North Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, January 19, 2022

[0:00:09] Voice 7: could you resend the link robin to to andrew the south the that email or i could forward it

[0:00:16] Voice 7: i guess i can't

[0:00:17] Voice 5: yeah i just said i just said

[0:00:19] Voice 7: oh okay okay sorry yeah um

[0:00:23] Voice 5: just a sec the link is

[0:00:36] Voice 5: not working

[0:00:37] Voice 3: for him

[0:00:41] Voice 5: should i grab mark uh charlie key is saying the link is not working link is

[0:00:46] Voice 5: requesting a password that i do not have yeah

[0:00:49] Voice 11: i had to enter my password as well um

[0:00:53] Voice 11: So they can

[0:00:54] Voice 11: come in through the link on the web page as an attendee, and

[0:00:59] Voice 11: then you can just promote them to panelists, right, or promote them into the panelists.

[0:01:04] Voice 5: So what web page?

[0:01:06] Voice 5: So

[0:01:06] Voice 7: they need to go to the...

[0:01:07] Voice 7: They need to go to the Islands Trust

[0:01:08] Voice 11: web page and then come in as an attendee.

[0:01:12] Voice 11: Okay.

[0:01:13] Voice 11: And then, you know, we'll have to deal with this whole login screen with Mark later.

[0:01:18] Voice 11: Okay.

[0:01:19] Voice 11: Did you get that, Phil, when you were joining?

[0:01:21] Voice 11: to log in so

[0:01:23] Voice 7: yeah so what happened was i i just hit the link on my calendar uh and it asked me

[0:01:29] Voice 7: to log in and

[0:01:29] Voice 11: yeah so then

[0:01:31] Voice 7: what i did was i just backed up and i know i remembered that um robin

[0:01:35] Voice 7: had sent the south the email last or a couple of days ago so

[0:01:40] Voice 11: so there's an email link yeah the so

[0:01:42] Voice 7: the one that came and

[0:01:43] Voice 11: that's how priscilla got in oh maybe

[0:01:45] Voice 5: maybe that's what you

[0:01:49] Voice 7: sent that on

[0:01:50] Voice 7: on Tuesday um that was to me but I'm sure everybody got it so if you could so that was a

[0:02:00] Voice 7: when you sent it Tuesday at 9 13 if you could if I forward that to Andrew will that work or not

[0:02:06] Voice 7: you

[0:02:07] Voice 5: can try it yeah

[0:02:08] Voice 7: that's

[0:02:09] Voice 10: how I got in

[0:02:10] Voice 7: yeah so

[0:02:11] Voice 5: but that's the one I've been sending them

[0:02:13] Voice 5: I thought

[0:02:14] Voice 7: but no but if if yeah I think if let's just try this to see what happens okay okay

[0:02:20] Voice 5: okay i also sent them to log in on the website too like i said

[0:02:28] Voice 7: december 13th oh he's using december 13th no that's the wrong one

[0:02:32] Voice 4: yeah sorry everybody

[0:02:38] Voice 4: and

[0:02:59] Voice 5: robert did you say you wanted me to put the attendees in as um enable them to talk

[0:03:06] Voice 11: um or just chelsea's got her hand up there so okay oh

[0:03:11] Voice 7: so she's already there yeah yeah

[0:03:13] Voice 11: Yeah, Chelsea Grant. And

[0:03:14] Voice 7: Lena Malenquist is also here. So yeah. Oh, now she's now Lena's an

[0:03:20] Voice 7: attendee. Hey, Lena. We're

[0:03:23] Voice 2: having a few

[0:03:24] Voice 7: technical issues here. So yeah.

[0:03:26] Voice 2: Yeah, I tried the link this

[0:03:27] Voice 2: morning from the invite email. I think it may have been the December one. And it told me I wasn't the

[0:03:34] Voice 2: host. So I couldn't start the meeting, but I could join as an attendee. So then I had to fill in the

[0:03:38] Voice 2: the forum on the islands trust website and then i got the link from there which brought me in as

[0:03:43] Voice 5: an

[0:03:43] Voice 2: attendee rather than panelist okay

[0:03:45] Voice 5: okay i'm sorry i'm not sure why that's happening that's

[0:03:49] Voice 2: okay

[0:03:49] Voice 5: it's it's zoom

[0:03:51] Voice 3: yeah can

[0:03:53] Voice 1: you guys hear us okay it's chelsea and steve yeah

[0:03:57] Voice 12: hi chelsea and

[0:03:58] Voice 12: steve i'm so

[0:03:59] Voice 12: testable apparently yeah oh

[0:04:02] Voice 7: wow there's two of us yeah yeah

[0:04:05] Voice 3: i think the zoom

[0:04:06] Voice 3: link

[0:04:06] Voice 7: one of them's me with a beard and one of them's me without a beard

[0:04:11] Voice 1: you're very transformational

[0:04:15] Voice 7: uh okay so charlie's just asking and i'm just gonna reply with yeah

[0:04:19] Voice 8: i think i'm in here guys

[0:04:21] Voice 8: can you hear me all right oh

[0:04:22] Voice 7: perfect so i don't

[0:04:23] Voice 7: need to send that to you

[0:04:24] Voice 8: i'm just gonna try and

[0:04:26] Voice 8: and get my video going here i don't will you be able to get me on video because i'm i'm i'm in as

[0:04:33] Voice 8: a i don't i went through a different link i

[0:04:37] Voice 2: think i know what happened is i sent the link that i

[0:04:39] Voice 2: used to come in so charlie's under my name as well right oh

[0:04:43] Voice 3: and that's where

[0:04:43] Voice 7: elaine is here

[0:04:44] Voice 7: yeah that's what's happened with um with andrew as well because i he used my link so right okay

[0:04:50] Voice 7: yeah

[0:04:51] Voice 2: so

[0:04:52] Voice 7: we're all yeah you

[0:04:53] Voice 2: should be able to rename us in participants if you'd like

[0:04:55] Voice 2: and move us over as panelists if you want to see our faces so

[0:04:59] Voice 7: so we're dismissed that

[0:05:01] Voice 4: would be good

[0:05:01] Voice 4: if we

[0:05:01] Voice 7: could do that yeah okay

[0:05:03] Voice 1: and christian has a meeting at nine and he is going to join us shortly

[0:05:07] Voice 1: okay

[0:05:07] Voice 7: great thank you chelsea okay i think priscilla if you want to get going we can get going

[0:05:14] Voice 12: yeah phil can i just jump in and say it would be great if we can move people over

[0:05:17] Voice 12: the host of the meeting south office can

[0:05:20] Voice 5: move people over

[0:05:21] Voice 12: and get us named correctly and our

[0:05:22] Voice 12: our faces all on screen yeah

[0:05:24] Voice 5: i've promoted you all to um uh panelists so your video should work

[0:05:30] Voice 11: you might you may be able to go in and change your names yourself now yeah yeah

[0:05:34] Voice 2: you can if

[0:05:34] Voice 2: you click on the three little dots on your um little thumbnail there's a rename in the pop-up

[0:05:39] Voice 2: drop down menu lena

[0:05:41] Voice 7: do you want to come and work for the islands trust to do

[0:05:45] Voice 2: i've done a lot of these in the last two years

[0:05:48] Voice 7: yeah all

[0:05:49] Voice 11: right there we go yeah it looks like

[0:05:51] Voice 11: everyone successfully so

[0:05:53] Voice 10: um please bear with me i'm a little new at this chairing and uh so if

[0:05:59] Voice 10: i stumble along i think phil will help me get back on the right path um so i would like to

[0:06:08] Voice 10: call the meeting to order and i would like to provide uh uh begin by acknowledging that we

[0:06:18] Voice 10: We are meeting on the treaty lands and territories of the Hossanic people, and so I want to say thank you.

[0:06:28] Voice 10: And I would like to introduce myself, Priscilla Zimmerman, and Andrew McLean as the board of variance members.

[0:06:42] Voice 10: members. I'd also like to introduce Robin Elchuk, who's the planning team assistant who is running

[0:06:51] Voice 10: the Zoom meeting. Shannon Brayford, who's the minute taker. Phil Testamal, who's the planner

[0:07:00] Voice 10: and secretary, planner number two and secretary to the North Pender Board of Variants. And Robert

[0:07:08] Voice 10: Robert Kojima who's the regional planning manager and also like to welcome the applicant Chelsea Grant and the owners in attendance.

[0:07:18] Voice 10: And I hope I haven't missed anybody.

[0:07:22] Voice 10: So, if I have, please let me know.

[0:07:26] Voice 10: just

[0:07:28] Voice 7: have um uh lena malmquist so i'll just jump in here priscilla who's uh um the biologist who

[0:07:35] Voice 7: from swell environmental and um chelsea uh sorry uh the owner is charlie key is that the right

[0:07:42] Voice 7: pronunciation i hope

[0:07:43] Voice 8: oh it's k and sorry k

[0:07:45] Voice 8: the first time so don't worry okay

[0:07:48] Voice 7: and and then as

[0:07:49] Voice 7: uh chelsea was saying earlier um christian is it slater or oh christian

[0:07:55] Voice 7: flanagan flanagan sorry

[0:07:57] Voice 7: oh it's already here so there we go and christian's with ryzic enviro uh engineering

[0:08:03] Voice 7: yeah

[0:08:03] Voice 9: ryzic geotechnical um

[0:08:05] Voice 7: yeah okay okay

[0:08:10] Voice 10: um so uh now we can look at the minutes from uh

[0:08:19] Voice 10: the previous meetings and um and i would like to move for the approval of those meetings

[0:08:33] Voice 10: for the meeting of august 19th 2021 i'll second that

[0:08:43] Voice 10: okay thank you um and now we have an update

[0:08:50] Voice 10: from the secretary robert

[0:08:53] Voice 7: do we need to vote on that right yeah or

[0:08:55] Voice 11: you can just say or you can

[0:08:57] Voice 11: just say as chair um priscilla you can just say approved as approved by consensus approved by

[0:09:03] Voice 10: consensus thank you oh

[0:09:08] Voice 7: okay so uh just a very quick update um just two items uh the first being

[0:09:15] Voice 7: that um as the board is aware um uh michael oh

[0:09:22] Voice 11: my gosh simon

[0:09:23] Voice 7: simons uh resigned from the board

[0:09:27] Voice 7: of variants um uh we don't exactly have any rationale for that um but nonetheless he has

[0:09:35] Voice 7: resigned in December so he's no longer part of the board and as I've given email information to the

[0:09:43] Voice 7: board that doesn't present a challenge in terms of having a quorum provided that you're voting

[0:09:49] Voice 7: together and well actually doesn't that's not to do with a quorum but any resolution if it's voted

[0:09:57] Voice 7: in opposition that fails so that's the only constraint that would really be moving forward

[0:10:04] Voice 7: And then in terms of replacing Michael, at this point, the Board of Variants, all of the appointments for all Board of Variants expire in June.

[0:10:17] Voice 7: So the decision has been made not to try and reappoint the individual, but rather to advertise generally in coming up in the next few months for new Board of Variants members and also to invite the existing Board of Variants.

[0:10:34] Voice 7: So it would be Priscilla and Board of Variants members, Priscilla and Andrew to carry on.

[0:10:39] Voice 7: So that's, I don't know if Robert, you want to add anything to that?

[0:10:44] Voice 7: yeah and

[0:10:45] Voice 11: the same goes for the south pender board of variants as well

[0:10:47] Voice 11: they're expiring i think

[0:10:49] Voice 11: shortly if not already um but um if uh there's no concerns with um the expiry of a board of

[0:10:57] Voice 11: variance here what's called a continuing body so the even if the um the term is up the existing

[0:11:03] Voice 11: members carry on so

[0:11:08] Voice 7: that's that's the update priscilla thank

[0:11:10] Voice 10: you so uh now we can move to

[0:11:14] Voice 10: the application and it's uh north pender board of variance uh application uh two zero two one point

[0:11:22] Voice 10: two and um and so phil i would i would ask you to to move forward with your your your portion

[0:11:35] Voice 10: please thank

[0:11:36] Voice 7: you chair zimmerman so uh just a quick summary so this is uh uh board of variance

[0:11:42] Voice 7: application or appeal for 2603 galleon road and that's being made under section 540 of the local

[0:11:49] Voice 7: government act and that's to vary the north pender island land use bylaw respecting the siting size

[0:11:56] Voice 7: or dimension of a building or structure and the specific variance is to sections 3.7 of the land

[0:12:03] Voice 7: use bylaw and that would be which states that no building or structure may be cited or fill placed

[0:12:11] Voice 7: or to support a building or structure

[0:12:13] Voice 7: within 15 meters upland of the natural boundary of the sea.

