South Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, March 5, 2022

[0:00:07] Trustee Patrick: good morning if you're just joining us we'll uh be starting the meeting momentarily for those that

[0:00:24] Trustee Patrick: are watching the meeting via live stream if you had intended to ask us some questions during the

[0:00:29] Trustee Patrick: town hall or the community information meeting today you'll need to be on the webinar

[0:00:33] Trustee Patrick: version which is the attend button that was uh on the same area all right looks like everything's

[0:00:41] Trustee Patrick: up and running trustee thorne should we start the meeting we

[0:00:46] Voice 9: should all

[0:00:47] Trustee Patrick: right then let's go

[0:00:48] Trustee Patrick: Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee to order.

[0:00:54] Trustee Patrick: This meeting is being recorded and live streamed.

[0:00:57] Trustee Patrick: I always begin with acknowledging how fortunate we are to be gathering all across the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people.

[0:01:05] Trustee Patrick: I'm Laura Patrick, elected on Salt Spring Island and the chair of this local trust committee.

[0:01:10] Trustee Patrick: I'm joined today by Trustee Cameron Thorne.

[0:01:13] Trustee Patrick: Good morning, Trustee Thorne, and Trustee Wright has sent his regrets.

[0:01:20] Trustee Patrick: Together, we make up your South Pender Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:01:25] Trustee Patrick: This meeting is an official forum for your local trust committee to make decisions about land use planning matters and discuss relevant business.

[0:01:33] Trustee Patrick: I also want to point out that this is a place of employment.

[0:01:37] Trustee Patrick: Despite the fact that some of our employees may be coming from their own home, they have the right to a safe and respectful workplace.

[0:01:43] Trustee Patrick: This is an electronic meeting. We may have technical difficulties throughout the meeting, but we'll do our best to overcome them in a timely manner.

[0:01:54] Trustee Patrick: So with that, we have some staff I'd like to introduce today.

[0:01:57] Trustee Patrick: We have Robin Elchuk is our office administrative assistant who is working behind the scenes to make this meeting work well.

[0:02:04] Trustee Patrick: Thank you very much, Robin.

[0:02:06] Trustee Patrick: Lauren Edwards is our minute taker. Good morning, Lauren.

[0:02:09] Trustee Patrick: Robert Kojima, regional planning manager, and Kim Stockville, our island planner.

[0:02:13] Trustee Patrick: thank you all for being here today we have an agenda before us uh trustee thorne are there

[0:02:20] Trustee Patrick: any additions or changes to the agenda no

[0:02:23] Voice 9: no not from my point thank you all right

[0:02:27] Trustee Patrick: um well with that uh this is an opportunity for reports is there anything uh you'd like to report

[0:02:37] Voice 9: uh not well i mean i know the last time that we spoke uh as a group i reported on just some of the

[0:02:44] Voice 9: The transportation woes that we were having and, you know, the issue with the, as it's famously now called, the dip.

[0:02:55] Voice 9: I mean, that's continuing on and we appreciate the patience of our community in dealing with the frustrations around that.

[0:03:01] Voice 9: that we have been in fairly regular contact

[0:03:04] Voice 9: with Minister of Transportation,

[0:03:07] Voice 9: still waiting for a more concise timeline

[0:03:10] Voice 9: on when they anticipate the works to commence

[0:03:14] Voice 9: and hopefully a date of when we expect the changes

[0:03:17] Voice 9: to be in place, a fixed road.

[0:03:20] Voice 9: So we're monitoring that and we've also pointed out to them

[0:03:24] Voice 9: that this problem at the light is only gonna get worse

[0:03:26] Voice 9: as the weather warms up and we get more tourists arriving

[0:03:30] Voice 9: and you know the lineups are already getting getting along so we're we're just asking everybody

[0:03:36] Voice 9: for a little patience on this while we try and get some answers all

[0:03:41] Trustee Patrick: right well thank you I guess

[0:03:43] Trustee Patrick: I'll point out that the trust council is coming up in March here March 8th through 10th there will

[0:03:50] Trustee Patrick: be a town hall on the evening of the 8th it's scheduled from 7 till 9 delegations do go first

[0:03:57] Trustee Patrick: and then there's a number of them this year,

[0:03:59] Trustee Patrick: so this month, so they'll take approximately the first hour.

[0:04:04] Trustee Patrick: So if you're hoping just to put input in

[0:04:06] Trustee Patrick: and listen to the town hall,

[0:04:07] Trustee Patrick: I just would recommend you come in a little bit later

[0:04:10] Trustee Patrick: if you wish.

[0:04:13] Trustee Patrick: The trust policy statement engagement is being initiated.

[0:04:17] Trustee Patrick: There will be events occurring on South Pender

[0:04:22] Trustee Patrick: and North Pender, so keep an eye out for what's coming.

[0:04:26] Trustee Patrick: it's always best to subscribe to the website so that you keep up to date on what's coming to your

[0:04:34] Trustee Patrick: area and with that so today we do have a town hall but we also have a community information

[0:04:41] Trustee Patrick: meeting following that so what I'm at would ask you is in the town hall question if that would

[0:04:46] Trustee Patrick: be kind of broad questions that you may have regarding what we're doing but if you want to

[0:04:50] Trustee Patrick: talk about the land use bylaws and ask questions about that if you could just hold for a moment

[0:04:56] Trustee Patrick: and let us get into the community information meeting um and um on that so if that makes sense

[0:05:02] Trustee Patrick: to people i'm just so this town hall first question to you is just any open comments or

[0:05:06] Trustee Patrick: questions that you might have in relationship to um the work here of the local trust committee um

[0:05:12] Trustee Patrick: and just hold on for a moment and we'll come back to the uh the land use bylaws and uh the this next

[0:05:18] Trustee Patrick: piece of the meeting so is there anyone that has any questions or comments that they'd like to make

[0:05:22] Trustee Patrick: yes uh trustee stock a trustee stock deal just before

[0:05:28] Voice 1: we get into that i just want a reminder

[0:05:29] Voice 1: to rise and report number two i know thank

[0:05:33] Trustee Patrick: you i always ask you to do that because i

[0:05:35] Trustee Patrick: thank you very much um planner stock bill for reminding me yes i did have a rise and report

[0:05:42] Trustee Patrick: from our in-camera meeting um by general consent the local trust committee chose not to appoint an

[0:05:48] Trustee Patrick: APC for the balance of the term. However, consideration may be given for opportunities

[0:05:53] Trustee Patrick: for working groups. And so that was our rise in report. So with that, turn to anyone for

[0:06:00] Trustee Patrick: town hall questions. Is there anyone that wishes to ask us anything during the town hall?

[0:06:05] Trustee Patrick: I see a couple of folks have put their hands up. John Roberts. John, if you take yourself off mute,

[0:06:15] Trustee Patrick: we should be able to hear you.

[0:06:17] Voice 12: There we go. Hello.

[0:06:20] Voice 12: John Roberts, 9811 Spalding Road. I have a couple

[0:06:23] Voice 12: of questions for the under when you the for the bylaw discussion but this is more general and it's

[0:06:27] Voice 12: about communication and i'm just wondering what the channels what the what the committee intends

[0:06:34] Voice 12: by way of communication with residents because i haven't i haven't received i'm not receiving

[0:06:38] Voice 12: anything um about um the work of the committee especially around the bylaws and i only found

[0:06:47] Voice 12: out about this committee through a different channel about today's meeting so i'm wondering

[0:06:51] Voice 12: what is the process by which you communicate,

[0:06:56] Voice 12: you being the whole both representatives,

[0:06:59] Voice 12: elected folks and staff communicate the progress

[0:07:02] Voice 12: and work of the committee with residents?

[0:07:05] Voice 12: How should we find out about this?

[0:07:07] Trustee Patrick: Well, thank you, John, for that question.

[0:07:09] Trustee Patrick: And if it would be all right,

[0:07:11] Trustee Patrick: I'll look to Trustee Thorne that I know

[0:07:14] Trustee Patrick: after the conversations that we're having today,

[0:07:16] Trustee Patrick: we'll be considering the land use by-law.

[0:07:18] Trustee Patrick: And one of those conversations will be sort of the next

[0:07:21] Trustee Patrick: steps of what we need to do um so trustee thorn would you rather kind of consider john's questions

[0:07:27] Trustee Patrick: at that time or well

[0:07:29] Voice 9: i'm certainly happy to to talk to that yeah i'm certainly happy to it might

[0:07:33] Voice 9: be better if there's questions on that to deal with at that at that time but but maybe on the

[0:07:38] Voice 9: first more general question if i interpreted correctly was trying to understand how residents

[0:07:43] Voice 9: can be informed on uh the the discussions and decisions of of the ltc i mean that that again

[0:07:50] Voice 9: Again, it's one of those ones that we talk about most meetings where, you know, we do our best to try and through both pushing emails out or obviously having a website with information as to decisions that are made or upcoming meetings.

[0:08:06] Voice 9: And then, of course, having everything on a virtual format now.

[0:08:10] Voice 9: I mean, one of the things about these electronic meetings is people can look at them later as opposed to just having the minutes to read.

[0:08:15] Voice 9: So, yeah, I mean, I get your point.

[0:08:19] Voice 9: It's a tough one.

[0:08:20] Voice 9: One, we try and work within the constraints that we all face globally to communicate with one another.

[0:08:29] Voice 9: But there are a number of avenues that I've just cited that give people the opportunity to stay informed as to what we're doing.

[0:08:37] Voice 9: And, of course, everybody's got my cell number, too.

[0:08:39] Voice 9: So, you know, it's posted on the website.

[0:08:42] Voice 9: So I'm always happy.

[0:08:42] Voice 9: And email.

[0:08:43] Voice 9: So I think Steve and I are, and I'm sure Patrick as well, you know, are always happy to correspond with people if they reach out.

[0:08:52] Voice 12: Could I just ask a follow up just to, it's more so you talked about email. I mean, are all residents automatically emailed? Because that should be part of the protocol, just so that we don't have to guess when we have to call somebody, we just get the information.

[0:09:09] Voice 12: information.

[0:09:10] Voice 13: The best way to get

[0:09:11] Voice 13: notified, sorry if I could jump in, the best way to get notified

[0:09:14] Voice 13: John is to sign up for the email notifications on the webpage and you can select just to be

[0:09:20] Voice 13: notified about South Pender business or notifications or sort of wider notifications

[0:09:25] Voice 13: for the whole trust area. So that's sort of the best way to get your email on the list for email

[0:09:34] Voice 13: email updates um and then all the business of the local trust committee is conducted in the meetings

[0:09:39] Voice 13: so like trustee thorn was saying um the notifications will tell you in advance when

[0:09:45] Voice 13: the meetings are you can read the agendas if you're interested you can like you are today

[0:09:48] Voice 13: attend the meetings or or look at them look at the recordings later and then look at the minutes as

[0:09:53] Voice 13: well appreciate

[0:09:54] Voice 12: that's that's it

[0:09:55] Voice 13: you answered my

[0:09:55] Voice 12: question so i basically need to sign up for

[0:09:58] Voice 12: yeah

[0:09:59] Voice 13: yeah obviously we have no way to know everyone's email address unless they sign up

[0:10:03] Voice 13: Okay,

[0:10:03] Voice 12: I thought those were in the directory, but anyway, thank you for your, thanks for the time.

[0:10:07] Trustee Patrick: Thank you, John. Next, Jane Perch. Sorry, Robin, if we could, there we go. Hello, Jane. Hello, Jane, can you hear us?

[0:10:33] Trustee Patrick: Hello.

[0:10:34] Voice 7: Hello.

[0:10:35] Voice 7: Can you hear me?

[0:10:36] Voice 7: Yes.

[0:10:37] Voice 7: Okay, that's great. So my question relates to the next part, but it also relates more globally. So I meant to mention this in letters I wrote, but I think when we have such major issues that you might be considering in terms of the land use bylaw changes, which are fairly significant, and as we sort of come out of COVID, these are important meetings and community information meetings.

[0:11:04] Voice 7: and I feel that these need to be in public meetings.

[0:11:09] Voice 7: Very few people join the Zoom meetings

[0:11:12] Voice 7: and we're losing people by this process.

[0:11:15] Voice 7: So I just request that as we move forward,

[0:11:19] Voice 7: that I think there needs to be some kind of,

[0:11:24] Voice 7: I mean, agreement that when we have land use bylaw changes,

[0:11:28] Voice 7: OCP changes that are major,

[0:11:30] Voice 7: they need to be in a public setting.

[0:11:33] Voice 7: We have good attendance when that happens, but when we're on the web, many people don't know how to do it and just we lose them.

[0:11:42] Voice 7: So it's just a request.

[0:11:44] Trustee Patrick: Thank you very much, Jane.

[0:11:46] Trustee Patrick: And this will be, barring any return, I don't want to, we will be back to in-person meetings following this meeting is what I understand.

[0:11:58] Trustee Patrick: So hopefully COVID will cooperate with us.

[0:12:02] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[0:12:04] Trustee Patrick: Are there any other questions at this time?

[0:12:06] Trustee Patrick: Otherwise, we'll move into talking.

[0:12:09] Trustee Patrick: No, there are not.

[0:12:11] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[0:12:11] Trustee Patrick: So thank you all.

[0:12:13] Trustee Patrick: And now we're going to switch over to the next item on the agenda, which is the community

[0:12:17] Trustee Patrick: information meeting on the land use amendment project.

[0:12:20] Trustee Patrick: I'm going to turn over to Lauren.

[0:12:23] Trustee Patrick: Did you have a question?

[0:12:25] Voice 2: You approve the agenda?

[0:12:27] Voice 2: I don't.

[0:12:27] Voice 2: Did I miss that?

[0:12:28] Voice 9: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[0:12:28] Voice 9: No, no, you're right.

[0:12:29] Voice 9: I was just going to say that's what we need to do as well.

[0:12:32] Trustee Patrick: I had asked if there were any changes.

[0:12:33] Trustee Patrick: he said no and i forgot to say

[0:12:35] Voice 9: can we approve the

[0:12:38] Trustee Patrick: agenda through general consent yeah

[0:12:41] Voice 9: i i uh yes

[0:12:43] Voice 9: fine by me thank

[0:12:46] Trustee Patrick: you i apologize i i swore i had enough coffee before i started this meeting but

[0:12:50] Trustee Patrick: apparently i have not so uh um i will try to keep better attention to that so thank you lauren for

[0:12:57] Trustee Patrick: asking okay so now i'm going to turn the floor over to uh planner stockdale uh to introduce

[0:13:02] Trustee Patrick: the land use bylaws thank

[0:13:06] Voice 1: you chair patrick so this community information meeting is for the

[0:13:10] Voice 1: land use bylaw amendments project and the purpose of this project is to consider

[0:13:16] Voice 1: amendments to the south pender land use bylaw the ltc is currently considering amendments

[0:13:22] Voice 1: regarding the total and maximum floor area regulations, rural residential setback

[0:13:29] Voice 1: regulations, agricultural land regulations in accordance with the ALC, regulating shipping

[0:13:37] Voice 1: containers on South Pender and also some other minor and technical amendments. The project

[0:13:43] Voice 1: actually started the spring of last year and that's when the project charter was endorsed by

[0:13:48] Voice 1: the LTC. There was a draft bylaw presented to the LTC in the fall and it's currently still in

[0:13:57] Voice 1: draft format and the LTC still make further changes to this bylaw. A first reading has not

[0:14:04] Voice 1: been given. So this is the first formal community information meeting for the project. There will

[0:14:10] Voice 1: also be a second community information meeting right before the public hearing if the bylaw

[0:14:17] Voice 1: proceeds and that would most likely happen late spring early summer and we intend those to be

[0:14:23] Voice 1: in-person meetings as well so as I mentioned the draft bylaw is currently or I didn't mention but

[0:14:29] Voice 1: the draft bylaw is currently on the LTC webpage under projects and it's also attached to the

[0:14:36] Voice 1: agenda thank you so much and I'll pass it back to you chair Patrick all

[0:14:42] Trustee Patrick: right so how would we like

[0:14:45] Trustee Patrick: like to do this, just open the floor up as questions in regard to the draft bylaw?

[0:14:55] Trustee Patrick: Is that the best way to proceed? I'm sorry, looking at you. And are you able to share

[0:15:00] Trustee Patrick: your screen if there are any particular questions to bring up to show the bylaw?

[0:15:04] Voice 1: Absolutely. Happy to do that. Yeah.

[0:15:06] Trustee Patrick: Okay. So with that, this is time for you to have a chance to ask some questions or comments.

[0:15:14] Trustee Patrick: and if you have specific suggestions those are also extremely helpful so uh this is your time

[0:15:22] Trustee Patrick: so who would like to ask questions i know jane's hand was still remaining up but uh since it was

[0:15:28] Trustee Patrick: i'll give jane uh the the floor first hello

[0:15:34] Voice 7: jane hi there sorry i didn't realize my hand was still

[0:15:37] Voice 7: a lot, but it was a very

[0:15:39] Trustee Patrick: effective mechanism. You're first to speak.

[0:15:42] Voice 7: Okay. I did send a couple

[0:15:45] Voice 7: of emails because I wasn't certain that I would be able to get in on joining on the Zoom meeting.

[0:15:51] Voice 7: So, but I am. So just a couple of questions and maybe a little bit more directed one at staff,

[0:15:58] Voice 7: because I'm uncertain as to a couple of the changes that are being proposed, or I think

[0:16:05] Voice 7: being proposed so one is to deal with the uh setback on the waterfront side front side um

[0:16:11] Voice 7: oceanfront sides of which i think is being a is proposed to be amended to um 25 feet

[0:16:17] Voice 7: away from 25 i i'm going to talk feet because i don't have the meters in front of me to 50 feet

[0:16:22] Voice 7: sorry um i think 15 meters but um so i i i think that's what it is but i didn't see a consistency

[0:16:30] Voice 7: in the draft bylaw that I was seeing,

[0:16:33] Voice 7: or maybe I'm just misreading it.

[0:16:35] Voice 7: So maybe that's my sort of first part of that question,

[0:16:38] Voice 7: but there is a second part.

[0:16:40] Trustee Patrick: All right, let's maybe answer that first question first.

[0:16:44] Trustee Patrick: Planner Stockville, are you?

[0:16:46] Voice 1: Yes, and what I'll do,

[0:16:47] Voice 1: I always find it easier to share my screen.

[0:16:50] Voice 1: So that's what I'll do here.

[0:16:51] Voice 1: So are you able to see this, Jane?

[0:16:56] Voice 7: Yes, I can.

[0:16:56] Voice 1: Okay, so in regards to the proposed setback to the natural boundary of the sea, so what it would look like is the LT is considering a more restrictive setback, and that would be for all new buildings and structures, it'd be 50 feet.

[0:17:14] Voice 1: and then there's a new clause that says that buildings and structures constructed prior to

[0:17:22] Voice 1: the adoption of bylaw 122 would be able to retain that 25 foot setback oh

[0:17:30] Voice 7: okay um so two things

[0:17:33] Voice 7: there um so i saw that in that part of the draft so going back to first the point about the 50 feet

[0:17:40] Voice 7: the 15 meters. So when I looked at your draft black line copy, which you didn't provide for

[0:17:46] Voice 7: those sections, only certain parts of the draft. If I look at that, I think I don't have my email

[0:17:54] Voice 7: in front of me, but I think it's section 5.8 or something like that, that there is a section that

[0:17:59] Voice 7: talks about the setbacks, but it didn't make a change to that in that section. So that's

[0:18:06] Voice 1: that confusion.

[0:18:07] Voice 1: Absolutely. I'll pull that up right now. So I'm just going to the bylaw draft

[0:18:16] Voice 1: bylaw 122 as it's attached to the agenda for today's LTC meeting. So those changes are found

[0:18:25] Voice 1: here. So under 2.4 and 2.5, I'll make that larger. Got that. So the first one, what that means is

[0:18:35] Voice 1: is we're taking out the restriction of 25 meters

[0:18:40] Voice 1: and moving that up to 50 meters.

[0:18:43] Voice 1: And the second part is where we're putting in

[0:18:45] Voice 1: this new section that states

[0:18:47] Voice 1: that those existing buildings and structures

[0:18:49] Voice 1: can still retain the 25 foot setback.

[0:18:53] Voice 7: Okay, but when I actually go to your attached to that

[0:18:56] Voice 7: is your black line copy and where you've made some changes.

