission. I see. So

[2:55:48] Voice 8: the provincial

[2:55:49] Voice 8: that the

[2:55:50] Voice 18: provincial approving office so they've already approved it subdivision one of the

[2:55:55] Voice 18: conditions of the subdivision is first has to go to the agricultural land commission right for

[2:56:00] Voice 18: approval because it's a subdivision in the alr

[2:56:02] Voice 18: right so

[2:56:03] Voice 5: when did they apply to the agricultural

[2:56:04] Voice 5: land commission that application will also come to the local trust committee i see the agricultural

[2:56:09] Voice 5: land commission has said oh you're putting if you want to put a strata road through the alr we need

[2:56:15] Voice 5: have another application for that i

[2:56:17] Voice 18: see that's they haven't they've not even applied for it

[2:56:22] Voice 18: you know even though that road apparently from what you're saying already exists

[2:56:26] Voice 18: well strata roads have a higher standard than private driveways

[2:56:29] Voice 18: plus it has a different legal status

[2:56:35] Voice 18: Yeah, got it.

[2:56:42] Voice 18: So what's being proposed is the agricultural section is the full common property?

[2:56:46] Voice 18: Yes.

[2:56:47] Voice 18: So it has

[2:56:49] Voice 20: to stay within the stratum?

[2:56:51] Voice 18: That common property.

[2:56:52] Voice 18: Yes.

[2:56:54] Voice 18: It's like in a condominium, the brown.

[2:57:02] Voice 2: And

[2:57:02] Voice 18: then I guess it comes back, and I remember this issue back a long, long, long time ago

[2:57:06] Voice 18: when our dear friend Buffy was still the chair of the APC, and this came to us many years

[2:57:13] Voice 18: ago, and they never did proceed at that time with a subdivision because there was the unresolved

[2:57:20] Voice 18: issue about what form of dedication would be appropriate.

[2:57:23] Voice 18: appropriate. So I'm assuming that if this goes forward, we're going to be back to that

[2:57:27] Voice 18: same conversation because it's less than four lots being proposed.

[2:57:33] Voice 18: Oh, so

[2:57:33] Voice 18: I made decided initially that was going to be more than two lots. Is that what

[2:57:36] Voice 18: the original proposal about 10 years ago, it would park dedication would have been required

[2:57:42] Voice 18: on it. They were proposing to buy the church, give it to the CRD or got it, got it, got

[2:57:51] Voice 18: okay thanks really we don't it doesn't sound like you want to make a decision on the ALR

[2:57:58] Voice 18: application I got it the ALR application goes to the local government first if the local

[2:58:03] Voice 18: government says no that's it got it if you say we're okay with it from our point of view

[2:58:08] Voice 18: then it goes to the ALC and they look at it for agricultural impact oh okay

[2:58:15] Voice 14: isn't that close because I know Port's Cove is just below that and that went through a whole

[2:58:19] Voice 14: lot with the native land and you know remember they went through and are

[2:58:23] Voice 14: it would but that

[2:58:24] Voice 14: else will be in that land too because i know that yeah

[2:58:27] Voice 16: it has been referred to the ecological

[2:58:30] Voice 16: branches okay province yeah yeah okay the

[2:58:33] Voice 16: results so that

[2:58:34] Voice 14: that hasn't been reported on yet though

[2:58:36] Voice 14: not

[2:58:36] Voice 16: that i'm aware of

[2:58:37] Voice 20: that's through the ministry of transportation infrastructure they lay out

[2:58:43] Voice 20: those requirements to the applicant to make sure that they contest the afternoon

[2:58:46] Voice 20: there

[2:58:47] Voice 18: was

[2:58:58] Voice 20: a mix-up with the idea that this um was live-streamed and i think it came about

[2:59:06] Voice 20: because you'll figure that out if you went to meeting information

[2:59:11] Voice 20: the link instead of just on like we're all signed up for the notices of the meetings if that if it

[2:59:17] Voice 20: could somehow or other be right in your face that that would be extremely extremely yeah

[2:59:24] Voice 18: it's it's

[2:59:25] Voice 18: involving every day

[2:59:27] Voice 2: the different training and

[2:59:29] Voice 2: so you heard

[2:59:31] Voice 2: the ira team manager was on the phone

[2:59:33] Voice 2: there

[2:59:48] Voice 20: there's 141 of us i'd like to to suggest in your continuing consideration

[2:59:55] Voice 20: that we find a way to...

