South Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, June 2, 2022

[0:00:00] Trustee Luckham: good morning everyone

[0:00:04] Trustee Luckham: my apologies for the delays um and the technology um this is one of the new

[0:00:11] Trustee Luckham: tasks of the chair technology management

[0:00:13] Voice 5: um

[0:00:15] Trustee Luckham: but here we are

[0:00:21] Trustee Luckham: okay i'll speak up can everybody hear me awesome thank you good morning everybody my name is uh

[0:00:30] Trustee Luckham: Peter Luckham. I'm elected

[0:00:32] Trustee Luckham: on Thetis Island,

[0:00:34] Trustee Luckham: and that's in

[0:00:36] Trustee Luckham: Laiacson and Penelope

[0:00:38] Trustee Luckham: Territory, and I'm grateful

[0:00:40] Trustee Luckham: here today to be here at

[0:00:42] Trustee Luckham: Poets' Cove and

[0:00:44] Trustee Luckham: acknowledge the ancestors

[0:00:46] Trustee Luckham: that are with us here

[0:00:48] Trustee Luckham: and just

[0:00:50] Trustee Luckham: appreciate working in the Salish Sea

[0:00:52] Trustee Luckham: and Coast Salish Territory.

[0:00:55] Trustee Luckham: My

[0:00:55] Trustee Luckham: colleagues joining us today, who I'm sure

[0:00:58] Trustee Luckham: you know, is Steve Wright, locally

[0:01:00] Trustee Luckham: elected on South Bender, Cameron Thorne elected on South

[0:01:04] Voice 6: Bender also,

[0:01:05] Trustee Luckham: and Kim Stockdale, our

[0:01:08] Trustee Luckham: planner today, always our planner, and Robin Elchuk, all right, thank you, doing our minute

[0:01:17] Trustee Luckham: taking today.

[0:01:18] Trustee Luckham: So we have a fairly short agenda page, although we're here for as long as we need to be today

[0:01:26] Trustee Luckham: to conduct these two community information meeting items.

[0:01:31] Trustee Luckham: And so I'm just gonna call the meeting to order

[0:01:34] Trustee Luckham: and just ask for approval of the agenda.

[0:01:37] Trustee Luckham: And that's all right, we'll adopt the agenda as presented.

[0:01:41] Trustee Luckham: And so we're just gonna proceed

[0:01:44] Trustee Luckham: through these two separate 122 and 123.

[0:01:48] Trustee Luckham: One being the land use bylaw, we'll address that first.

[0:01:51] Trustee Luckham: And then the minor official community plan amendments

[0:01:54] Trustee Luckham: we'll address that second if you can keep your con your questions and remarks um separated in

[0:02:00] Trustee Luckham: that way that would be helpful for us to sort it out uh after the fact um you know community

[0:02:08] Trustee Luckham: information meeting a little bit of a process uh sort of thing for me um some of you that have

[0:02:13] Trustee Luckham: worked with me in the past here as the chair of the ltc know i like to stick to the process and

[0:02:18] Trustee Luckham: you know there's a clear distinction between a community information meeting and public hearing

[0:02:22] Trustee Luckham: And community information meeting is the opportunity for staff to present a bylaw of some kind and then provide you as much information as we think is necessary to bridge the gap of understanding about what's on the table.

[0:02:37] Trustee Luckham: And then the opportunity then exists for you to ask questions of ClarityNet, to dig into some of the details and ask some of the questions about the concerns that you might have.

[0:02:46] Trustee Luckham: and then I'll just say that public hearing is when we go into a situation and we're not doing

[0:02:55] Trustee Luckham: any talking for the most part and you are telling us what you think is you love this you hate this

[0:03:00] Trustee Luckham: you think this should be changed or whatever it is that you want to bring to our attention so that

[0:03:06] Trustee Luckham: all of us as trustees representing the South Penner community can hear all of that firsthand

[0:03:12] Trustee Luckham: hand, and in writing, of course, and then in our decision making, we will take that into

[0:03:17] Trustee Luckham: consideration. I'd like to be a little bit more liberal today, because we've got a lot of people

[0:03:23] Trustee Luckham: here, and I know there's a lot of interest in these two particular bylaws. So I want to provide

[0:03:28] Trustee Luckham: the opportunity, not only for staff to answer questions, but I'd like the trustees to be able

[0:03:32] Trustee Luckham: to speak to the reasons and the rationale for these bylaw amendments, and indeed asking questions

[0:03:41] Trustee Luckham: questions for clarity to help you understand what it is that they're thinking on your behalf

[0:03:48] Trustee Luckham: in the community here. So that's how I'm going to proceed. That's all right. And once we conclude

[0:03:55] Trustee Luckham: the first one, we'll go to the second one. I've got a speaker's list here, which unfortunately,

[0:04:00] Trustee Luckham: in hindsight, has bylaws 122 or 123 all lumped together. But I'm going to go through this list,

[0:04:08] Trustee Luckham: then there's another list circulating already or we can circulate

[0:04:11] Voice 2: there's another list right up

[0:04:12] Voice 2: here at the front just

[0:04:14] Trustee Luckham: in order to uh enable us to manage um uh those who want to speak because

[0:04:19] Trustee Luckham: it's quite a few of you here and sometimes it doesn't seem necessarily fair when you ask people

[0:04:23] Trustee Luckham: to erase your hand and somebody gets acknowledged and somebody else doesn't so we just want to be

[0:04:27] Trustee Luckham: fair so

[0:04:28] Voice 4: sir just a um question or a suggestion is that there are several bylaws but components

[0:04:35] Voice 4: of bylaw 123 dealing with the design guidelines arguably have relevancy to some of the questions

[0:04:41] Voice 4: that we're dealing with in terms of components of bylaw 122 on setbacks and size. So I would

[0:04:46] Voice 4: hope that we could also allow there to be some bleed over if it made sense to sort of express

[0:04:51] Voice 4: your views one way or another on those two topics.

[0:04:54] Trustee Luckham: Yeah or ask questions.

[0:04:56] Voice 4: Sure about sure ask

[0:04:57] Voice 4: questions for sure. Yeah

[0:04:58] Trustee Luckham: okay so let us begin and absolutely we'll be flexible as much as we

[0:05:04] Trustee Luckham: we possibly can. And we'll just simply begin. So I'm going to turn to Ken Stockdale to introduce

[0:05:11] Trustee Luckham: the bylaws where we're at today. Thank

[0:05:14] Voice 2: you. I'm just going to stand for this first little bit

[0:05:16] Voice 2: just so I can introduce myself. There may be some of those here that I haven't had an opportunity

[0:05:21] Voice 2: to meet. I've been working with the Island Trust for almost 10 years and I started off as a planner

[0:05:27] Voice 2: one. And then as an island planner, I worked with the Galliano community for many years and then I

[0:05:33] Voice 2: I was on the one or two mat leases in between that.

[0:05:35] Voice 2: And when I came back two years ago,

[0:05:37] Voice 2: I started working with the North Pender

[0:05:40] Voice 2: and South Pender local trust committees.

[0:05:42] Voice 2: So that's why you may have not seen me

[0:05:44] Voice 2: over the last few years,

[0:05:45] Voice 2: but you may have seen me on some of the Zoom meetings

[0:05:48] Voice 2: we've had.

[0:05:49] Voice 2: So we are here for a community information meeting

[0:05:52] Voice 2: for final one, two, two, and one, two, three.

[0:05:55] Voice 2: We also have an online Zoom meeting on Friday, June 17th,

[0:06:01] Voice 2: And it will be the same structure as today, I'll do a little intro, and then the trustees will be able to do a Q&A.

[0:06:09] Voice 2: And so that will be completely online so you can do that at the comfort of your home.

[0:06:13] Voice 2: And then on Friday, June 24 at 10am, it's the regular LTC meeting, but it's actually going to be located at the North Pender Community Hall.

[0:06:23] Voice 2: Unfortunately, this space what they booked up all summer for weddings.

[0:06:27] Voice 2: So the other venue was the North Pinder Community Hall.

[0:06:31] Voice 2: So that's 10 o'clock on Friday, June 24th.

[0:06:35] Voice 2: So I just want to note that for everybody's aware.

[0:06:37] Voice 2: So instead of going over the whole details of bylaw 122 and 123,

[0:06:40] Voice 2: I only want to talk about two or three things that I've heard from some of the correspondents

[0:06:45] Voice 2: and some of the major questions that we've been receiving.