[0:19:00] Voice 7: I don't see a change dealing with the setback

[0:19:04] Voice 7: with respect to the 50 feet

[0:19:06] Voice 1: that's right yeah this section i included for the black line was

[0:19:09] Voice 1: only for the rural residential section um just out of convenience i didn't add um a black volume

[0:19:16] Voice 1: version of the entire bylaw based on the fact that in the staff report i put together for february

[0:19:22] Voice 1: 4th i already put a black line section together for the um the setback from the natural boundary

[0:19:29] Voice 1: of the sea so i only put the black line version for the rural residential section this is just

[0:19:34] Voice 1: out of convenience this isn't um attached to the bylaw okay

[0:19:38] Voice 7: but but isn't even in the rural

[0:19:40] Voice 7: residential section doesn't it give us setbacks for all the front and rear and that's right yep

[0:19:46] Voice 7: so for not all so that's what i was confused yeah

[0:19:50] Voice 1: so setbacks in the natural boundary of the sea

[0:19:53] Voice 1: since they apply to the entirety of south pender those are found in the very beginning of the land

[0:19:58] Voice 1: use bylaw under general regulations and then setbacks referring to property lines are specific

[0:20:04] Voice 1: to that zone so each zone will

[0:20:06] Voice 1: then have their own specific setback for um front line exterior

[0:20:12] Voice 1: and so forth okay

[0:20:13] Voice 7: so and so i'm looking at point uh sub eight so so we've got front or rear interior

[0:20:20] Voice 7: interior or side lot line and exterior so what what is what is the what is the setback from the

[0:20:28] Voice 7: sea on under that section yeah

[0:20:30] Voice 1: so the setback in the sea it wouldn't be found in the rural

[0:20:33] Voice 1: residential section it's found at the very beginning of the land use bylaw under general

[0:20:38] Voice 1: regulations so we don't

[0:20:40] Voice 1: have the setback from the sea throughout the bylaw it's only in that

[0:20:43] Voice 1: that one section general regulations apply to um generally um to the entire of south thunder

[0:20:50] Voice 1: okay

[0:20:51] Voice 7: it's very confusing because you look at your setbacks and obviously one of them has to be the

[0:20:56] Voice 7: sea and is it the front is it the rear what is it so that's my confusion so um i i'll

[0:21:04] Voice 13: just jump in

[0:21:05] Voice 13: here every every land use bylaw has the setback from the sea in the general regulations and that's

[0:21:10] Voice 13: That's sort of where it's known to be found in bylaws.

[0:21:14] Voice 13: Okay.

[0:21:14] Voice 7: And ours has always been consistent, so it's 25 feet from, I always considered it the front, you know, the C.

[0:21:21] Voice 7: And that agreed with the other section, so this was very confusing to me.

[0:21:25] Voice 7: So, okay, I'm going to move on to that.

[0:21:28] Voice 7: But my second point, then, is the change in the, Kim, if you wouldn't mind going back to the addition that you added,

[0:21:36] Voice 7: added three point in the draft in when you've itemized the changes. That was my second question.

[0:21:44] Voice 7: So it was 3.3 after three sub three you added there's a new something in the draft wording

[0:21:57] Voice 7: I think and then you've got something by adding another section. And I don't know if you were

[0:22:03] Voice 7: were able to see my email so i i did try to spell spell this out so it'd be more clear and i don't

[0:22:08] Voice 7: have it in front of me but uh that new section so i think where it says despite subsection 3.33

[0:22:15] Voice 7: buildings or structures and then it

[0:22:18] Voice 7: goes on legally construction um but our our existing

[0:22:21] Voice 7: bylaw talks about buildings or structures um and it also mentions uh things like stairs uh

[0:22:29] Voice 7: docks, wharfs, etc. And that's excluded. So what would be the status of those who have those

[0:22:36] Voice 7: things?

[0:22:37] Voice 1: Right. So I don't have the current land use bylaw in front of me right now. But if those

[0:22:45] Voice 1: structures are legally constructed, and a land use bylaw is amended to either make it more

[0:22:52] Voice 1: restrictive, then those structures are protected under the Local Government Act for non-conforming

[0:23:00] Voice 7: So with the change to the bylaw, and you have provided protection for some sections with respect to what exists, but you've specifically taken those things out.

[0:23:13] Voice 7: So to me, I don't know why you would say buildings and structures are okay, but you would exclude those other, for me, equally important construction that would happen in that, within 25 feet of the sea.

[0:23:29] Voice 7: so what happened so you know and we were told that I think the intent of the trustees was that

[0:23:35] Voice 7: whatever exists now would not be affected but from what I'm reading the way this bylaw reads

[0:23:42] Voice 7: in fact some things are affected because they have specifically been excluded in that new section

[0:23:49] Voice 7: is

[0:23:51] Voice 1: that correct? I would have to take a look at how the bylaw reads but what it could do

[0:23:55] Voice 1: is when this item is brought up in the agenda later on.

[0:23:58] Voice 1: I'll discuss that with the LTC.

[0:24:01] Voice 1: Okay.

[0:24:01] Voice 1: Can

[0:24:02] Voice 9: I speak to that one for a minute?

[0:24:04] Voice 9: Yes.

[0:24:05] Voice 1: Yeah,

[0:24:05] Voice 9: I'm just hearing Jane's point,

[0:24:07] Voice 9: and I did pull up the existing,

[0:24:10] Voice 9: I think the most recent iteration

[0:24:11] Voice 9: of our land use bylaws consolidated,

[0:24:13] Voice 9: I think it is December of 2021.

[0:24:16] Voice 9: But yeah, when I look at under general regulations,

[0:24:19] Voice 9: section 3.3, 3.33,

[0:24:24] Voice 9: It does say buildings or other structures except a fence, pump house, stairway, wharf and dock or their footing shall not be within 25 feet.

[0:24:36] Voice 9: I'm assuming that what we would want to do in this new one is the language would be the same, except it would say 50 feet instead of 25 feet for anything new.

[0:24:48] Voice 9: And it would remain as 25 feet for anything that was built, that was in place before the new bylaw that might come into adoption.

[0:24:57] Voice 9: Is that kind of what you're getting at too, Jane?

[0:25:00] Voice 7: Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

[0:25:01] Voice 7: Because the way I'm reading that now, it's not saying that.

[0:25:04] Voice 7: So there's no protection for that.

[0:25:06] Voice 7: those things that are there now so if i mean what if the stairs need repair what if the dock

[0:25:12] Voice 7: yeah you

[0:25:13] Voice 7: know need to replace what's the status so okay thank you all right thank you jane we'll

[0:25:19] Trustee Patrick: discuss that question when we look at the bylaw in a bit here okay i see john um kachar kachar

[0:25:26] Trustee Patrick: sorry john for making your last name oops john put his hand down um okay so i guess

[0:25:37] Trustee Patrick: it's john roberts then oh okay we'll come back to john seems to his hands going

[0:25:45] Voice 12: up and down

[0:25:46] Voice 12: yeah so okay

[0:25:48] Trustee Patrick: all right john yeah

[0:25:49] Voice 12: um two uh kind of two of the bylaws that i kind of want to want

[0:25:55] Voice 12: to look at one is the maximum floor space and the document i was looking at and i read in in

[0:26:04] Voice 12: somewhere i think maybe the minutes of your last meeting somebody had proposed that the five-tier

[0:26:09] Voice 12: tier model be reduced to four or three?

[0:26:12] Voice 12: And a couple proposals were put out there.

[0:26:15] Voice 12: I just want to go on record as saying,

[0:26:17] Voice 12: I don't agree with doing that.

[0:26:20] Voice 12: And I also question the actual change in the,

[0:26:24] Voice 12: what I believe is our current levels.

[0:26:28] Voice 12: The model that I see, I downloaded said,

[0:26:32] Voice 12: the proposed highest level for 10 acres or greater

[0:26:36] Voice 12: was 5 000 square foot etc but i and what was just up on the screen showed um 6030 or about 560

[0:26:47] Voice 12: square meters as the maximum level now so i guess one question is just to make sure i'm on the right

[0:26:54] Voice 12: page here is that 5 560 square meters the the actual existing bylaw or was that an initial

[0:27:05] Voice 12: Okay. So that was the existing one. Okay. I just want to that to me is fine. And I don't understand why it's being squished back so dramatically. I think these the five tiers adequately represents the range of lot sizes that are that are around and the floor, the footprints of buildings and or homes seems to me proportional and make and to make sense.

[0:27:33] Voice 12: And any kind of reductions of those, to me, seem nothing but arbitrary.

[0:27:39] Voice 12: So I just want to just express my disagreement with that.

[0:27:45] Voice 12: And I know it's been argued that, well, people are just legal noncompliance.

[0:27:49] Voice 12: If it went through homes that exceeded that would be legal noncompliant, which is no penalties.

[0:27:55] Voice 12: But in the event of a home collapse or whatever, whether it's earthquake burning down or whatever,

[0:28:04] Voice 12: my understanding is that a legal non-compliant home could not be replaced to its um original size

[0:28:12] Voice 12: uh that's my understanding if i'm wrong please correct me and i and then i see

[0:28:18] Voice 12: um a response to that but i do have something else about a different bylaw so

[0:28:24] Voice 12: maybe there's someone could respond to that uh

[0:28:28] Voice 9: hi johns cameron um the tables there you know

[0:28:32] Voice 9: there's a number of uh options of house size of being put forward um the one that i think you

[0:28:40] Voice 9: referenced with the lesser number of categories and the smaller house size i think up to 3500

[0:28:45] Voice 9: was something that steve right had put forward so that that that's that's within this as a matter

[0:28:50] Voice 9: of discussion as are a number of other tables that are also up for consideration um on the

[0:28:56] Voice 9: legal non-conforming and i've made this point really clear uh i felt in in in the course of

[0:29:04] Voice 9: us talking to the community out for months probably more than a year on this thing that

[0:29:09] Voice 9: that even though legal non-conforming is uh is a is a occurs throughout the province when when

[0:29:18] Voice 9: municipalities make changes and and life goes on that that it seemed like that issue was derailing

[0:29:24] Voice 9: a discussion in the community around the virtues of looking at house sizes that were that uh for

[0:29:31] Voice 9: new for new structures that were more commensurate with the size of homes actually built so what we

[0:29:36] Voice 9: wanted to do was make sure that that legal non-conforming didn't become sort of the boogeyman

[0:29:42] Voice 9: and so what we've looked at and what we what we would propose to do with any changes

[0:29:48] Voice 9: changes to house size or to setbacks is to is to to make sure that such homes that are larger than what would be permitted or where there's.

[0:30:00] Voice 9: setbacks are different would in fact not be legally non-conforming but would be legally

[0:30:04] Voice 9: conforming through through an approach to the bylaw which we can talk through in more detail

[0:30:10] Voice 9: later but uh you know we're going that extra step so that people aren't going to worry about

[0:30:16] Voice 9: legal non-conforming i

[0:30:19] Voice 12: appreciate that and i if there was a way to do that so that there literally

[0:30:23] Voice 12: is no penalty for the people that are grandfathered because i am in a situation my wife and i have

[0:30:28] Voice 12: have have a home that does exceed we're on three and a half acres and uh even and um

[0:30:36] Voice 12: so where does that put us well i we're we're fine according to the the current model but the new one

[0:30:44] Voice 12: would uh be a penalty for us so if you could do what you're saying where there's literally no

[0:30:49] Voice 12: consequence down the road even in a catastrophe then i'm i'm fine with that the other question

[0:30:56] Voice 12: or input is really around I'm not sure because I haven't had any information or newsletters or

[0:31:01] Voice 12: anything like that I'm not sure the status on the bylaw related to short-term rentals

[0:31:08] Voice 12: so I don't know if that's where we are but it's the heading is land use bylaw amendment project

[0:31:14] Voice 12: which I assume includes that and I from the different things I did see like last late last

[0:31:21] Voice 12: spring maybe was when the last time I received anything about short-term rentals or saw anything

[0:31:26] Voice 12: it seemed like really complicated solutions were being generated and while I I support the idea of

[0:31:33] Voice 12: it uh and I think it's important um because I think a dramatic increase in short-term rentals

[0:31:42] Voice 12: and Airbnb and all that could actually affect quality of life for for longer-term residents

[0:31:46] Voice 12: I do think that something that's more fair and equitable and affects everybody equally would be the only way that I would feel comfortable going.

[0:31:56] Voice 12: And that would be something as simple as all residents have a cap on the amount of nights or time of the year that they can.

[0:32:05] Trustee Patrick: John, I'm hearing you, but it was a separate project and it was actually adopted and is in place on South Pender.

[0:32:14] Trustee Patrick: um i don't know if uh how we can better direct john to find that uh

[0:32:21] Voice 1: there will actually be an

[0:32:22] Voice 1: email heading out to email subscribe

[0:32:24] Voice 12: sign up as you said to me that's still a passive approach

[0:32:27] Voice 12: by the committee for communicating and i don't think it's acceptable you're saying because a

[0:32:32] Voice 12: lot of people the fact that we wouldn't didn't even know we needed to do that all it would take

[0:32:36] Voice 12: is a mail snail snail mail kind of letter to say this is how we encourage if you want to stay in

[0:32:45] Voice 12: tune with the with the committee for the work of your local island trust committee here's what you

[0:32:52] Voice 12: do and sign up just give an instruction and then everybody at least knows um i would have done that

[0:32:58] Voice 12: you know whenever a long time ago and then i wouldn't even probably be wasting your time here

[0:33:05] Voice 12: right now so anyway just a suggestion and otherwise i'll let you get on with your meeting

[0:33:09] Voice 12: thank you now

[0:33:10] Trustee Patrick: you're not wasting your time john that's what we're here for today and thank you

[0:33:14] Trustee Patrick: very much for your questions and um we will discuss at the end of this project sort of next

[0:33:19] Trustee Patrick: steps and how best to make sure the word is getting out so thank you thank you

[0:33:23] Trustee Patrick: um i see okay

[0:33:25] Trustee Patrick: john kaharchuk all right john if you take yourself off mute hello hi

[0:33:33] Voice 4: trustee patrick it is thank you

[0:33:35] Voice 4: Thank

[0:33:35] Trustee Patrick: you. I

[0:33:36] Voice 4: took my hand out last time because you said you were going to me,

[0:33:40] Voice 4: so I thought I should drop my hand.

[0:33:42] Trustee Patrick: You were just too fast.

[0:33:43] Voice 4: I was too fast. So at this point,

[0:33:46] Voice 4: I have two points of query. One is with regard to the reduction in building areas. And I've

[0:33:57] Voice 4: raised this point before, and it is something that keeps coming up. I noticed that in the draft,

[0:34:02] Voice 4: You know, the square footages are different than they were in the last draft. And so, you know, I would like there to be some discussion about where those specific square footage numbers come from so that it's just not arbitrary, because it is what it is at one point.

[0:34:25] Voice 4: Right now, it was decided that, you know, in the past that, you know, X number of square feet is a maximum house size and, you know, total building size was fine.

[0:34:35] Voice 4: You know, then it was proposed to be somewhat smaller and now it's a little bit larger in response to the pushback from, you know, some of the discussion.

[0:34:43] Voice 4: and like you know cam like where are those specific numbers coming from and why you know

[0:34:51] Voice 4: in my case at you know i'm just under three acres where it was 5,500 for a house size before

[0:34:57] Voice 4: then it was proposed at 3,500 for the last x number of months and now it's 4,000 well what

[0:35:04] Voice 4: you know why 4,000 why 3,500 why you know why not 55 so that that's i i'd like for the discussion

[0:35:14] Voice 4: sure

[0:35:15] Voice 9: well well sure i mean and i guess the simple answer is because people in the community are not

[0:35:21] Voice 9: necessarily all all in unison on probably anything and so when it comes and you know

[0:35:28] Voice 9: given the plurality of views including the plurality of opinions uh not just within the

[0:35:35] Voice 9: community but i would say frankly the plurality of views amongst the the trustee members uh

[0:35:42] Voice 9: who for their own reasons, feel their numbers

[0:35:47] Voice 9: are the ones that would be most appropriate.

[0:35:49] Voice 9: In the last meeting, Trustee Wright brought forward

[0:35:56] Voice 9: a proposal for numbers that were smaller

[0:35:59] Voice 9: than the numbers that I had initially proposed.

[0:36:03] Voice 9: I think his uppermost number was 3,500 square feet.

[0:36:07] Voice 9: So that, you know, he's got the right

[0:36:09] Voice 9: to bring that number forward.

[0:36:11] Voice 9: uh you could ask him what his his rationale for that was um you know my numbers were based on

[0:36:18] Voice 9: uh and i think i've expressed this before based on a number of uh considerations uh you know

[0:36:26] Voice 9: briefly stated you know trying to reserve the the preserve the rural character trying to make sure

[0:36:31] Voice 9: that that uh that uh in the absence of any uh given it

[0:36:36] Voice 9: that it's it's outright approval for

[0:36:38] Voice 9: what you want to do so long as you're building to the house sides uh allowed you know there there's

[0:36:43] Voice 9: opportunities when particularly when you're building larger homes that they can have quite

[0:36:47] Voice 9: an impact on uh if not properly sited or not thoughtfully designed they can have an impact

[0:36:52] Voice 9: on things around them so making sure that we're trying to find that balance between uh not wanting

[0:36:58] Voice 9: people to see you know not wanting a whole bunch of variances to be necessary for people to build

[0:37:03] Voice 9: the house but at the same time not leaving the door wide open where we get houses that are that

[0:37:08] Voice 9: are perhaps not what we intended when we when we set the bar so high for a house size um you know

[0:37:15] Voice 9: i also looked at you know again what was the number of homes built to date uh in any one of

[0:37:22] Voice 9: those categories and in most cases the numbers proposed uh would capture somewhere between 85

[0:37:27] Voice 9: 85% to 95% of all the homes that are built in those land use categories.

[0:37:33] Voice 9: So I thought it was more than generous or more than commensurate with what exists as

[0:37:37] Voice 9: the building stock.

[0:37:41] Voice 9: And so we also, again, listen to different people on this topic.

[0:37:46] Voice 9: And so there's still some fluidity on that number, John.

[0:37:52] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:37:52] Voice 4: Yeah, it's interesting to see as this rolls forward, whether people continue to react to that, whether, you know, it's seen as arbitrary or grounded in some sort of principles.

[0:38:07] Voice 4: I guess the, you know, all the earlier discussions were that part of this initiative was to create an opportunity where there was opportunity for dialogue, if you will.

[0:38:24] Voice 4: So there was a threshold, let's say it's 4,000 outright and 5,500 meant that you had to satisfy all these other criteria to get to there.

[0:38:33] Voice 4: and I guess that latter part

[0:38:35] Voice 4: is really off the table now

[0:38:38] Voice 4: and that kind of goes to my next

[0:38:40] Voice 4: side

[0:38:41] Voice 4: or okay you're shaking your head

[0:38:43] Voice 4: yeah yeah yeah

[0:38:44] Voice 9: I guess the thing is

[0:38:46] Voice 9: so where we ended up in the last meeting

[0:38:48] Voice 9: was one thing that came out

[0:38:53] Voice 9: in past conversations

[0:38:54] Voice 9: was that even today

[0:38:57] Voice 9: in the absence of any changes

[0:38:59] Voice 9: that we might make on these topics

[0:39:01] Voice 9: somebody's got the right

[0:39:03] Voice 9: to come forward right now and say, I'd like to build a home larger than what's otherwise

[0:39:09] Voice 9: permitted under the land use bylaw. And so they do have the ability to come forward and seek a

[0:39:13] Voice 9: variance to that. So hypothetically, if somebody brought a variance forward today, and it was a

[0:39:20] Voice 9: matter for the LTC to consider, it struck me as ironic that there was no criteria that trustees

[0:39:29] Voice 9: might rely on when considering whether a house should be bigger than what's in the land use

[0:39:33] Voice 9: bylaws so what we came out with a long time ago was was the idea of building design and citing

[0:39:39] Voice 9: guidelines and that that came out back in 2019 and i know there was a lot of i think community

[0:39:44] Voice 9: misunderstanding that we were there was some uh uh you know a move to to make sure that every home

[0:39:51] Voice 9: on the island had a conform to which is not the case what where were the the discussions to date

[0:39:56] Voice 9: would be that that would be those design guidelines which staff did a great job of i think uh whittling

[0:40:02] Voice 9: down or or or perhaps just improving from what i had written and steve had written anyhow those

[0:40:07] Voice 9: those would be attached to the ocp as uh as a an appendices to the ocp and at least it would give

[0:40:15] Voice 9: a trustee some some some some things to consider that were principles that reflect the values of

[0:40:22] Voice 9: our ocp principles to consider when when when coming forward with a decision on on a house

[0:40:28] Voice 9: that would that for which a variance was required so i i don't think that's fallen away john and i

[0:40:34] Voice 9: and i and again i'm not you know for the record i i am not uh uh you know my my my views on house

[0:40:42] Voice 9: size are not based on on um i try to stick to the land use issues i try to think when i look at

[0:40:48] Voice 9: house size and and even when a variance is sought is how does it fit within the context of the

[0:40:53] Voice 9: the neighborhood, the site upon which it is sited. I don't look at other issues, you know,

[0:40:58] Voice 9: socioeconomic factors or things. I just try and stick to the principles of what my role is as the

[0:41:03] Voice 9: trustee.