[0:12:16] Voice 7: And that would be varied to permit a structure,

[0:12:20] Voice 7: which is for shoreline stabilization

[0:12:22] Voice 7: within zero meters of the natural boundary of the sea.

[0:12:25] Voice 7: So the applicant's rationale is to permit

[0:12:28] Voice 7: the necessary replacement

[0:12:30] Voice 7: of the existing shoreline stabilization structure

[0:12:33] Voice 7: and to restore the natural ecology

[0:12:35] Voice 7: of the shoreline environment.

[0:12:36] Voice 7: And that new structure would limit erosion

[0:12:39] Voice 7: to the foreshore slope,

[0:12:41] Voice 7: protect the foundation of the existing dwelling

[0:12:43] Voice 7: and protect portions of a seawall

[0:12:45] Voice 7: and the neighboring property to the south

[0:12:46] Voice 7: from potential deterioration.

[0:12:48] Voice 7: And then the removal and rehabilitation work

[0:12:51] Voice 7: would restore and enhance the ecology

[0:12:53] Voice 7: of the shoreline environment.

[0:12:55] Voice 7: So the application is being made

[0:12:57] Voice 7: as the owners are undertaking a small addition

[0:13:00] Voice 7: and other internal upgrades to the dwelling

[0:13:03] Voice 7: and replacing the shoreline protection

[0:13:05] Voice 7: protection will ensure that the foundation is sufficiently protected from ocean influences.

[0:13:12] Voice 7: So as I said the existing protection has deteriorated and is currently providing minimal protection

[0:13:19] Voice 7: to the foreshore slope and putting the foundations of the dwelling at risk and that's been verified

[0:13:25] Voice 7: by the geotechnical assessment. So the applicant has provided a letter which was attached to

[0:13:33] Voice 7: the staff report and that provided a summary a case for hardship and it outlines the project's

[0:13:39] Voice 7: design strategy and that strategy or design design what we call sorry it's lost my train of thought

[0:13:54] Voice 7: is based on a partnership between swell environmental consulting and risic geotechnical

[0:13:59] Voice 7: engineers and that incorporates a green shore approach to shoreline protection and that has

[0:14:03] Voice 7: the goal of balancing the protection of the property from future and current shoreline erosion

[0:14:10] Voice 7: impacts and with a soft shores approach that integrates natural structures elements and

[0:14:16] Voice 7: plantings with an overall ecological rehabilitation strategy so just quickly figure two that was part

[0:14:25] Voice 7: of the report shows how the project's divided into two sections section a is in the south which

[0:14:31] Voice 7: which is in proximity to the dwelling and that incorporates more robust stacked boulder

[0:14:37] Voice 7: protection with soft shore planting on the ocean side and then Section B employs more

[0:14:43] Voice 7: of a soft shore, green shore approach, planted approach.

[0:14:48] Voice 7: So there were two professional reports that were attached, the geotechnical report by

[0:14:53] Voice 7: Ryzik Geotechnical Engineering, which assessed the geological conditions on the property

[0:14:59] Voice 7: and concluded that the new foreshore structure be constructed as soon as feasibly possible in

[0:15:07] Voice 7: order to stabilize the foreshore soils supporting the residents that made recommendations for the

[0:15:13] Voice 7: replacement and construction of the new seawalls and green shores aspects in consultation with

[0:15:19] Voice 7: the swell environmental report which is also attached and that provided observations on the

[0:15:26] Voice 7: ecological conditions of the shoreline zone potential impacts from the proposed works

[0:15:31] Voice 7: and then recommendations for environmental protection and monitoring during and following

[0:15:36] Voice 7: construction and a detailed restoration plan as part of that so for a board of variance

[0:15:45] Voice 7: the local government act establishes that they may order a minor variance permitted that the

[0:15:52] Voice 7: board finds that there's undue hardship that's not defined and it's up to the board of variance

[0:15:57] Voice 7: to establish whether or not that exists the applicants have provided an expression of

[0:16:03] Voice 7: undue hardship which is on page four and five of the staff report further the local government act

[0:16:12] Voice 7: states that the board may grant minor variance if the board is of the opinion that the variance

[0:16:18] Voice 7: does not defeat the intent of the bylaw um again the board must form their own opinion on that but

[0:16:23] Voice 7: on page 10 of the agenda or page six of the report um information on the intent of the bylaw has been

[0:16:30] Voice 7: provided so as required notices were circulated to all adjacent properties uh and copies were

[0:16:37] Voice 7: posted on island bulletin boards and the islands trust website um so at the time of writing uh we

[0:16:45] Voice 7: we received, sorry, actually, we've received two letters.

[0:16:48] Voice 7: One letter of support was provided with the application

[0:16:50] Voice 7: from the neighboring property to the south.

[0:16:52] Voice 7: And we had one letter of, or email of support

[0:16:57] Voice 7: from a person at large in the community,

[0:17:02] Voice 7: actually somebody from Bowen Island.

[0:17:05] Voice 7: And just to summarize, so staff is satisfied that,

[0:17:11] Voice 7: sorry, just one more thing,

[0:17:12] Voice 7: statutory requirements and legislative context

[0:17:15] Voice 7: are all outlined on page seven and eight of the report.

[0:17:18] Voice 7: And staff is satisfied that all requirements set out

[0:17:23] Voice 7: in the Local Government Act under section 5421 and two

[0:17:27] Voice 7: have been met and specifically that the notification

[0:17:30] Voice 7: has been undertaken with two letters of support.

[0:17:33] Voice 7: The proposed development would be of a minor nature

[0:17:36] Voice 7: as it is the replacement of an existing structure

[0:17:39] Voice 7: that has been in place for a significant period of time

[0:17:42] Voice 7: with no increase to setback encroachments the natural environment would be protected with the

[0:17:48] Voice 7: construction management and monitoring ecological restoration and enhancement with the use of green

[0:17:55] Voice 7: shore techniques and improved with the removal of a deteriorating structure and further protected

[0:18:01] Voice 7: by or further protection of the natural environment would be provided through requirements

[0:18:07] Voice 7: requirements for a DFO review process

[0:18:09] Voice 7: and application for a Green Shores certification.

[0:18:13] Voice 7: The variance would not impact the use and enjoyment

[0:18:16] Voice 7: of neighboring properties.

[0:18:17] Voice 7: The variance would not vary permitted uses or density,

[0:18:21] Voice 7: does not defeat the intent of the bylaw

[0:18:23] Voice 7: and the variance would not be in conflict

[0:18:26] Voice 7: with any covenants or permits.

[0:18:28] Voice 7: So lastly, just to summarize

[0:18:30] Voice 7: that the board needs to be satisfied

[0:18:32] Voice 7: that the owner would experience hardship

[0:18:34] Voice 7: if the appeal is not granted

[0:18:36] Voice 7: and secondly that the proposed variance is a minor of a minor nature and just one footnote

[0:18:42] Voice 7: the discussion at through our site visit which was partially virtually virtual and

[0:18:55] Voice 7: we turned to the question of the height of 4.5 meters for the lower section or section a

[0:19:03] Voice 7: for the stack boulder wall and I had a discussion with Chelsea and Charlie this morning and I do

[0:19:14] Voice 7: apologize for being short I was short on time and had a lot to do before this meeting and we're

[0:19:20] Voice 7: trying to reconcile the 4.5 meters that's shown on schedule A of the notice and schedule C which

[0:19:29] Voice 7: which indicates a height of approximately 2.8 meters.

[0:19:33] Voice 7: So one thing that's happened is that we can't,

[0:19:38] Voice 7: I haven't had the time to go back and verify

[0:19:41] Voice 7: where the 4.5 number came from.

[0:19:43] Voice 7: So it's somewhat nebulous at this point,

[0:19:46] Voice 7: but the point being that if the Board of Variants

[0:19:53] Voice 7: desires or opts, they can limit that height further

[0:19:58] Voice 7: to reconcile with Schedule C,

[0:20:03] Voice 7: which would be closer to 2.8 meters.

[0:20:06] Voice 7: So that's my report.

[0:20:12] Voice 10: So Andrew, do you have...

[0:20:20] Voice 11: Oh, Robert.

[0:20:21] Voice 11: Sorry, Chair.

[0:20:21] Voice 11: Yeah, this is the opportunity for the board

[0:20:24] Voice 11: if they had any specific or technical questions to ask Phil.

[0:20:27] Voice 11: And then the next step would be to have the applicant

[0:20:30] Voice 11: and or their consultants provide statements to the board.

[0:20:36] Voice 12: So, I have one technical question for Phil and so many questions for the applicants. The technical question I have for Phil is, when we, if we approve this, are we accepting the rationale for hardship in the letter? Do we accept everything as per the letter or do we?

[0:20:56] Voice 7: well you could accept what's in the letter you could accept it and robert may want to correct

[0:20:59] Voice 7: me on the through through the discussion essentially i think the obligation of the

[0:21:04] Voice 7: of the board of variance is only to turn their mind to to hardship and satisfy themselves that

[0:21:10] Voice 7: there is a hardship yeah

[0:21:11] Voice 11: it's up to the board it's up to the board to determine that there's

[0:21:14] Voice 11: a hardship or not and you so you could certainly be informed by what the applicants have stated

[0:21:21] Voice 11: but it's not a kind of ether or situation.

[0:21:24] Voice 11: I mean, the board could theoretically come up

[0:21:26] Voice 11: with a hardship that's different

[0:21:28] Voice 11: from what they've elucidated in their letter.

[0:21:31] Voice 12: Okay, that was pretty much my question.

[0:21:34] Voice 12: Okay,

[0:21:37] Voice 10: go ahead,

[0:21:40] Voice 12: Andrew.

[0:21:41] Voice 12: You had more questions.

[0:21:43] Voice 12: Yeah, do we want to dive in?

[0:21:45] Voice 12: Like, can I just start asking questions of the applicants

[0:21:47] Voice 12: or do the applicants want to make a presentation?

[0:21:49] Voice 11: Usually, usually, sorry, through the chair,

[0:21:52] Voice 11: usually the applicants make their presentation first and then that you know then that can also

[0:21:58] Voice 11: stimulate some questions from the board okay so all

[0:22:04] Voice 1: right you want us to go ahead yeah please

[0:22:07] Voice 1: yeah sure all right um so the k family has purchased this home on galleon way with the

[0:22:13] Voice 1: intent of renovating it and using it as a family structure um we found out in april of last year

[0:22:20] Voice 1: that the shoreline system that's there currently is really not doing its job to protect the home.

[0:22:25] Voice 1: So any of the works that have been proposed for the house currently are on hold at the time while

[0:22:30] Voice 1: we can determine whether or not we can save this asset. So at that time, we've been working closely

[0:22:36] Voice 1: with Christian and Lena with regards to a green shore stabilization program. The whole thing,

[0:22:42] Voice 1: let's say I'm mistaken, Lena, you can jump in, is a green shore certified shoreline revetment system.

[0:22:48] Voice 1: The idea being that we are using a soft shore approach to reconcile the necessary revetment needed to both protect the house.

[0:22:59] Voice 1: It's a little bit more fortified on the house side where we have a larger boulder stack wall to protect, but we've done a soft shore approach in front of that.

[0:23:06] Voice 1: Further to the north of the property, we have a stepped tiered system that works better with the grades of the property, but also is intended to increase the habitat.