[0:06:47] Voice 2: thing. The first one is regarding floor area and if carports or covered verandas are included in

[0:06:56] Voice 2: that calculation of floor area. So when you look at the definition of floor area in the South

[0:07:01] Voice 2: Pender land use bylaw, it states that it's the sum of all the horizontal areas of all stories

[0:07:08] Voice 2: in a building and stories are anything greater than 1.5 meters apart. So that's just about five

[0:07:15] Voice 2: feet measured to the outer surface of the exterior walls so a carport by that definition wouldn't be

[0:07:22] Voice 2: included in the calculation of floor area nor would let's say this room here um this is our

[0:07:29] Voice 2: exterior wall they have an outdoor veranda that area there outside would not be considered

[0:07:36] Voice 2: in the calculation of floor area um i noticed there's a question should i continue and then

[0:07:42] Voice 2: the questions yeah

[0:07:43] Voice 6: um

[0:07:45] Voice 2: in terms i've also heard a lot about um the idea or around reconstructing a

[0:07:51] Voice 2: house um if there's an unfortunate event of a home uh burning down and you have to reconstruct your

[0:07:59] Voice 2: house in regards to meeting the proposed new setbacks and also the new proposed maximum floor

[0:08:06] Voice 2: floor area. The LTC in this draft by-law or proposed by-law 122 has added a clause that

[0:08:14] Voice 2: states that a dwelling may be reconstructed as long as it's legally constructed at the time of

[0:08:23] Voice 2: the adoption of the by-law. We may rebuild this house as long as the floor area does not exceed

[0:08:31] Voice 2: see the floor area of the dwelling at the time of the adoption of the bylaw. And that's the same

[0:08:37] Voice 2: for the setback requirements as well. So in terms of this new bylaw, if you have a property that's

[0:08:47] Voice 2: less than one acre and you have a house that's 2,800 square feet, if this bylaw is adopted,

[0:08:55] Voice 2: The new maximum would be 2750. If there's an unfortunate event that your house would burn down, you are, you're able to rebuild your house to the 2800 square feet.

[0:09:08] Voice 2: And I also want to mention that floor area and spec setback regulations in the land use bylaw are size and siting regulations, and these regulations can be varied.

[0:09:19] Voice 2: and the process of varying those regulations is through a development variance permit or a board

[0:09:25] Voice 2: of variance. So those are the kind of the three items that we've received a lot of questions about

[0:09:30] Voice 2: so I'm going to hand it back to Chair Lundgren. Thank you very much.

[0:09:35] Trustee Luckham: Okay thank you. So I do have

[0:09:38] Trustee Luckham: a list of speakers but in terms of process and what we're about to go into does everybody

[0:09:45] Trustee Luckham: Does everybody understand what we're going to do here?

[0:09:49] Voice 5: Do we have to put our name on that list if we want to speak?

[0:09:53] Trustee Luckham: Well, ideally, I'd like to have names on a list, and we've got a second list that we'll work on here.

[0:09:58] Trustee Luckham: We can circulate that around, and you can put your name on it.

[0:10:01] Trustee Luckham: But it just makes it easier for me to manage rather than kind of looking around the room trying to figure out who has their hand up and who doesn't.

[0:10:07] Trustee Luckham: through that yes okay

[0:10:08] Voice 5: i just asked a question um you know i do have a reminding one of this

[0:10:13] Voice 5: but i just wanted to know because we've just addressed some basic things that seems to be

[0:10:18] Voice 5: some confusion uh uh on interpretation that's the thing that kim has mentioned that has been

[0:10:24] Voice 5: most controversial so

[0:10:26] Trustee Luckham: you could ask your question in the stream

[0:10:28] Trustee Luckham: of whatever

[0:10:29] Voice 5: it is later it's just

[0:10:31] Voice 5: relevant now but yeah that

[0:10:33] Trustee Luckham: was just a real brief summary yes sir

[0:10:36] Voice 5: it's an issue it's basically i

[0:10:39] Voice 5: guess a point of order on decorum before we even start it's about allowing people to speak freely

[0:10:44] Voice 5: without being bullied and i'd like to address that first before we even start if you'd allow

[0:10:49] Voice 5: me to do that well

[0:10:50] Trustee Luckham: actually if you don't mind i'll do that could i do that no actually this

[0:10:53] Trustee Luckham: is really important um this

[0:10:56] Voice 4: is the kind of minority decorum well

[0:10:59] Trustee Luckham: how about i guess

[0:11:01] Voice 5: people have to know what happened and they have to know this is actually um provincial

[0:11:07] Voice 5: legislation on bullying and i hope it's not going to be

[0:11:11] Voice 5: just forgotten uh

[0:11:13] Voice 5: this has to be pursued

[0:11:14] Voice 5: there's six seven people in here that are being bullied by a trustee online and he's accused them

[0:11:21] Voice 5: of misinformation disinformation misleading statements purposely intending to deceive

[0:11:27] Voice 5: received propaganda intending to promote their own cause, their own self-interest, to create

[0:11:32] Voice 5: distrust, attempting to harm the community, losing civility, and being toxic.

[0:11:39] Voice 1: Now, I'm saying that's

[0:11:40] Voice 1: coming from a trustee, from people who are just trying to put their views forward. That's totally

[0:11:46] Voice 1: inappropriate.

[0:11:47] Voice 5: Now, what I want to read to you is the Islands Trust's policy statement on social

[0:11:52] Voice 5: social media. And by the way, these are all links. What I'm going to read, it's not made up

[0:11:56] Voice 5: without

[0:11:57] Voice 1: any background. The Island's Trust policy statement on social media says,

[0:12:02] Voice 1: as employees, we are responsible to ensure our social media activities comply with the oath of

[0:12:07] Voice 1: employment,

[0:12:08] Voice 5: standards of conduct, and regulations that we follow as public service employees.

[0:12:14] Voice 5: In keeping with the same standard, trustees are responsible to follow the oath of office.

[0:12:19] Voice 5: The Oval Office says, I do solemnly swear, to the best of my ability, to conduct myself

[0:12:26] Voice 5: honestly and ethically in a manner that maintains and enhances the public's trust and confidence

[0:12:31] Voice 5: in the public service and does not bring it into dispute.

[0:12:35] Voice 5: Violence, it goes on to.

[0:12:36] Voice 5: Workplace violence.

[0:12:38] Voice 5: The government is committed to the prevention of workplace violence.

[0:12:41] Voice 1: Violence is defined as not just a physical assault, it includes verbal abuse and intimidation.

[0:12:49] Voice 1: Now, in addition, the government of BC gives a definition of bullying.

[0:12:53] Voice 1: Bullying is intentional, heart-hurtful, and aggressive behavior that makes others feel

[0:12:57] Voice 1: uncomfortable, scared, or upset.

[0:13:00] Voice 5: Types of bullying, name-calling, insulting, intimidating, and verbal abuse.

[0:13:05] Voice 5: Now, every statement made by trustee Wright online and made public conforms to what I've

[0:13:12] Voice 5: just said.

[0:13:12] Voice 6: And

[0:13:13] Voice 5: I believe some action has to be taken by the chair.

[0:13:15] Voice 5: Here, here, here.

[0:13:17] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:13:42] Trustee Luckham: I want to thank you for reminding me about making this a safe environment.

[0:13:47] Trustee Luckham: And so I'm going to say what I would normally say about this kind of situation.

[0:13:54] Trustee Luckham: And you know, I just got to say that it's often challenging when you talk about bullying.

[0:14:00] Trustee Luckham: bullying and when you talk about these kinds of topics in a public venue like this when we have

[0:14:07] Trustee Luckham: friends and neighbors and staff in the room and everybody needs to have the opportunity i'm kind

[0:14:15] Trustee Luckham: of reading off script here at the moment um everybody needs to have the opportunity to be

[0:14:20] Trustee Luckham: able to speak their minds and in a respectful way that everybody one can speak and to be heard

[0:14:29] Trustee Luckham: And so whatever language that you use, and in fact, applause and booing are actually forms of censorship.

[0:14:41] Trustee Luckham: Because if you applaud one person's point of view, another person who has a contrary point of view won't feel safe.

[0:14:49] Trustee Luckham: So I want to ask you to be respectful.

[0:14:51] Trustee Luckham: And certainly there is a code of conduct that trustees need to behave under or follow.

[0:14:58] Trustee Luckham: And I would say that if there's a behavior that is exhibited by myself or a trustee or staff, there is an avenue of complaint.

[0:15:06] Trustee Luckham: And you can file an administrative complaint against a trustee or a staff member, and that will be investigated.

[0:15:14] Trustee Luckham: And where necessary, some remedial action may be taken.

[0:15:19] Trustee Luckham: And so I want to say that please let's be respectful of each other, our friends and neighbors in the room, particularly of our staff.

[0:15:27] Trustee Luckham: it is a workplace and it needs to be a safe place for them to work and indeed let's try to be

[0:15:32] Trustee Luckham: respectful of the trustees as well because they're doing their job in their way they're elected in

[0:15:38] Trustee Luckham: this community and uh as i said if there's concerns with that behavior certainly um let's go there

[0:15:46] Trustee Luckham: um so i got my little prepared thing that i say here um which is as chair of this committee i'm

[0:15:52] Trustee Luckham: committed to ensuring that all people who speak at a meeting are treated treated fairly and

[0:15:57] Trustee Luckham: and respectfully, and that the language we use will reflect that. No form of discrimination is

[0:16:02] Trustee Luckham: acceptable or tolerated. We will all take responsibility to create a safe and inclusive

[0:16:07] Trustee Luckham: environment for everyone to participate and be respected. Members of this committee may call

[0:16:13] Trustee Luckham: point of order if a speaker's language is not respectful. The chair may mute the speaker and

[0:16:18] Trustee Luckham: ask that their language be adjusted before continuing. Comments that include criticism

[0:16:23] Trustee Luckham: or attacks on other people are considered discriminatory

[0:16:25] Trustee Luckham: and are not allowed.

[0:16:26] Trustee Luckham: All comments should be accurate and direct.

[0:16:29] Trustee Luckham: And I'm gonna thank you all for making this a safe place.