[0:41:05] Voice 4: Okay, well, yeah. So what you said goes on to the next point, which I wanted to make was,

[0:41:13] Voice 4: so we're talking about setbacks, for example, and what I was trying to understand was,

[0:41:18] Voice 4: you know, the problem always when you can create hard and fast rules is

[0:41:23] Voice 4: is one size doesn't actually fit all.

[0:41:27] Voice 4: And so you might be in a situation

[0:41:30] Voice 4: where somebody can't conform to the setback

[0:41:34] Voice 4: for some specific site constraint.

[0:41:38] Voice 4: And what I didn't understand was,

[0:41:43] Voice 4: so if they come with an exemplary proposal

[0:41:45] Voice 4: and there's some trade-offs there,

[0:41:47] Voice 4: is what actual ability do they have

[0:41:53] Voice 4: to engage a discussion and have something approved that transcends uh the end of the

[0:42:00] Voice 4: term of the current trustees so you know not i just mean any term of trustees so um what you're

[0:42:08] Voice 4: saying is there's going to be some guidelines that get appended to to this that provide some

[0:42:13] Voice 4: framework for if somebody wanted to come forward and apply for a variance there might be some some

[0:42:18] Voice 4: some guidelines, but that doesn't, that doesn't say that future, uh, trustees would necessarily

[0:42:24] Voice 4: have to be bound by any of that. And someone might just go to the letter of what the, the

[0:42:29] Voice 4: bylaw says, you can't, your setback is X, your square footage is Y. And that's what,

[0:42:37] Voice 4: that's what's allowed. And so what we're, what we are, I think what, what we've gotten to is

[0:42:44] Voice 4: is that mechanism for other consideration

[0:42:47] Voice 4: isn't really being reflected in this?

[0:42:54] Voice 9: Yeah, I mean, you and I, I think,

[0:42:59] Voice 9: professionally deal with these kind of topics

[0:43:01] Voice 9: on a regular basis.

[0:43:02] Voice 9: And I mean, every municipality that I've done work in

[0:43:04] Voice 9: has setbacks that are written,

[0:43:09] Voice 9: clearly written in ink in the land use bylaw.

[0:43:13] Voice 9: and there are opportunities to seek a variance for it

[0:43:16] Voice 9: if you have rationales that you think are worthy.

[0:43:20] Voice 9: And sometimes the municipality will agree to a variance

[0:43:26] Voice 9: and sometimes it won't.

[0:43:27] Voice 9: I mean, I think it's the same thing here.

[0:43:31] Voice 9: And that's the way, like even today,

[0:43:33] Voice 9: if somebody came in and wanted a setback to vary something,

[0:43:36] Voice 9: the process would be no different.

[0:43:38] Voice 9: um i certainly what we've the the the sort of give anybody some background that may not

[0:43:47] Voice 9: otherwise know this one of the things that we're talking about and trying to find a balanced

[0:43:51] Voice 9: approach to uh to maintaining rural character privacy between neighbors you know acoustical

[0:43:59] Voice 9: considerations opportunity for more natural landscape retention between structures one of

[0:44:04] Voice 9: of the things that we looked at was to maintain side yard setbacks for for things like for

[0:44:12] Voice 9: accessory buildings and chicken coops and barrages and that kind of thing maintain that to 10 feet

[0:44:17] Voice 9: but for dwelling so a cottage or a house that the setback would be 20 feet and so uh

[0:44:25] Voice 9: i think on most properties that would work uh there may be some that it that it didn't and

[0:44:33] Voice 9: And certainly, I would say that if somebody came forward and said that there was an issue, that they could take it forward to the council.

[0:44:40] Voice 9: There's also, you know, I mean, hopefully we're dealing with reasonable people here, but there's also the option, as you would know, for somebody to say, well, this is a hardship issue and take it to the Board of Variants.

[0:44:52] Voice 9: But, you know, again, it's like anything else in life. We're trying to strike a balance between trying to find balanced ways to try and make make to preserve what we care about in the community and yet still allow for room for for variances when a situation would would require it.

[0:45:10] Voice 9: Right.

[0:45:12] Voice 4: So you refer to the environment that we work in. Variances typically, you know, given the complexities of development in most built environments, variances tend to be dealt with as part of a development permit where you have an opportunity for there to be more fulsome discussion about the various trade-offs.

[0:45:32] Voice 4: if it's just reduced to a board of variance decision it's a different it's a different

[0:45:37] Voice 4: construct entirely like it is either based on on um hardship or there's you know some more dire

[0:45:45] Voice 4: consequence to it it's not yeah i guess it's a much more much more limited process and opportunity

[0:45:52] Voice 4: i'm

[0:45:53] Voice 13: just going to jump in there's two mechanisms for variance one is a development variance permit

[0:45:57] Voice 13: that would go to the local trust committee local trust committee would have discretion on how to

[0:46:01] Voice 13: approve it and could look and would hopefully look at the guidelines in the ocp the second

[0:46:06] Voice 13: is board of variance the board of variance would have to consider whether there's a hardship

[0:46:11] Voice 13: and whether the variance was minor in nature so development permits

[0:46:16] Voice 13: that you mentioned john would

[0:46:17] Voice 13: not be a consideration until right now

[0:46:19] Voice 4: i i understand that but so you're saying a development

[0:46:22] Voice 4: variance uh what's that process development variance

[0:46:25] Voice 13: variance permit dvp process and is

[0:46:28] Voice 4: Is there a DVP process currently part of South Bender?

[0:46:33] Voice 13: Yes, yeah, there is, yeah.

[0:46:34] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:46:37] Voice 4: All right, that's my question.

[0:46:38] Voice 9: And again, I mean, you know, just, John, I mean, I hear what you say about the communities we work in.

[0:46:44] Voice 9: You know, you're right, there's more complex instruments at play, including a development permit process.

[0:46:50] Voice 9: process again you know i don't think we have the desire in the community or the or the uh or the

[0:46:57] Voice 9: staff resources uh to even engage on on a process like that on self-employment and you know again

[0:47:03] Voice 9: one of the things is and you you you have me telling you something you already know you know

[0:47:06] Voice 9: the land use bylaw is not a perfect instrument it it is uh it it is incapable uh even in the

[0:47:15] Voice 9: best of circumstances of trying to to foresee the potential uh situations on every property

[0:47:22] Voice 9: and and so you know we're trying to and even more so where you've got you know changes in

[0:47:27] Voice 9: topography and and uh uh property dimensions and so forth it's it's it is complicated but it's

[0:47:35] Voice 9: really the only instrument we have and and i know in the past when robert and i've spoken about this

[0:47:39] Voice 9: uh certainly we don't even have the ability to have a dp process here uh you know legislation

[0:47:47] Voice 9: let it legislatively we we wouldn't have that process anyhow so we're working with the instruments

[0:47:52] Voice 9: we have and and that's kind of it yeah

[0:47:55] Voice 4: i mean it's it strikes me as overkill for for a community the

[0:47:59] Voice 4: size of south bender completely uh i guess

[0:48:02] Voice 4: you know i guess where where i go is just because i

[0:48:07] Voice 4: I think, you know, part of, part of the resistance in making any kind of changes like this is

[0:48:11] Voice 4: elements of certainty. And so, you know, in codifying things, you're saying, well,

[0:48:18] Voice 4: this is certain you can do that. You can do this. You're leaving an element of discretion

[0:48:23] Voice 4: and uncertainty here that, that, you know, is, is there enough clarity against what that might

[0:48:33] Voice 4: mean so for example i come to you with the property that um you know i've got i've done

[0:48:40] Voice 4: my drilling i can't get any water but what i'm telling you is that i've developed a

[0:48:46] Voice 4: comprehensive rainwater collection practice and that i want to integrate that into the building

[0:48:51] Voice 4: that i'm doing you know it does that mean that now just i'm just using it as an example does

[0:48:58] Voice 4: does that mean that I can then develop that property because otherwise I couldn't prove

[0:49:06] Voice 4: that I would have enough domestic water available to me? So it's just kind of like those sort of

[0:49:13] Voice 4: trade-offs. And if there's a mechanism for considering that kind of ways to address

[0:49:19] Voice 4: things. So the certainty is no, you can't develop it because you can't prove that you have

[0:49:23] Voice 4: have appropriate water flow versus I found a way to address this and I'm prepared to commit to that

[0:49:30] Voice 4: through permit and whatever else. As long as there's that latitude to do it, it strikes me

[0:49:36] Voice 4: that it helps to address that clarification around where the uncertainty might be.

[0:49:44] Voice 9: Yeah. And I hear it. Yeah. I mean, I think the example you cited, I think there's homes that I

[0:49:49] Voice 9: I know, particularly on North Tender where, and I think it might even be more of a CRD issue,

[0:49:54] Voice 9: Robert might correct me, but there's homes that I know where they had water problems.

[0:49:59] Voice 9: And so they ended up being able to solve it by a rainwater collection system that had proper

[0:50:06] Voice 9: filtration. So, I mean, it's like one of those, anything's in life. I know you're right. When you

[0:50:11] Voice 9: codify things, you know, it provides clarity, but that clarity, you've got to strike the balance

[0:50:18] Voice 9: you've got to try and find the right balance for clarity i mean you could say well geez anybody that

[0:50:23] Voice 9: had a problem um you know there's a potential problem that somebody might not be able to site

[0:50:27] Voice 9: their house so let's reduce it to five meter or five foot setback instead of instead of the 10

[0:50:32] Voice 9: certainly i guess for in some people's case they would say oh my god that gives me a lot more

[0:50:37] Voice 9: certainty but it might give a lot more uncertainty or or alarm to the house right beside it that now

[0:50:42] Voice 9: knows there's going

[0:50:42] Voice 9: to be a house now you know it's one of those things you're trying you know

[0:50:46] Voice 9: you're trying to find the right balance and i think that's what we feel we've done here okay

[0:50:50] Voice 4: thank you appreciate the discussion thank

[0:50:53] Trustee Patrick: you very much john is there anyone else that has

[0:50:56] Trustee Patrick: questions here i see adrian hello adrian yeah

[0:51:04] Voice 10: hi hi there thanks for uh taking my question um

[0:51:07] Voice 10: it's just i heard uh cameron mention um different sets of numbers for the house size issue and i

[0:51:14] Voice 10: know in the draft i see many tables so i was wondering if um staff could perhaps bring those

[0:51:19] Voice 10: up on screen and just point to the ones that are what is the actual proposal kind of on the table

[0:51:28] Voice 10: and draft bylaws it's you know I attended the previous meetings and there were several

[0:51:33] Voice 10: there were different numbers talked about and then trustee Wright proposed a new set of numbers so

[0:51:40] Voice 10: I'm a bit confused as to which set of numbers is let's say the current proposal

[0:51:45] Trustee Patrick: planner Stockdale

[0:51:47] Trustee Patrick: are you able to bring that up she's working on it thank you

[0:51:52] Voice 10: and while she does that just a short

[0:51:55] Voice 10: technical question um for example i see 15 50 feet um 15 meters but 50 feet is not exactly

[0:52:02] Voice 10: 15 meters so what takes precedence the the feet or the meters it's the

[0:52:08] Voice 1: meters yeah

[0:52:09] Trustee Patrick: metric okay

[0:52:10] Voice 10: thank you so

[0:52:12] Voice 1: um right now as i mentioned the draft uh or the bylaw 2 1 2 2 is in draft form

[0:52:18] Voice 1: So I'm just going to go to it right now. So as it's drafted right now, there will be, if this bylaw is adopted, there'll be the existing maximum floor area regulations for those buildings and structures that currently exist and then a new more restrictive set of regulations for new dwelling units.

[0:52:41] Voice 1: but the LTC is still considering that approach and there will most likely be amendments to that

[0:52:48] Voice 1: and that's why you see multiple tables which I'll switch to right now in the staff report the LTC

[0:52:55] Voice 1: still considering like as I mentioned that approach and also the lot area groups and also

[0:53:02] Voice 1: the the different maximum floor area amounts so it's still in the still lots of decisions to be

[0:53:10] Voice 1: be made by the ltc yeah

[0:53:12] Voice 10: so maybe then you could just or the trustees could just clarify then the

[0:53:16] Voice 10: path to get to a final proposal or a final table and

[0:53:21] Voice 1: that's what they're doing today so we're having

[0:53:24] Voice 1: this community information meeting to collect comments from community members based on the

[0:53:29] Voice 1: staff report

[0:53:29] Voice 1: and also the draft bylaw the ltc will have further discussions today and then

[0:53:34] Voice 1: and potentially give first reading at today's meeting,

[0:53:38] Voice 1: but most likely at the next LTC meeting in May.

[0:53:42] Voice 10: Okay, well, then my comment would be that I saw that the numbers

[0:53:47] Voice 10: that Trustee Wright introduced at the one acre kind of level did reduce,

[0:53:53] Voice 10: and I wouldn't support.

[0:53:55] Voice 10: I think that the original proposal was much more reasonable.

[0:53:58] Voice 10: I saw that the proposal that he put in place was affecting a lot of properties

[0:54:04] Voice 10: is along uh i'm at 88 10 but along that stretch which are all on or around an acre and um um

[0:54:13] Voice 10: if you're just under then i think his that particular proposal reduced the potential lot

[0:54:19] Voice 10: uh dwelling size quite considerably from the original proposal so i would definitely um i

[0:54:25] Voice 10: think the original proposal was reasonable and would um would favor that one so um that would

[0:54:31] Voice 10: would be my comments to the to the various table sizes that are on the um and and the last comment

[0:54:39] Voice 10: i guess is that you know in terms of the tiers it would seem to me that adopting something very

[0:54:45] Voice 10: close or identical to north pender it would make kind of more logical sense than crossing the

[0:54:52] Voice 10: bridge and changing the whole thing you know between five tiers to three tiers or five tiers

[0:54:56] Voice 10: to 40 years why not just keep it um the same across both islands thank you thank you very

[0:55:05] Trustee Patrick: much adrian anyone else that has questions i see gordy hello gordy uh

[0:55:21] Voice 11: thank you and good morning

[0:55:22] Voice 11: um well i i thought i understood now i'm confused again but um initially i would like to refer to

[0:55:32] Voice 11: the black line draft that's included in the agenda and it's on page 24 because listening

[0:55:40] Voice 11: to some of the previous comments i think there's confusion if we are indeed talking the black line

[0:55:48] Voice 11: version that's been drafted and presented there which in my understanding leaves the existing

[0:55:57] Voice 11: existing properties with the existing dwelling sizes or floor areas. And then we will see

[0:56:06] Voice 11: for new development, the new graph, I'm not sure if we could have a planner stock bill

[0:56:14] Voice 11: show those. So maybe it would be a little bit clearer. There we go. And that bylaws it's

[0:56:24] Voice 11: written there i would have no problem supporting that um if there's changes planned uh particularly

[0:56:32] Voice 11: to item five then not that may not be the case um so really what i'm saying is that uh with respect

[0:56:43] Voice 11: to uh uh citing in size page 24 and the setbacks which i believe are just further down which

[0:56:52] Voice 11: which basically has the same verbiage,

[0:56:57] Voice 11: I would be in support of that as well.

[0:57:00] Voice 11: I think the previous question,

[0:57:03] Voice 11: the other concern as a second point would be 2.5,

[0:57:08] Voice 11: which I think was discussed earlier.

[0:57:12] Voice 11: And I think I understand what's happening there.

[0:57:15] Voice 11: Although my concern also is that fences,

[0:57:20] Voice 11: fences, pump house, stairways, docks and wharfs are removed.

[0:57:25] Voice 11: And I think Cameron actually addressed that,

[0:57:31] Voice 11: that the existing properties would be okay.

[0:57:33] Voice 11: Hope that's what I understood.

[0:57:38] Voice 11: Other than that, I'm assuming that based on staff

[0:57:46] Voice 11: recommendation that whatever changes, if there's any,

[0:57:51] Voice 11: it just proceeds the way it is right now but just for folks out there if there's changes made today

[0:57:58] Voice 11: the very next meeting with uh this draft bylaw or bylaw if it's given first reading today we'll be

[0:58:06] Voice 11: proceeding uh to the public hearing which i'm concerned i guess if it changes significantly

[0:58:14] Voice 11: today that all of a sudden it goes from first reading

[0:58:21] Voice 11: to public hearing second and third, all at the next meeting,

[0:58:25] Voice 11: which is May the sixth.

[0:58:26] Voice 11: So thank you.

[0:58:28] Voice 11: I'll turn it over to you then.

[0:58:30] Trustee Patrick: I thank you, Gordie.

[0:58:31] Trustee Patrick: I just want to make sure.

[0:58:33] Trustee Patrick: So you were asking about, which is in front of us,

[0:58:37] Trustee Patrick: just on the previous page there, Kim was item number five,

[0:58:40] Trustee Patrick: that table refers to the first table is basically

[0:58:45] Trustee Patrick: addressing the the structures that were in existence prior to the adoption of the new

[0:58:50] Trustee Patrick: and then the second table on the next page is the reduced numbers and that's that so

[0:58:56] Trustee Patrick: gordon just which would

[0:58:58] Trustee Patrick: be yeah so that's what you're yes

[0:59:01] Trustee Patrick: you're okay with this structure is

[0:59:02] Trustee Patrick: what i'm

[0:59:03] Voice 11: okay with that you know my first choice wouldn't be the would be the same for new

[0:59:09] Voice 11: construction too but if there's concern moving forward that large homes are going to be built

[0:59:15] Voice 11: i guess but i definitely not in favor of creating a large number of non-conforming houses now i don't

[0:59:26] Voice 11: know i'm not aware of i know non-conforming is an issue but i don't know why we would knowingly

[0:59:34] Voice 11: create a large number of homes that were built properly before so i'm happy with leaving it

[0:59:42] Voice 11: the existing homes which doesn't need a an exception sheet or something for all those homes

[0:59:48] Voice 11: that may have been uh may become legal non-conforming if a chart such as two was applied

[0:59:57] Voice 11: played across the hall.

[1:00:00] Voice 11: all properties, including the existing ones.

[1:00:03] Trustee Patrick: Thank you. All right. I'm just looking to see

[1:00:09] Trustee Patrick: if there's any new hands. I do see hands still up for Adrian. Things are jumping around there.

[1:00:21] Trustee Patrick: John's hand is still up. John Kaharchuk. John, did you want to add something else or did you just?

[1:00:28] Voice 4: I did. I did. No, I

[1:00:29] Voice 4: didn't want to make a comment. And it's really kind of picking up on what Adrian

[1:00:32] Voice 4: and said with regard to aligning north and south pender i i guess i i would have a very different

[1:00:41] Voice 4: opinion about them i don't necessarily see them having the same character i think that that

[1:00:46] Voice 4: south pender is um it definitely tends more towards rural where north pender has more of diversity so

[1:00:55] Voice 4: i don't know that necessarily baked in one is appropriate to the other i think that finding

[1:01:00] Voice 4: a unique solution that works for self-pandering is more appropriate that's my opinion thank

[1:01:04] Trustee Patrick: you

[1:01:05] Trustee Patrick: for sharing that okay is there anyone else that has any questions or comments at this time let's

[1:01:15] Trustee Patrick: see jane purchase hand up again oh jane your hand came up and then went down again so uh

[1:01:22] Trustee Patrick: please okay let's uh can you just let jane um uh speak uh robin because uh her hand is

[1:01:29] Trustee Patrick: bouncing around there. Jane, did you?