[0:23:17] Voice 1: um and and reduce the impacts from the shoreline um forces at that point um christian do you want

[0:23:27] Voice 1: to jump in about the existing conditions and what we're dealing with

[0:23:31] Voice 9: absolutely um so when i first

[0:23:35] Voice 9: um everyone can hear me okay first of all um when i first met charlie and inspected the the

[0:23:43] Voice 9: foreshore slopes there was uh significant erosion um along the whole shoreline the the existing or

[0:23:52] Voice 9: the the foreshore revetment structure that was there when charlie bought the property

[0:23:56] Voice 9: um had essentially completely failed and was was not doing um doing its job providing any support

[0:24:04] Voice 9: um we actually found that the erosion was extending quite far back into the slope on

[0:24:10] Voice 9: the southern side near the residence a lot of it was obscured by vegetation at the time so it didn't

[0:24:17] Voice 9: you know just from a visual look it didn't seem as bad but as we completed our investigation and

[0:24:25] Voice 9: probed into those areas uh we found that the the southern slope um and adjacent to the residence

[0:24:33] Voice 9: was was essentially didn't have any room for additional failure any any additional

[0:24:41] Voice 9: sloughing or movement or migration of that foreshore material would almost immediately

[0:24:46] Voice 9: start impacting the footings of that residence so not only did we see those issues on charlie's

[0:24:57] Voice 9: property but um the with the neighboring property and the retaining wall there was some um some

[0:25:06] Voice 9: preliminary flanking effects um when you have a retaining wall on a neighboring property that's

[0:25:12] Voice 9: very different or sorry a foreshore revetment structure that's very different from the

[0:25:17] Voice 9: neighboring property there can be some um challenging conditions at that interface

[0:25:22] Voice 9: face and uh and and we started to observe that as well so that was that's that's my summary of the

[0:25:29] Voice 9: uh the conditions when when i when i first uh first observed them can

[0:25:36] Voice 12: you summarize your review

[0:25:37] Voice 12: for me you went out to the site you had to look around did you dig test holes what did you what

[0:25:41] Voice 12: was your review um

[0:25:43] Voice 9: my review actually it was two site visits the first one was just um a visual

[0:25:49] Voice 9: walk around the property with Charlie to see what we could do. The second one was using hand tools,

[0:25:56] Voice 9: steel probes to get an assessment of the consistency of any soils in the area, clays

[0:26:04] Voice 9: and things of that nature, and a more regimented measurement of the slope and observation of sloughed

[0:26:10] Voice 9: areas. No, we couldn't get a machine in there to dig. It would be quite a challenging

[0:26:18] Voice 9: challenging exercise in that foreshore slope and I don't know if that really would have benefited

[0:26:25] Voice 9: our investigation because as the soils had already sloughed off of the slope we had a good

[0:26:32] Voice 9: view of what those soils were like in that area.

[0:26:35] Voice 12: Okay and sort of when did you do these reviews

[0:26:38] Voice 12: are these like in April these guys have plans to construct and you're making sure that

[0:26:42] Voice 12: the soil is bearing capacity or our initial

[0:26:46] Voice 12: reviews like i'm just trying to get a sense of

[0:26:55] Voice 12: like why

[0:26:56] Voice 9: are you called out to this site that's a good question um you know i i have um why am i

[0:27:03] Voice 9: called out to that site well clients find their way to rising geotechnical and specifically me

[0:27:09] Voice 9: by a number of means. You know, a lot of the contractors on Pender Island have a good

[0:27:18] Voice 9: relationship with Rising Geotechnical. And they, you know, if they are initially called by a client

[0:27:24] Voice 9: and the contractor says, well, this is way outside my wheelhouse, then, you know, usually the

[0:27:32] Voice 9: referral comes comes that way if it's a minor repair if it's replacing yeah i

[0:27:38] Voice 12: i do understand

[0:27:39] Voice 12: that you know i i'm an architect i live and work on tender okay so

[0:27:44] Voice 12: i'm i'm well familiar with who

[0:27:46] Voice 12: you are and the various reasons for getting a geotech out to site i'm just curious in this

[0:27:50] Voice 12: instance why'd you go out to site um

[0:27:54] Voice 9: i our company and myself really have a policy of of seeing every

[0:28:00] Voice 9: No, totally get that.

[0:28:04] Voice 12: I have a very nice house on Pender. I've never called a geotechnical engineer out to my house, because I don't have reason to. At some point, someone thought, we've got reason to have a geotechnical engineer come out. I just want to understand what that reason was.

[0:28:23] Voice 1: Charlie, maybe you could jump in and talk about what you've observed on site and the conversations you've had with your neighbor.

[0:28:29] Voice 1: Yeah,

[0:28:30] Voice 8: sure. Yeah, Andrew, I think we, when we purchased the property, we had plans of

[0:28:36] Voice 8: doing an extension, doing a renovation to the home to make it more fit for our family's needs.

[0:28:43] Voice 8: As we got further along in this process, with having conversations with our neighbours and

[0:28:49] Voice 8: just observing what was occurring in that bay, observing, you know, trees that had fallen into

[0:28:57] Voice 8: the bay, significant undercutting in different sections of the foreshore. We generally just had

[0:29:04] Voice 8: some concerns and given that the house is sited very close to the foreshore, we just didn't feel

[0:29:14] Voice 8: all that comfortable proceeding with renovations without having some surety as to whether our

[0:29:21] Voice 8: property was going to be protected long term. So that's really what led the call out to RISAC

[0:29:29] Voice 8: to get a geotechnical assessment done and get a better understanding of

[0:29:36] Voice 8: essentially of the site conditions and it was after that that we were

[0:29:42] Voice 8: essentially the alarm bells were raised that this home long term is not very well protected.

[0:29:50] Voice 8: we plan to be in this home for you know hopefully generations so many many years

[0:29:56] Voice 8: to come and uh you know having having the property

[0:30:00] Voice 8: was important to us our neighbors to the south where we're have now developed a close relationship

[0:30:06] Voice 8: with them um you know they've lived there for for 20 years now and have observed uh this shoreline

[0:30:14] Voice 8: over that period uh one of the owners of that that home to the south of us is a retired civil

[0:30:21] Voice 8: engineer so you know coming at this with a little bit more of a technical perspective as well

[0:30:26] Voice 8: well. And it was in conversations with him that also made us start to ask some more questions as

[0:30:33] Voice 8: to whether investing a lot of money in this home in the current condition was a wise decision. So

[0:30:42] Voice 8: that's kind of what led us to where we're at here today.

[0:30:46] Voice 10: So if I can just ask a quick question

[0:30:49] Voice 10: to to dovetail into this so as part of of your due diligence when you purchased the property

[0:30:56] Voice 10: you didn't have a geotech or anybody come out and look at the bulkhead and tell you what they

[0:31:01] Voice 10: thought or did you notice anything with the bulkhead that gave you any concern uh

[0:31:08] Voice 8: yeah

[0:31:09] Voice 8: so we didn't have uh we didn't have an engineer make that assessment prior to purchasing the

[0:31:14] Voice 8: the property um it was as you know uh it's real estate markets are very very hot um you don't

[0:31:23] Voice 8: really have a lot of time to sit on things so we we you know we decided to complete on the property

[0:31:30] Voice 8: without that assessment but certainly you know you walk that foreshore and look at these eroded

[0:31:36] Voice 8: with timbers and it's not the prettiest site um we had some concerns uh and it was it took a little

[0:31:45] Voice 8: bit more time for it to sink in until we decided to uh you know really action that forward it's not

[0:31:52] Voice 8: uh it it it took a bit of time to come to that decision so

[0:31:58] Voice 4: um

[0:32:01] Voice 12: that's one of the times that i'm

[0:32:02] Voice 12: used to having a geotechnical engineer called to site uh we do this a fair amount is that people

[0:32:07] Voice 12: look at a site on pender and they hope how the heck am i going to build here we get a geotechnical

[0:32:12] Voice 12: engineer in as they're putting in or preparing their offer so i take it that you didn't do that

[0:32:19] Voice 12: as part of your due diligence in purchasing this property so i i guess my question is

[0:32:26] Voice 12: what was your plan uh

[0:32:29] Voice 8: well andrew i'm i think we didn't fully understand that the uh that the

[0:32:36] Voice 8: The property was at risk when we purchased, you know, this is,

[0:32:40] Voice 8: we're just, this is not our level of expertise for us.

[0:32:46] Voice 8: So we're, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're fairly new to this.

[0:32:50] Voice 8: We're learning as we go along. So to be, to be frank, yeah,

[0:32:54] Voice 8: we didn't have a, a, you know,

[0:32:58] Voice 8: we didn't have any surety as to how we were going to be able to protect the

[0:33:02] Voice 8: the shore we we weren't entirely sure if there was any major uh concerns to be aware of at the time

[0:33:08] Voice 8: so uh had a had an inkling that there may be uh problems but didn't have a defined answer to that

[0:33:15] Voice 8: so um yeah yeah

[0:33:19] Voice 12: i guess what i'm getting at is that by through our discussion it sounds like

[0:33:26] Voice 12: you're saying we understood that there may be some risk and we were willing to take on that risk

[0:33:31] Voice 12: and so i was just wondering if you had a contingency plan for if for like a worst case

[0:33:37] Voice 12: scenario here i

[0:33:40] Voice 8: i mean not a not a great run andrew i think the you know after listening to

[0:33:46] Voice 8: christian speak you know it's it's quite clear that this home the way it's been been cited very

[0:33:52] Voice 8: close to the shore just isn't in a very uh it isn't in a very safe position so we're we're

[0:34:00] Voice 8: really really hopeful that we can uh proceed with what's been proposed here uh should we not be able

[0:34:07] Voice 8: to proceed with what's been proposed i you know we're we're going to have to ask ourselves some

[0:34:11] Voice 8: really hard questions because it is going to uh it's going to impact the property significantly

[0:34:19] Voice 8: not not being in a position to be able to protect it long term

[0:34:23] Voice 4: okay

[0:34:31] Voice 12: so we had a christian review

[0:34:33] Voice 12: I guess Kristen did his review.

[0:34:38] Voice 12: Chelsea, I don't know what stage you got on the scene

[0:34:41] Voice 12: or if you just want to continue with your presentation,

[0:34:43] Voice 12: but Charlie, you bought the property

[0:34:45] Voice 12: and then we're like, let's renovate this.

[0:34:47] Voice 12: You got Chelsea involved

[0:34:48] Voice 12: and then you realized everything was maybe going to fall

[0:34:50] Voice 12: in the ocean.

[0:34:51] Voice 12: Is that sort of an order of events?

[0:34:52] Voice 12: Or how do

[0:34:54] Voice 12: all the players come in?

[0:34:56] Voice 8: We hired Chelsea and Steve through a connection

[0:35:01] Voice 8: with a builder on the island.

[0:35:04] Voice 8: so um he had he had come and and look at the he had come and had a look at the home he had worked

[0:35:10] Voice 8: with uh with chelsea and steve in the past uh and highly recommended him so can

[0:35:16] Voice 12: i ask who the builder

[0:35:17] Voice 12: was it's the builder okay and how did you find dave uh

[0:35:23] Voice 8: well we haven't had a chance to work with

[0:35:24] Voice 8: dave yet but uh he dave dave looked at the at the home he wasn't looking at the shoreline

[0:35:31] Voice 8: line um so Dave was

[0:35:33] Voice 8: looking at the home from the perspective of of a renovation um we had Dave come

[0:35:39] Voice 8: out uh heard amazing things about him and spoke to references Chelsea and Steve had great things

[0:35:47] Voice 8: to say so uh yeah yep

[0:35:50] Voice 12: I'm just curious just as like how did you find Dave did you pick up a phone

[0:35:54] Voice 12: book did you google oh

[0:35:56] Voice 8: uh yeah that was that was google um okay this prior this prior builds on

[0:36:04] Voice 8: the island and uh we were impressed with what we saw there and i believe that's how we came to find

[0:36:12] Voice 8: dave and then that ui was brought on following that so ui went and uh completed uh drawings for

[0:36:20] Voice 8: our building permit and was really the reason why UI is presenting today is because Chelsea

[0:36:29] Voice 8: and Steve have been the lead on the file through the building permit and we're working with the

[0:36:33] Voice 8: Islands Trust already so the relationship with the Islands Trust was through UI so the application

[0:36:40] Voice 8: has been made through them given their the line of work that they're in they were you know very

[0:36:47] Voice 8: comfortable spearheading this and taking that on and had a comfortability with the island's trust

[0:36:52] Voice 8: that we don't necessarily have. So it just made lots of sense for them to move this file forward

[0:37:01] Voice 8: as well.