[0:16:32] Trustee Luckham: And indeed, if you hear something from a trustee or staff

[0:16:36] Trustee Luckham: that is discriminatory or disrespectful,

[0:16:38] Trustee Luckham: call them point of order and we will address it.

[0:16:41] Trustee Luckham: And if I agree with you, then we will stop that,

[0:16:44] Trustee Luckham: ask for a change of use of language and we'll continue on.

[0:16:47] Trustee Luckham: But let's try to start off on a good foot.

[0:16:50] Trustee Luckham: it. And as you all are wonderful islanders and living in a wonderful place. And let's have a

[0:16:57] Trustee Luckham: conversation about these bylaws. Is that all right? Okay. So I got a speaker's list here with only 10

[0:17:06] Trustee Luckham: names on it. I'm happy to expand that list. And certainly we can go around the room and fill in

[0:17:11] Voice 4: the blanks where we need to. I wouldn't mind making a few comments if I could. As you wish.

[0:17:18] Voice 4: Thank you.

[0:17:22] Voice 4: I just want to take a couple minutes before we start the Q&A or the expression of, I guess, the questions that you may ask.

[0:17:32] Voice 4: I want to reflect a little bit on the last time that there was a meeting of the LTC, which was on May 6.

[0:17:38] Voice 4: And it was, again, a meeting that we were going to have a community information meeting followed by a public hearing.

[0:17:44] Voice 4: so I wanted to just reflect on that a little bit and then share my perspectives as a trustee trying

[0:17:49] Voice 4: to represent the best interests of the island and the range of perspectives and views within

[0:17:53] Voice 4: the context of my responsibility under Gallant's Trust Act first off I think most people would

[0:17:59] Voice 4: acknowledge that when we were meeting in the fire hall that day that there was a perceptible level

[0:18:04] Voice 4: of agitation in the room and I and I too felt agitated or I probably and I probably exhibited

[0:18:11] Voice 4: And so, and so for that I apologize, I probably exhibit a sense of impatience with, with what was going on so I want to, I want to acknowledge that there's no excuse for it I felt my to just to sort of give you an insight into my thinking at the time I felt frustrated because I felt as though we spent a lot of time in the months preceding that going through various discussions with the community on, on, on the issues that were at hand but nonetheless, I should not have done that.

[0:18:43] Voice 4: Secondly, I want to acknowledge that there's a lot of anger, I think, and mistrust with the Islands Trust organization and some of the issues around the Islands Trust statement.

[0:18:59] Voice 4: And I understand that. A lot of people have valid concerns about what was in that statement and the process by which it was advanced.

[0:19:10] Voice 4: As you know, I did not support that statement, but I'm speaking to it now because what I'm hoping we can do is set aside our misgivings or our frustrations about that for the purposes of this meeting, which is a meeting on land use issues on our own island.

[0:19:28] Voice 4: um and um and then i want to um also um just touch upon a conversation i had with somebody

[0:19:39] Voice 4: a couple of weeks ago which was somebody with very good intentions who speaks his mind

[0:19:44] Voice 4: who who said why what's with these bylaws you know these bylaws at house size and bylaws on

[0:19:50] Voice 4: on setbacks and why can't we have sort of perhaps a more interactive dialogue between neighbors

[0:19:57] Voice 4: where we talk to each other and we can determine, you know,

[0:20:01] Voice 4: what are the opportunities for development in the area in consideration of

[0:20:04] Voice 4: people around them. And, and, and, you know, under that scenario,

[0:20:08] Voice 4: a house could be larger if it, if it didn't have, you know, if, if,

[0:20:12] Voice 4: if the neighbors were, were, were generally in support,

[0:20:14] Voice 4: we could have a larger house, a smaller setback.

[0:20:17] Voice 4: And I said that I thought that that was, and I, you know, in theory,

[0:20:22] Voice 4: a great idea and that I always value community input into land use proposals, but that we don't

[0:20:33] Voice 4: have the legal mechanisms. And hopefully as we talk today, I can explain a little bit more about

[0:20:37] Voice 4: the very small toolbox that we have to shape development on our island. And I know a number

[0:20:45] Voice 4: of people have emailed me over the last few days saying, well, what about this? What about the idea

[0:20:49] Voice 4: of taking into account unique topography and special permits and i think there's some really

[0:20:52] Voice 4: interesting ideas so i hope that this conversation can be a positive exploration about ideas

[0:20:59] Voice 4: part of the problem is is we're we're a child of the province and so we we we have limited um

[0:21:04] Voice 4: powers to recreate processes that might work better and i'm hoping that on a going forward basis

[0:21:10] Voice 4: that that we can maybe look at some of these but i guess my point is and is it is for the time being

[0:21:15] Voice 4: these are the tools that we have and i'm doing my best as a trustee to try and listen to everybody's

[0:21:20] Voice 4: opinion and come up with bylaws that hopefully are balanced not only for those wanting to build

[0:21:26] Voice 4: but those that are already in the neighborhood and want to feel as though their views are being

[0:21:29] Voice 4: respected as well and so that's the spirit i'm going into this with and and uh and i'm here

[0:21:34] Voice 4: listening to your your questions and respond back okay

[0:21:38] Trustee Luckham: thank you adam fairness uh steve do you want

[0:21:42] Trustee Luckham: make a remark or

[0:21:43] Voice 5: should we continue

[0:21:43] Trustee Luckham: on i'm here to listen thank you okay so

[0:21:48] Voice 5: let us begin

[0:21:48] Trustee Luckham: so i've got

[0:21:49] Trustee Luckham: a list of speakers here dennis perch canal road is first on my list

[0:21:53] Trustee Luckham: have you spoken already sir

[0:21:54] Trustee Luckham: i'm going to be speaking on uh bylaw one two three about the first nation's proposal so it should

[0:21:59] Trustee Luckham: have come up then in an ideal world but um that would be better for me just in terms of recording

[0:22:06] Voice 5: later

[0:22:06] Trustee Luckham: okay so what i'll do is i'll mark you as uh one two three and i'll get you first

[0:22:14] Trustee Luckham: in the queue when we get to one two three thank

[0:22:17] Voice 7: you very much

[0:22:18] Trustee Luckham: um john um

[0:22:20] Trustee Luckham: i apologize i can't quite read your last name kohar chuck that's right

[0:22:25] Voice 5: so i wanted to speak to uh one two two and in particular with regard to uh 2.8

[0:22:34] Voice 5: the maximum house size okay uh

[0:22:37] Voice 5: this has been a topic of a lot of discussions over the months

[0:22:41] Voice 5: i've asked a lot of questions about it i've noticed with interest the number of times

[0:22:45] Voice 5: this table has changed including the most recent modifications to again

[0:22:51] Voice 5: the version that we saw at the last meeting consolidated the number of categories now

[0:22:59] Voice 5: we've expanded it back down i have to admit it's a little confusing but the substance of it is is

[0:23:07] Voice 5: that basically there's a significant reduction in house sizes against all categories what i don't

[0:23:14] Voice 5: understand and i've tried to understand from the trustees perspective is the basis on which these

[0:23:23] Voice 5: these changes are being recommended

[0:23:25] Voice 5: because frankly, it appears arbitrary.

[0:23:28] Voice 5: If I have a 10 acre parcel

[0:23:30] Voice 5: and can only build a 3,500 square foot house,

[0:23:33] Voice 5: despite my best efforts to site appropriately,

[0:23:38] Voice 5: to deal with land conservation issues,

[0:23:44] Voice 5: to provide appropriate water retention

[0:23:47] Voice 5: for cistern size, et cetera,

[0:23:52] Voice 5: i don't understand why that limitation is there and to date despite asking questions

[0:23:59] Voice 5: i don't find any basis that this has been put forward other than an arbitrary basis

[0:24:04] Voice 5: and the comment was made at the last meeting or meeting prior that oh there is you can you can

[0:24:10] Voice 5: appeal or come forward with an application that varies that but this is the same issue that having

[0:24:18] Voice 5: your neighbors decide what you can build on your lot speaks to which is it's completely subjective

[0:24:24] Voice 5: unless there is some basis for it not to be so there has to be a clearly codified

[0:24:31] Voice 5: set of measurements if you can if there's a basis for it to be outperformed through exemplary

[0:24:38] Voice 5: design building materials whatever there needs to be a clearly demonstrated process and mechanism

[0:24:43] Voice 5: isn't for doing that but as it stands right now frankly it seems classist and it's just early

[0:24:49] Voice 5: and so uh you know the minimum the minimum reduction i see i think is of 1100 square feet

[0:24:56] Voice 5: and from there it becomes more significant despite the fact that the total buildable area on the lots

[0:25:04] Voice 5: hasn't changed specifically the issue of dwelling size has and i again i don't understand why if i

[0:25:12] Voice 5: had even two to four acres why 3 500 square feet is the number that's been picked which is the same

[0:25:19] Voice 5: as for four to ten that was ten plus so okay

[0:25:25] Trustee Luckham: thank you so that sounds less of a technical

[0:25:28] Trustee Luckham: nature question which i might direct to staff and more of a why question which i would like

[0:25:32] Trustee Luckham: to direct to trustees so we would like to take a stab at that question uh

[0:25:38] Voice 8: yeah sure um these numbers

[0:25:42] Voice 8: is uh all uh started from um looking for information and data on on house size which

[0:25:49] Voice 8: uh frankly there isn't

[0:25:51] Voice 5: any the only thing that we can draw off of is the canadian average house size

[0:25:56] Voice 5: that canadian average house size for a three-bedroom home is about 22

[0:26:01] Voice 8: 2300 feet square feet

[0:26:04] Voice 8: so uh considering rural lifestyle considering additional areas that might be needed such as

[0:26:11] Voice 8: mudrooms etc we've expanded that

[0:26:13] Voice 5: average um to above the canadian average so

[0:26:20] Voice 8: um when we

[0:26:24] Voice 8: when we looked at other sizes of houses and we've gone through a number of numbers um

[0:26:31] Voice 8: we have settled on on these numbers any number that comes up with even the numbers that were

[0:26:36] Voice 8: that were presented in the last discussion

[0:26:37] Voice 8: when Wendy and Bruce were trustees,

[0:26:42] Voice 8: they were considered to be arbitrary as well.