[1:01:32] Voice 7: Yep. Yeah, just following up on the house sizes and Cameron's comments earlier, and I did write

[1:01:38] Voice 7: an email about this, but I know Cameron mentioned that in arriving at some of the figures he did

[1:01:44] Voice 7: look at for the dwellings that are currently constructed on the island, I think based on

[1:01:51] Voice 7: BC Assessment Authority information, and suggested that the majority of them, 85% up to, were in

[1:01:58] Voice 7: in conformity. The concern I have about that is that the data that BC Assessment Authority uses

[1:02:08] Voice 7: for their information is not, doesn't relate really to floor area definition in our land use

[1:02:17] Voice 7: bylaws. So what I'm saying is that they will take the floor area, they will not take the floor area

[1:02:24] Voice 7: of unfinished areas. So if you have an unfinished basement, that is not included in the figures that

[1:02:32] Voice 7: will appear in BC assessment. But however, we must include that in our land use bylaw

[1:02:38] Voice 7: calculations of floor area because it says anything over 1.5 meters, regardless of whether

[1:02:45] Voice 7: or not it's finished, must be calculated. And that's the second part, like anything over 1.6

[1:02:51] Voice 7: six meters, I mean, you have to include that as habitable, I guess, area is what I guess what

[1:02:56] Voice 7: you're trying to get at in the bylaw, but yet, it's not a habitable area. And the second point

[1:03:02] Voice 7: is that garages and carports, if they, those are not included in BC assessment data, those are

[1:03:10] Voice 7: noted, there's no figures given. But I know there, there are a number of properties on South Pender

[1:03:16] Voice 7: that have attached carports and garages which means those are included as part of their floor

[1:03:21] Voice 7: area so you might have let's just take an example a 1400 square foot house and under that you have

[1:03:28] Voice 7: a basement part of which maybe is might be under 1.5 meters some not and so that part you don't

[1:03:36] Voice 7: count but the anything is above 1.5 meters you count but most of us have basements because we're

[1:03:42] Voice 7: most of us are on slopes so there's going to be some uninhabitable area but we still have to count

[1:03:48] Voice 7: that if it's within one point over 1.5 meters and then if you choose to attach your carport or garage

[1:03:55] Voice 7: you must also count that as part of your dwelling which it seems to me that there has to be something

[1:04:02] Voice 7: and I have seen this in other bylaws where you don't count garages and other uninhabitable areas

[1:04:09] Voice 7: as part of your floor area.

[1:04:11] Voice 7: So I just put that out there for consideration

[1:04:13] Voice 7: because it makes a big difference

[1:04:15] Voice 7: is to the figures that we're looking at.

[1:04:17] Voice 7: So I'm saying like a 1,400 square foot house,

[1:04:21] Voice 7: you have a 1,400 square foot foundation under it

[1:04:25] Voice 7: and then you maybe have a 400 square foot garage

[1:04:29] Voice 7: or carport attached, you've gone over your limit.

[1:04:31] Voice 7: And then you basically,

[1:04:32] Voice 7: all you have is a 1,400 square foot house

[1:04:35] Voice 7: where your living area is.

[1:04:36] Voice 7: So I think we need to look at that.

[1:04:38] Voice 7: just in terms of numbers um

[1:04:43] Voice 9: hi jane it's cameron here um

[1:04:48] Voice 9: so on the you know and when i when i put together the the table that i shared with many people

[1:04:55] Voice 9: including gordy uh you're right the only thing that we had to work on uh well we had um crd area

[1:05:04] Voice 9: area Atlas maps in terms of area sizes, and we had BC assessment data. For what it is worth,

[1:05:12] Voice 9: and I'm not debating with you about some of the points that you raised up about how BC

[1:05:16] Voice 9: assessment sort of collates or records their data, but there was certainly, I know from looking at

[1:05:24] Voice 9: the properties on South Bender, there was situations where BC assessment was capturing

[1:05:31] Voice 9: capturing uh you know a basement area um maybe not not in all cases i think that i think the

[1:05:38] Voice 9: the thing to bear in mind here and certainly the proposal that i have

[1:05:42] Voice 9: have uh made i hopefully as clear as possible is we're we're taking every uh strident steps to try

[1:05:55] Voice 9: and avoid people being in a situation of legal non-conforming. So my proposal at the end of the

[1:06:02] Voice 9: day here is that I think there is merits to a schedule to the by-law and I certainly can go

[1:06:08] Voice 9: into it a little later, but the idea about a schedule to the by-law as opposed to a table

[1:06:16] Voice 9: of existing house sizes and a table of new ones that might be coming forward in the future is

[1:06:24] Voice 9: is that a table, a schedule to the table

[1:06:28] Voice 9: can more precisely capture the details of homes

[1:06:32] Voice 9: that would otherwise be determined as legal nonconforming,

[1:06:35] Voice 9: whether that was by setback or by house size.

[1:06:39] Voice 9: And it would seem to me the most logical thing to do

[1:06:42] Voice 9: is if you felt like BC assessment data

[1:06:44] Voice 9: wasn't accurately recognizing areas

[1:06:48] Voice 9: that comprise the square footage of your house,

[1:06:51] Voice 9: including a garage, that the idea would be that you would provide the documents used when you

[1:06:58] Voice 9: obtained your building permits. And that would be the size that would really truly be applicable to

[1:07:06] Voice 9: your property. And that would be the square footage that would be recorded in the schedule

[1:07:11] Voice 9: to the by-law. So there was no doubt as to what the size of the house was so that, God forbid,

[1:07:15] Voice 9: if it ever was destroyed by something, it could be rebuilt to that same size. So I think it's

[1:07:20] Voice 9: it's probably more precise and airtight than simply having two tables yeah

[1:07:30] Voice 7: i'm still confused

[1:07:30] Voice 7: by that but um yeah it's only just something to think about because i think the way you've got it

[1:07:36] Voice 7: set up now knowing how bc assessment data works it it it doesn't correspond to what our land use

[1:07:43] Voice 7: bylaw says because there's a big discrepancy the way you calculate so um and you know and i do know

[1:07:48] Voice 7: that if they do and i you're right bc assessment does record basements if they're finished

[1:07:55] Voice 7: but if they're unfinished, they're not.

[1:07:56] Voice 7: So that's, you know, that's part of that issue as well, so.

[1:07:59] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[1:08:01] Trustee Patrick: I was going to say, Jane, I'm going to look at the staff

[1:08:02] Trustee Patrick: because that is, we had that same question on North Pender

[1:08:04] Trustee Patrick: and maybe Planner Stockdale, could you differentiate?

[1:08:08] Trustee Patrick: Because I know there is different ways of counting,

[1:08:09] Trustee Patrick: whether it's a building permit versus the,

[1:08:11] Trustee Patrick: for the purpose of this, of this bylaw.

[1:08:17] Voice 1: Sorry, in terms of floor area, definition of floor area.

[1:08:20] Voice 1: Yeah, so how BC assessment calculates floor area

[1:08:26] Voice 1: can certainly be different than what a local government in our in this case a local trust

[1:08:35] Voice 1: committee land use bylaw may regulate currently the land use bylaw for south pender i'm just gonna

[1:08:44] Voice 1: i can't remember if it's part actually of bylaw 122 if it's measured to the inner or outer

[1:08:51] Voice 1: sides of the exterior wall, but it would include garages and any spaces or a story that's

[1:08:59] Voice 1: considered greater than 1.5 meter in height. It doesn't matter if it's undeveloped or developed,

[1:09:09] Voice 1: that space would still be a part of the floor area calculation. A carport, though, most likely

[1:09:15] Voice 1: would not be a part of the calculation. It has to be something that's actually enclosed with

[1:09:20] Voice 1: four walls um

[1:09:24] Voice 7: kim if i just can say i don't think that's what it says about when you when you talk

[1:09:29] Voice 7: about the uh what the floor area is because if you look at what a structure is it doesn't i think we

[1:09:35] Voice 7: have to go back to that definition have a bit better look at it because the way i read it as

[1:09:39] Voice 7: long it has a roof inside it can size it is actually considered a a structure and part of

[1:09:45] Voice 7: the dwelling so it's just something for you to just have a glance at when you do your discussion

[1:09:50] Voice 7: session, but thank you.

[1:09:52] Trustee Patrick: Thank you, Jane. I see John's hand up again. John, whoops. Yep. Can you

[1:10:04] Trustee Patrick: make John Kacharchuk's?

[1:10:08] Voice 4: Thank you. I'll make sure I leave it up until I'm actually unmuting.

[1:10:15] Voice 4: You know, a 24 by 24 garage, 24 feet by 24 feet would be a large two-car garage. That's

[1:10:25] Voice 4: almost 600 square feet and i would say that if you had an attached 600 square foot garage on your

[1:10:32] Voice 4: house that it should be included in any in any consideration of the house size

[1:10:39] Voice 4: because it's the same mass you know you're obviously dealing with a different a different

[1:10:44] Voice 4: sort of construct than if you have an accessory building of a garage that's sited somewhere else

[1:10:50] Voice 4: on the property, which is subject to other constraints. So I guess, yeah, if you're

[1:11:02] Voice 4: talking about maximum house size and you want to do an attached garage, that should be included in

[1:11:08] Voice 4: the floor space. If you don't want it, do it as an accessory building so it's separate, because

[1:11:16] Voice 4: Because then you'd have a much larger maximum score footage that you could do it within.

[1:11:20] Voice 4: But it strikes me that it's important that it is actually included, if it's attached.

[1:11:25] Voice 9: And, you know, John, I agree with you.

[1:11:29] Voice 9: You know, I think part of what we're trying to do here is trying to find a way of reconciling

[1:11:34] Voice 9: and making sure that nobody is penalized for what's being built so far,

[1:11:39] Voice 9: while still ensuring that the things that have been built so far don't forever shackle us

[1:11:44] Voice 9: us to a certain way of of looking at land use planning in the future so you know it's it's um

[1:11:49] Voice 9: it's in the case of jane's comments it's trying to uh respect and and make whole you know somebody's

[1:11:57] Voice 9: got a house that the garage is is more or less integrated into that uh i guess in terms of

[1:12:05] Voice 9: recognizing that it needs to be recognized as a as the sum of one number rather than you know a

[1:12:11] Voice 9: house and and and a garage is a separate structure but whatever that number is make sure that that

[1:12:17] Voice 9: number is recognized in the schedule for the bylaw so that if if if again if if it was destroyed it

[1:12:23] Voice 9: could be rebuilt like that right

[1:12:24] Voice 4: fair enough thank

[1:12:28] Trustee Patrick: you i see an ann w has uh hand up hello ann

[1:12:36] Trustee Patrick: take yourself off mute

[1:12:37] Voice 6: hello hi can you hear me yes great um i was at a meeting when i think it

[1:12:46] Voice 6: was in the summertime and we went over a lot of these numbers i know that a lot of them have

[1:12:50] Voice 6: changed but i guess my point uh still is that i think quite a lot of work was done to put the

[1:12:58] Voice 6: existing numbers in place and i still don't quite understand the rationale for making any changes at

[1:13:05] Voice 6: all so i just want that to be logged because this seems to be a place that we need to make those

[1:13:11] Voice 6: kind of comments um but i also uh somebody had raised something that i do think is important

[1:13:17] Voice 6: could we clarify how many homes buildings there are currently on south pender i think we're talking

[1:13:24] Voice 6: less than 400 is that correct correct

[1:13:27] Voice 9: but two but 200 right

[1:13:31] Voice 6: so we're not talking about a lot

[1:13:33] Voice 6: lot of buildings and to put in place a significantly tiered structure with a lot of detail

[1:13:42] Voice 6: it does seem a lot of overkill to me and I also would like to to say that somebody had mentioned

[1:13:50] Voice 6: we really should look to see that with the existing buildings how many of these become

[1:13:56] Voice 6: non-conforming or legally conforming or whatever but outside what you're proposing because to put

[1:14:03] Voice 6: in place something that is going to make a significant number of the existing homes

[1:14:08] Voice 6: suddenly no longer conforming in whatever legally or non-conforming legally non-conforming

[1:14:14] Voice 6: seems inappropriate and and not the way forward well

[1:14:19] Trustee Patrick: thank you ann and i i don't know if uh uh

[1:14:21] Trustee Patrick: either uh trustee thorne or trustee i'm going to keep calling you trustee today sorry uh

[1:14:26] Trustee Patrick: Planner Stockville, Kim, could answer about the legal non-conforming resolution that's presented

[1:14:34] Trustee Patrick: here.

[1:14:36] Voice 9: Sure. So there's around 200 homes that are currently built on self-tender. There is

[1:14:48] Voice 9: development potential. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but certainly there is

[1:14:54] Voice 9: is potential for uh for new properties to be developed in the future and there's also potential

[1:15:01] Voice 9: uh for existing properties to be redeveloped particularly uh older older structures and and

[1:15:09] Voice 9: i think one of the things that led to to me taking a serious look at this is that when

[1:15:14] Voice 9: when when when i raised this topic people said why are you bringing this thing up why are you

[1:15:21] Voice 9: bringing up the issue of house size we like things the way they are and i said well great if you like

[1:15:26] Voice 9: things the way they are that's why we're bringing this up because because right now the house sizes

[1:15:32] Voice 9: in the land use bylaw uh are there's there's not much of a correlation between the maximum house

[1:15:39] Voice 9: sizes and the built form uh that's that's that exists on the island today and so we wanted to

[1:15:47] Voice 9: look at that in conjunction with the values that we hold dear, as I mentioned earlier in this call

[1:15:53] Voice 9: about rural character setback between neighbours, visually pleasing aesthetics, a number of things

[1:16:00] Voice 9: if you read the OCP. That's why we took a look at the numbers. I think there was a good effort back

[1:16:07] Voice 9: in 2016 or 2017 when the numbers that are currently in place were looked at, and I was part

[1:16:17] Voice 9: of it full disclosure i was i was not a trustee i was a member of the community and i was like

[1:16:23] Voice 9: everybody else throwing numbers out there but we didn't have any hard data at that time on what

[1:16:28] Voice 9: actual was the existing stock of of houses on the island so the the numbers that that have been put

[1:16:34] Voice 9: forward have been ones as i said that have tried to uh capture 85 to 95 percent of every house that

[1:16:43] Voice 9: is built on here and built on the island and also to um to provide uh certainty for those that are

[1:16:54] Voice 9: concerned about what would what the implications of legal non-conforming are to provide a mechanism

[1:16:59] Voice 9: for anybody that is legal non-conforming to be recognized for that for that house based on either

[1:17:06] Voice 9: its size or its setbacks to be recognized within the land use bylaw so that it's not legal

[1:17:11] Voice 9: non-conforming and to me you know i know we had a number of community meetings on that i think when

[1:17:15] Voice 9: people realized that that that was the the goal was not to create legal non-conforming people

[1:17:20] Voice 9: had a greater sense of comfort and understood the the rationale or the objective of trying to look

[1:17:26] Voice 9: at house sizes uh based on uh you know based on the values that we hold here i'll tell you

[1:17:33] Voice 9: something this is not like um something from outer space i mean this is something that communities uh

[1:17:41] Voice 9: throughout various jurisdictions are looking at is looking at what is an appropriate house size.

[1:17:49] Voice 9: And so, you know, we've seen not so much perhaps on South Pend or this point in time,

[1:17:57] Voice 9: but certainly if you look at what's trending in other areas, we've seen a proliferation of very,

[1:18:01] Voice 9: very large homes in rural communities that have become quite concerning to people who live there

[1:18:09] Voice 9: into the changes in character.

[1:18:10] Voice 9: And I think we're trying to be ahead of the curve.

[1:18:12] Voice 9: We want people to be able to build homes

[1:18:14] Voice 9: that are comfortable and spacious

[1:18:15] Voice 9: for what their needs are,

[1:18:17] Voice 9: but also making sure that if they,

[1:18:19] Voice 9: that if they're wanting to build something large,

[1:18:21] Voice 9: particularly if they want to build something really large,

[1:18:24] Voice 9: that there's a mechanism for which they could seek a variance

[1:18:26] Voice 9: to build something large that would make sure

[1:18:28] Voice 9: that when taken into, when building that house,

[1:18:31] Voice 9: the consideration was given to how it was sited

[1:18:34] Voice 9: and how it was masked to have,

[1:18:36] Voice 9: so it wasn't, you know,

[1:18:37] Voice 9: didn't have an odious effect on the neighborhood so that's that's in a nutshell the thinking that's

[1:18:42] Voice 9: gone into this i

[1:18:44] Trustee Patrick: think i was going to say wait a minute you didn't get the legal non-conforming

[1:18:47] Trustee Patrick: thing and i think and it's important to look at if you look at the agenda package starting on page

[1:18:51] Trustee Patrick: 24 which is the black line version it shows that the current house number sizes that are in the

[1:18:58] Trustee Patrick: the land use bylaw today it's not grandfathered but it's it's a date it's basically houses built

[1:19:04] Trustee Patrick: before the date that a new land use bylaw would be enacted are still completely legal. So it's

[1:19:11] Trustee Patrick: not legal non-conforming, it's they're legal. And then it addresses a new table. So it's a date of

[1:19:17] Trustee Patrick: build that would affect the newer properties. And maybe I didn't describe that as well as I could

[1:19:24] Trustee Patrick: have, but I got a thumbs up there. So take a look at page 24 and 25 of the agenda package and you'll

[1:19:31] Trustee Patrick: see that we addressed that okay

[1:19:34] Voice 6: and that's that's fine i'm i'm not particularly concerned about that

[1:19:38] Voice 6: i believe that you do have um however we're going to address this uh covered it was just that if it

[1:19:44] Voice 6: really does start to mean that the majority of current buildings fall into this it does seem a

[1:19:49] Voice 6: little odd um but i do want to just make a point and cameron i i know that you've got a lot of

[1:19:55] Voice 6: experience in this and you brought this up at the meetings that i was attending that um i believe

[1:20:00] Voice 6: what you had said was that the setbacks were the best way that other people had indicated you can

[1:20:06] Voice 6: deal with issues and I completely support that you know from the side and from the street nobody

[1:20:11] Voice 6: wants to have a house built right next to them that overlooks their yard or whatever I doubt

[1:20:17] Voice 6: that would be most people's intent anyway but regardless having a rule around that's fine

[1:20:22] Voice 6: the question that I brought up around the numbers was how you had done the math because I think you

[1:20:29] Voice 6: you had used existing structures, but it was raised that a lot of the structures that are

[1:20:33] Voice 6: older structures that are built on South Pender, some of them are little cottages that are under

[1:20:38] Voice 6: 500 square feet. So using those as saying, yes, we want to keep things the way they are,

[1:20:43] Voice 6: does seem a little unrealistic. So I'm

[1:20:46] Voice 9: just going to move forward again.

[1:20:49] Voice 9: Yeah, no, fair enough. And I was saying that sort of writ large is a general statement. And I don't

[1:20:56] Voice 9: think that we want to preclude people that have a 400 square foot house from being able to build

[1:21:00] Voice 9: something larger by no means. So, you know, the numbers that we have put forward here, and I think

[1:21:07] Voice 9: I do recall this conversation when we were meeting at the fire hall, you know, the issues of looking

[1:21:14] Voice 9: at something based on an average or a median can sometimes tell a story that is, you know,

[1:21:20] Voice 9: know you can numbers will do different things and so that the numbers that i was the numbers that

[1:21:25] Voice 9: that that i proposed and that you know there's a number of tables here that we're looking at

[1:21:29] Voice 9: they're not correlated to the average to the median otherwise those numbers would be a lot

[1:21:33] Voice 9: smaller so um uh you know we tried to look at things as i said earlier where the numbers that

[1:21:38] Voice 9: that that i that i've got in my mind are are capturing not just the median but capturing 85

[1:21:44] Voice 9: to 90 percent of all the homes that are built in each of those lots lots of categories i i you know

[1:21:49] Voice 9: So I think to my earlier point, we want people to have the ability to not be constrained in building a home that's going to be of ample size and to be able to do that as an outright approval so that they don't need a variance.

[1:22:05] Voice 9: But we're trying to, again, strike that balance.

[1:22:07] Voice 9: If somebody wants to build something larger, the potential of which could have impacts on the neighborhood, fine, bring it forward.

[1:22:13] Voice 9: There's a variance opportunity to do it, but let's make sure that we apply some design criteria to doing that.

[1:22:18] Voice 9: so that was my that was my point absolutely

[1:22:21] Voice 6: and i agree with your point that the last thing we want

[1:22:25] Voice 6: or i think is even practical in any way is to increase the number of variances that are coming

[1:22:31] Voice 6: forward i can't imagine how you would deal with that because my understanding is it's it's already

[1:22:36] Voice 6: very difficult for staff to keep up with what's on their plate so adding to that seems not to be a

[1:22:42] Voice 6: particularly prudent thing to do.