[0:37:02] Voice 1: And I should add in that our building permit process too occurred all ahead of this.

[0:37:06] Voice 1: And so for a part of our building permit process, we went through historical documents to ensure

[0:37:11] Voice 1: that the house was legally cited at the time of construction. And we have been able to confirm

[0:37:15] Voice 1: that. So, you know, this isn't an existing, it's an existing non-conforming situation, but it was

[0:37:21] Voice 1: legally built at the time of construction. That was actually

[0:37:25] Voice 1: what was flagged for us as something

[0:37:28] Voice 1: that might be a potential issue. So all of our, the addition to the home is fairly modest. It's

[0:37:33] Voice 1: 660 square feet and it's in the opposite direction of the shoreline. So, you know, really at the time

[0:37:40] Voice 1: we were talking about the potential of the shoreline and it was a, it was something that

[0:37:44] Voice 1: that we had flagged with Charlie,

[0:37:47] Voice 1: but it wasn't until we started to have further conversations

[0:37:50] Voice 1: with the neighbor about what was going on

[0:37:54] Voice 1: with his shoreline protection

[0:37:55] Voice 1: that we started to look at that a lot more closely.

[0:37:59] Voice 1: So that all started to occur

[0:38:00] Voice 1: after we had submitted for building permit.

[0:38:03] Voice 1: So at this time, there's some abatement

[0:38:06] Voice 1: that needs to happen to the house

[0:38:08] Voice 1: and there's a building permit that is open,

[0:38:11] Voice 1: but we have not started any construction

[0:38:13] Voice 1: construction um until we can have a better sense of what we're going to be doing um to protect the

[0:38:18] Voice 1: home um

[0:38:20] Voice 12: so the i guess the building permit would have included the green shores bank stabilizing

[0:38:28] Voice 12: building permit did not include that

[0:38:29] Voice 8: yeah so

[0:38:32] Voice 12: you're historical you got that sorry

[0:38:34] Voice 8: and i was

[0:38:34] Voice 8: just going to say all the works are occurring from uh in our building permit are occurring

[0:38:39] Voice 8: and behind that 15 meter setback um there are there are no works in that building permit that

[0:38:46] Voice 8: are happening in that 15 meter zone got

[0:38:49] Voice 12: that um and then you're you talked about your historical

[0:38:53] Voice 12: just making sure everything was situated correctly with your historical research

[0:38:57] Voice 12: yeah there was some

[0:38:59] Voice 1: there was some initial concern on the island's trust and that the

[0:39:02] Voice 1: home potentially had been cited um illegally at the time of construction and so that was a

[0:39:08] Voice 1: a fair bit of portion of research on our end

[0:39:12] Voice 1: to figure out whether or not that had been the case.

[0:39:14] Voice 1: Fortunately, the building inspector in the area

[0:39:17] Voice 1: was able to pull historical,

[0:39:18] Voice 1: he found and pulled historical documents

[0:39:20] Voice 1: that indicated that the CRD had approved

[0:39:22] Voice 1: the siting of the home and the deck

[0:39:24] Voice 1: in the 70s at the time of construction.

[0:39:26] Voice 1: So yeah, it's not as though it has been moved

[0:39:30] Voice 1: or has been constructed illegally at another time.

[0:39:33] Voice 12: No, I get that.

[0:39:35] Voice 12: I feel like I don't think,

[0:39:36] Voice 12: I guess Robert would know this,

[0:39:38] Voice 12: but i don't think we had any zoning bylaws at the time of construction nor particularly a building

[0:39:43] Voice 12: inspection process uh

[0:39:44] Voice 11: the first zoning bylaw was adopted in 1972 it was a crd zoning okay

[0:39:51] Voice 11: um so 50th anniversary coming up this june of zoning in the southern gulf islands

[0:39:55] Voice 11: there'll be a big celebration um actually building inspection actually proceeded um

[0:40:02] Voice 11: actual adoption of zoning but at the time in 1972 i think the setback from the sea was only

[0:40:07] Voice 11: for buildings not structures and was i think 7.6 meters um it wasn't increased to 15

[0:40:14] Voice 11: meters until

[0:40:15] Voice 11: the 90s i believe

[0:40:16] Voice 7: no 1978 oh

[0:40:18] Voice 11: 78 they increased to 15.

[0:40:19] Voice 7: yeah sorry guys i i lost my internet and

[0:40:22] Voice 7: i apologize so i've been gone for 10 minutes so

[0:40:28] Voice 11: sure um did you want to um does the applicants

[0:40:33] Voice 11: want to have lena also present was that yes

[0:40:36] Voice 10: lena please love to hear information from you

[0:40:41] Voice 10: yeah

[0:40:42] Voice 2: for sure um i was brought in i uh myself and my colleague sarah stallard she's uh the

[0:40:49] Voice 2: fisheries expert that that um works with works with me um we were brought in in july to come

[0:40:56] Voice 2: out and we met on site with um charlie and christian to have a look at the site with regard

[0:41:03] Voice 2: to the environmental component of the shoreline stabilization works and basically to look at the

[0:41:08] Voice 2: existing structure look at what kind of vegetation is there what was the intertidal

[0:41:12] Voice 2: ecosystem like and then provide some recommendations for the design moving forward

[0:41:19] Voice 2: the initial conversation I believe was to put in to continue the wall from the south north

[0:41:26] Voice 2: And we expressed concern about a straight up boulder stack wall because of the environmental and habitat losses that often go with that.

[0:41:39] Voice 2: So we worked with Christian to come up with a kind of a hybrid option that allows the necessary slope stabilization and the geotechnical work,

[0:41:48] Voice 2: but set back further and then with a soft shore design in front so that we could make sure that

[0:41:53] Voice 2: we could really improve the the habitat quality along there because right now with the failing

[0:41:58] Voice 2: wood structure the erosion a lot of agricultural grasses primarily invasive species on the slope

[0:42:03] Voice 2: it's not really um amazing at the moment from a ecological point of view so we really saw that

[0:42:10] Voice 2: there was a lot of opportunities to do that and then presented chris charlie with um the green

[0:42:16] Voice 2: Shores program and sort of explained what that certification is like and thought that this would

[0:42:20] Voice 2: be a really good candidate project for that. So basically the strategy was still to do the

[0:42:28] Voice 2: protection for the slope and the house foundation but set it back further so that we could have

[0:42:33] Voice 2: space in front of it to be able to restore the shoreline habitat with overhanging

[0:42:39] Voice 2: um vegetation salt marsh vegetation and using logs and rocks and quar logs which are basically

[0:42:45] Voice 2: wrapped coconut fiber um so they slowly degrade and they allow stabilization of the soils while

[0:42:52] Voice 2: the vegetation establishes and then they become sort of a softer spot um so really to create some

[0:42:58] Voice 2: habitat diversity along that shoreline which it doesn't have currently um yeah so if there's any

[0:43:04] Voice 2: questions on that i'm happy to answer um

[0:43:10] Voice 10: andrew anything else that you have to add or questions

[0:43:16] Voice 10: or robert or or um phil no

[0:43:23] Voice 12: i mean the proposed shoreline stabilization is it's brilliant it's

[0:43:30] Voice 12: beautiful uh and it if we were doing shoreline stabilization i think it's what we it's exactly

[0:43:37] Voice 12: what we want to see. The thing that I'm sort of struggling with on this is that the property

[0:43:46] Voice 12: was very recently purchased, and it should be evident that this shoreline stabilization

[0:43:54] Voice 12: needed to happen. So I had sort of wondered what the contingency plan for the case was.

[0:44:02] Voice 12: Sometimes we purchase houses and those houses end up being teardowns for whatever reason.

[0:44:07] Voice 12: When we're purchasing a house, we have to go through and do all of our due diligences to make sure, especially on Pender, because some things that look like houses aren't houses.

[0:44:16] Voice 12: So we want to have someone tell us that this house is going to be a good, solid house that will last for the years that we want it to.

[0:44:25] Voice 12: And my concern is that in sort of not doing that due diligence, a risk is assumed.

[0:44:32] Voice 12: And I wonder how much risk and how far that goes.

[0:44:36] Voice 12: and i'm really i'm really curious as to what the owner's plan was with that risk because it does

[0:44:43] Voice 12: seem like very evident that something needs to happen along that shoreline uh the the owner

[0:44:50] Voice 12: purchased the property this way he had two registered architects come out and look at this

[0:44:55] Voice 12: property and go so far as to submit a building permit these people took the time to do historical

[0:45:01] Voice 12: historical research. So they would have researched and been well aware of North Pender zoning bylaws

[0:45:06] Voice 12: that say we can't build this close to the water. So I feel like there should have been some sort

[0:45:12] Voice 12: of plan for what to do if we can't do this. Was this just like, let's lob a shot over their bow,

[0:45:18] Voice 12: and if this doesn't work, we're going to tear down the house and build a new structure further back?

[0:45:22] Voice 12: I'm really curious as to how we got this far.

[0:45:30] Voice 8: Yeah, Andrew, I think when we purchased the property,

[0:45:36] Voice 8: we had this concern in the back of our mind,

[0:45:38] Voice 8: but we didn't know to the extent

[0:45:43] Voice 8: how much in danger the property was.

[0:45:46] Voice 8: So there is an existing log structure there in place now.

[0:45:52] Voice 8: so if possible perhaps we would rebuild that structure if we were granted to do so um but

[0:46:00] Voice 8: you know ideally we don't want to do something that's only going to take it halfway um and the

[0:46:08] Voice 8: alternative tearing down the home was not really something that we looked at either we could have

[0:46:12] Voice 8: a building inspection done and the home was uh shown to be uh really well constructed and uh

[0:46:19] Voice 8: There was no reason to ever consider tearing this house down.

[0:46:22] Voice 8: We just, Andrew, we fell in love with the property.

[0:46:25] Voice 8: We've been looking, my family's been looking for waterfront property for quite some time.

[0:46:30] Voice 8: As you're aware, it's very difficult to buy waterfront property right now.

[0:46:34] Voice 8: It's extremely competitive.

[0:46:36] Voice 8: We fell in love with the property and decided to go for it.

[0:46:42] Voice 8: we did our we did as much diligence as we can as we thought we needed to do in in the in the time

[0:46:49] Voice 8: parameters that we had we did not have that for sure assessed and we were going to have to deal

[0:46:55] Voice 8: with that as required as the new owners there was some risk involved there but I think now that

[0:47:04] Voice 8: we've undertaken this assessment we do realize that really the best thing here is to is to

[0:47:10] Voice 8: to preserve this home.

[0:47:12] Voice 8: I would say demolition and reciting the structure

[0:47:17] Voice 8: from an environmental and financial perspective

[0:47:21] Voice 8: just is a complete 180 to building this wall

[0:47:26] Voice 8: so, or building the structure.

[0:47:29] Voice 8: So I don't have a great answer for you

[0:47:32] Voice 8: other than we fell in love with the home.

[0:47:35] Voice 8: we really, really wanted to make it work.

[0:47:41] Voice 8: And we feel that we've presented something here

[0:47:43] Voice 8: that really does sort of work well for everyone involved.

[0:47:48] Voice 8: It's a significant environmental improvement

[0:47:50] Voice 8: over the existing condition.

[0:47:52] Voice 8: And it allows an existing residence to stay in place

[0:47:56] Voice 8: and not require a demolition,

[0:47:58] Voice 8: which of course has far greater environmental impacts

[0:48:02] Voice 8: than working with the existing structure.