[0:26:47] Voice 8: Any figure that we offer is gonna

[0:26:49] Voice 5: be accused of arbitrary.

[0:26:50] Voice 5: There's very little we're gonna be able to do with that.

[0:26:52] Voice 5: It's gonna be arbitrary to those who disagree

[0:26:54] Voice 5: okay with those that do agree.

[0:26:56] Voice 8: But the premise behind this is that in many cases,

[0:27:02] Voice 8: when we're looking at development

[0:27:04] Voice 8: and we're looking at creating and allowing land use provisions, we don't generally look

[0:27:17] Voice 8: at the instance of rural character.

[0:27:21] Voice 8: Rural character is something that is well defined in our official community plan.

[0:27:27] Voice 8: We have looked at that and have come to the conclusion that a rural character is generally

[0:27:37] Voice 8: made up of smaller more functional modern housing that is not in any way shape or form similar to

[0:27:45] Voice 8: urban suburban developments that we see throughout the cities these islands are recognized by the

[0:27:52] Voice 8: province as provincial legislation it's not the island's trust legislation we are a product of

[0:27:58] Voice 8: provincial legislation and they have deemed that these areas are worthy of that preservation and

[0:28:05] Voice 8: protection including the character of these islands and so uh i have seen in the length of

[0:28:11] Voice 8: time which is over over half of my life um living on this island and i have seen some fairly dramatic

[0:28:19] Voice 8: changes take place in this island and i know that a lot of people here will agree that we are very

[0:28:25] Voice 8: fortunate and we love this island and we love it for what it is and some people say we need to

[0:28:31] Voice 8: leave it the way it is. The problem is that the world has changed, attitudes have changed,

[0:28:36] Voice 8: incomes have changed, and along with that it has brought changes to the way people develop

[0:28:41] Voice 8: their property and the attitudes of which have come in order to create that development.

[0:28:47] Voice 8: Now if we like it the way it is, that does not negate the fact that we need to take steps

[0:28:53] Voice 8: to maintain it, to keep it the way it is, and so we have presented this initiative in order to do

[0:28:59] Voice 8: just that. Now, if someone can come to me and explain to me that they need a larger house

[0:29:06] Voice 8: 3,500 feet, or that they have plans for a farm that's larger than 3,500 feet, then bring it

[0:29:15] Voice 8: forward. We'd like to hear it. But most of the comments that I'm hearing is they feel it's too

[0:29:19] Voice 8: restrictive. But there's nothing attached to it. I've got nothing to go on. So if you can provide

[0:29:26] Voice 8: me with better reasons and i don't like it or i don't want any changes then i'm happy to listen

[0:29:31] Voice 8: to it but in the meantime i feel i'm obligated to honor the mandate of the honest trust and

[0:29:42] Voice 8: that is how i interpret it that's how i've received it and um that i expressed that

[0:29:49] Voice 8: during the campaign that that was my intention uh we have to follow two documents we're obligated

[0:29:56] Voice 8: did follow. One is the South Bender Official Community Plan. The second is the

[0:30:00] Voice 8: policy state unanimous trust and i don't see anywhere where these bylaws are contrary or at

[0:30:07] Voice 8: variance with those they're simply a matter of interpretation and so we will see what people

[0:30:14] Voice 8: feel about their

[0:30:14] Voice 5: interpretation steve i could clarify that for you and ask someone to give you

[0:30:19] Voice 5: a good reason oh

[0:30:21] Trustee Luckham: yeah actually i'd like to stick to the speaker's list and give trustee thorne

[0:30:26] Trustee Luckham: a chance to answer the same question uh

[0:30:30] Voice 4: thanks john for the question um uh i'll present a

[0:30:34] Voice 4: slightly different not contrary but just a little bit more color to that to to the question um you

[0:30:41] Voice 4: you say the arbitrary nature of the of the sizes um in in in the in the absence back in 2016 when

[0:30:50] Voice 4: the original uh house size uh were advanced and ultimately approved i think everybody myself

[0:30:57] Voice 4: myself included, because I know I was part of the dialogue at the time. We took best

[0:31:01] Voice 4: guesstimates of what we thought would be sizes that we should set based on lot sizes that

[0:31:07] Voice 4: would capture what was built. So we didn't want to put people into a situation where

[0:31:11] Voice 4: the sizes were out of sync with the existing built form. In the last year or so, myself

[0:31:18] Voice 4: and actually Gordie Duncan, too, independently of myself, because people said, well, when

[0:31:25] Voice 4: when we started talking about house size well this is ridiculous it's these you know these are wrong

[0:31:29] Voice 4: there's no bearing to reality so we we did and looking at bc assessment data which i realize is

[0:31:35] Voice 4: not always completely our title i'll give that caveat but i think it gave a general flavor for

[0:31:40] Voice 4: what the built form was on the island uh by by lot category so that at least gave us a bit of a basis

[0:31:46] Voice 4: to understand you know how we might look at house size uh based on the existing built form especially

[0:31:53] Voice 4: when people say we like things the way they are don't change them um the other thing too about

[0:31:58] Voice 4: the confusion around around the tables and and again that's what we're talking we've been talking

[0:32:03] Voice 4: for a long time on this thing i had a conversation with audrey a couple of weeks ago and and she

[0:32:09] Voice 4: enlightened me to something and i and i i'm the first one to say uh you know people say we don't

[0:32:13] Voice 4: listen well that's not true we had we had we had looked at at consolidating the lot categories to

[0:32:19] Voice 4: to try and simplify things that was happening

[0:32:21] Voice 4: on some other islands.

[0:32:22] Voice 4: That was a mistake in my opinion.

[0:32:24] Voice 4: It had unintended consequences,

[0:32:26] Voice 4: including limiting certain properties.

[0:32:29] Voice 4: Like it wasn't so much the house size,

[0:32:31] Voice 4: it was the total envelope of buildable area.

[0:32:33] Voice 4: And if somebody, we were finding,

[0:32:36] Voice 4: and based on I think a well-advanced argument by Audrey,

[0:32:39] Voice 4: that it would preclude her from things

[0:32:41] Voice 4: that she might wanna do on a property of that size.

[0:32:43] Voice 4: So that was a change that was brought in

[0:32:46] Voice 4: at the last meeting.

[0:32:48] Voice 4: meeting. And I think it was the right one. When we talk about the 3,500, again, these are fluid.

[0:32:55] Voice 4: I mean, you've probably watched other meetings. I do attend a lot of meetings in other cities,

[0:32:59] Voice 4: and there's a lot of back and forth on things as you have a dynamic of people with different views.

[0:33:04] Voice 4: The 3,500 for me personally, for a property in excess of 10 acres, I think that could go up.

[0:33:11] Voice 4: But again, I'm one voice in the meeting, and this is part of why we're talking here.

[0:33:15] Voice 4: you all know that that uh amendments on bylaws are made right on the right at the time of the

[0:33:21] Voice 4: public hearing so i'm just i'm just giving you the flavor of what's going on so um i'll keep it at

[0:33:26] Voice 4: that but but that's that's that's the basis for the size the last thing i'll say john and you know

[0:33:30] Voice 4: this from from your experiences is there's there's outright approval and there's conditional approval

[0:33:36] Voice 4: on things so so a lot of people say and i think you touched upon it too uh there's some people

[0:33:43] Voice 4: say well listen let's talk to our neighbors and figure out um how we can look at house size how

[0:33:48] Voice 4: we can look at setback some people say i don't want to talk to the neighbors i want to know

[0:33:52] Voice 4: exactly what i can do and that's the only thing that's going to be the governor of my of my plants

[0:33:58] Voice 4: and so there is some some there is some tension there about what approaches that we take so

[0:34:03] Voice 4: realizing that somebody can come and build a house without any regard for the neighbors and we there's

[0:34:08] Voice 4: examples that have been floated around the idea is well how do we set something that can can give

[0:34:14] Voice 4: people the latitude to do what they want to do but also protect those around them that can be

[0:34:20] Voice 4: affected that's why the setback idea of going from 10 to 20 for a dwelling was advanced so it

[0:34:25] Voice 4: aligns the ocp goals of of rural character freedom from desserts disturbance etc allowing for the

[0:34:32] Voice 4: fact without a rezoning because that's that's what's unique about our our definitions of

[0:34:36] Voice 4: floor area. So if somebody says, well, you know, 3,500 is not the correct number for me,

[0:34:43] Voice 4: then there is conditional approval, which again is a very, very common thing in many other