[1:22:45] Trustee Patrick: Thank you very much, Anne. I see Jane Birch's hand. Jane,

[1:22:53] Trustee Patrick: your hand went down, but that usually means it's still up. So if you could let Robin,

[1:22:58] Trustee Patrick: if you could let Jane speak.

[1:23:01] Voice 7: Sorry, I've been trying to put that hand down, but it just keeps

[1:23:04] Voice 7: popping up. You're okay at

[1:23:07] Trustee Patrick: the moment? All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that has

[1:23:11] Trustee Patrick: questions or comments i see john john's hand is back up how about

[1:23:20] Trustee Patrick: if you just

[1:23:20] Voice 4: refer to me

[1:23:21] Voice 4: how about if you just refer to me as john k in the future

[1:23:23] Trustee Patrick: i'm dyslexic so that's one of the reasons

[1:23:27] Trustee Patrick: i have

[1:23:28] Voice 4: had a lifetime of this let me tell you

[1:23:31] Trustee Patrick: absolutely

[1:23:32] Voice 4: um i have a comment and the comment

[1:23:35] Voice 4: is i want to give everybody that's participated in this process their just dues it's uh it's a

[1:23:42] Voice 4: very difficult thing to navigate it's a complex uh complex uh construct and you know i applaud

[1:23:50] Voice 4: all of you for soldiering on and trying to get to the point where where the concerns are addressed

[1:23:56] Voice 4: and we have something that's sufficiently clear to be able to roll forward and kind of understand

[1:24:01] Voice 4: where we get to and uh not an easy task so you know kudos to everybody well

[1:24:08] Trustee Patrick: thank you very much

[1:24:09] Trustee Patrick: John and then a huge thanks to staff I think Planner Stockdale has worked very hard to

[1:24:15] Trustee Patrick: listen and try to draft things and as always it and you know we're dealing with language that's

[1:24:21] Trustee Patrick: planner language and it's it's it's you know it's always challenging and thank you for your

[1:24:26] Trustee Patrick: questions because it's not that that's a criticism Planner Stockdale it's just you must speak in

[1:24:32] Trustee Patrick: language. Okay. Is there any other questions or comments at this time? I'm not seeing any. We're

[1:24:43] Trustee Patrick: going to return to this topic in just a couple of moments where we will have some additional

[1:24:50] Trustee Patrick: conversations on it. So thank you everyone for your feedback. This is not the end. There will

[1:24:54] Trustee Patrick: be more opportunities coming and we'll be discussing that in a few minutes about what

[1:25:00] Trustee Patrick: that looks like so thank you very much okay returning back to the agenda uh we had a set

[1:25:07] Trustee Patrick: of minutes here from february 4th that we're here for adoption were there any additions or

[1:25:12] Trustee Patrick: corrections that need to be made to the minutes not seeing any can we approve them through general

[1:25:19] Trustee Patrick: consent thank you okay um we have a follow-up action list here on page 11 were there any

[1:25:27] Trustee Patrick: any questions for staff or anything that staff wish to bring attention to not seeing any then

[1:25:40] Trustee Patrick: that brings us right back to the land use bylaw where we were just at which is uh the staff report

[1:25:45] Trustee Patrick: that's on page 13 of the agenda package and i will turn the floor over to planner stockville

[1:25:51] Trustee Patrick: thank

[1:25:52] Voice 1: you chair patrick um so this staff report is to bring back the draft bylaw for the land use

[1:26:00] Voice 1: bylaw for the ltc's consideration and there are is also still an opportunity to make amendments

[1:26:08] Voice 1: there are three topic areas that staff have provided comment those are maximum floor area

[1:26:15] Voice 1: which includes legal non-conforming shipping containers and groundwater protection regulation

[1:26:23] Voice 1: i'm just going to quickly mention that the shipping containers at the last meeting on

[1:26:27] Voice 1: february 4th the ltc gave direction to staff to add in regulations for shipping containers so

[1:26:34] Voice 1: those have been added so properties that are under two acres are permitted one shipping container

[1:26:40] Voice 1: properties greater than two up to or less than three acres are permitted two and then

[1:26:48] Voice 1: larger properties are permitted a maximum of three shipping containers but those shipping containers

[1:26:54] Voice 1: must also be screened in compliance with the landscaping screening regulations in the LUB.

[1:27:03] Voice 1: So what I'll do is I'll just briefly go over the maximum floor area and the legal non-conforming,

[1:27:09] Voice 1: and we perhaps could have a discussion. And then I do want to just quickly discuss the groundwater

[1:27:14] Voice 1: protection regulation that's currently in the land use bylaw, just requesting a point of clarity

[1:27:21] Voice 1: from the LTC. So in terms of maximum floor area, the draft bylaw 122 currently, as we discussed,

[1:27:33] Voice 1: includes two separate regulations. The first set of regulations are for those dwelling units

[1:27:39] Voice 1: that were constructed prior to the adoption of this bylaw. And then there's a second set

[1:27:45] Voice 1: set of regulations that are more restrictive, and those would be applicable to new builds.

[1:27:53] Voice 1: So the point of having two categories, as the LTC has expressed, is to eliminate any

[1:28:01] Voice 1: situation of legal non-conforming.

[1:28:03] Voice 1: So that's one option.

[1:28:05] Voice 1: There's also an option the LTC may want to consider, which I didn't necessarily discuss

[1:28:12] Voice 1: in the staff report is to have just one set of regulations maximum floor maximum floor area

[1:28:22] Voice 1: regulations for new builds and also existing dwelling units and then have a clause which

[1:28:30] Voice 1: I've added in the staff report and that clause would essentially allow existing dwelling units

[1:28:37] Voice 1: to retain their floor area at the time of of adoption of the bylaw and the main difference

[1:28:46] Voice 1: between the two approaches is that if you the first approach when you have two sets of regulations

[1:28:53] Voice 1: if there is a a build or a dwelling unit that is 2,000 square feet but the bylaw states that

[1:29:04] Voice 1: the maximum floor area is 2500 that existing dwelling unit the property owner could actually

[1:29:11] Voice 1: put on an addition of an additional 500 square feet whereas the second option of only having

[1:29:20] Voice 1: one set of regulation um if the house is 2000 square feet and it's um the regulation for that

[1:29:32] Voice 1: certain lot size is more restrictive they can still retain that their floor area current floor

[1:29:41] Voice 1: area but they couldn't expand it and I can get into that in more detail I can kind of show the

[1:29:47] Voice 1: the two different options so as the bylaw is currently drafted there's two sets of regulations

[1:29:54] Voice 1: as I mentioned the LTC could consider just having one set of regulations

[1:30:00] Voice 1: and then adding on a clause that would allow existing dwelling units to retain their maximum

[1:30:07] Voice 1: floor area. And I'm happy to actually bring up the draft bylaw and go over those different options

[1:30:16] Voice 1: to help kind of clarify what I meant because it is a very confusing topic. So I'm happy to answer

[1:30:21] Voice 1: or any questions from yourself, Chair Patrick, and Trustee Thorne.

[1:30:29] Voice 9: Thanks, Kim.

[1:30:32] Voice 9: Good summary of the two options.

[1:30:35] Voice 9: And I don't know, Chair Patrick, at what time in this discussion,

[1:30:39] Voice 9: because obviously we're going to be speaking on things

[1:30:43] Voice 9: and advancing this forward in some degree.

[1:30:46] Voice 9: I know Trustee Wright is not in attendance today.

[1:30:50] Voice 9: I guess we all know that by now.

[1:30:51] Voice 9: but um but i think he had some comments that he wanted to be to be expressed his views on on this

[1:31:01] Voice 9: um and i don't know if that would be the time uh but i did i do believe he might have sent

[1:31:06] Voice 9: something to to you kim or someone else that captured his views on some of this stuff

[1:31:11] Voice 1: yes

[1:31:12] Voice 1: so um he did send an email and there were a number of items that um he thought the draft

[1:31:20] Voice 1: draft bylaw could be amended. So if the LTC agrees to do that, staff would really appreciate

[1:31:27] Voice 1: specific or a recommendation via a motion to make those amendments. Or I could also

[1:31:36] Voice 1: report back at the, I guess it would be the May 6 meeting, further outlining options to the LTC

[1:31:45] Voice 1: see for consideration oh i'm

[1:31:48] Voice 9: sorry okay i get sorry i all i meant is that he expressed his

[1:31:52] Voice 9: views that i think he might i mean i'm not saying i'm necessarily in agreement with his views

[1:31:56] Voice 9: i'm just saying that he had points that he might have wanted articulated in this meeting as as part

[1:32:02] Voice 9: of the part of the discussion i think if i'm right on that

[1:32:05] Trustee Patrick: yes is

[1:32:06] Voice 9: that your understanding chair

[1:32:07] Voice 9: patrick

[1:32:07] Trustee Patrick: yes but it's also an awkward situation here that he's not here okay all right um so

[1:32:13] Trustee Patrick: I don't know how you feel about that. If we carry on making decisions, would we give first reading

[1:32:23] Trustee Patrick: to this today if he's not here? Then perhaps he disagrees. We come back and argue that there'd

[1:32:29] Trustee Patrick: be additional changes. I'm concerned about making sure that, yes, we can make changes after we give

[1:32:36] Trustee Patrick: first reading, but we should feel good about that draft that we're putting forward as being

[1:32:41] Trustee Patrick: representative of of you know what where we think we are landing and i'd be uncomfortable if uh if

[1:32:49] Trustee Patrick: trustee right is going to you know continue to to say no he'd like some changes and and may

[1:32:55] Trustee Patrick: affect some changes so yeah

[1:32:58] Voice 9: i know fair enough all i meant is and i certainly have and i said

[1:33:01] Voice 9: this earlier that you know there's a plurality of views on things in the community and i suspect

[1:33:07] Voice 9: there's a plurality of views amongst trustees on on this topic as well and and you know people's

[1:33:13] Voice 9: views are are rooted in what they're rooted in um all i meant was did he so people understood

[1:33:21] Voice 9: people that were listening today understood that his views on that whether that should be

[1:33:25] Voice 9: should be articulated or spoken to i'm not saying i'm agreeing with it or or disagreeing with it

[1:33:31] Voice 9: i'm just saying it was his views i i certainly feel fairly confident what i want to speak to

[1:33:36] Voice 9: you today and i wouldn't want to hold up first reading uh because i've listened to lots of people

[1:33:40] Voice 9: for the last uh a long time months i'm trying to keep track of when it when it kind of started in

[1:33:47] Voice 9: earnest but it goes back to well into last year so i certainly feel like uh given the given my

[1:33:53] Voice 9: headspace i'm ready to to make some you know to move forward at first but wanted to at least see

[1:33:58] Voice 9: if there was a desire for his comments to be spoken to the record so they knew people knew

[1:34:03] Voice 9: where he stood on things yeah

[1:34:05] Voice 1: i'm happy to kind of highlight some comments that he mentioned um

[1:34:10] Voice 1: although i would hate to um paraphrase something um incorrectly you know so um steve wright did

[1:34:20] Voice 1: send uh staff an email uh making some comments that he uh would like to see regarding to the

[1:34:28] Voice 1: definition of height potentially removing pump and utility houses from the setback from the sea

[1:34:36] Voice 1: um also some comments regarding the the maximum floor area and and the table structure and that

[1:34:44] Voice 1: maximum floor area for dwelling units actually applies to all zones not just the rural residential

[1:34:49] Voice 1: zones um i believe that's let's see and also i believe that he wanted um i think that was the

[1:35:04] Voice 1: majority of them but at the same time we can have that discussion but i yeah it's hard without him

[1:35:13] Voice 1: here to yeah

[1:35:15] Voice 9: fair fair enough yeah no fair enough i just um yeah i i agree with you and i think

[1:35:21] Voice 9: I think his views, I think people know them from his last attendance at this meeting.

[1:35:28] Voice 9: His views on house size are different than mine.

[1:35:29] Voice 9: He was looking for smaller house sizes, and I think he was looking for a maximum of 3,500 square feet in all zones,

[1:35:36] Voice 9: regardless of whether it was agricultural or non-agricultural, and that number would apply to properties at the highest end of the class.

[1:35:50] Voice 9: last so 10 acre plus as well so i guess i guess maybe that summarizes points um can i speak to

[1:35:57] Voice 9: to your points earlier about the pros and cons or the options around the two different tables

[1:36:02] Voice 9: um the thing you know that it's interesting because the you raise some really interesting

[1:36:11] Voice 9: points and i certainly know my there's some concerns i have with the two tables and um

[1:36:20] Voice 9: And you've summarized some of them fairly well. And I mean, one thing that I think we want to avoid, and it happens in places where, for whatever reason, it happens in other places where somebody buys an older home.

[1:36:36] Voice 9: and they they uh when a clause such as this exists in the land use bylaw they may retain a very small

[1:36:46] Voice 9: nominal portion of the structure so that they are so that they uh are not starting a new construction

[1:36:52] Voice 9: but actually effectively it is a new construction but they're protected by the grandfather provisions

[1:36:58] Voice 9: of of the structures that they're largely removing and then building a new structure much larger than

[1:37:03] Voice 9: what currently existed so one of the problems with the with the with the two table approach

[1:37:08] Voice 9: as you as you pointed out if if somebody had a currently had a structure that was

[1:37:14] Voice 9: smaller than what was permitted and they were protected by the old zone somebody might new

[1:37:19] Voice 9: come along and build a much larger larger property larger home in that property the

[1:37:25] Voice 9: other thing too um you know again for those that are speaking about legal non-conforming

[1:37:30] Voice 9: conforming, and I've heard those comments loud and clear, even the existing table and the house

[1:37:39] Voice 9: maximum size of 6,030 square feet, which again applies only to the largest of the property

[1:37:49] Voice 9: categories, there are homes right now that are legal non-conforming right now under the existing

[1:37:58] Voice 9: land use bylaw and and and and you know there's a one home and and it's it's we've talked about

[1:38:04] Voice 9: it before uh that is uh one to two acres and it's 6300 square feet so clearly if if we just

[1:38:12] Voice 9: kept the two tables that that that house would continue to uh um be exposed if that's the word

[1:38:19] Voice 9: in terms of not having not being recognized within the land use bylaw so i i i actually

[1:38:25] Voice 9: think there's there is merit to having a single table um and to providing language in the in the

[1:38:35] Voice 9: land use bylaw that recognizes homes constructed prior to the adoption of of the of the new bylaw

[1:38:43] Voice 9: and again as i said earlier would provide an opportunity for people to um to make sure that

[1:38:50] Voice 9: that however those houses were legal non-conforming whether it was by setback or house size

[1:38:55] Voice 9: that they would have an opportunity for that to be to be uh reflected in a table that's that's

[1:39:01] Voice 9: you know a schedule to the land use bylaw and you know my thinking we might have we might have

[1:39:06] Voice 9: chatted on this last time is that that you it's hard for it's hard for you as a trust as a planner

[1:39:12] Voice 9: me as a trustee to know which home might be affected by a change to a setback or a house size

[1:39:19] Voice 9: but certainly the owners of those homes would know and so we would obviously send out whatever

[1:39:24] Voice 9: whatever communication we could to make people aware of, of, you know,

[1:39:28] Voice 9: should the bylaw pass, we'd say, this is the new bylaw.

[1:39:30] Voice 9: You have something like 18 months to provide evidence of, you know,

[1:39:37] Voice 9: whether it's a simple survey or, or, or,

[1:39:39] Voice 9: or building permit documentation to show that your,

[1:39:41] Voice 9: your property circumstances are what they are. And then those would be,

[1:39:47] Voice 9: those would be sent to staff and they could be captured in the land use bylaw

[1:39:51] Voice 9: and people would not be legal non-conforming.

[1:39:53] Voice 9: So I think that's the cleanest way of going in. It's the most exacting way to go as well. And the other thing I would mention too, and again, I hear Jane's point about BC assessment data is perhaps maybe some areas where it's not airtight.

[1:40:13] Voice 9: But again, based on the best evidence we have, if I'm looking at the tables, and I'm also looking at the table that is on page 15 of your staff report, in terms of if we were to go with those numbers, the number of properties that would be legal non-conforming, which would then become conforming or legal conforming by the mechanism I've just mentioned.

[1:40:36] Voice 9: But the total number would be, as I see it, would be 25 across the entire island.

[1:40:42] Voice 9: So it's not, you know, it's not a hundred or something. It's, it would be 25. I could be off by one or two based on the accuracy of assessment data, but that's, that's generally the order of magnitude.

[1:40:55] Voice 1: Trustee Thorne and Chair Packer, do you mind actually, if I bring up the staff report with the table and okay.

[1:41:01] Voice 1: No, please do.

[1:41:14] Voice 1: So if I've captured what you just mentioned correctly, Trustee Thorne, you're open to the idea of amending Draft Bottle 122.

[1:41:25] Voice 1: So there would just be one table, for example, something like this.

[1:41:28] Voice 1: It may not be those exact numbers or those lot area tiers.

[1:41:33] Voice 1: And then it would include a clause, for example, the one that I have outlined in the staff report.

[1:41:41] Voice 1: So what that would mean is for those property owners that have an existing dwelling unit that may actually exceed the new maximum floor area regulations, this clause would then essentially protect, they wouldn't be legal nonconforming because this clause allows them to retain that floor area, allows them to rebuild to that floor area.

[1:42:06] Voice 1: And in addition, if the LTC would like, after this bylaw is adopted, we would give property owners 18 months to provide a site plans, and then we could come back with an amendment and a schedule, if you will, with all those properties that property owners have provided us their site plan.

[1:42:27] Voice 1: And then we can also legalize their floor areas through that mechanism as well.

[1:42:34] Voice 9: Yeah. The only thing, and I'm looking at page 15, if that's the page you're on there,

[1:42:38] Voice 9: I'm just looking on my, on my computer, but, but, um, and maybe I'm just reading this incorrectly,

[1:42:43] Voice 9: but when I, uh, uh, um, reading the, the suggested language, um, the first one there being despite

[1:42:53] Voice 9: section 5.1 X, um, you know, and talking about house size, um, the last 10 or 12 words is what

[1:43:00] Voice 9: kind of threw me off if i if i'm reading it correctly it would suggest that that that house

[1:43:07] Voice 9: would be captured by the size of the of this new bylaw which i don't think is what we want to do

[1:43:14] Voice 9: we would want to say that despite the new bylaw and its house sizes a house that was constructed

[1:43:21] Voice 9: prior to it is not is not captured by this bylaw isn't isn't that the way we're trying to look at

[1:43:28] Voice 9: it and and and if i missed reading that then then you know apologies so basically the way

[1:43:38] Voice 13: it's the

[1:43:39] Voice 13: way it's drafted it would say what it would do is allow let's just say uh someone to do as a major

[1:43:47] Voice 13: major reconstruction of their dwelling um to the to the floor they had on october 1st of this year

[1:43:57] Voice 13: let's say the bylaws adopted right so it kind of frees them to have no more than what they had

[1:44:03] Voice 13: on the date of the adoption of the bylaw it avoids that situation that you were talking

[1:44:08] Voice 13: about earlier where someone maybe have a floor area less than what the um um the current um

[1:44:17] Voice 13: is and then build up to it right it just kind of freezes into what they've got now

[1:44:22] Voice 13: that's what this would do

[1:44:24] Voice 9: okay okay i'm just and i'm just and i'll just take a double read of that

[1:44:30] Voice 9: i guess my this this the intent at least from my mind is that that that this clause should confirm

[1:44:35] Voice 9: that existing dwellings larger than the maximum dwelling size under the new bylaw can rebuild to

[1:44:41] Voice 9: their existing size um is the intent and so whatever language you know we obviously don't

[1:44:48] Voice 9: have to arrive at the right language today but that that is the that would be mine and to your

[1:44:53] Voice 9: point some so it would be larger than their existing site not not that they could be that

[1:44:58] Voice 9: a property with a dwelling could build larger than the new bylaw and including larger than

[1:45:05] Voice 9: what was built and it could somehow capture all the unused density never realized under the

[1:45:10] Voice 9: existing house so we you know we don't want that scenario right

[1:45:13] Voice 3: and

[1:45:19] Voice 8: of course the same the same

[1:45:20] Voice 8: apply the same principles would apply to the approach uh on setbacks as well then but i think

[1:45:40] Voice 8: i mean again i don't want to hang

[1:45:41] Voice 9: everybody up on whether we got every sentence correct in this

[1:45:46] Voice 9: Yes, because I know we have time to do that.