[0:48:05] Voice 12: No, I do understand the environmental impacts.

[0:48:07] Voice 12: I guess what I'm interested in is sort of the setback and preservation of the setback and what happens to that.

[0:48:14] Voice 12: It's really interesting sort of driving around Pender.

[0:48:17] Voice 12: And, you know, when I first got to Pender many years ago, driving around, you look on either side of the road and you just see this gorgeous forest.

[0:48:28] Voice 12: You know, you just you're driving through far. It's beautiful.

[0:48:30] Voice 12: There's a road and there's forest either side.

[0:48:32] Voice 12: and as you spend more time on pender you realize that that's not really forest that's people's

[0:48:39] Voice 12: front yard and what makes it look like forest is the setback that we have from the road

[0:48:43] Voice 12: right similarly as you take your boat and i i love to sail and as i sail around pender

[0:48:49] Voice 12: you see all of this beautiful natural shoreline and why that shoreline exists is because of the

[0:48:56] Voice 12: oceanfront setback. So when I look at this and it's a fantastically well thought out application

[0:49:04] Voice 12: with a really great retaining wall, the question I have to ask myself is why do these guys get to

[0:49:13] Voice 12: be in the setback? That's really the only question on this for me, right? Like if we were

[0:49:19] Voice 12: to allow retaining walls on pender i would want them to be like this it's fantastic it's a well

[0:49:26] Voice 12: thought out beautiful environmental thing but it does have some visual impact so that's kind of

[0:49:33] Voice 12: what i'm trying to weigh is do we interrupt our shoreline setback to have this or is it better

[0:49:42] Voice 12: and it really sucks for you and for the many other homeowners that will be in this position

[0:49:46] Voice 12: Do we just say, no, we don't build in our shoreline, and we let this erode and whatever natural forces take place happen here. So I'm kind of struggling to understand, one, I guess is a case for hardship, and two is why in this particular instance we interrupt this shoreline instead of moving something back.

[0:50:12] Voice 12: um phil and robert can correct me if i'm wrong but i do believe that in our

[0:50:19] Voice 12: zoning bylaw it does state directly that we can't consider financial cost for the burden of finances

[0:50:26] Voice 12: as a part of hardship that's

[0:50:30] Voice 11: yeah that's a more of a it's not so much in the zoning bylaw but

[0:50:34] Voice 11: But it's something that in terms of Board of Variants consideration of hardship, the financial implications typically would not be considered a hardship.

[0:50:49] Voice 11: I mean, there might be certain circumstances where there might be financial considerations.

[0:50:54] Voice 11: But just the fact that it's cheaper to build in this location versus that location should not be something that a board should consider as hardship.

[0:51:00] Voice 11: and just procedurally chair i don't see any members of the public here but once the board

[0:51:07] Voice 11: is finished uh hearing from the applicants and hearing you know how it's doing sort of questions

[0:51:13] Voice 11: um you should just acknowledge for the record that um if there were members of the public here

[0:51:19] Voice 11: that this would be the opportunity for the public to speak and then the board can then move into

[0:51:25] Voice 11: its deliberations.

[0:51:28] Voice 10: Okay. And I would like, I have a question or two as well. Can I continue with

[0:51:35] Voice 10: this before we?

[0:51:37] Voice 11: Yeah. It's up to the board members to ask once they've done with their

[0:51:42] Voice 11: questions generally or specifically with the applicants, then just recognize that there's

[0:51:49] Voice 11: at that point, there's no members of the public here. And then the board can then move into its

[0:51:54] Voice 11: deliberations um but if something comes up during the deliberations you can always go back to the

[0:51:58] Voice 11: applicants or staff okay

[0:52:00] Voice 10: thank you so as part of this proposal will the existing bulkhead uh the

[0:52:06] Voice 10: soldier piles be removed or will they be left they'll be removed okay um so i um i i personally

[0:52:19] Voice 10: like this project it's i think it's a good solution to an existing situation that would

[0:52:28] Voice 10: uh over time especially with uh global warming uh you know just a road back uh and put a house that

[0:52:38] Voice 10: that was uh originally built to code at at greater risk and and it would also

[0:52:45] Voice 10: also impact the neighbor to the south. And so it's, I think, sensitively done.

[0:52:55] Voice 10: I looked at this long and hard. It appears to be permanent, which I like. I've seen a number

[0:53:02] Voice 10: of bulkhead repairs that are done on Saturna, where I live, that appear to me to be temporary.

[0:53:11] Voice 10: temporary this this looks to be very well designed and sensitively designed and and it addresses the

[0:53:20] Voice 10: site um so i i like that i think you know uh andrew and i talked about this at at length um

[0:53:29] Voice 10: you know if you uh built this house again um you know of course it would have to be moved back to

[0:53:37] Voice 10: meet existing uh zoning code but the code did change after the house was built so um you know

[0:53:45] Voice 10: the that's that's just the way it is um in in that regard so um with with those comments uh and and

[0:53:56] Voice 10: uh i would like to uh say if there if there's there are no public public members i guess so

[0:54:06] Voice 10: So no public comment.

[0:54:08] Voice 10: And so I guess we move to the next phase where we look at a motion.

[0:54:16] Voice 10: And one of the things that Phil talked about was the height of the bulkhead, the armoring in front of the residence, and amending that to be the proper height, which is lower than it is called out in one of the figures.

[0:54:38] Voice 10: years.

[0:54:40] Voice 1: Yes, yeah, and we've done a bit of digging since last night to clarify where that 4.5 meters

[0:54:47] Voice 1: comes from, and we're actually not sure, so I think that it's very reasonable that that could

[0:54:52] Voice 1: be reduced. Part of, I guess, the height question on our end is, is the height measured just from

[0:54:58] Voice 1: finished grade upwards, or are we looking at where to the bottom of the wall where it's keyed in and

[0:55:03] Voice 1: planted around um i think it's about 3.6 meters height so the key in portion so um but our report

[0:55:11] Voice 1: has it at about 2.8 meters where it ties into the existing wall that's our intention is not to be

[0:55:16] Voice 1: taller than the neighboring wall um and i don't know christian how much wiggle room you think we

[0:55:23] Voice 1: need in terms of a contingency for area for that height but i think that that's i think we're

[0:55:28] Voice 1: comfortable with that i believe yeah i'll see is

[0:55:32] Voice 12: that oh sorry sorry to interrupt christian i'm

[0:55:35] Voice 12: just looking at this schedule a document which is on the notice of hearing yeah there's sort of

[0:55:40] Voice 12: two portions of retaining wall shown on that one is a black portion and there it's labeled as

[0:55:46] Voice 12: 4.5 meters

[0:55:48] Voice 4: area a only right

[0:55:49] Voice 4: and then the other one

[0:55:50] Voice 12: right then the other one is like this hatched

[0:55:54] Voice 12: wall which is listed as a rock boulder wall height of 2.5 meters area b only is the intent

[0:56:01] Voice 12: that area a wall will be the same height as the existing neighboring wall i believe and then area

[0:56:09] Voice 12: yes yes okay and then area b wall will be shorter it

[0:56:13] Voice 1: steps down yeah we're feathering

[0:56:14] Voice 12: okay so we're

[0:56:15] Voice 12: based

[0:56:15] Voice 1: gotcha

[0:56:17] Voice 12: so we're basically just extending the neighboring wall across the front of this

[0:56:23] Voice 12: house and then we're stepping down yeah correct okay and then i guess while i'm blabbing away

[0:56:33] Voice 12: christian um there's two areas area a and area b area a seems to protect the house and area b

[0:56:41] Voice 12: protects the yard or is area b also required to protect the

[0:56:45] Voice 9: house area b is not required

[0:56:48] Voice 9: to protect the house. Area B really mimics the existing slope. It's not really, you know,

[0:57:00] Voice 9: if you look at the cross-sectional drawing, you can see the existing slope line. And it's really

[0:57:06] Voice 9: only marginally adjusted, one, to create planting areas, and two, to provide some stabilization

[0:57:15] Voice 9: measures at the toe of that slope to prevent just continued slope erosion. So it's really

[0:57:24] Voice 9: minor works and mostly vegetation with some, as the other consultants have said,

[0:57:33] Voice 9: you know, large woody debris, choir logs and that sort of things. It's shown as rocks here,

[0:57:38] Voice 9: but the annotations pointing to the rocks, especially the ones adjacent to the beach,

[0:57:44] Voice 9: do show that there will be some variation in that to uh for that cross-section awesome and the other

[0:57:54] Voice 12: question i i guess i have for the team is was a structural engineer consulted are we using the

[0:58:02] Voice 12: geotechnical engineer's expertise to say that the house will be definitely negatively affected

[0:58:08] Voice 12: if the slope moves or did we bring in a structural engineer to say how much the ground could move or

[0:58:15] Voice 12: or what type of shift there was?

[0:58:17] Voice 1: We've not had our structural engineer review that beyond what Christian has provided for us

[0:58:23] Voice 1: in terms of the splay zones from the foundation.

[0:58:25] Voice 9: Gotcha.

[0:58:26] Voice 9: Structural engineers have a very standard limit with acceptable foundation settlement,

[0:58:34] Voice 9: and it's about three quarters of an inch, 19, 20 millimeters in that range.

[0:58:38] Voice 9: and they will always defer to geotechnical engineers to determine how much settlement

[0:58:45] Voice 9: are we going to experience and it's um it's the geotechnical world has consensus that any loss

[0:58:55] Voice 9: of support to the um to the soils um underneath the footings in a one-to-one splay line which

[0:59:03] Voice 9: is shown on the drawings, any loss to that will potentially lose foundation support. So

[0:59:09] Voice 9: I wouldn't say that a structural engineer is required for this sort of thing unless

[0:59:16] Voice 9: we're doing something rather unique. Gotcha.

[0:59:28] Voice 1: I just wanted to add to further to Andrew's

[0:59:30] Voice 1: point, you know, the existing shoreline has already been interrupted. There's an existing

[0:59:34] Voice 1: wall in there so it's not like we're talking about a natural habitat that we are planning on

[0:59:39] Voice 1: interrupting and maybe Phil you can correct me if I'm wrong but if we were building new and we were

[0:59:44] Voice 1: to set this back 15 meters I'm sure we could have a seawall at that 15 meter line right that

[0:59:50] Voice 1: structure on the property would would that have would that be an issue I mean certainly that's

[0:59:54] Voice 1: not something that we want to do we don't I don't believe in seawalls I just don't I think that we

[1:00:00] Voice 1: need a sensitive way to deal with things. And I think that there's an incredible amount of embodied

[1:00:03] Voice 1: energy in this home. It's a very efficient structure. It's lovely. We're not talking about

[1:00:09] Voice 1: building a huge mansion right on the water. We're talking about, you know, really taking a sensitive

[1:00:13] Voice 1: thing, making it a little bit more usable for the family, and really kind of establishing a family

[1:00:19] Voice 1: home for future generations. So, you know, I think in terms of the undue hardship, I really, I don't

[1:00:25] Voice 1: think it's appropriate to be tearing down homes and rebuilding new that's just not um i don't

[1:00:32] Voice 1: think that's that's the right way to do that things right now so

[1:00:35] Voice 7: sorry chelsea you're asking

[1:00:37] Voice 7: the question could you build a seawall at 15 meters back

[1:00:41] Voice 1: let's say

[1:00:42] Voice 7: we were to rip this house

[1:00:44] Voice 1: down and build new um and we you know on the 15 meter of setback line could we just have a big

[1:00:50] Voice 1: big old fortified seawall would that be something that could could or could not be approved by

[1:00:54] Voice 1: island's trust well

[1:00:55] Voice 11: i think if it was

[1:00:56] Voice 11: 15 meters back it would be a retaining wall yeah yeah right

[1:01:00] Voice 7: yeah

[1:01:00] Voice 11: but uh yeah the answer is yes as long as it doesn't over exceed the height or is not

[1:01:05] Voice 11: constructed

[1:01:05] Voice 7: it wouldn't yeah it wouldn't need a variance

[1:01:07] Voice 7: i think yeah yeah i would just can i just

[1:01:10] Voice 7: add one thing to and maybe just to andrew's question to christian um and i i think this is

[1:01:16] Voice 7: something we discussed on site and um maybe further to andrew's question take the absence of

[1:01:23] Voice 7: of the the soft shore the green shores um armament or or or structure the absence of that would be

[1:01:32] Voice 7: impactful to what's being proposed in front of the house is that not true so

[1:01:39] Voice 9: the the absence of the

[1:01:41] Voice 7: so the absence of doing anything like i think andrew is going maybe i don't want to lead andrew

[1:01:46] Voice 7: i'm not saying this is where he was necessarily going but one thing we did discuss was if there

[1:01:51] Voice 7: If the north portion was left just to nature, would that be impactful to what's being proposed in front of the house?