[0:34:47] Voice 4: jurisdictions, which allows for an opportunity for more size, where you start to take in

[0:34:53] Voice 4: considerations, not just of yourself, but those around you. So I think we're trying to find that

[0:34:57] Voice 4: sweet spot between the various community interests. So where is conditional approval stated in the

[0:35:04] Voice 4: where is

[0:35:05] Voice 5: it stated in 122 that if I don't like 3500 or I can prove a better case that I should

[0:35:10] Voice 5: be allowed to leave my case to get a bigger house well

[0:35:12] Voice 4: I think that's what the the the what we talk

[0:35:15] Voice 4: about a variance a variance is a conditional approval I mean I get variances all the time

[0:35:21] Voice 4: it's a it's a conditional I mean the definition is very dependent upon the jurisdiction city

[0:35:25] Voice 4: Vancouver calls them conditional outright and conditional other places talk simply about a

[0:35:29] Voice 4: variance so we can talk about you know as we as we look at things I think your intent is well

[0:35:34] Voice 4: understood what we're what we're really and and the last thing I'll say on this is design guidelines

[0:35:39] Voice 4: a lot of people said well don't tell me what to do with with how I design my house if I want to

[0:35:44] Voice 4: make a house that's pink or or is poorly sited or whatever we allow for that you know these outright

[0:35:51] Voice 4: approvals allow you to do whatever you want the only time the building design guidelines would

[0:35:57] Voice 4: come into into into consideration and they are suggestive if you read them through

[0:36:01] Voice 4: they're suggestive is if somebody said i want to be less than uh uh 20 feet for my neighboring

[0:36:09] Voice 4: property and i'm gonna i'm you know and so we've said we're perfect okay fine let's let's talk

[0:36:14] Voice 4: about it let's look at at setting let's looking at impacts on neighbors so that the design guidelines

[0:36:19] Voice 4: are are there to help take into account broader community interest interest in the neighbors as

[0:36:26] Voice 4: you go beyond a maximum house size below that you you can use them in your bird cage so in other

[0:36:33] Voice 4: municipalities

[0:36:33] Voice 5: just close this so in other municipalities that process is is clearly stated

[0:36:40] Voice 5: there is a there's a minimum and to exceed that there is discretion to exceed it if you meet

[0:36:47] Voice 5: certain criteria we talked originally about the on the permit guidelines and things like that i

[0:36:52] Voice 5: know that's not the direction but it's not clearly set out the way that it is now that like you're

[0:36:58] Voice 5: saying 3 500 but there is a basis to to perform you could perform that you can exceed that then

[0:37:06] Voice 5: why isn't that clearly stated you're not in other municipalities where that is possible that is

[0:37:10] Voice 5: clearly stated in the land use bylaw in that section that says here's what you can do you can

[0:37:15] Voice 5: do better if you do these things but

[0:37:17] Voice 4: that that doesn't exist you know john point point well

[0:37:20] Voice 4: Well taken. I guess, again, that's what we're talking here. I think the one thing, I'm just using an arbitrary example, in some municipalities, your outright approval would be X, and your conditional approval would be X plus 2.

[0:37:33] Voice 4: But that X plus 2 is it. If you want to go beyond X plus 2, you're going through a rezoning. The difference here, and I think this is probably, I guess, depending on your perspective, is good news, is there is no X plus 2.

[0:37:48] Voice 4: So in theory, in theory, you know, you can build a much, much larger house if you, if it's got, if it performs well in terms of siting and design.

[0:37:58] Voice 4: So I think there is some differences.

[0:38:00] Voice 4: It's sometimes hard to explicitly take what we see in a different municipality than what we're doing here, but point will take it.

[0:38:07] Voice 4: And I think it's a good, it's a good suggestion.

[0:38:11] Voice 4: yeah yeah

[0:38:12] Trustee Luckham: thank you john i agree with what trustee thorn has just said that and i think that

[0:38:18] Trustee Luckham: paraphrasing your question there's no criteria or no uh definition of what that development

[0:38:24] Trustee Luckham: variance permit might look like like and the camera said the sky's the limit really and so

[0:38:30] Trustee Luckham: it's a discussion that happens that determines how far beyond the uh the bylaw you could or would go

[0:38:37] Trustee Luckham: and so I think that's an important thing for us to consider whether or not there should be

[0:38:42] Trustee Luckham: additional criteria so thank you for that next speaker on the list is Dave Green how

[0:38:47] Voice 5: can we get

[0:38:47] Voice 5: our names on the list pardon me

[0:38:50] Voice 5: I'm

[0:38:51] Trustee Luckham: sorry let's pass this around and make it so there you go thank

[0:38:58] Voice 7: you sir and

[0:38:59] Trustee Luckham: if you're on your list already you don't need to add yourself a second time but

[0:39:04] Trustee Luckham: But obviously, I'm trying to provide an opportunity for a conversation, and there may be follow-up questions and all of that sort of thing.

[0:39:15] Trustee Luckham: What I'd like to do is give opportunity for the variety of voices in the room, and somebody else may want to ask a question that you want to ask as a second question kind of thing.

[0:39:25] Trustee Luckham: Let's try and mix it up and get as many voices in the room as we possibly can.

[0:39:29] Trustee Luckham: and if a question is still not being answered for you let's get you at the end of the list and we'll

[0:39:34] Trustee Luckham: do that more for less formally by a show of hands somewhere near the end to make sure that we indeed

[0:39:40] Trustee Luckham: capture all the questions it's important to me to make sure that we're hearing all the questions

[0:39:45] Trustee Luckham: and providing you with some good answers so dave green is the next speaker at uh on gowland road

[0:39:52] Trustee Luckham: okay over there uh

[0:39:54] Voice 5: what i want to do is just read a letter from a property owner

[0:39:59] Voice 5: is it a

[0:40:01] Voice 5: question in format a letter i just want to read his letter

[0:40:11] Voice 5: okay i just

[0:40:13] Trustee Luckham: if you don't mind i just wonder whether or not a letter from an individual

[0:40:16] Trustee Luckham: that may be stating a position or point of

[0:40:19] Trustee Luckham: view whether or not that's a better opportunity as

[0:40:22] Trustee Luckham: public hearing

[0:40:22] Voice 5: and

[0:40:23] Trustee Luckham: i'll let you be the judge if there's a question in there that needs to be

[0:40:26] Voice 5: answered

[0:40:26] Trustee Luckham: you

[0:40:28] Voice 5: spoke to it earlier but uh okay go ahead thank you just want that clarity

[0:40:35] Voice 5: and he has some knowledge on the subject perfect you might find it interesting thank you uh my

[0:40:41] Voice 5: wife and i are able to attend the upcoming upcoming june 2nd meeting to discuss the proposed

[0:40:46] Voice 5: the document of the new bylaw referring to 122 which is intended

[0:40:52] Voice 5: inter alia to further restrict

[0:40:54] Voice 5: total square footage of the new buildings and increase both ocean side and five-year setback

[0:41:00] Voice 5: at a previous meeting held to informally discuss this matter with both local trustees present

[0:41:07] Voice 5: the attendee residents were given assurances that notwithstanding more than 75 percent

[0:41:13] Voice 5: destruction of a structure, which was rendered non-conforming by virtue of the proposed

[0:41:19] Voice 5: amendment, we as owners would still have the right to rebuild the structure to the same

[0:41:25] Voice 5: or lesser dimensions and on the same footprint as prior to the destruction event.

[0:41:30] Voice 5: I had expressed some doubt that this would be the case since BC law has generally determined

[0:41:36] Voice 5: that in the event of such a destruction event, a structure would not legally be

[0:41:43] Voice 5: eligible to be fully constructed unless special provisions was provided it is my understanding

[0:41:52] Voice 5: that now your planner kim uh has informed and confirmed my fears in the above regard and i do

[0:41:59] Voice 5: not see a provision and the circulating draft amendment saving the situation and providing

[0:42:05] Voice 5: the protection and assurance as homeowners to be required therefore i recommend and request

[0:42:11] Voice 5: the following additional clause be added to the proposed amendment to provide the protection requested and adhered to us.

[0:42:19] Voice 5: In Section 5, notwithstanding subsection 3.33 and 3.44 above,

[0:42:27] Voice 5: in the event that a building or structure legally constructed prior to the adoption of Bylaw 122 on whatever date it is agreed to,

[0:42:40] Voice 5: is destroyed to an extent greater than 75 percent of its entirety and yet had had as if the date of

[0:42:48] Voice 5: destruction been legally non-conforming then the said building or structure may be rebuilt to the

[0:42:54] Voice 5: same or lesser dimensions and on the same building footprint as it existed immediately prior to the

[0:43:00] Voice 5: said destruction event this adoption of this further amendment would provide much peace of

[0:43:05] Voice 5: fine the residents and also alleviate concerns regarding insurance matters including the

[0:43:12] Voice 5: replacement policies john sharrington's uh very good thank

[0:43:18] Trustee Luckham: you very much and you'll give us copies

[0:43:19] Trustee Luckham: to that

[0:43:19] Trustee Luckham: so maybe kim if it's all right i'll turn to you to clarify that 75 percent uh yeah

[0:43:26] Voice 2: absolutely we hear this a lot with the 75 and if you look at the local government act there's a

[0:43:32] Voice 2: section regarding non-conforming use and non-conforming siting and size so but when you

[0:43:40] Voice 2: hear the 75 that's in regards to non-conforming use and that's not what we're dealing with today

[0:43:47] Voice 2: we're dealing with non-conforming siting and size so there's a different section in the local

[0:43:52] Voice 2: government that allows a property owner to i believe alter repair and maintain your the building

[0:44:00] Voice 2: and structure so those are the so when you're dealing with the 75 percent that's something to

[0:44:06] Voice 2: do with with the use so like a commercial view or so forth but i i hear your concern the writer's

[0:44:14] Voice 2: concerned that it's again this fear of a house being destroyed greater than 75 percent as draft

[0:44:23] Voice 2: Bylaw 122 is drafted today in terms of maximum floor area and siting in regards to the setback

[0:44:32] Voice 2: to the lot line, you can rebuild your house as long as it's the same or less dimensions.