[1:45:48] Voice 9: But as long as we're kind of all agreeing that that's the intent of how the wording would be there,

[1:45:53] Voice 9: and then again, people would be able to, as I say, provide evidence of the circumstances of their house,

[1:45:58] Voice 9: and it would be captured in the schedule.

[1:46:02] Voice 13: Well, capturing it in a schedule would not be necessary, right?

[1:46:07] Voice 13: Because they would be both legal non-conforming, and they would be legal as a result of this provision if it was adopted.

[1:46:24] Voice 8: Okay.

[1:46:28] Trustee Patrick: It's just the burden is on them to prove.

[1:46:31] Voice 1: Yeah, because the clause says, you know, despite subsection 5.1, that means these new, more restrictive maximum floor areas.

[1:46:46] Voice 1: Despite that, if you have a legal dwelling, you're able to rebuild that legal dwelling as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum floor area of that dwelling at the time of adoption of the bylaw.

[1:47:05] Voice 8: Yeah, okay.

[1:47:05] Voice 8: So,

[1:47:09] Voice 1: as Robert said, it freezes, if you will, for lack of a

[1:47:13] Voice 1: better term, the floor area, the existing floor area at the time of adoption of the by-law.

[1:47:21] Voice 13: For those that would be rendered non-conforming by the adoption of this by-law and those that might be non-conforming from predating the 2017 by-law.

[1:47:31] Voice 1: Yeah,

[1:47:32] Voice 13: because again, that's, yeah, okay, fine.

[1:47:34] Voice 13: And if

[1:47:34] Voice 1: we use Table 3 as an example, so let's say you have a property that's 0.2 hectares, a half an acre, and your house is 3,000 feet squared.

[1:47:45] Voice 1: If this bylaw comes into place and now you have a more restrictive maximum floor area of 2,500, the clause says, despite the maximum floor area of 2,500, you're still able to rebuild your dwelling unit because at the time of adoption of the bylaw, your house was 3,000 square feet.

[1:48:04] Voice 1: that's essentially what the clause means right

[1:48:07] Voice 8: right is that is that the approach that you're

[1:48:11] Voice 9: looking at north pender as well

[1:48:12] Voice 1: yes and that's where this wording came from that's why i thought

[1:48:18] Voice 1: when you mentioned oh it may not actually have captured what we what we're doing here in south

[1:48:22] Voice 1: pender i thought oh gosh if i did i not um change it

[1:48:26] Voice 13: so we're okay

[1:48:26] Voice 1: yeah you know that it's the

[1:48:28] Voice 1: correct intent but um and

[1:48:30] Voice 13: in terms of providing proof i mean if the house was built after i think

[1:48:33] Voice 13: Because 1968, there would be plans available at the regional district, the

[1:48:38] Voice 13: CRD office, prior to 1968 or 70 or so.

[1:48:46] Voice 1: An option, again, since Trustee Wright isn't here, I can bring an example of that back for the May 6 meeting in a black line version of the bylaw as well.

[1:49:02] Voice 9: okay yeah i get it sure i mean i don't you know i want to keep it as simple as possible yet

[1:49:07] Voice 9: provide um the certainty of of the certainty and security of of of uh of the existing houses

[1:49:15] Voice 9: and setbacks for people that that would be concerned that they would be legal non-conforming

[1:49:19] Voice 9: but if that does it then that's great that

[1:49:24] Voice 1: clause would do it yes yeah and

[1:49:26] Voice 13: i guess then i guess the

[1:49:27] Voice 13: The other question is, which table of the various ones that are here and in the bylaw do you want inserted?

[1:49:37] Voice 9: Yeah, and, you know, this is, again, you know, to John K.'s comments earlier, you know, there is, you know, it is a matter of there's some subjectivity around this, for sure.

[1:49:53] Voice 9: It's trying to, you know, strike the balance from all the things that we talked about earlier.

[1:49:58] Voice 9: um uh you know i made some initial suggestions uh back in i guess probably in september that

[1:50:05] Voice 9: that i think is table one and and you know i've heard from other folks i've heard from steve on

[1:50:13] Voice 9: things his numbers are obviously uh he would be far more uh aggressive or restrictive than me i

[1:50:19] Voice 9: don't agree with all of his numbers i've tried to also take into account though what people

[1:50:24] Voice 9: people are saying about uh about what they feel is a balance um i also you know and i get john and

[1:50:33] Voice 9: i fully agree with with john's point that you know that we are north pender and south pender are

[1:50:38] Voice 9: are different islands and they they very much are um and that you know you know i i don't feel like

[1:50:46] Voice 9: we should you know the the built form differs between the two islands for sure uh that being

[1:50:51] Voice 9: said that there are some there are some uh merits in having uh similarity of regulations that

[1:51:01] Voice 9: doesn't convey uh unintended consequences about a uh about land you know people some people might

[1:51:10] Voice 9: say well you know if the land use this is what happened with stvr for example we had people that

[1:51:14] Voice 9: were showing up on south pender and saying i explicitly bought property on south pender

[1:51:19] Voice 9: because you guys had no regulations on SPBRs.

[1:51:22] Voice 9: And so it was great.

[1:51:23] Voice 9: So I bought here for that purpose.

[1:51:25] Voice 9: And so they researched and they felt like

[1:51:27] Voice 9: there was a competitive advantage

[1:51:29] Voice 9: or a lax of regulations that attracted them to that island.

[1:51:35] Voice 9: The thing with having a little bit more consistency

[1:51:39] Voice 9: in house, maximum house size,

[1:51:41] Voice 9: is that it does sort of level the playing field

[1:51:46] Voice 9: when people are looking at opportunities

[1:51:48] Voice 9: where they might want to build uh it would it would it would it would eliminate that example

[1:51:53] Voice 9: that i provided with sdvrs um and uh so i i actually think that that table is a fairly

[1:51:59] Voice 9: balanced set of numbers from all of the feedback i've had and and um and they're trying to find

[1:52:07] Voice 9: again a balance um like i said i looked at the numbers uh and my initial my last number was

[1:52:14] Voice 9: as um that i came out and for example looking at the 4 000 steve wanted 3 500 i initially had

[1:52:21] Voice 9: 5 000 this number would propose four interestingly enough if i look at all the homes right now in the

[1:52:29] Voice 9: in that lot size category uh on south pender there's only two homes that i can see that are

[1:52:35] Voice 9: larger than 4 000 square feet on the on in on properties 10 acres or larger so i think in terms

[1:52:41] Voice 9: even trying to look at a number that somewhat correlates to what's out there this number would

[1:52:46] Voice 9: would be a pretty fair a pretty fair number so i i actually like

[1:52:50] Voice 8: table three table three the

[1:53:01] Voice 8: the

[1:53:02] Trustee Patrick: right hand side uh

[1:53:07] Voice 9: sorry yeah that's right sorry correct sorry yeah the 25

[1:53:14] Voice 8: the 3 the 35 and

[1:53:15] Voice 8: the four so

[1:53:24] Voice 1: table three but um the sizes that north pender is proposing yeah

[1:53:30] Voice 9: the 25 i mean

[1:53:32] Voice 9: like i say i looked at back at uh yeah so yeah so 25 for less than one acre i think i initially

[1:53:42] Voice 9: had suggested 2750 3 000 for properties of one to two acres and then um and then uh and i guess

[1:53:53] Voice 9: The idea would be, and I also know, I'd be curious as to staff's thoughts on this, is that, you know, historically, and I don't know why the numbers, I guess things may be a little bit arbitrary, why on South Pender we ended up with five categories of size and whether it would simplify.

[1:54:14] Voice 9: I don't see any necessarily downsides.

[1:54:17] Voice 9: Again, North Pender has less than one acre, which is the way we've always been on South Pender.

[1:54:23] Voice 9: We on South Pender have one to two acres and then two to four, whereas the North Pender proposal would go from one to three and then three to ten.

[1:54:33] Voice 9: And we are at four to ten.

[1:54:34] Voice 9: So it does seem like it's simpler.

[1:54:38] Voice 9: simpler. So I actually, I actually, I actually quite like the, the, the, the table in four

[1:54:44] Voice 9: increments.

[1:54:49] Voice 1: And again, without speaking for Trustee Wright, I know that he expressed

[1:54:54] Voice 1: a liking for table two. So what I could do is, is bring back these three tables or just the two

[1:55:05] Voice 1: tables at the next LTC meeting, unless the LTC right now can provide a resolution to amend the

[1:55:15] Voice 1: bylaw based on one table. I do, unfortunately, I hate to say this, but I do have to leave the

[1:55:23] Voice 1: meeting or turn my camera off and microphone off at one o'clock. I will be listening and Robert

[1:55:31] Voice 1: robert will be here to take over for me but um i do unfortunately have to to duck out right now to

[1:55:37] Voice 1: take care of two little sick kids all

[1:55:39] Voice 13: right thanks kim thank

[1:55:40] Voice 1: you thanks

[1:55:41] Voice 8: kim yeah

[1:55:42] Voice 13: so ideally it would

[1:55:44] Voice 13: be best to come back with you know the draft bylaw with just the you know one one one table there and

[1:55:50] Voice 13: then if if there's second thoughts on the part of the ltc collectively at the next meeting you can

[1:55:57] Voice 13: and have another

[1:55:57] Voice 9: another another go at it but is that

[1:56:00] Voice 9: is that is that going to delay giving first

[1:56:02] Voice 9: reading today robert i

[1:56:04] Voice 13: mean you could give it first reading today sure yeah i

[1:56:08] Voice 9: mean i'm just

[1:56:08] Voice 9: also thinking about trying to move forward yeah yeah

[1:56:13] Trustee Patrick: well like i said well i don't disagree but

[1:56:16] Trustee Patrick: my concern is that you know we're not we're not giving any more certainty if we proceed with first

[1:56:22] Trustee Patrick: reading today and then you know we change all the tables again in the next meeting well i guess

[1:56:29] Voice 9: that's where it comes down to where you're you're i mean i i mean let's just sort of be frank here

[1:56:34] Voice 9: um there's there's uh there's three of us on this ltc we we all are individuals with with i guess

[1:56:42] Voice 9: our own our own viewpoints on things uh i i got a pretty clear sense that um you know i respect

[1:56:49] Voice 9: steve and and and his his views on things i don't think i don't think moving this to mace mace may

[1:56:55] Voice 9: may 6th is going to mean that that his views are going to change and i don't think my views are

[1:57:01] Voice 9: going to change uh and so i i don't i don't know really what's what the outcome is that would be

[1:57:07] Voice 9: any different um i i personally would like to move things forward um but if you're not comfortable

[1:57:14] Voice 9: in that uh chair then you know um it'd probably be important i wouldn't want to make a motion

[1:57:20] Voice 9: and not get support for it no

[1:57:22] Trustee Patrick: no it's more i mean i'm just trying to be you know if you feel

[1:57:26] Trustee Patrick: strong and we can you know come come to grips i just don't want to you know then you know change

[1:57:31] Trustee Patrick: it again you know that we we change our mind yeah yeah

[1:57:36] Trustee Patrick: that's all i'm i'm trying to give some

[1:57:39] Trustee Patrick: certainty to the

[1:57:39] Trustee Patrick: people watching along

[1:57:41] Voice 1: and for sure into

[1:57:42] Trustee Patrick: this process that uh um that if if we

[1:57:45] Trustee Patrick: proceed it that we're not just going to just go oops well we'll change our mind uh at the next

[1:57:49] Trustee Patrick: Well, and

[1:57:50] Voice 9: I mean, one of the other things that, again, with all the great respect to my colleague, but the other thing that I felt maybe was just, you know, for making changes to house size, what I don't want to do is make changes that people say, well, once we were talking apples and now you're talking like watermelons, like it's so different.

[1:58:13] Voice 9: And so trying to keep the table, trying to keep the change of the table to a minimum is also what I think is helpful for clarity so people can draw a correlation between things.

[1:58:23] Voice 9: And so the idea of moving things over to a hectare system, sure, we might be in a metric world, but a lot of the properties have been subdivided under the imperial system.

[1:58:36] Voice 9: And so to me, the table, I don't really know the benefit.

[1:58:41] Voice 9: I just think it adds more confusion and people are going to have to try and

[1:58:44] Voice 9: convert it back to the imperial system. So I don't think the table, you know,

[1:58:48] Voice 9: if this was suddenly May 6th and the three of us were here, I would be voting,

[1:58:51] Voice 9: frankly, I'd be voting against that table. And, and so in that sense, you know,

[1:58:56] Voice 9: I'm pretty clear in mind.

[1:58:58] Voice 9: I believe that the table that's on page 15 on the right-hand column is the one

[1:59:03] Voice 9: that's probably the most balanced approach for given the considerations I've

[1:59:08] Voice 9: raised.

[1:59:10] Trustee Patrick: yeah um no i i i concur um i you know as much as we want to live in a metric world as i'm being a

[1:59:18] Trustee Patrick: scientist but when it comes to houses i refer to my house in square feet yeah

[1:59:24] Voice 9: exactly so i certainly

[1:59:25] Voice 9: and i maybe we're not quite ready for the motion because i've got a i've got a couple of things on

[1:59:30] Voice 9: on uh the groundwater protection side of things but but um would this be the time to talk about

[1:59:37] Voice 9: that first before we decide what we're doing maybe

[1:59:39] Voice 13: if you're yeah i was thinking if you're

[1:59:42] Voice 13: ready to proceed with the giving direction on the table part of it then yeah yeah yeah get that out

[1:59:47] Voice 13: of the way and then sure something else yeah because

[1:59:51] Voice 13: i think we can do a

[1:59:52] Trustee Patrick: combination of saying

[1:59:53] Trustee Patrick: i think i'm here we're saying one table with the claws yeah is that yeah

[1:59:58] Voice 9: that's that's correct

[2:00:00] Voice 9: Sure. I mean, in my mind, it's one table with the clause that would that would, again, recognize homes that are that would otherwise be legal nonconforming.

[2:00:09] Voice 9: So one clause for house size, one clause for setbacks.

[2:00:13] Voice 9: And and and the table as presented on table three is presented on page 15 with the numbers as represented in the right hand column.

[2:00:24] Voice 13: That sounds like a resolution to me.

[2:00:27] Voice 13: did you capture that

[2:00:29] Trustee Patrick: lauren all right lauren get ready do you want to attempt that in a

[2:00:34] Trustee Patrick: resolution there uh trustee thorn and lauren's listening in and ready sure uh

[2:00:43] Voice 9: so

[2:00:44] Voice 13: it'd just be that the

[2:00:44] Voice 13: draft bylaw 122 122 right yeah yeah that's correct be amended

[2:00:51] Voice 13: to and then what's what

[2:00:53] Voice 9: you said before right sure sure the draft uh that the i would recommend

[2:00:57] Voice 9: is the South Pender LTC draft,

[2:00:59] Voice 9: amend draft by-law 122 by, as follows,

[2:01:03] Voice 9: by using the table on page 15,

[2:01:11] Voice 9: exhibiting four land use categories with properties,

[2:01:18] Voice 9: maybe I don't have to be this explicit,

[2:01:19] Voice 9: less than one acre of 2,500, one to three acres of-

[2:01:23] Voice 9: yeah

[2:01:23] Trustee Patrick: i don't think you need i think

[2:01:24] Trustee Patrick: you can say

[2:01:25] Voice 9: as as

[2:01:26] Trustee Patrick: table three or whatever in the staff report

[2:01:28] Trustee Patrick: sure

[2:01:29] Voice 9: yeah sure sure as as table three in the staff report on the right hand column

[2:01:33] Voice 9: and that the draft bylaw also include uh language addressing legal non-conforming

[2:01:42] Voice 9: with clauses recognizing homes uh both in terms of house size and setbacks that were built

[2:01:49] Voice 9: just

[2:01:49] Voice 2: a moment please just a moment please that's all right lauren hang in there okay i'll let you

[2:01:55] Voice 2: know where i've got uh a man draft bylaw one two two as follows by using the table on page 15

[2:02:00] Voice 2: exhibiting four land use categories as table three in the staff report in the right hand column

[2:02:05] Voice 2: and the draft bylaw include sure

[2:02:09] Voice 9: and the draft bylaw include uh uh clauses recognizing homes

[2:02:17] Voice 9: homes uh in terms of house size and setbacks that would have been built before the adoption

[2:02:26] Voice 9: of this new bylaw okay

[2:02:36] Voice 2: we'll read it again uh can you i'm gonna say something silly but can

[2:02:41] Voice 2: you give me the uh the first part before the actual action where i've got i've got it starting

[2:02:46] Voice 2: as a man draft bylaw what are you what's your wording for that just just

[2:02:50] Voice 13: just the south pender

[2:02:53] Voice 13: I know

[2:02:54] Voice 2: it's a silly thing LTC amend okay thank you silly right the South Pender Island Local

[2:03:01] Voice 2: Trust Committee amend draft bylaw 122 as follows by using the table on page 15 exhibiting four

[2:03:07] Voice 2: land use categories as table three in the staff report in the right hand column and the draft

[2:03:12] Voice 2: bylaw include clauses recognizing homes in terms of house size and setbacks that would have been

[2:03:17] Voice 2: built before the adoption of this new bylaw I

[2:03:20] Voice 9: think that's pretty close to what

[2:03:22] Voice 13: there was there

[2:03:22] Voice 13: Well, there was one more element. It was just to have just the one table in the bylaw, right?

[2:03:27] Voice 9: Correct. Correct. Yeah. The single bylaw. That's correct.

[2:03:31] Voice 9: And

[2:03:31] Voice 13: have a single table in the bylaw.

[2:03:34] Voice 2: By using a single table on page 15? Using the single table on page 15?

[2:03:38] Voice 2: No, it's

[2:03:39] Trustee Patrick: an additional clause. So it's an additional

[2:03:41] Trustee Patrick: as follows and to use one table.

[2:03:44] Trustee Patrick: Okay, hang on.

[2:03:46] Trustee Patrick: Hang on. I'll

[2:03:47] Voice 2: be using the table. I need to pause this, recognize them.

[2:03:54] Voice 2: okay i'm not sure i need this to you need to i need to let you have you let me know where this

[2:04:00] Voice 2: is because i don't see additional flaws anywhere um so

[2:04:03] Voice 13: you've got you've got the two you've got

[2:04:05] Voice 13: the two there just the third one saying and that the bylaw just oh

[2:04:10] Voice 2: okay include okay

[2:04:11] Voice 2: well i'm sorry

[2:04:13] Voice 2: bill before the adoption of this new bylaw and that the bylaw include

[2:04:18] Voice 13: only one table include

[2:04:20] Voice 2: include only one table. Okay, sorry.

[2:04:22] Trustee Patrick: That's all right. That was a complicated one.

[2:04:26] Trustee Patrick: I think that's pretty close. I'll second that motion. Is there any discussion? Nope. I'll call

[2:04:37] Trustee Patrick: the vote then. All those in favor? And that's carried. So is there any other direction you need

[2:04:45] Trustee Patrick: on that aspect then, Robert? Nope, not on that part. So then we will go on to the next part,

[2:04:54] Trustee Patrick: the shipping container shipping

[2:04:56] Voice 13: containers yeah we're needing some direction on the shipping

[2:04:58] Voice 13: container what

[2:04:59] Voice 2: item is that is that an item on the agenda no

[2:05:02] Trustee Patrick: we're still within the same item

[2:05:03] Trustee Patrick: this is

[2:05:04] Trustee Patrick: we're just going to make we'll probably make a number of amendments to this bylaw 122

[2:05:08] Trustee Patrick: so we'll let you know when we're done with this piece okay so i

[2:05:13] Voice 13: don't think we necessarily need

[2:05:14] Voice 13: direction on the shipping containers it's just there okay an update feel free to jump in kim

[2:05:22] Voice 13: if you're still listening yes

[2:05:28] Voice 1: it's just an update for the shipping containers but direction looking

[2:05:31] Voice 1: for direction on um the groundwater protection regulation this is a regulation that's currently

[2:05:38] Voice 1: in the land use bylaw and it's not clear if a dwelling also includes a cottage staff has always

[2:05:46] Voice 1: um interpreted that the that the trigger of this um regulation would be a new dwelling unit and a

[2:05:54] Voice 1: new cottage but i think that should be added to the regulations just so it's more clear

[2:06:03] Trustee Patrick: trustee thorn i know you had some comments yeah

[2:06:05] Voice 9: you know it's it's interesting and too bad donna's

[2:06:08] Voice 9: not on this call today because um the two of us have had conversations over this going back quite

[2:06:14] Voice 9: a few years um and it always struck i think i don't want to speak for her but maybe i will

[2:06:21] Voice 9: It always struck the two of us as a bit perplexing that the bylaw, the current bylaw, requires that if you're building a house, that you, as a condition, I think it's a condition of occupancy, that you need a rainwater catchment system to be installed.