[1:02:02] Voice 9: That's a good question.

[1:02:04] Voice 9: As I mentioned earlier in this meeting, there can be a flanking effect that occurs when you have two differing types of seawall structures.

[1:02:13] Voice 9: structures what we've proposed is a is is a very light structure you know not very robust to the

[1:02:23] Voice 9: north and more robust to the south if you eliminated the work to the north there would

[1:02:30] Voice 9: probably be a detrimental effect on the wall to the south that's hard to quantify but

[1:02:37] Voice 9: But like I said, two very differing seawall structures can have that flanking effect.

[1:02:44] Voice 12: Yeah, definitely. I'd love to hear from Lena on this point.

[1:02:50] Voice 2: Well, I did want to add that there is the foundation around the dock as well, which is experiencing some erosion as well.

[1:02:59] Voice 2: so part of that was to tie in part of what's happening in that north section is to tie in

[1:03:04] Voice 2: the stabilization around the existing dock with the work in front of the house and then there the

[1:03:10] Voice 2: the slope adjacent to the yard the yard section the north section is experiencing you know the

[1:03:16] Voice 2: that log seawall does go all the way across and because that's failed that slope is eroding so

[1:03:22] Voice 2: again what we tried to do here was try and protect that slope by putting setting back that lower

[1:03:29] Voice 2: lower rock wall and then creating the green shores in front so that we could tie in

[1:03:33] Voice 2: stabilization around the dock keep that slope somewhat in place and and then and then tie that

[1:03:42] Voice 2: all in with what's happening in front of the house and then the adjacent property to the south so it

[1:03:46] Voice 2: is sort of trying to create this contiguous shoreline so that we don't end up with the

[1:03:52] Voice 2: flanking effect and we can make sure that the green shores section that's in front is going

[1:03:57] Voice 2: going to be contiguous as well so that we don't go from you know adding a really nice habitat in

[1:04:03] Voice 2: front of the house to this existing grass invasive species laden slope that's failing and then

[1:04:09] Voice 2: and then have you know kind of a hodgepodge that that may not be as successful as it otherwise

[1:04:17] Voice 2: would be without a contiguous design.

[1:04:20] Voice 12: Yeah that that makes sense to me when I'm looking at the

[1:04:23] Voice 12: amount of thought that's put into this proposal it schedule schedule a is a bit scary for a number

[1:04:30] Voice 12: of reasons but when i look at it and i look at the sort of zone a and zone b it looks like with

[1:04:35] Voice 12: the amount of thought you put into this proposal that zone b is probably needed and you're probably

[1:04:40] Voice 12: not building retaining walls willy-nilly across this property but that there's a very functional

[1:04:45] Voice 12: reason to have zone b and that if we were to say you can have zone a but not zone b we're still

[1:04:51] Voice 12: going to undermine the house so that we would we do understand that this is not two separate pieces

[1:04:57] Voice 12: but one and the same thing that are both required for protection of the house and

[1:05:03] Voice 2: and sarah and i

[1:05:04] Voice 2: did ask christian the question about whether we had to do something in that in that zone b section

[1:05:09] Voice 2: or if we could just you know slope it up to the yard or something like that and um you know the

[1:05:13] Voice 2: discussion that we had was what i just reiterated which is that it's not really feasible to just

[1:05:18] Voice 2: stop it and start it again um without kind of putting that at risk with the potential of having

[1:05:23] Voice 2: to do further work in the future which is certainly something we don't want to do after

[1:05:27] Voice 2: you know the case put in a lot of uh you know invested a lot in planting and that planting

[1:05:33] Voice 2: is getting established and then to realize that there's a section in the middle that would need

[1:05:36] Voice 2: to be done in the future so we're really trying to think of something that's going to have a really

[1:05:40] Voice 2: long-term lasting lasting um effect here so that we can get a proper ecology re-established there

[1:05:48] Voice 12: there's there's three things that are troubling to me when i look at schedule a one of them i think

[1:05:54] Voice 12: that we didn't maybe want to mention so we have this area a that is labeled as 4.5 meters i now

[1:06:01] Voice 12: understand that's a mistake and area a is to be the same top of wall height as the neighboring

[1:06:09] Voice 12: retaining wall i'm not sure that if we do decide to pass that that we may might want to add that

[1:06:14] Voice 12: as amendment fill zone b i think steps down quite considerably and it's really not about creating a

[1:06:22] Voice 12: retaining wall or an armored shoreline but it's really just sort of like a natural looking

[1:06:26] Voice 12: protection for zone a the other thing that kind of troubles me is existing dock and why that troubles

[1:06:34] Voice 12: me is because we look at this as we're trying to keep our setback and our oceanfront natural and

[1:06:42] Voice 12: beautiful and we're saying to these we might say to these people okay you can build this natural

[1:06:49] Voice 12: looking retaining wall that ties into zone b or that ties into the neighbor in your zone a zone

[1:06:57] Voice 12: b is going to slope down and we do understand that you're going to make the foreshore of pendered

[1:07:02] Voice 12: look a bit different but then on the same property there's this really long dock that sits right in

[1:07:09] Voice 12: front of a national park like we can tell from schedule a that the dock is not even in front of

[1:07:14] Voice 12: this property so i guess my questions to phil are we're in no way acknowledging that through this

[1:07:22] Voice 12: that they get to have a dock not on their property and are we able to offer a trade and say if they

[1:07:28] Voice 12: were to remove the dock we can do part of b or we just have to assume that this property gets to

[1:07:35] Voice 12: modify the shoreline view of North Pender Island for its entire foreshore and in front of the

[1:07:42] Voice 12: national park?

[1:07:43] Voice 7: So to answer your question, Andrew, so first of all, the dock is not part of the

[1:07:48] Voice 7: application, nor do we have any notion of what the legal status of that dock is. It definitely

[1:07:56] Voice 7: does not conform to the bylaw in two ways. First of all, well, actually, maybe three ways. There's

[1:08:03] Voice 7: the size of the float there's the positioning which has to be within um three meters or sorry

[1:08:11] Voice 7: outside of three meters of the extension of the property line um and then there's potentially the

[1:08:18] Voice 7: the length of the ramp but as i said and we did have this discussion it it's legally non-conform

[1:08:25] Voice 7: or sorry it's non-conform but we're uncertain whether it's legal or not legal um and robert

[1:08:32] Voice 7: maybe want to step in here a bit that's not part of this application so I don't and sorry further

[1:08:38] Voice 7: to your question you asked if you could horse trade or to have a trade-off so you can't have

[1:08:45] Voice 7: a condition or you can't make something conditional so you can't negotiate here so

[1:08:51] Voice 7: what's in front of you is an application for the seawall replacement and I mean it could be

[1:08:59] Voice 7: in the future if we had a complaint about the size of the dock um it may come to pass that

[1:09:05] Voice 7: it's deemed to be illegal and they would be required to either remove it alter it or to

[1:09:11] Voice 7: make a new application for a variance either through a board of variance or through a development

[1:09:16] Voice 7: variance permit so so

[1:09:18] Voice 11: just um to delve into some of the the background on the dock regulations the

[1:09:22] Voice 11: current regulations came in in 1998 with the with the current land use bylaw prior to that

[1:09:29] Voice 11: in the sort of 1978 to 98 zoning bylaw um i think it was just docks were permitted basically

[1:09:39] Voice 11: the float size the ramp width and the siting of the docks in relation to the upland property were

[1:09:45] Voice 11: not regulated as they are now i haven't been to the property don't know how old the dock is just

[1:09:51] Voice 11: looking at the one photo one or two photos there does look like it's been there for a while

[1:09:55] Voice 11: so you know chances are it's pre-existing non-conforming and

[1:09:59] Voice 7: the other the other

[1:10:00] Voice 7: complication is is that often the docs are added to over time too which makes verification of uh

[1:10:06] Voice 7: of the legality be really difficult

[1:10:11] Voice 8: i'm sorry i know that the doc isn't uh isn't relative to

[1:10:14] Voice 8: relevant to this application per se but i will just add that we do have a lease in place with

[1:10:19] Voice 8: That's Parks Canada, correct?

[1:10:24] Voice 12: So that was sort of pertaining to my question at the very beginning.

[1:10:29] Voice 12: Because the letter that you, I'm probably butchering your firm's name.

[1:10:34] Voice 1: I'm so sorry for that.

[1:10:35] Voice 12: The letter that they put made it sound like maybe some of this retaining wall was protecting

[1:10:40] Voice 12: the dock or had something to do with the dock.

[1:10:43] Voice 12: And it also mentioned the financial hardship.

[1:10:46] Voice 12: So I guess that if we can understand that this application has nothing to do with the doc, and that we're not protecting the doc, and we're not condoning this doc, and that we're not making any decisions based on how much or what the financial impact to the decision might be, I think we could maybe move ahead.

[1:11:09] Voice 12: Okay.

[1:11:12] Voice 10: So if, if, if everybody has made all the comments that they feel like they need to, to make, Phil, can I move ahead with a motion or is everybody, Andrew?

[1:11:32] Voice 7: Typically you'll call for, for a motion. So.

[1:11:36] Voice 10: Call for a motion.

[1:11:39] Voice 10: so um and and i would call for a motion to approve as amended um with the height based on

[1:11:49] Voice 10: so

[1:11:51] Voice 7: what you'll need to do sorry to interrupt you um priscilla is you'll need to make someone will

[1:11:57] Voice 7: need to make a motion to first amend it and then uh a second motion would be to approve as amended

[1:12:05] Voice 7: And that's how I've structured the, so

[1:12:08] Voice 11: chair, just, just sort of listening to this and thinking it through. It's like, so there's no motion on the floor right now. So I'm not sure what would be amended. You could put a motion on the floor, um, for example, to approve, um, um, the structure as proposed, and then you could establish that it's to a maximum height of X.

[1:12:31] Voice 11: so

[1:12:33] Voice 10: a motion to approve the structure as shown except with a maximum lowering the maximum height

[1:12:41] Voice 10: from schedule a from 4.5 meters to and so we had a 2.8 meters we need to specify the height

[1:12:53] Voice 10: from existing grade or from where it's keyed in to the into the subgrade i'm not sure the best way

[1:13:00] Voice 10: how to how to call that out i wonder if we could get away with

[1:13:04] Voice 12: not submitting uh or not uh giving a

[1:13:10] Voice 12: height and rather just saying that the top of wall in zone a is to be coincident with the neighboring

[1:13:15] Voice 12: wall that's fine so

[1:13:17] Voice 12: that rather than giving a numerical height that's something that we can all

[1:13:20] Voice 12: clearly see this is the maximum you're allowed to be we're not having people out there with their

[1:13:25] Voice 12: tape measures arguing about where the bottom of the tape measure goes yeah i

[1:13:29] Voice 12: think that makes

[1:13:29] Voice 12: And that's

[1:13:30] Voice 1: clearly outlined in our report that that's our intent, is to tie into the neighbor's wall. It's not intended to be taller.

[1:13:36] Voice 12: Yeah, there's this red herring zone A, which was the prettiest drawing we got. It had all the colors in it, so clearly that's the one we're looking at.