[0:44:40] Voice 2: But in terms of the setback from the natural boundary of the seat, there isn't that provision

[0:44:45] Voice 2: in there yet. And this is something the LTC is aware of and potentially will consider

[0:44:51] Voice 2: amending the bylaw um so it's something that we play okay

[0:44:56] Voice 5: can i just people couldn't

[0:44:59] Voice 5: conform to that by the dimension of the property

[0:45:06] Voice 4: yeah and dave thanks for john for sharing john's letter i think um i'm not a lawyer i mean

[0:45:15] Voice 4: i understand that i think law fairly well but i'm not a lawyer john is obviously we've got

[0:45:19] Voice 4: So I think receipt of that letter will be helpful because I can tell you from a policy perspective, it's been my clear intention for months and months and months now that we have airtight language in our land use bylaw that gives the peace of mind that John is looking for as it relates to the matters of destruction of a house.

[0:45:41] Voice 4: And I think we should also look, again, I think we need to be, there's no intentions to penalize people or to punish people.

[0:45:48] Voice 4: I think, you know, if somebody's built a house legally, legally sized and sited and conforming with the bylaw at the time they built it,

[0:45:59] Voice 4: then we need to take every step we can to give them assurance that they're not legally non-conforming.

[0:46:03] Voice 4: And as Kim said, if there was not an explicit clause in the land use bylaws that relates to distance from the sea, then I certainly believe there ought to be.

[0:46:13] Voice 8: Mr. Chair, can I just ask staff, there's an idea floating around that if these bylaws are presented, that some residences will become legal non-conforming.

[0:46:24] Voice 8: And that is simply not the case.

[0:46:26] Voice 8: No house will become legal non-conforming.

[0:46:29] Voice 8: we've taken the steps to ensure that they will retain their legal status so the use of the term

[0:46:36] Voice 8: legal non-conforming is not applicable in this case am i correct in this

[0:46:43] Voice 8: it's

[0:46:44] Voice 2: difficult to give a yes or no really would have to be a circumstance

[0:46:47] Voice 2: i mean in terms of the natural boundary of the sea um you know the ltc is doing its very best

[0:46:55] Voice 2: to remove any possibility of legal non-conforming and that's why they put this additional clause

[0:47:02] Voice 2: so i would imagine that most cases you know there uh isn't any additional um situation where there'd

[0:47:10] Voice 2: be legal non-conforming but i don't want to still put that in black and white just in case there's

[0:47:14] Voice 2: an on false scenario but

[0:47:16] Voice 2: that's the whole point of these clauses right is to give property owners

[0:47:20] Voice 2: ownercy, insurance, that they're not only covered by the Local Government Act, but then there's

[0:47:25] Voice 2: these clauses, clauses that go above and beyond.

[0:47:29] Voice 4: And I would say that, you know, legal non-conforming,

[0:47:32] Voice 4: as most people know, it's not a term that we made up here on South Pender, it applies right across

[0:47:36] Voice 4: the province. There's many, many properties across the province that are legal non-conforming,

[0:47:41] Voice 4: they still carry on, they still get insurance, etc. That being said, we felt, I know I've said

[0:47:49] Voice 4: this before it seemed like that when we were trying to have this discussion the the the the

[0:47:55] Voice 4: concerns over legal non-conforming continually seem to cloud over or eclipse the ability to

[0:48:00] Voice 4: have a conversation so given the small island that we are the number of properties is sort

[0:48:05] Voice 4: of easy to figure out things we said let's go the extra distance of putting in additional comfort

[0:48:10] Voice 4: language in our bylaw to give to give protection to properties that might otherwise be legal

[0:48:15] Voice 4: wanting for me so that's that's the underlying intent

[0:48:18] Voice 5: sure not just uh dealing with the

[0:48:23] Voice 5: probably going to run somebody who has something relevant to the discussion

[0:48:36] Trustee Luckham: well in an ideal situation sure um but quite honestly if everybody wants to talk about every

[0:48:43] Trustee Luckham: every topic I can see that we wouldn't necessarily fairly get through but

[0:48:48] Voice 5: this is one of the most

[0:48:49] Voice 5: important it

[0:48:50] Trustee Luckham: is it is

[0:48:51] Voice 5: like that so

[0:48:52] Trustee Luckham: do the trustees yes want to just I want to hear from Jane does

[0:48:57] Trustee Luckham: everybody mind

[0:48:58] Voice 4: I mean well I mean I mean I think what we want to do is further questions yeah let's

[0:49:05] Voice 6: let's let's get them out of there and

[0:49:07] Voice 4: maybe somebody's question they won't need to ask

[0:49:10] Voice 4: it because somebody else did so let's try and go for a while okay

[0:49:15] Voice 5: thank you so um i've certainly

[0:49:21] Voice 5: followed the non-conforming stuff but it is and um but um there definitely will be people

[0:49:29] Voice 5: non-conforming i don't know how they could not be because we actually have some dwelling sizes

[0:49:33] Voice 5: houses that are going to become legal non-conforming because they are going to be larger

[0:49:38] Voice 5: what the new bylaw is proposing that is legal non-conforming i don't know what else to say

[0:49:44] Voice 5: that's to me that's black and white that that's the legislation so for somebody to say that

[0:49:49] Voice 5: there's not going to be legal non-conforming they don't they're not understanding the legislation

[0:49:53] Voice 5: so and i want to go back and i'm glad kim did finally bring this up because i've been specific

[0:49:57] Voice 5: about the setbacks and i specifically asked last week about the setbacks and to see whether or not

[0:50:04] Voice 5: if a building was totally destroyed that willingness destroyed or caught it could it be

[0:50:08] Voice 5: rebuilt on the same in the same location so my idea and it took a lot of work to get this question

[0:50:17] Voice 5: but in the end if a house is this is from staff if a house is completely destroyed by fire earthquake

[0:50:24] Voice 5: and the housing foundation is required to be replaced the new house would be required to meet

[0:50:29] Voice 5: then you set next. So that is very clear. So I don't know. And that's what we're integrating

[0:50:35] Voice 5: right now. So that's a confusion. And if you look at the registration on the Local Government Act,

[0:50:41] Voice 5: it's quite specific. It says that you can repair, extend, or alter. It doesn't say anything about

[0:50:48] Voice 5: complete destruction. I think purposely. So my understanding of legal non-conforming is

[0:50:55] Voice 5: eventually everything becomes conforming and that's one of the ways that this happens so

[0:51:00] Voice 5: so this is very important uh a discussion we're having here and then i also look at a staff report

[0:51:07] Voice 5: where there was some exceptions being proposed and then a note from the staff staff note that

[0:51:15] Voice 5: these two clauses are not necessary as the draft luv amendment by law legally permits the floor

[0:51:21] Voice 5: floor area and citing the dwelling and cottage construction part of the adoption of 501 through

[0:51:26] Voice 5: 2 so these are all jumbled statements they're making no sense and there's no clarity at all

[0:51:33] Voice 5: you can see why they can connect with each other so you can see why people are upset about what's

[0:51:40] Voice 5: being proposed so somehow this has this is one of the most contentious things so you have not

[0:51:47] Voice 5: not, as Cameron, I would give you say that you've always been clear that your intention was that

[0:51:52] Voice 5: nobody would become legal non-conforming. They are becoming legal non-conforming. So what

[0:51:58] Voice 4: do we do?

[0:52:00] Voice 4: Well, you're right. My intention, again, as I said a minute ago, I'm not a lawyer,

[0:52:04] Voice 4: but from a policy perspective, my intention is that all of the buildings become legal

[0:52:09] Voice 4: non-conforming. I know that I have certainly put out other scenarios by which legal non-conforming

[0:52:16] Voice 4: would be uh avoided um i mean recognizing uh you know one thing that we do in other places is you

[0:52:24] Voice 4: basically have a site-specific zoning for a property so jane's property again i'm hoping

[0:52:31] Voice 4: that the catch-all language in the bylaw will will uh address the concerns and and i but i

[0:52:38] Voice 4: appreciate if there is some confusion i am saying as a fallback position i always said we could look

[0:52:44] Voice 4: at at a site-specific zoning so it would identify your property by the pit and say that it would it

[0:52:50] Voice 4: would actually do an as-built survey of of your house size and of your sighting and it would be

[0:52:54] Voice 4: right legally recognized and it would be an appendix to the to this to the to the lub like

[0:52:59] Voice 4: they do another spin in other jurisdictions so you

[0:53:02] Voice 5: also have proposed uh uh at one point one of

[0:53:05] Voice 5: as we said we went through many scenarios about house sizes and how you're going one of the

[0:53:09] Voice 5: suggestion you have sometimes this reason two tables one for those properties existing at the

[0:53:15] Voice 5: time of the bylaw any construction existing prior to the bylaw and that existing after that's clear

[0:53:22] Voice 5: um what you have now we're all here because we're under that by about eight years or it could be

[0:53:28] Voice 5: building after that file again that is probably the most clear thing that you can do schedules i

[0:53:34] Voice 5: mean it will be pages and pages of schedules and you know it's just not going to work and

[0:53:39] Voice 5: So, I think, and my other concern is, I'm not sure even if you put a statement in your own legislation, in your vendor's file, how does that relate to the Local Government Act and what it says?