[2:06:41] Voice 9: Whereas, you know, when I think about the correlation of water that's linked back to, you know, when I think back to a home and get an occupancy, I'm more fixated on potable water that would normally come out of a ground well rather than rainwater that might be used for watering your plants.

[2:07:03] Voice 9: And so it always seemed to be a bit funny that the requirement was that it be a cistern for rainwater catchment rather than a cistern for well water.

[2:07:14] Voice 9: And so I had to bring it up because I still question, and it's come up in various conversations, maybe it's a question back to Robert.

[2:07:23] Voice 9: Have you seen this anywhere else?

[2:07:25] Voice 9: because it seems like more logically and most people i know myself included have cisterns for

[2:07:31] Voice 9: our wells because that's the thing where we're most concerned about uh about you know just the

[2:07:36] Voice 9: water table and and not wanting to stress the wells and have no water when we need it

[2:07:40] Voice 13: yeah yeah

[2:07:41] Voice 13: and so of course there's nothing preventing you from anyone from having a cistern for use for

[2:07:46] Voice 13: storage for their um for groundwater as well um and that's the direction that it looks like the

[2:07:55] Voice 13: regulations are moving on galliano and north pender which are doing the the um the freshwater

[2:08:01] Voice 13: uh implementation project is um sort of moving away from it just being purely for rainwater

[2:08:07] Voice 13: catchment but the required the requirement to be cisterns for storage of fresh water and that could

[2:08:15] Voice 13: could be rainwater catchment or groundwater that's stored the pumped and stored over the over the dry

[2:08:22] Voice 13: season um and that well and it's still up to the owner um individual owners which which they do and

[2:08:30] Voice 13: whether they plumb the rainwater in or not um so that's a that's sort of larger larger discussion

[2:08:37] Voice 13: on north pender and galliano that'll be coming up there so the question

[2:08:42] Voice 13: sort of for this amendment

[2:08:44] Voice 13: is yeah i mean i guess you could go there and start looking at um um changing the whole intent

[2:08:52] Voice 13: of the regulation um to go sort of in that direction or just clarify it for now and yeah

[2:08:58] Voice 9: you're right you're right i yeah yeah i don't want to i mean yeah i know there's lots of things to

[2:09:03] Voice 9: talk about i think i'd put that on the back burner i think it's worthy of a conversation at a later

[2:09:08] Voice 9: point in time uh but for this point in time but then so i understand if somebody has got

[2:09:14] Voice 9: um like the intent as it's written now then um does that like if somebody's got a property where

[2:09:22] Voice 9: they're entitled to a a new house a house and a cottage would would the would the language here

[2:09:29] Voice 9: mean that that both the new house and the new cottage would both require their own water system

[2:09:36] Voice 9: no

[2:09:37] Voice 13: the way it's written is that the house the building permit for the house or the building

[2:09:42] Voice 13: permit for the cottage or the trigger to install the cistern um to catch rain water from a building

[2:09:49] Voice 13: on

[2:09:49] Voice 9: okay okay oh uh on the lot okay okay so it's it's just one or the other yeah

[2:09:58] Voice 13: yeah okay okay

[2:09:59] Voice 9: actually

[2:09:59] Voice 13: when this came up on the on the property that that property that you're referring to because

[2:10:05] Voice 13: it was it was a building permit um i did go back and kind of look at some of the discussion around

[2:10:09] Voice 13: it and it did evolve over the in various iterations um you know a few years ago when it was when it

[2:10:16] Voice 13: was brought in because of these sort of various questions and and it seemed like from my

[2:10:21] Voice 13: recollection and looking at the the various versions of the of the drafts that the intent was

[2:10:27] Voice 13: to get cisterns onto properties and to use the building permit for a new house or cottage to

[2:10:33] Voice 13: to be the trigger for that

[2:10:34] Voice 9: yeah yeah right um okay well i'm fine with i'm fine with the the

[2:10:40] Voice 9: suggested language here on on on groundwater and cottages okay yeah

[2:10:45] Trustee Patrick: no i'm i i too as long as it's

[2:10:48] Trustee Patrick: still that you trigger that you're having having it because it can be fire water it can be garden

[2:10:53] Trustee Patrick: water there's lots of values to having um uh encouraging or requiring people do that i do

[2:11:00] Trustee Patrick: I mean, there should be no one building a house today that is not putting a cistern on their groundwater tank.

[2:11:08] Trustee Patrick: And I'm seeing it happen because of the cost of housing right now.

[2:11:13] Trustee Patrick: People are taking that off the table because that's just an added expense to building the house.

[2:11:18] Trustee Patrick: And that is like the thing that should not be cut when you're building a house and relying on groundwater on these islands.

[2:11:25] Trustee Patrick: that the a cistern is uh is how you care and take care of your well and it and it's it's it's really

[2:11:30] Trustee Patrick: unfortunate that we can't require that agreed

[2:11:35] Voice 9: agreed those have been my only comments chair

[2:11:39] Voice 9: all right do you need

[2:11:41] Trustee Patrick: direction then on uh all right i

[2:11:44] Voice 13: think the direction is pretty clear on

[2:11:45] Voice 13: that okay yeah

[2:11:46] Voice 13: good and then the next question is do you want to proceed with uh well there's

[2:11:52] Voice 13: yeah there's the recommended uh resolution the one which is what we just talked about for the

[2:11:57] Voice 13: the cistern and then this is back on page 13 and then there's the discussion about whether or not

[2:12:01] Voice 13: you want to proceed with first reading now or wait until the next meeting so do you

[2:12:07] Voice 13: say i would

[2:12:07] Voice 13: like

[2:12:07] Trustee Patrick: oh go ahead

[2:12:08] Voice 9: sorry i thought i guess oh i guess all we did was amend the bylaw but we didn't

[2:12:14] Voice 9: give it first reading um correct i would i would i would move to to give first reading if you feel

[2:12:21] Trustee Patrick: strongly about that and we can you know stand strong and in the next meeting i just feel like

[2:12:27] Trustee Patrick: Like I said, I'm waiting, trying to

[2:12:29] Trustee Patrick: give, that we move around a lot.

[2:12:33] Trustee Patrick: So I would support that if we feel we can move strongly.

[2:12:38] Trustee Patrick: I do.

[2:12:39] Voice 9: With open ears.

[2:12:40] Trustee Patrick: Okay.

[2:12:42] Trustee Patrick: Now, did you say we did need, you don't need something for the groundwater?

[2:12:45] Voice 13: No, I don't think so.

[2:12:46] Trustee Patrick: As long as

[2:12:47] Voice 13: it's recorded in the minutes, Lauren.

[2:12:51] Voice 1: I did provide recommendation number one as.

[2:12:56] Voice 1: Oh, okay.

[2:12:57] Trustee Patrick: I see.

[2:12:57] Trustee Patrick: Okay, it is there. It is there. Nevermind. I can read. So then you want all the motions in our that are on page 13. And I'll look to you, trustee Thorne.

[2:13:08] Voice 9: Okay, so I'll read the four that the self fender island local trust committee amend draft bylaw 122.

[2:13:17] Voice 9: I guess I'd say as amended and by amending the groundwater protection regulation section 3.14 to include a cottage as a new building.

[2:13:25] Voice 9: yes yeah

[2:13:27] Trustee Patrick: i'll second that motion is there any discussion oh yes lauren oh lauren you're muted

[2:13:38] Trustee Patrick: that

[2:13:39] Voice 2: sounds a little bit different than what i have here so i just want to read out what i

[2:13:42] Voice 2: i see uh i have it as it's number 17 but that'll change it was moved and seconded that the south

[2:13:50] Voice 2: pender island local trust committee amend draft bylaw number number 122 and then as he

[2:13:58] Voice 2: said as

[2:13:59] Voice 2: amended and as amended and i have by amending so as amended and so i take out that by amending or

[2:14:06] Voice 13: as amended

[2:14:10] Voice 2: by many of the groundwater protection regulation okay so i've added the words as

[2:14:13] Voice 2: amended there that's correct

[2:14:15] Voice 2: that's it thank you all

[2:14:16] Trustee Patrick: right any uh discussion then i if not i'll

[2:14:20] Trustee Patrick: call the vote all those in favor and that's carried okay

[2:14:25] Voice 9: and then that the south bender

[2:14:30] Voice 9: that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee By-law 122

[2:14:36] Voice 9: cited as a South Pender Island Land Use By-law

[2:14:39] Voice 9: Number 114, 2016 Amendment Number 2,

[2:14:43] Voice 9: as amended, be read a first time.

[2:14:46] Trustee Patrick: That's correct.

[2:14:48] Trustee Patrick: I'll second that.

[2:14:50] Trustee Patrick: Is there any discussion?

[2:14:54] Trustee Patrick: If not, I'll call the vote.

[2:14:55] Trustee Patrick: All those in favor?

[2:14:58] Trustee Patrick: And that's carried.

[2:14:59] Trustee Patrick: Okay,

[2:15:01] Voice 9: that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee

[2:15:04] Voice 9: has reviewed the Islands Trust Policy Statement

[2:15:07] Voice 9: directives only checklist and determined that bylaw 122

[2:15:12] Voice 9: cited at South Pender Island land use bylaw number 114, 2016

[2:15:16] Voice 9: amendment number two 2021 is not contrary to

[2:15:22] Voice 9: or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.

[2:15:25] Trustee Patrick: I'll second that motion.

[2:15:26] Trustee Patrick: motion. Any discussion? Call the vote. All those in favor? That too is carried.

[2:15:33] Voice 9: And finally, that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee direct staff to schedule a

[2:15:39] Voice 9: community information meeting and a public hearing for proposed bylaw number 122.

[2:15:44] Trustee Patrick: I'll second that motion. Any discussion? Call the vote. All those in favor? That's carried.

[2:15:51] Trustee Patrick: all right well so i guess the one thing um on timeline and next steps so then that would be

[2:15:58] Trustee Patrick: that the community information meeting would be uh held at the may 6th meeting or the proposed

[2:16:04] Trustee Patrick: bylaw followed by a public hearing uh the comments that we had before on getting the

[2:16:11] Trustee Patrick: word out is there anything you wanted to consider uh trustee thorn on getting the word

[2:16:19] Voice 9: out well i

[2:16:20] Voice 9: I mean, you know, the the the community link always does a pretty good job.

[2:16:26] Voice 9: I mean, I think they've probably got more. They probably have the emails of more people than anybody else does.

[2:16:34] Voice 9: But I would think I mean, let me think on that. You know, we're obviously going to put things on the on the Web site here.

[2:16:39] Voice 9: And anybody that's a subscriber to the to the Downs Trust data email notification system will receive notification.

[2:16:47] Voice 9: vacation so uh hard to know what else to do and the community link does a great job all right so

[2:16:58] Trustee Patrick: i guess pump the word out yourselves too and any way you can get attention to that would be great

[2:17:05] Trustee Patrick: okay great so

[2:17:07] Trustee Patrick: if there's no further on that item then we would uh go on to uh the next item which

[2:17:13] Trustee Patrick: is 50 14.2 on the agenda which is the minor amendments to the ocp right

[2:17:20] Voice 13: so this is the um

[2:17:21] Voice 13: Following up from the direction of the last local trust committee meeting, where the LTC decided to proceed with the draft OCP amendments, but pull the rights of nature section out into a separate bylaw, and

[2:17:37] Voice 13: they would proceed at different tracks, if you like, different timelines, if you like.

[2:17:41] Voice 13: um so they're both drafts are attached or both versions are attached um the um the rights of

[2:17:51] Voice 13: nature one is going to go out on on first nations for first nations consultation and referral um

[2:17:57] Voice 13: and um the um remaining amendments so cp amendments would come back for public hearing

[2:18:04] Voice 13: at the next meeting and uh just kind of here for information and so i guess it's another

[2:18:09] Voice 13: another opportunity if there's something you want to amend in the ocp amendment that's going for

[2:18:15] Voice 13: public hearing this is an opportunity to amend it before that robert

[2:18:20] Voice 9: i just had a question more than

[2:18:21] Voice 9: anything um so the when i look at i guess on page 35 um so the proposed um acknowledgement

[2:18:36] Voice 9: and reconciliation of first nations is is is is cited as schedule one to the bylaw

[2:18:42] Voice 9: uh whereas the um information on the design guidelines is is it it's it's kind of handled

[2:18:51] Voice 9: differently than is it it's a it's a it's an appendices rather than a schedule it just

[2:18:55] Voice 9: looks a little

[2:18:56] Voice 13: different yeah so ocps um bylaws have um the content is is attached to the schedule

[2:19:03] Voice 13: So that's it's the schedule to bylaw 123 is the content right and then if you read the next line it's the OCP is amended as follows by adding a new subsection for the acknowledgement and then you get over to page 37.

[2:19:21] Voice 13: It's then adding a new clause to the land use section.

[2:19:24] Voice 13: section um and then three on page 37 it's adding the uh design and citing guidelines as an appendix

[2:19:33] Voice 13: okay

[2:19:36] Voice 9: so the design guidelines is an appendix but correct what is the first nations a schedule not

[2:19:41] Voice 9: an appendix is that no

[2:19:42] Voice 13: it's being inserted into 1.2 introduction the introductory section oh i

[2:19:47] Voice 9: see oh like okay sure sure sure okay got it okay it was it was just really understanding that you

[2:19:52] Voice 9: know kind of how it fell into place that was it thank you okay

[2:19:55] Trustee Patrick: all right so no no need to provide

[2:19:59] Trustee Patrick: any additional direction then on that today all right thank you and then the next item is uh 14.3

[2:20:08] Trustee Patrick: a shoreline review discussion paper right

[2:20:11] Voice 13: so this is following up on that project and this was the

[2:20:15] Voice 13: sort of the first step in that was to develop a discussion paper on the shoreline review um so

[2:20:21] Voice 13: So this is the draft version.

[2:20:23] Voice 13: This is the opportunity for the LTC to, you know,

[2:20:26] Voice 13: ask us to include additional information if something's missing

[2:20:30] Voice 13: or you want something expanded upon, any sort of feedback.

[2:20:36] Voice 13: And if not, then we'll sort of put it on the web page

[2:20:42] Voice 13: on the end of that project section and carry on with the project

[2:20:46] Voice 13: is as resources allow um unless the ltc wants to engage with this trustee right suggestion of um

[2:20:57] Voice 13: deferring this this project um into next year

[2:21:03] Voice 9: it's almost it was remind me um so the the the

[2:21:07] Voice 9: milestones are on page 48 here um i mean it's i mean it's all ultimately it's it's not going to

[2:21:16] Voice 9: to be the outcome is not going to be concluded until a new term of the trustees a new ltc term

[2:21:23] Voice 9: anyhow correct um so i mean if we if we kind of threw ice on it now um i mean i guess if we're

[2:21:33] Voice 9: concerned about shoreline protection then what and and and we know that it's gonna it's gonna

[2:21:40] Voice 9: um the outcome is going to be decided uh in a in a future term and it's also aligned i think with

[2:21:45] Voice 9: the broader shoreline initiatives that are going on within the organization.

[2:21:50] Voice 9: I'm just not sure why we would hesitate to proceed with at least engaging people in the meantime.

[2:21:58] Voice 9: I mean, people sometimes say we don't have enough time for consultation.

[2:22:01] Voice 9: So to me, putting it on ice would sort of seem contrary to that.

[2:22:05] Voice 9: And I see here First Nations consultation would start here next month,

[2:22:09] Voice 9: as would consultation with waterfront owners and then community meetings in general the following month.

[2:22:15] Voice 9: So I think, you know, I hate to be criticized for not taking the time to consult with people.

[2:22:21] Voice 9: So I would say let's start now rather than not.

[2:22:28] Voice 13: The one caveat I would add is that Lisa, the intergovernmental policy analyst, she's on off for about a month at least.

[2:22:35] Voice 13: So we'll have to, we'll be delaying the First Nations engagement.

[2:22:39] Voice 13: engagement and ideally we would like this project to be handled by the same staff person who's doing

[2:22:46] Voice 13: the Thetis project and I think

[2:22:48] Voice 13: the Thetis project is unstaffed currently maybe it's maybe with the

[2:22:52] Voice 13: new hiring Heather's found someone but um ideally it would be moving sort of in lockstep with the

[2:22:58] Voice 13: with the Thetis project and perhaps even the Keats one as well um

[2:23:02] Voice 9: so so is it so is is like in other

[2:23:05] Voice 9: other words um this this idea of staffing trying to handle the the three islands at the same time

[2:23:12] Voice 9: that that that idea of coordination goes beyond the issue of just lisa being away for a month

[2:23:17] Voice 9: but

[2:23:17] Voice 13: there's two separate issues

[2:23:18] Voice 9: right yeah one is lisa for the first

[2:23:20] Voice 13: nations engagement the other is

[2:23:21] Voice 13: a planner to lead this project and and trying to coordinate that with the other three shoreline

[2:23:27] Voice 13: projects to me

[2:23:30] Trustee Patrick: it's more than that too and um i i really take to heart the letter we've received

[2:23:35] Trustee Patrick: from the LIAXN Nation, and that came to South Pender as well. And the LIAXN Nation asked that

[2:23:42] Trustee Patrick: they be involved in the project definition phase of any new project. And I really appreciated

[2:23:49] Trustee Patrick: them taking the time to write and say that, because that's what we were really leaning at

[2:23:56] Trustee Patrick: here, and that's what we're doing in Thetis. We're starting with, we got some community-to-community

[2:24:02] Trustee Patrick: funding and are managing a uh are planning a boat trip around with each nation around the island

[2:24:11] Trustee Patrick: to discuss kind of with them what they see for opportunities and that the next phase is to have

[2:24:21] Trustee Patrick: you know to broaden this conversation into the community as to where where are the the

[2:24:26] Trustee Patrick: opportunities and and and sort of build that uh the definition of what can we do what should we do

[2:24:33] Trustee Patrick: um so i think you know that that work is proceeding on thetis will will be having and i think that

[2:24:38] Trustee Patrick: what we learn from that uh from those travels uh with first nations around the island is going to

[2:24:46] Trustee Patrick: be probably quite applicable to any of our islands that we have from what we learn so i think it's i

[2:24:53] Trustee Patrick: think it's a um yeah i agree with you trustee thorne is that we would like to start having

[2:24:58] Trustee Patrick: these conversations with the community and i know in our last local trust in our last meeting here

[2:25:03] Trustee Patrick: with south pender one of the people that spoke at the um at your own town hall uh the speaker was

[2:25:11] Trustee Patrick: not in favor of the setback but when i asked kind of what were your objectives the speaker started

[2:25:17] Trustee Patrick: speaking about how vitally important our shorelines are to the character of who we are

[2:25:23] Trustee Patrick: and what's important about all these islands.

[2:25:25] Trustee Patrick: And so just language around that is so important

[2:25:29] Trustee Patrick: that as a community that we're having that dialogue

[2:25:32] Trustee Patrick: and trying to come up with what can we do

[2:25:36] Trustee Patrick: to make sure we don't damage

[2:25:42] Trustee Patrick: what's so vitally important to us here on the islands.

[2:25:46] Voice 9: Yeah, no, fair enough.

[2:25:47] Voice 9: I mean, you and Robert have obviously,

[2:25:51] Voice 9: this is new information to me.

[2:25:54] Voice 9: I mean, just that's helpful to know. So, you know, clearly there's no sense in there's no sense in moving forward with a process of a you don't have somebody to staff it and be there's still some discussions within the various user groups and, you know, and First Nations about about some of the definitions that should guide the project.

[2:26:15] Voice 9: So, you know, knowing that, and I trust we're then trying to reach out to the First Nations and hear their views on how the definition should be structured. So, I mean, maybe you could report back to us when you, I'm seeking advice here.

[2:26:33] Voice 9: So when we hear a little bit more about how the background pieces are coming together and when it would be appropriate, you know, when we have some sense of certainty around what the definitions ought to be and when a planner is around to be able to staff it, then I would say at that point, it would make sense to try and start engaging with people under this table that you've got here on page 48.