[1:13:47] Voice 10: So, I'd like to make a motion to amend. I may need some help here.

[1:14:01] Voice 10: So a

[1:14:02] Voice 11: motion to approve.

[1:14:03] Voice 10: Approve the application.

[1:14:10] Voice 10: Approve the application.

[1:14:12] Voice 10: And Shannon

[1:14:13] Voice 11: can put in the application number and the specifics.

[1:14:16] Voice 10: With the condition that on Schedule A, the southern part of the bulkhead, Section A will be no higher than the southern neighbor's top of bulkhead.

[1:14:36] Voice 4: John Potter, Did you get that Shannon and

[1:14:40] Voice 10: that that section be exhibit on schedule, a would be as shown, so the only condition is that the height on on section A is reduced to match the existing neighbor to the south bulkhead height.

[1:15:00] Voice 10: John

[1:15:03] Voice 11: Potter, And if you got a second for that motion.

[1:15:05] Voice 11: we

[1:15:06] Voice 12: probably do is shannon gonna tell us exactly what the motion is because i think we

[1:15:11] Voice 12: sorry around circles i'm

[1:15:12] Voice 7: hearing this from

[1:15:13] Voice 12: shannon so i'd like to give her that moment to

[1:15:16] Voice 12: type it up and read it back to us sorry

[1:15:20] Voice 7: robert just a question so does shannon need to use the

[1:15:24] Voice 7: motions that i sent though which speak to undo hardship or well

[1:15:28] Voice 11: they the they can do that as

[1:15:31] Voice 11: a subsequent motion or they can

[1:15:32] Voice 7: oh i'm sorry okay i

[1:15:33] Voice 11: think they can discuss it as as part of the

[1:15:39] Voice 7: I

[1:15:40] Voice 12: wonder just while we have Lena here, because we've talked about the various heights of what

[1:15:46] Voice 12: each height of wall is. And I wonder if there's a way that we can sort of say in area in our

[1:15:52] Voice 12: motion that Shannon's typing up for us now, that area A top of wall is to be coincident with the

[1:15:57] Voice 12: neighbor to the south, the retaining wall at the neighbor to the south. And area B, is there a

[1:16:01] Voice 12: different way we can describe that than height of 2.5 meters? Because that kind of seems like

[1:16:06] Voice 12: Like we're building a seven foot retaining wall, which is going to be huge, where I feel like the intent is to make something that looks natural and pretty.

[1:16:12] Voice 12: We

[1:16:13] Voice 2: could use the word

[1:16:13] Voice 12: pretty in our motion.

[1:16:15] Voice 2: Yes, you can. I think when you look, if you say as shown in the Ryzik drawings, you can see that half the wall is buried.

[1:16:26] Voice 2: So we have the growing medium for the Green Shore section in front, it slopes up the wall.

[1:16:32] Voice 2: so half the wall is is actually um buried uh so you don't you won't see even if the wall is two

[1:16:40] Voice 2: and a half you won't see you'll only see half of that right well

[1:16:43] Voice 9: you can you can state the effective

[1:16:45] Voice 9: height of the wall so the effective height is what's sticking out of the ground so if you want

[1:16:52] Voice 9: to limit what's visible and what's seen then you would say you know a maximum effective height of

[1:16:57] Voice 9: 1.5 meters or something like that

[1:16:59] Voice 12: yeah i think that i what i'd love to do is not mention height

[1:17:03] Voice 12: and just give it a more qualitative way because i think that that's the way we've discussed it

[1:17:08] Voice 12: today is it should kind of look like this because if we start talking height then that gives someone

[1:17:12] Voice 12: an excuse to bust a tape measure out hi phil

[1:17:14] Voice 7: sorry just going into qualitative just becomes a bit of

[1:17:18] Voice 7: an enforceable enforcement issue so yeah i mean you're best to

[1:17:22] Voice 7: just leave it as shown on schedules

[1:17:24] Voice 7: jewels so i agree that's my yeah i

[1:17:27] Voice 12: agree even though it

[1:17:28] Voice 12: just says 2.5 meters well just keep

[1:17:30] Voice 11: in mind this isn't a height variance right so this is a setback variant so you don't really

[1:17:35] Voice 11: have to get into the specifics of the height but if you

[1:17:38] Voice 11: use something like not exceeding the height

[1:17:39] Voice 11: of the neighboring wall which i think you have in the adjacent property i think you have in that

[1:17:44] Voice 11: resolution now and as shown on on the cross sections.

[1:17:50] Voice 1: I'm wondering if the if the registration

[1:17:54] Voice 1: of this structure under Green Shores program too gives you enough of a qualitative sensibility

[1:18:01] Voice 1: towards what we're what we're looking at doing here.

[1:18:04] Voice 12: It does. I'm I my hope would be that

[1:18:08] Voice 12: people might look that if if we ever have anything like this again that people might look to this and

[1:18:14] Voice 12: understand that there's a reason for having a zone a and a zone b and a one is protecting the house

[1:18:22] Voice 12: and the other is the stabilization of zone a and zone a is really the wall whereas zone b

[1:18:30] Voice 12: is more of a like hold that wall in place and have something that's a little more discreet than

[1:18:36] Voice 12: in zone a the schedule a is great in terms of a map but it does when i looked at it and when

[1:18:44] Voice 12: we went on site it did make it seem to me that there was going to be sort of a 17 foot retaining

[1:18:48] Voice 12: wall in one place and a 10 foot retaining wall in the other place and so i just wanted to the

[1:18:54] Voice 12: minutes to pick up that that's not what we have discussed here i

[1:19:00] Voice 1: wonder if we could reference the

[1:19:01] Voice 1: section a and b as opposed to schedule a then that

[1:19:05] Voice 12: might be a good thing to do yeah you know

[1:19:08] Voice 1: know, those are there, they're in both the environmental reports, and, and the intent is

[1:19:13] Voice 1: all very clearly drawn in those, whereas the Schedule A is much more diagrammatic, it doesn't

[1:19:18] Voice 1: really give us a lot of detail.

[1:19:21] Voice 12: Definitely, I think that might be a good, good thing to do.

[1:19:25] Voice 12: Others are on board. Yeah,

[1:19:27] Voice 10: I agree. I think this section show exactly what you're proposing.

[1:19:34] Voice 11: So Shannon, you got a

[1:19:39] Voice 6: so you'll have to tell me where you want schedule like what you want to have replaced so i'm going

[1:19:45] Voice 6: to i'm

[1:19:47] Voice 3: also

[1:19:48] Voice 6: putting it down in the chat so that the north pender island board of variants approve

[1:19:56] Voice 6: application mpbo v 2021.2 grant with the condition that section a of the bulkhead on schedule a will

[1:20:03] Voice 6: be no higher than the neighboring wall and that section b on schedule a will be as shown so i

[1:20:11] Voice 11: think what the board was discussing was um not had just removed the references to schedule a

[1:20:16] Voice 11: okay and just talk about section a and section b

[1:20:23] Voice 7: which are schedule b and c so you do yeah

[1:20:27] Voice 4: so

[1:20:28] Voice 6: it'll be section a bulkhead on schedule

[1:20:38] Voice 11: so someone has someone reading this in the future just needs to be able to ascertain what's being

[1:20:45] Voice 11: referred to um so section a and section b are referred to in a number of different area a of

[1:20:53] Voice 12: the bulkhead on schedule a will be as shown on ryzik's section a here can i take a shot at this

[1:21:01] Voice 4: please all

[1:21:27] Voice 12: of the um sort of supporting information this schedule a becomes a part of the

[1:21:32] Voice 12: motion has passed yeah

[1:21:34] Voice 7: so all this basically the notice um i think we should be referring to the

[1:21:42] Voice 7: notice um in terms of any amendments so there's schedules a through d so schedule a is what we've

[1:21:52] Voice 7: been discussing which has the height on it and then you want to refer to schedule c and d those

[1:22:00] Voice 7: Those are the RISIC cross sections or section diagrams.

[1:22:36] Voice 4: Let me

[1:22:37] Voice 12: find my chat window.

[1:22:40] Voice 4: Where did you go?

[1:22:53] Voice 12: So I just amended what Shannon said and said that the North Pender Island

[1:22:57] Voice 12: border variants approve application with the condition that area A of the

[1:23:02] Voice 12: rock boulder wall on schedule A will be shown on RISIC schedule C section

[1:23:07] Voice 12: AA and no higher than the neighboring wall.

[1:23:10] Voice 12: and that area B on Schedule A will be as shown on RISAC Schedule D, Section BB.

[1:23:17] Voice 12: Does that make sense to everyone?

[1:23:20] Voice 11: Yeah.

[1:23:21] Voice 11: It would work, but I think you could also just delete the references to Schedule A.

[1:23:28] Voice 11: It was just the notice, right?

[1:23:31] Voice 11: So now you've got RISAC Schedule C, Section A-A.

[1:23:36] Voice 11: Someone who's trying to determine this can just go to that.

[1:23:39] Voice 12: we do but why i wanted to keep the reference to um schedule a is because it's really the only plan

[1:23:46] Voice 12: view that we have of these and it shows the extent of area a and area b okay and just maybe

[1:23:52] Voice 3: schedule

[1:23:53] Voice 11: a of the notice if that's correct is that what the schedule is phil it's the notice

[1:23:58] Voice 11: yeah the notice schedule a of the notice got that shannon okay

[1:24:04] Voice 4: good you

[1:24:10] Voice 6: want uh i think somebody

[1:24:12] Voice 6: HAB-Masyn Moyer- Making me the date of the notice stated or do is just the most general enough.

[1:24:19] Voice 7: HAB-Jacques Juilland- believe I don't think we have to put the date do we Robert.

[1:24:25] Voice 7: HAB

[1:24:26] Voice 12: -Jacques Juilland- I don't believe the notice is dated.

[1:24:28] Voice 7: HAB-Jacques Juilland- No, no

[1:24:31] Voice 11: it's just someone someone reading that resolution would be able to figure it out.

[1:24:35] Voice 10: HAB-Charlotte Pittsburg- So.

[1:24:36] Voice 10: So let me know if this works to sort of pare it down, that having considered the matter

[1:24:47] Voice 10: set out in S541C of the Local Government Act and having found that undue hardship would

[1:24:55] Voice 10: be caused to the applicant if S5311 of the Local Government Act is complied with, the

[1:25:04] Voice 10: North Pender Island Board of Variants approves application NPBOV 2021.2 grant as presented in

[1:25:17] Voice 10: schedules A, B, C, and D with the exception that the wall in section A will be no higher than the

[1:25:28] Voice 10: the neighbor's wall as shown in section B and C of the MP-BOV 2021.1 notice of hearing as amended.

[1:25:48] Voice 11: You don't need the as amended. Oh, sorry.

[1:25:52] Voice 6: Sorry, guys. I'm still making the amendment to Andrew.

[1:25:54] Voice 6: So if you give me a heads up for you, read off motions. Crystal, I didn't have that motion from

[1:26:01] Voice 6: fill up so i'm going to need you to let me know what amendments are made to it okay

[1:26:05] Voice 10: that having

[1:26:08] Voice 10: considered the matter set out in s5421c of the local government act and having found that undue

[1:26:16] Voice 10: hardship would be caused to the applicant if s5311 of the local government act has complied

[1:26:23] Voice 10: with the north pender island board of variance approves application npbov

[1:26:30] Voice 10: 2021.2 grant as presented in schedules a b c and d with the exception that the wall

[1:26:43] Voice 10: height in section a will be no higher than the neighbor's wall to the south as shown

[1:26:56] Voice 10: As Shannon,

[1:26:58] Voice 12: I just emailed you

[1:26:59] Voice 10: the motions on sections B and C of the NP BOV 2021.1 notice of

[1:27:09] Voice 10: hearing.

[1:27:10] Voice 6: I think Sandra, I do have the motions from Phil. Is that is that encompassed with the

[1:27:16] Voice 6: additions that Priscilla made? Is that encompassed with the as amended with the motion you just made

[1:27:20] Voice 6: previously to amend?