[0:53:53] Voice 5: Because it's not saying that.

[0:53:55] Voice 5: So, I think you might have a conflict happening.

[0:53:59] Voice 5: We would be bound by the Local Government Act if we couldn't build.

[0:54:03] Voice 5: So, that's the problem.

[0:54:05] Voice 4: Jane, can I ask you a question?

[0:54:08] Voice 4: just just again these are valuable conversations this is this is meant to try and figure out things

[0:54:14] Voice 4: so we can all move forward as a community i mean the last couple years have been a bit of a

[0:54:18] Voice 4: shitstorm at times and it's it's upsetting because i think we all like

[0:54:21] Trustee Luckham: each other well i'm just

[0:54:23] Voice 4: talking local local jargon here but but but um the one thing about the table um and i i just kind

[0:54:31] Voice 4: of want to throw the question out there so let's just say that there was a property that like under

[0:54:36] Voice 4: the existing land use bylaw as it stands today if you have a property of less than one acre

[0:54:41] Voice 4: so if we went with the two table scenario hypothetically so you have a property less than

[0:54:45] Voice 4: one acre currently you can build a house at 3 800 square feet so let's just say that there was a

[0:54:49] Voice 4: house of 3 000 square feet that was there right now let's say that the new the new bylaw the

[0:54:58] Voice 4: the second table set new houses at 2,750.

[0:55:02] Voice 4: As I say, your existing house is at 3,000,

[0:55:07] Voice 4: but the land use bylaw under the old table

[0:55:10] Voice 4: says you can go up to 3,800.

[0:55:13] Voice 4: So how would people feel if,

[0:55:16] Voice 4: just throwing a scenario out there,

[0:55:17] Voice 4: if that was the case,

[0:55:18] Voice 4: would we have a governor clause that said,

[0:55:21] Voice 4: if your house is 3,000,

[0:55:23] Voice 4: you're protected under the old table,

[0:55:25] Voice 4: doesn't mean now you can just go add on and make it 3,800.

[0:55:28] Voice 4: like I guess that's one of the things that we have to look at if we're if we're looking at two tables

[0:55:32] Voice 4: I guess somebody

[0:55:33] Voice 4: could buy an old house and oh my gosh lottery I'm going to build 6,000 on this

[0:55:37] Voice 4: property when the intent was it was much smaller so we have to look at unintended consequences is

[0:55:42] Voice 4: all I'm saying

[0:55:43] Voice 5: well there's two things I sort of put things astray when I said about the table

[0:55:46] Voice 5: because that's the one with the house when I was talking about setbacks because the setbacks is

[0:55:50] Voice 5: one thing we wouldn't be able to do with the table itself I mean that

[0:55:54] Voice 5: that would be a decision

[0:55:55] Voice 5: built anybody who's built at this time but that that was the rules that they came up with to be

[0:56:01] Voice 5: understood that they could do now it's clear that anybody after that um if they're looking if they

[0:56:06] Voice 5: have not yet built then then here's the new rules considering that 80 of us have already built 80

[0:56:11] Voice 5: percent of the lots um and you're putting the majority of our communities in a very difficult

[0:56:17] Voice 5: situation well

[0:56:18] Voice 4: i i don't with all respect i don't think so that's why we're trying to find language

[0:56:22] Voice 4: and we're debating whether the language

[0:56:25] Voice 4: as currently advanced is providing the protection,

[0:56:28] Voice 4: and there seems to be some doubt about that,

[0:56:29] Voice 4: but nobody's trying to put anybody in a risky situation.

[0:56:32] Voice 4: The one thing I would say is that the danger

[0:56:34] Voice 4: in the two tables without some other language to it,

[0:56:38] Voice 4: and we've seen this in other places,

[0:56:40] Voice 4: is people find an old, happens in Whistler all the time,

[0:56:42] Voice 4: people find an old, old house

[0:56:47] Voice 4: where they maintain one small part of it,

[0:56:49] Voice 4: and then they rebuild it to a much, much bigger house.

[0:56:51] Voice 4: So people would be potentially, you know, in the years ahead, would be finding old houses and building new entire structures, maybe saving a part of the footing and building new entire structures much larger than what the policy intention was.

[0:57:06] Voice 4: So I just throw that out there as something we would need to look at.

[0:57:09] Voice 4: So,

[0:57:10] Voice 5: from your point of interpretation, Cameron, are you suggesting that, I heard you say site-specific zoning, which means in the zoning bylaw there's a site-specific zone that's specific to that property that's dependent to the bylaw, but I don't think that's

[0:57:24] Voice 4: where you want it to go, right?

[0:57:25] Voice 4: Right. I think we were just throwing all sorts of ideas, trying to figure out what gave come.

[0:57:31] Voice 4: I don't think we want space site specific zoning for each property.

[0:57:34] Voice 4: But like there are properties right now that even even with the existing land use bylaw, there are properties that are legal, nonconforming.

[0:57:44] Voice 4: You know, Daryl Henderson's place, again, nice guy built, built to the built to the bylaw in effect at the time.

[0:57:50] Voice 4: So, you know, I had thought about his property when I thought, well, you should have a site specific bylaw that would recognize that despite either the existing bylaw that's in place now or any future bylaw, that there could be a mechanism to address issues of legal nonconformity.

[0:58:09] Voice 4: It wouldn't be for every property, it just would be as necessary to deal with properties.

[0:58:12] Voice 4: so in those situations where it's understood

[0:58:15] Voice 5: that there's potentially the opportunity for conflict

[0:58:18] Voice 5: then you would have a survey done of your existing property that

[0:58:23] Voice 4: stays on the record

[0:58:23] Voice 4: and potentially that was that was

[0:58:25] Voice 4: one idea and i and i know it was then people said well there's

[0:58:29] Voice 4: a similar solution so you know i threw the idea out there because i knew it worked uh then other

[0:58:34] Voice 4: ideas were advanced so again that's why we're having this conversation we're all trying to get

[0:58:37] Voice 4: i think the same end point we're trying to figure out the the most logical straightforward way to do

[0:58:43] Voice 4: it

[0:58:43] Trustee Luckham: okay i i want to try and get back to my speakers list i'm just

[0:58:49] Trustee Luckham: feeling and it's not an

[0:58:50] Trustee Luckham: offense against anybody that's already spoken but those that want to speak out end up speaking out

[0:58:57] Trustee Luckham: and those that are less uh less uh comfortable in speaking out end up getting left out of the

[0:59:04] Trustee Luckham: conversation and i want to make sure that we have that fulson conversation and um the lady in the

[0:59:11] Trustee Luckham: second row here had a hand up about something that well

[0:59:16] Voice 5: it is relevant to this particular

[0:59:17] Voice 5: conversation and i just wanted to bring up a point so with the legal non-conforming

[0:59:24] Voice 5: um and it has to do with insurance so while you can go to your insurance company and get insurance

[0:59:29] Voice 5: on your house should it be destroyed and it's it's termed as legal non-conforming the underwriter

[0:59:36] Voice 5: will only permit you to rebuild to the current bylaw it won't allow you to rebuild to your

[0:59:43] Voice 5: previous existing size so that's the other piece that we have to make sure that we are tightly

[0:59:48] Voice 5: covered so there there is also that unforeseen side effect of reducing these health sizes

[0:59:56] Voice 5: exercises additionally.

[1:00:00] Voice 4: I find, and again, we're doing everything we can to find the magic language, but I must say,

[1:00:05] Voice 4: it might be worth a conversation with officials in places like West Vancouver. I mean, there's

[1:00:10] Voice 4: some very, very large homes, very, very expensive homes. The

[1:00:15] Voice 4: house size has been brought down quite

[1:00:17] Voice 4: dramatically from what people have built. You would think you would hear a human cry if none

[1:00:23] Voice 4: of these people could get insurance anymore. I haven't heard anything. I'm

[1:00:27] Voice 5: not saying you can't

[1:00:27] Voice 5: You can't get a chance. You just

[1:00:29] Voice 5: can't rebuild to your previous size. You have to rebuild to the current.

[1:00:35] Voice 5: But

[1:00:35] Voice 4: if your house was 10,000 square feet

[1:00:37] Voice 4: and it burned down and the bylaw only allowed you to build to 5,000, are you saying you'd only get compensated for the 5,000?

[1:00:44] Voice 5: Correct. And then you have to pay the rest to rebuild.

[1:00:47] Voice 4: I think that's worth looking into. I mean, again, I think we're trying to set aside all those hypothetical conversations through language that makes people conforming as opposed to conforming.