[2:26:55] Voice 9: right yeah

[2:26:56] Voice 13: i think we could probably report back maybe at the may or certainly at the june meeting

[2:27:00] Voice 13: um with the with a revised timeline yeah

[2:27:04] Trustee Patrick: so keep it keep it live but keep it reasonable with what

[2:27:07] Trustee Patrick: we have for resources to put to it and and yeah and

[2:27:10] Trustee Patrick: by then we'll also have the report back from

[2:27:13] Trustee Patrick: fetus on on what we learned on our um trips around the island with the first nations

[2:27:20] Trustee Patrick: and one of those are the lioxin who has already reached out to us here on south pender yeah

[2:27:28] Voice 9: perfect all

[2:27:31] Trustee Patrick: right great so is that all you need for that

[2:27:34] Voice 13: that's all that's all i need yeah that's

[2:27:36] Trustee Patrick: great and we're almost done so uh we'll move on then to um um so we have our top priorities at

[2:27:44] Trustee Patrick: 15.1.1 i take it we don't need to or don't want to touch that today that's on page 60

[2:27:51] Trustee Patrick: at this point no

[2:27:56] Voice 3: no no i think i think not no and

[2:27:58] Trustee Patrick: no projects uh at this time again we'll just

[2:28:02] Trustee Patrick: keep going we have your applications uh report here yeah

[2:28:08] Voice 13: no no news on that alr application

[2:28:10] Voice 13: which the subdivision is linked to as well which is the same property so there's they're still

[2:28:16] Voice 13: trying to sort out their uh their proposal with the alc and the other

[2:28:21] Voice 13: one on the next page

[2:28:22] Voice 13: temporary use permit that of course that's files closed so that'll that'll come

[2:28:26] Voice 8: right right right

[2:28:27] Voice 8: right all

[2:28:28] Trustee Patrick: right well then the expense report's always here for information and uh

[2:28:33] Trustee Patrick: your adopted standing resolution so if that's it is there's no further new business

[2:28:41] Trustee Patrick: our next meeting is going to be may 6 which will have a community information and a public hearing

[2:28:45] Trustee Patrick: on bylaw draft bylaw 122 and that brings us to a second town hall um i do not like to rework any

[2:28:54] Trustee Patrick: decisions that we made today but we're always happy to hear any additional comments that people

[2:28:59] Trustee Patrick: might have and i know john had put his hand up earlier while we were having discussion

[2:29:03] Trustee Patrick: and it's still up so um if we could hi john all

[2:29:12] Voice 4: right thank you um yeah i i i think in a way

[2:29:20] Voice 4: kind of what evolved on something that's fundamentally important to land ownership

[2:29:27] Voice 4: on south pender um i think in a way you're doing yourselves a disservice in the sense that

[2:29:36] Voice 4: Just to cite an example here, there were five tables, four or five tables that were put up with different categorizations of lot sizes and total built area and maximum house size.

[2:29:49] Voice 4: Five different ones, four different ones, and one put up twice.

[2:29:52] Voice 4: There's one that's in the bylaw that was spoken to.

[2:29:56] Voice 4: And then you've now had a lot of discussion about which.

[2:30:00] Voice 4: table to use, and you've amended those further. So I have to admit, I've been trying to follow

[2:30:06] Voice 4: along. I'm confused as to what those numbers are now. And I also heard discussion about,

[2:30:15] Voice 4: you know, it's not important, not important enough to have a maximum number of categories

[2:30:20] Voice 4: reflecting, you know, some differences that might appear on South Pender. So going with fewer

[2:30:26] Voice 4: categories like north pender makes sense yet there's a 288 or something total subdivided

[2:30:33] Voice 4: properties on south pender in it and it's an easier understanding looking at the implications

[2:30:38] Voice 4: of what's being put forward on south pender than it is on north pender and when i look at things

[2:30:44] Voice 4: like uh taking a square footage just for citing an example here uh you know you look at the largest

[2:30:52] Voice 4: largest size, which would go from, was whatever the number was 10,000 square feet. And it takes

[2:31:00] Voice 4: it down to, I think it's 4,000 square feet in your current, in your current table, or the table

[2:31:08] Voice 4: that's being proposed. It just strikes me that it is entirely arbitrary. And that's the way it comes

[2:31:13] Voice 4: off. And so to not, this is something that, you know, so if I had a 30 acre property of which

[2:31:20] Voice 4: which there's a small handful of, and all of a sudden you're telling me that I could build 10,000

[2:31:27] Voice 4: square feet and now I can build four. And you're only going to make me notified of that by only

[2:31:34] Voice 4: putting it up by email. What it doesn't come across as transparency, it doesn't come across

[2:31:42] Voice 4: as what I would see full service to the community because there were a number of people that have

[2:31:50] Voice 4: spoken that they're not on the email, that they're not getting notifications. So this is something

[2:31:55] Voice 4: that can have a significant impact on someone's use and enjoyment of their property. And to move

[2:32:02] Voice 4: it along now, first reading, yeah, you've amended square footages, tables, everything else. And it's

[2:32:07] Voice 4: just going to be put up an email and we'll discuss it again. Again, I don't think that you're doing

[2:32:12] Voice 4: yourselves a lot of favors here. So.

[2:32:15] Voice 9: Thanks. Thanks, John. I don't know where the 10,000

[2:32:17] Voice 9: square feet came from and my comments just to be clear related to this i mean you know if there's

[2:32:22] Voice 9: some confusion and if i'm part of that then you know certainly apologies but the the the numbers

[2:32:29] Voice 9: that i was speaking to was with respect to dwelling size so the bylaw um relates to the

[2:32:38] Voice 9: The self-pendered bylaw has, even under the existing table, there is an envelope with inside an envelope of density.

[2:32:51] Voice 9: So you've got a bigger envelope that relates to the sizes of all structures, which includes various accessory structures.

[2:32:59] Voice 9: And then a subset of that number is what a dwelling can be built to.

[2:33:04] Voice 9: so the discussions of the of the sizes that we've been speaking about are are the dwellings not not

[2:33:11] Voice 9: the broader envelope um and if that if that perhaps wasn't clear then then you know maybe

[2:33:16] Voice 9: we ought to have made it clear but you know when i look back to the old um not the old to the

[2:33:22] Voice 9: existing uh land use the existing tables in the land use bylaw i'm just not quite sure where there

[2:33:31] Voice 9: there was a number about 10,000 square feet, which is now down to four.

[2:33:35] Voice 4: Okay. Well, I don't have the existing in front of me and I don't,

[2:33:41] Voice 4: I've, you know, I may have picked an arbitrary number here myself out of this,

[2:33:45] Voice 4: but I'm trying, cause I've looked at so many tables in the, like,

[2:33:48] Voice 4: as I say, I've seen five tables here and I don't remember what it,

[2:33:50] Voice 4: what it currently is and what is being proposed.

[2:33:53] Voice 4: I I'm struggling to actually have enough clarity around that.

[2:33:59] Voice 4: well

[2:34:00] Voice 9: maybe what we'll do is put it out there so people can see what it what like fair fair point

[2:34:06] Voice 9: i mean that that you know we can put together a concise table but but what we're talking about

[2:34:11] Voice 9: here just so people are are clear is house size not the broader envelope of of total buildable

[2:34:17] Voice 9: area that somebody can build um on their property right

[2:34:22] Voice 4: no i i get that i get that and so what is

[2:34:25] Voice 4: is it today what is it today what

[2:34:27] Voice 9: do i look at

[2:34:28] Voice 4: if

[2:34:29] Voice 9: you go to if you go to the land use file i'll look

[2:34:32] Voice 9: at the version that is uh the most consolidated version which is december 21st of 2021 uh go to

[2:34:39] Voice 9: go to page 21 of that bylaw uh 21 of that bylaw citing and size uh this is this particular table

[2:34:48] Voice 9: relates i guess there's a similar one for for uh agricultural zones but the one i'm referring to

[2:34:53] Voice 9: is the residential property class and so there is a table there with two columns three columns

[2:35:03] Voice 9: two of which relate to sizes one of the left column relates to the total buildable area

[2:35:08] Voice 9: the second the most the far right column relates to the maximum size of a of a of a dwelling which

[2:35:16] Voice 9: again is a subset of the total buildable area within that first column.

[2:35:21] Voice 4: Cameron I know that

[2:35:23] Voice 4: and i've read it i don't have it in front of me and

[2:35:25] Voice 9: oh sorry sorry okay and

[2:35:27] Voice 4: as i've seen you know

[2:35:28] Voice 4: i've seen i've seen five tables today in the course of this discussion um you know i'm i'm

[2:35:36] Voice 4: expressing to you that even i'm confused by this and i work in this environment and um so i i think

[2:35:44] Voice 4: it's a reflection of how there may be a broader audience of people here that are confused about

[2:35:49] Voice 4: about this. And, um, you know, again, I come back to this. I don't, I don't think that there's

[2:35:56] Voice 4: sufficient clarity for, for me. I'll go back and do my homework and I'll come back to the next

[2:36:01] Voice 4: meeting, hopefully better informed. And we'll have talked to some of my neighbors in the process,

[2:36:06] Voice 4: but, uh, you know, again, to come to the greater point, which is this, this significantly impacts,

[2:36:13] Voice 4: impacts um people's use and enjoyment of their property and uh to simply put it up uh by an email

[2:36:22] Voice 4: notification on the web page strikes me that that's not not sufficiently transparent for this

[2:36:29] Voice 4: undertaking so okay

[2:36:33] Voice 9: well i appreciate that i'm not i i guess it's it's a subjective term when

[2:36:37] Voice 9: you talk about changes significantly impacting people's use and enjoyment of their property i

[2:36:42] Voice 9: I mean, I guess we could apply that to any discussion, whether that's STBRs or setbacks or ridge heights or anything.

[2:36:49] Voice 9: So, you know, again, to repeat myself, the numbers that were in the table that I supported giving to first reading captured, again, 85 to 90% of all homes in all classes that have been built here, as well as for those that would be bigger having a clause so that they're protected.

[2:37:10] Voice 9: protected and and and the house sizes uh are not are not a firm fixed number so if somebody wants

[2:37:16] Voice 9: to come in with a size that's larger than that they've got the ability to make a request to do

[2:37:21] Voice 9: so so you know again i i guess we could debate whether this is a significant impact i think some

[2:37:28] Voice 9: some neighbors might feel that it's to their benefit that that the that the potential size

[2:37:32] Voice 9: of a house beside them is going to be less looming than it might otherwise have been so

[2:37:36] Voice 9: So I, again, I respect, you know, your views on this.

[2:37:39] Voice 9: I guess we all, we all are bringing a perspective to the conversation.

[2:37:43] Trustee Patrick: Well, I think, I think John to, I'm hearing your point and the draft,

[2:37:48] Trustee Patrick: this next version that you're going to see has a table in it.

[2:37:50] Trustee Patrick: So there will be not, not five tables, but one table.

[2:37:54] Trustee Patrick: So that this next meeting for the community information meeting and the

[2:38:00] Trustee Patrick: public hearing,

[2:38:01] Trustee Patrick: there should be clarity as to what people are providing their opinions or

[2:38:06] Trustee Patrick: questions on and

[2:38:10] Voice 4: again so that's going to get distributed by way of um by being put up on the

[2:38:15] Voice 4: website giving people notification well and for those that subscribe they'll get notification

[2:38:19] Voice 4: that that's correct

[2:38:21] Trustee Patrick: and and also uh trustee thorn and trustee right will push out uh you know the

[2:38:27] Trustee Patrick: the notice of this as well as they can using uh uh any other sources they can use on the island

[2:38:36] Trustee Patrick: to get the word out okay

[2:38:39] Voice 4: i'm just looking for that table that you just referenced cam so i can

[2:38:42] Voice 4: actually yeah yeah yeah

[2:38:44] Voice 4: so

[2:38:46] Voice 9: john it's page page 21 of the existing land use bylaw okay

[2:38:54] Voice 4: 21 yeah

[2:38:56] Voice 9: and

[2:38:57] Voice 4: so we're talking about five categories uh ranging from 3 800 square feet to 6 030 square

[2:39:05] Voice 4: square feet what you're proposing is to stay with to go to four categories is that correct

[2:39:13] Voice 4: that's

[2:39:14] Voice 9: correct uh

[2:39:16] Voice 4: with a maximum of uh too many four

[2:39:20] Voice 9: thousand four four four thousand maximum

[2:39:23] Voice 9: four thousand so

[2:39:25] Voice 4: not the five thousand that's in the existing draft of the bylaw but to go to four

[2:39:29] Voice 4: thousand um so a third a reduction of a third of the buildable area for a house

[2:39:40] Voice 3: which

[2:39:41] Voice 9: again which again to give you context for properties 10 acres or above

[2:39:45] Voice 9: there's two properties on the island 10 acres or above where the homes are larger than four

[2:39:52] Voice 9: thousand square feet fair

[2:39:55] Voice 4: enough and uh i could say to you that i know one large property where

[2:40:00] Voice 4: where the house is cited that you can't even see it,

[2:40:02] Voice 4: which would largely be the case on a larger property.

[2:40:05] Voice 4: You could easily cite something

[2:40:06] Voice 4: that no one would even know it's there, which-

[2:40:09] Voice 4: Yeah, for sure.

[2:40:11] Voice 4: Yeah, and then that seems to reinforce

[2:40:14] Voice 4: the arbitrary nature of the square footage is selected,

[2:40:17] Voice 4: but okay, I'm not gonna beat this up any further.

[2:40:21] Voice 4: That's just, I'm getting further entrenched

[2:40:24] Voice 4: into a position here that I didn't expect

[2:40:26] Voice 4: that would be entrenched in this discussion went on.

[2:40:31] Voice 4: Thank you.

[2:40:31] Voice 4: you oh

[2:40:32] Trustee Patrick: thank you very much john uh gordy yeah

[2:40:42] Voice 11: just just um i think i alluded to it a bit earlier

[2:40:46] Voice 11: in my previous speech that just for most folks out there what has been given first reading today

[2:40:53] Voice 11: is going to public hearing and to uh second and third next meeting is my prediction um i'll be

[2:41:03] Voice 11: be reassured that there can be lots of changes but past trustees and i've heard it many times

[2:41:10] Voice 11: said you don't put something to the public hearing unless you're going to pass it so i'm predicting

[2:41:17] Voice 11: that the new uh square footage is adapted today is what south pender will have effective may 6th

[2:41:28] Voice 11: thank you um well

[2:41:30] Voice 11: it wouldn't actually

[2:41:31] Voice 9: be effective may 6 gordy but i think

[2:41:33] Voice 11: i know what

[2:41:34] Voice 11: you're

[2:41:34] Voice 9: trying to say yeah

[2:41:35] Voice 11: i hope you do because uh don't don't get caught up and you know what

[2:41:40] Voice 11: i'm saying and yeah i

[2:41:41] Voice 11: don't know i'm just okay well let's be clear and you know your

[2:41:46] Voice 11: scenes you brought it up um you quickly quoted two houses in the 10 acre what about houses in

[2:41:55] Voice 11: and the one acre and to say up to three acres

[2:42:00] Voice 11: that are being affected by this new decision.

[2:42:03] Voice 11: What's the numbers on those?

[2:42:05] Voice 9: I said Gordie that the, well, again,

[2:42:11] Voice 9: one of the reasons that I took the approach of one table

[2:42:14] Voice 9: as opposed to two is because,

[2:42:17] Voice 9: and I know you've made comments yourself

[2:42:19] Voice 9: about a particular house that was built

[2:42:24] Voice 9: on gallon point road some years ago and you felt bad about it uh being legal non-conforming under

[2:42:29] Voice 9: the existing land use bylaw now that that would

[2:42:32] Voice 11: be like you said that was some years ago

[2:42:34] Voice 11: cameron let's deal with

[2:42:36] Voice 9: no no no no no no no no let me finish cordy i'm saying that if we went

[2:42:40] Voice 9: with two tables that other house would still be legal non-conforming so what i'm saying is

[2:42:46] Voice 9: the approach that i've taken here including the clauses would would rectify that situation that's

[2:42:51] Voice 9: why you that that was why the proposal was what it was but in terms of again going on the best data

[2:42:58] Voice 9: that you and i have um under the sizes that would be uh you know bylaw 122 with the table with the

[2:43:06] Voice 9: numbers as proposed if it was adopted there would be uh from what i can tell a total of 25 dwellings

[2:43:14] Voice 9: across all property categories that would that would be larger than uh than what the what the

[2:43:22] Voice 9: bylaw might allow in that particular property so you know there's four in one category five

[2:43:26] Voice 9: and another thirteen one one one one house for example in the four to ten acre category there's

[2:43:32] Voice 9: one house that's larger in the ten acres plus there's two that are larger in the one to two

[2:43:39] Voice 9: acre category there's 13 houses out of like i think it's 90 that would be larger well does

[2:43:46] Voice 11: that include the carports and the garages on your numbers not likely well

[2:43:51] Voice 9: well well well again just

[2:43:53] Voice 9: this is the point is we we jane made the point you know we're going with the best data that we have

[2:43:59] Voice 9: it doesn't matter it doesn't matter because if a house was larger that person is protected by the

[2:44:05] Voice 9: by the the clauses that we're talking about here so it really it doesn't it doesn't really matter

[2:44:14] Voice 9: if a house is larger and they had a building permit and the garage was integrated into the

[2:44:20] Voice 9: house it they're protected so

[2:44:24] Voice 11: as long as i go and get it paid for to have a survey and uh i don't

[2:44:28] Voice 11: know who's going to audit i don't

[2:44:32] Voice 9: think you have to from but yeah i

[2:44:33] Voice 11: don't know that's what i heard

[2:44:36] Voice 9: Well, Gordy, I think I'll let Robert speak to this thing. I've always felt that for an airtight solution, you would have a schedule. I mean, you have a building permit for your house, presumably.

[2:44:49] Voice 9: Presumably, there would be on that building permit set of drawings would be some record of the area to which the house was built.

[2:44:57] Voice 9: I would think that you wouldn't have to go and get a survey done if you have a building permit.

[2:45:02] Voice 9: And you would also likely have a site plan that would have been required as part of your building permit that would have showed your setbacks to the property.

[2:45:12] Voice 9: So effectively, if you said, oh, my gosh, my house is only 15 feet from the property line, not 20, that you, you know, in my thinking, you could certainly rely on that as evidence that your house was legal, despite the changes to the bylaw.

[2:45:28] Voice 9: what what robert's saying and i can i'll let him speak to it is that regardless of where your house

[2:45:34] Voice 9: is in its setback configuration regardless of whether you've got a garage onto it the clauses

[2:45:40] Voice 9: that would be added to the bylaw would would would recognize that circumstance such that you

[2:45:46] Voice 9: would not be legal non-conforming that's right yeah

[2:45:51] Voice 11: okay thank you well

[2:45:58] Trustee Patrick: thank you gordy and i

[2:45:59] Trustee Patrick: I think I'm hearing well when we have the next community information meeting and the public hearing is to really clearly make sure we have some simple language slides to explain this.

[2:46:19] Trustee Patrick: Is there anyone else that wants to address us?

[2:46:21] Trustee Patrick: All right.

[2:46:27] Trustee Patrick: With that, thank you.

[2:46:27] Trustee Patrick: We do want to hear from you, seeing that this has first reading.

[2:46:31] Trustee Patrick: if you do provide written correspondence you can send it to south info at islands with an s trust

[2:46:38] Trustee Patrick: dot bc dot ca you'll be on the record your comments will be on the record and we will have

[2:46:43] Trustee Patrick: to consider them as we proceed so please please reach out and talk to the trustees all right

[2:46:52] Trustee Patrick: with that brings us back to the agenda here if there's no other business just need a motion to

[2:47:00] Trustee Patrick: adjourn

[2:47:02] Voice 9: i'll make the motion to adjourn chair patrick and

[2:47:05] Trustee Patrick: i'll second that so i guess that's

[2:47:08] Trustee Patrick: all in favor that's uh who just made the motion and seconded it so all right well thank you

[2:47:13] Trustee Patrick: everyone for being here today i'm glad to see the sun out uh please uh um enjoy your weekend and

[2:47:20] Trustee Patrick: we'll see you on may 6th

[2:47:22] Voice 13: thanks thank you thank

[2:47:24] Voice 13: you everyone thank you

[2:47:25] Trustee Patrick: kim if you're in the

[2:47:26] Trustee Patrick: the background for taking the time to be here today. And thank you, Lauren. And thank you,

[2:47:31] Trustee Patrick: Robin, for

[2:47:31] Trustee Patrick: making it all work. So we'll see everyone. Bye-bye.