[1:27:23] Voice 12: I don't think it encompasses that everything that I wanted to include,

[1:27:27] Voice 12: because i do want to include that section b is not 2.5 meters tall right so i do want to kind

[1:27:35] Voice 12: of pick up rising sections when

[1:27:38] Voice 6: i open so the motion that you just sent me through did you

[1:27:43] Voice 6: send it by email i

[1:27:45] Voice 12: sent you the motions that phil had sent us i sent them by email okay great yeah

[1:27:48] Voice 6: so i have those

[1:27:49] Voice 3: yeah okay

[1:27:50] Voice 12: and

[1:27:52] Voice 6: then priscilla you've made a new motion okay and uh and that

[1:28:00] Voice 6: is not captured by as amended priscilla do you have that on your screen are you able to just

[1:28:03] Voice 6: send that to me yeah even just copy and paste it into the chat did

[1:28:27] Voice 10: it come through i hope i i'm

[1:29:33] Voice 10: hoping that you're getting it how

[1:29:37] Voice 12: are you sending it i'm

[1:29:40] Voice 10: pasting it in the chat i

[1:29:45] Voice 12: don't have

[1:29:46] Voice 12: anything through the chat yet okay

[1:29:50] Voice 10: um sorry uh can i email it to you phil uh

[1:29:58] Voice 7: yep or shannon

[1:30:01] Voice 10: okay sorry so i sent it to you phil and hopefully it came through i'm sorry i didn't i haven't used

[1:30:55] Voice 7: the chat before

[1:30:56] Voice 10: so clearly i don't know what i'm doing so

[1:30:59] Voice 7: yep it's actually going to be no higher

[1:31:01] Voice 7: than any remote to the south that's going to correct this here just two seconds you know

[1:31:06] Voice 7: for i'm forwarding it to shannon right now sorry okay um yeah

[1:31:22] Voice 10: sorry i have some typos in there

[1:31:24] Voice 10: yeah

[1:31:25] Voice 7: and it's just um i believe you meant schedules right not sections

[1:31:39] Voice 10: there's there's

[1:31:40] Voice 10: there are sections shown on schedule so they're actually both yeah

[1:31:46] Voice 7: schedule

[1:31:46] Voice 12: c and dr sections yeah

[1:31:49] Voice 7: exactly this is shown on schedule on yeah here i'm just writing

[1:31:54] Voice 7: this out so shannon doesn't have to do it

[1:31:56] Voice 10: thank you thank you thank you

[1:31:58] Voice 10: i don't

[1:32:10] Voice 12: know if we're

[1:32:11] Voice 12: allowed to mention to the architects and owner that we're kind of being picky on this just

[1:32:15] Voice 12: because we hear that there might be more like we don't want this to be precedent setting so

[1:32:20] Voice 12: that if someone else builds a house that's too close they say well these guys have to

[1:32:25] Voice 12: retaining wall their entire property why can't i so i want to be clear that this is a very specific

[1:32:30] Voice 12: thing to protect just this it ties into a neighboring and the rest is not retaining

[1:32:35] Voice 12: well at all but really like bank stabilization or something else different section

[1:32:43] Voice 1: and no one

[1:32:44] Voice 1: should be building too close at this point you know

[1:32:47] Voice 12: exactly but there's a lot of weird things

[1:32:50] Voice 12: that happen on pender right a lot of

[1:32:53] Voice 12: stories yeah finding something non-conforming is

[1:32:57] Voice 3: pretty

[1:32:58] Voice 12: much to the point okay

[1:33:05] Voice 7: i just sent that and cc both of you to just we can all just look at it

[1:33:09] Voice 7: quickly.

[1:33:11] Voice 7: I'll send it to you too, Robert, if you want.

[1:33:28] Voice 7: Did you get that, Shannon?

[1:33:31] Voice 7: Okay.

[1:33:36] Voice 10: I agree. Thank you,

[1:33:38] Voice 10: Phil. I agree with that. And the only thing

[1:33:40] Voice 10: there's a typo, will me, and

[1:33:42] Voice 10: sorry, that came from me, will be

[1:33:43] Voice 10: no higher than the neighbor

[1:33:45] Voice 10: wall to the south.

[1:33:47] Voice 12: I don't have the amendment yet.

[1:33:49] Voice 12: Could you port it or paste it into the chat?

[1:33:53] Voice 12: Oh, there we go.

[1:33:56] Voice 11: The only thing I would add is that when

[1:33:58] Voice 11: And it refers to schedules A, B, C, and D.

[1:34:00] Voice 11: You have to say what the schedules are to.

[1:34:03] Voice 11: Schedules A, B, C, and D of the report, of the notice.

[1:34:08] Voice 7: He does say of the notice.

[1:34:10] Voice 7: Of the notice.

[1:34:11] Voice 7: Yeah, it's at the end, but.

[1:34:15] Voice 11: Notice of hearing, okay.

[1:34:16] Voice 7: I don't know if that's the right spot for it.

[1:34:20] Voice 11: Yeah, okay.

[1:34:20] Voice 11: That's understandable then.

[1:34:23] Voice 7: Do

[1:34:26] Voice 12: we want to spell neighbor O-U-R, please?

[1:34:28] Voice 7: Oh, yeah.

[1:34:30] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:34:31] Voice 7: Priscilla, are you in the States right now?

[1:34:33] Voice 7: Or are you in?

[1:34:34] Voice 7: Yeah,

[1:34:34] Voice 10: I'm on, I'm on Saturna.

[1:34:37] Voice 7: Oh, you're on Saturna.

[1:34:37] Voice 7: So we should spell it with a U then.

[1:34:41] Voice 10: Sorry.

[1:34:45] Voice 10: So do you want me to just read this?

[1:34:48] Voice 10: Or do, do we need to read it?

[1:34:53] Voice 7: Probably for the, for the record, we should just read it.

[1:34:56] Voice 7: And then.

[1:34:57] Voice 7: Okay.

[1:34:58] Voice 10: Sorry.

[1:34:58] Voice 7: That

[1:35:00] Voice 10: having considered the matter set out in S.5421C of the Local Government Act and having found that undue hardship would be caused to the applicant if S.5311 of the Local Government Act is complied with,

[1:35:21] Voice 10: the North Pender Island Board of Variants approve application NP-BOV-2021.2 grant as presented in

[1:35:32] Voice 10: Schedules A, B, C, and D, with the exception that the wall in Section AA will be no higher than the

[1:35:43] Voice 10: neighbor wall to the south, as shown with sections on Schedule C and D of the NP-BOV-2021.1 notice of hearing.

[1:36:05] Voice 11: You got a seconder?

[1:36:06] Voice 3: I'll second.

[1:36:10] Voice 11: Okay, and normally you'd call for any discussion on the motion?

[1:36:15] Voice 10: Any discussion?

[1:36:18] Voice 11: That's just the two of you.

[1:36:20] Voice 12: No, I think we've beaten that horse to death.

[1:36:24] Voice 12: and

[1:36:25] Voice 11: then you can call for the

[1:36:26] Voice 10: vote say all in favor yeah uh all in favor

[1:36:34] Voice 10: and i carried yeah i want to thank everybody i i uh i like this proposal and uh thanks for

[1:36:43] Voice 10: letting us just pick it apart to death um so thank you for the

[1:36:50] Voice 1: opportunity to respond we

[1:36:52] Voice 1: appreciate it yeah

[1:36:53] Voice 12: it's a good proposal we're

[1:36:57] Voice 1: really we're really excited about it i'm just

[1:37:00] Voice 1: genuinely really excited to be working on a job with uh landowners that have this kind of foresight

[1:37:05] Voice 1: and aren't trying to force through a seawall so we're just it's very much in alignment with our

[1:37:11] Voice 1: design ethos i think it's the appropriate way to build we love working with christian and lena

[1:37:16] Voice 1: um very excited to see this go forward thank you yeah

[1:37:20] Voice 11: i just add as sandra alluded to that this

[1:37:22] Voice 11: This gives us a good example to point other potential applicants to.

[1:37:26] Voice 10: And I agree. Nice job, everybody. Thank you.

[1:37:30] Voice 12: Yeah. Thanks for letting us put you through the ringer,

[1:37:32] Voice 12: but now we have a really good example.

[1:37:34] Voice 12: Yeah.

[1:37:36] Voice 1: Good. And Robert, I don't know if you can confirm,

[1:37:38] Voice 1: but I don't think that there are any Green Shore projects in the Southern

[1:37:40] Voice 1: Gulf Islands that have been approved for homes. Have there?

[1:37:45] Voice 7: There's Galliano, but was that a part of the Green Shore?

[1:37:47] Voice 11: I'm not sure if they got the certification.

[1:37:49] Voice 11: Yeah.

[1:37:49] Voice 11: Yeah.

[1:37:50] Voice 11: There's been a number that have followed Green Shore's principles.

[1:37:52] Voice 11: most recently a couple in galliano um sort of an active pass um area but uh i'm not sure if they

[1:37:59] Voice 11: ever ended up getting this getting the certification or not lena i think

[1:38:04] Voice 7: lena worked on those yeah no

[1:38:06] Voice 11: okay yeah

[1:38:07] Voice 7: one was a bit troubling with

[1:38:12] Voice 11: their follow-through but yeah yeah yeah

[1:38:17] Voice 7: yeah thanks everybody yeah all

[1:38:19] Voice 11: right so normally they'd get a motion to adjourn adjourn the hearing

[1:38:22] Voice 11: motion

[1:38:23] Voice 10: to adjourn thank you thanks everyone thanks

[1:38:28] Voice 7: everyone thank you okay thanks bye

[1:38:30] Voice 10: take care it

[1:38:33] Voice 6: fell i have a question yep and let's get so andrew's motion that he wrote was discarded

[1:38:39] Voice 6: and it was replaced by priscilla's because andrew's motion was never that's my that's

[1:38:44] Voice 7: my understanding yeah yeah yeah yeah

[1:38:46] Voice 6: so i think we're just

[1:38:47] Voice 7: good with the one motion

[1:38:48] Voice 7: i'll verify

[1:38:48] Voice 7: i was kind of getting a bit confused there because they robert was indicating that

[1:38:52] Voice 7: there may need to be a preceding motion i'll verify that with robert i think he's gone now so

[1:38:58] Voice 7: yeah um but just stick with that and i'll get right back to you so yeah okay thanks guys thanks

[1:39:06] Voice 4: phil

[1:39:07] Voice 10: i i would and and andrew i would like to encourage andrew to be the chair i

[1:39:13] Voice 10: i'm um i'm a terrible chair no

[1:39:17] Voice 7: no no you're doing great

[1:39:18] Voice 7: yeah well andrew's running for the trust

[1:39:20] Voice 7: anyway so okay so that's that's gonna um i'm just kidding hey shannon that was a joke by the way so

[1:39:27] Voice 7: yeah no

[1:39:28] Voice 6: that's it it's the one on the forum i heard it i didn't hear anything

[1:39:33] Voice 7: um but so priscilla if we can encourage you to stick her out till um maybe till june when there's

[1:39:41] Voice 7: basically you'll be reappointed and then we would the next meeting that we would appoint a new chair

[1:39:47] Voice 7: and it could be that the new person wants to be the chair or andrew could be the chair so yeah

[1:39:51] Voice 12: okay okay i

[1:39:52] Voice 12: kind of wrote priscilla into this pretty well though i think

[1:39:55] Voice 12: you did yeah

[1:39:56] Voice 7: but she's now the chair of three of them so yeah

[1:39:59] Voice 7: yeah

[1:39:59] Voice 10: i

[1:40:01] Voice 4: don't think i'm

[1:40:02] Voice 10: getting much without you phil as to tell me what to do i'd be

[1:40:08] Voice 10: yeah yeah

[1:40:09] Voice 7: well and i just off the record i was scrambling this morning because uh

[1:40:15] Voice 7: I was being, yeah, the challenge for the 4.5 meters and I'd sent this to them and I don't know, I'm trying to figure out where it came from, but anyways.