[3:00:00] Voice 20: get the information to those people and have some input and figure out which ones it really needs to apply to. I think it's really, really important. And Robert, I asked you last time for a report

[3:00:12] Voice 20: from the previous. The

[3:00:13] Voice 18: Adam and Anko report. Yes.

[3:00:15] Voice 18: I couldn't find it. I did have a look for it. I couldn't find it. Okay.

[3:00:18] Voice 20: So it's probably in our archives.

[3:00:20] Voice 20: Kim said she was going to look at the archives.

[3:00:26] Voice 18: All

[3:00:27] Voice 20: right. Anyone else?

[3:00:29] Voice 10: Yes. I have a question.

[3:00:30] Voice 10: With the temporary use format,

[3:00:33] Voice 10: and now that there's been approval,

[3:00:35] Voice 10: what's the steps to do?

[3:00:36] Voice 10: I know on the other end there's a step for fulfillment,

[3:00:40] Voice 10: but is there a form or anything?

[3:00:42] Voice 10: Like

[3:00:43] Voice 18: an application form.

[3:00:44] Voice 10: Yeah.

[3:00:44] Voice 18: Yeah. It's the same.

[3:00:45] Voice 18: You can fill out the application form.

[3:00:47] Voice 10: The same temporary use form?

[3:00:49] Voice 18: It would be the same application form, yeah.

[3:00:51] Voice 18: Yeah.

[3:00:51] Voice 20: Okay. And just submit it to

[3:00:53] Voice 18: the email address.

[3:00:57] Voice 20: Thank you.

[3:00:58] Voice 6: Anyone else? Yes.

[3:01:01] Voice 6: Trustee

[3:01:01] Voice 4: Wright, in withdrawing the Rights of Nature proposal,

[3:01:10] Voice 5: told us about this evolving sense of the rights of nature.

[3:01:18] Voice 5: I would suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea to have a panel of children in communication

[3:01:40] Voice 3: with elders, too, because this is an evolving relationship.

[3:01:44] Voice 3: Yeah,

[3:01:45] Voice 18: no, it's actually, it's a very, they're the ones that are ultimately going to be

[3:01:48] Voice 22: either

[3:01:50] Voice 18: happy or unhappy.

[3:01:52] Voice 22: We're finished. If everyone's had a

[3:01:55] Voice 22: chance to say anything they want at this point.

[3:01:58] Voice 22: Motion given.

[3:02:00] Voice 16: Streaming is now a part of the procedure.

[3:02:03] Voice 16: As

[3:02:03] Voice 3: long as we have Wi-Fi connection and the grace of all the plugs working, then we do.

[3:02:10] Voice 8: All right, do

[3:02:11] Voice 22: I have a motion to adjourn?

[3:02:12] Voice 8: Motion to adjourn.

[3:02:12] Voice 22: Steve.

[3:02:15] Voice 2: All right,

[3:02:16] Voice 3: we have a

[3:02:16] Voice 22: second, and good meeting.

[3:02:18] Voice 22: Oh,

[3:02:18] Voice 6: it was a bigger.

[3:02:19] Voice 2: Oh, they

[3:02:20] Voice 8: got it for us.

[3:02:21] Voice 8: Thanks, Shannon.

[3:02:23] Voice 22: All righty, bye-bye.

[3:02:24] Voice 8: Bye-bye.