[1:00:56] Voice 8: And I've asked public meetings before,

[1:00:57] Voice 8: can you get

[1:00:58] Voice 5: a letter from your underwriter expressing that?

[1:01:01] Voice 6: I have asked.

[1:01:02] Voice 5: They're reluctant to put that type of thing in writing.

[1:01:07] Voice 5: But I've called and I've spoken to two different ones

[1:01:10] Voice 5: and they both said,

[1:01:11] Voice 5: if you've got a bylaw that has reduced your house size,

[1:01:15] Voice 5: they will only compensate you the insurance value

[1:01:18] Voice 5: to the new size and the rest is lost.

[1:01:21] Voice 5: Well,

[1:01:21] Voice 8: when the concern about legal non-conformity first arose, it kind of caught my attention

[1:01:29] Voice 8: because I personally don't see the concern, as much as some people do, about a legal non-conformity

[1:01:36] Voice 8: status.

[1:01:37] Voice 8: Any house that was built after the new provincial building codes were implemented are, in a

[1:01:45] Voice 8: sense, legal non-conformity.

[1:01:47] Voice 8: So I don't see it.

[1:01:49] Voice 8: So I did check on appraisals.

[1:01:50] Voice 8: i did check with uh on the value house and assessments uh nobody raised an eyebrow with

[1:01:57] Voice 8: the people i spoke to i i did talk to insurance adjusters and uh i was told that the house is

[1:02:05] Voice 8: insured for what is there now and if it burns down or destroyed that is the value of what they will

[1:02:14] Voice 8: replace okay and if there is a question uh or concern insurance companies offer

[1:02:26] Voice 8: um insurance for a bylaw change so you can get that added on so that you are protected against

[1:02:31] Voice 8: any changes in the bylaws now one one uh fellow insurance said if your insurance company is

[1:02:39] Voice 8: reluctant to commit to that his suggestion was you find another insurance company

[1:02:44] Voice 5: so i think

[1:02:46] Voice 8: there's confusion within within the insurance company so i think if if it if it will help

[1:02:54] Voice 8: and and protect your interest and you feel it's important i would i would simply say get a letter

[1:03:01] Voice 8: from your adjuster or underwriter to confirm what you are concerned about and how they remedy it

[1:03:08] Voice 8: Either

[1:03:08] Voice 4: way, we don't want legal

[1:03:09] Voice 8: law to inform it.

[1:03:10] Voice 4: That's what we're trying to get at.

[1:03:11] Voice 4: We're trying to

[1:03:11] Voice 8: avoid it, but I don't...

[1:03:12] Voice 5: That's what I'm saying.

[1:03:13] Voice 5: There is this additional issue.

[1:03:16] Voice 5: So it's either, like I said, paying more insurance to be able to rebuild,

[1:03:20] Voice 5: or the underwriter is the underwriter themselves.

[1:03:23] Voice 5: Like I said, I went to two different ones.

[1:03:25] Voice 2: And

[1:03:25] Voice 5: like I said, these are things that they're reluctant to put into writing.

[1:03:30] Voice 5: But they will cover the cost to the new current Bible.

[1:03:33] Voice 5: So if you've got above 10 acres and you've currently got a 6,000 square foot house there, and the new standard is 3,500, they'll give you the money for the 3,500.

[1:03:44] Voice 5: The rest is on you. Or like you said, you pay more money for additional interest, which is going to be very expensive.

[1:03:51] Voice 8: Well, yeah, let's get that confirmed before we jump to conclusions.

[1:04:02] Trustee Luckham: I don't think we want to go down the rabbit hole of insurance because even if you have a letter

[1:04:08] Trustee Luckham: it doesn't necessarily mean anything I think

[1:04:10] Voice 4: we all know

[1:04:10] Trustee Luckham: that yeah and

[1:04:11] Trustee Luckham: no disrespect to people

[1:04:14] Trustee Luckham: in the insurance business it's tricky but with respect to what we're talking about what I'm

[1:04:20] Trustee Luckham: hearing is is we absolutely need more clarity around what we call out in the form of peace

[1:04:25] Trustee Luckham: correct thank

[1:04:25] Trustee Luckham: you so that's a good uh thing for us to be aware of so i'm going to go back to my

[1:04:30] Trustee Luckham: speakers list just to try and be fair so paul petrie is my next speaker thank

[1:04:36] Voice 5: you chair um

[1:04:37] Voice 5: i'd like to go back to the bigger picture uh about uh house size um i have uh

[1:04:44] Voice 5: first i just want to say thank you to the trust committee for responding to the issues that arose

[1:04:51] Voice 5: rose on May 6th and setting out two community information meetings that were very responsive

[1:04:56] Voice 5: to what we were concerned about and a separate public hearing. Thank you for that. And also

[1:05:02] Voice 5: trustees, thank you for your early comments about why you looked at house size. And we as a

[1:05:10] Voice 5: community have looked at this for a number of years and sometimes painfully. But taking a closer

[1:05:16] Voice 5: to look um 3500 feet is the equivalent of 18 12

[1:05:23] Voice 1: by 14 rooms it's a pretty large structure and i

[1:05:29] Voice 1: mean that that was a quick way for me to think through what that size means but i think the

[1:05:35] Voice 1: better way to do

[1:05:35] Voice 5: it is just to go online for anybody here go online and

[1:05:40] Voice 1: just google house

[1:05:41] Voice 1: design 3,000 square feet

[1:05:44] Voice 5: or 3,500 square feet and look at the houses that you can

[1:05:48] Voice 5: build at 3,500 square feet and there's some large houses built there and so

[1:05:58] Voice 5: both of the trustees have experience in building building design building

[1:06:05] Voice 5: construction you have some expertise I don't think these are arbitrary figures

[1:06:11] Voice 5: I think these are figures that respond to the trust mandate, number one.

[1:06:16] Voice 5: I think these figures also respond to the rural nature of our island community, and

[1:06:22] Voice 5: I strongly support the reduction

[1:06:25] Voice 1: to 3,500 feet.

[1:06:28] Voice 1: I think that's very adequate.

[1:06:30] Voice 1: My question is, and

[1:06:37] Voice 5: maybe Kim Stockdale can answer this, when it comes to a situation where

[1:06:47] Voice 5: a property owner has compelling reasons to build beyond 3,500 feet, let's say, for example,

[1:06:54] Voice 5: their family situation is such that they need accommodation for three generations in a family.

[1:07:03] Voice 5: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is a process that will deal with that,

[1:07:09] Voice 5: and that process will involve some consultation

[1:07:14] Voice 1: with neighbors to see if that

[1:07:15] Voice 5: change would affect

[1:07:16] Voice 5: the neighbor's interests. To me, that's a very important protection. It might also consider

[1:07:24] Voice 5: to consider adequacy of water source,

[1:07:28] Voice 5: consider a number of things,

[1:07:31] Voice 5: but in the end, the issue of a variance for that property

[1:07:36] Voice 5: to increase the size of the dwelling

[1:07:39] Voice 5: would rest with the trustees

[1:07:41] Voice 5: after having considered the information and evidence.

[1:07:44] Voice 5: And I can say without any hesitation

[1:07:46] Voice 5: that the trustees that we've had in this community

[1:07:49] Voice 6: for the last, I don't know, 20 years,

[1:07:58] Voice 6: that would have been

[1:07:58] Voice 5: responsive to the community and flexible in terms of the application of rules

[1:08:04] Voice 5: so i have no concerns

[1:08:07] Voice 1: about the opportunity to extend but is that a correct understanding on

[1:08:12] Voice 1: my part yes

[1:08:13] Voice 2: so that is correct um it would be either through a development variance permit

[1:08:18] Voice 2: or board of variance and a development variance for both applications at the beginning at the

[1:08:24] Voice 2: initial stages we always encourage applicants to sit down with planners to go over the application

[1:08:28] Voice 2: so we can see what the rationale is and really try to give them a good sense if this is something

[1:08:34] Voice 2: staff would support or not we'd be looking at ocp policies groundwater how it may affect property

[1:08:41] Voice 2: owners and surrounding neighbors and the island as a whole so this is something that the planners

[1:08:47] Voice 2: sit down and go over and then if the applicant still wants to move forward there is a notice

[1:08:52] Voice 2: that would be sent to neighbors within 100 meters

[1:08:57] Voice 2: of the subject property.

[1:08:59] Voice 2: And then it goes to an LTC meeting, this is for a DDP,

[1:09:02] Voice 2: where it's up to the discretion of the LTC

[1:09:05] Voice 2: to approve or not approve, yeah.

[1:09:08] Trustee Luckham: So thank you very much.

[1:09:10] Trustee Luckham: So thank you for the question, thank you for the answer.

[1:09:12] Trustee Luckham: Maybe you've used the word Board of Variants

[1:09:15] Trustee Luckham: or BOV a couple of times now,

[1:09:16] Trustee Luckham: just maybe clarify for members of the audience

[1:09:19] Trustee Luckham: why you would go to a BOV as opposed to a local trust?

[1:09:23] Voice 2: A board of variance is when you're dealing with a variance where there is a hardship

[1:09:28] Voice 2: or the variance is minor in nature.

[1:09:32] Voice 2: So, for example, if you have a smaller property that's quite rocky

[1:09:37] Voice 2: and there's only, say, a particular buildable area, perhaps where there's no trees,

[1:09:42] Voice 2: but it's within a portion of the setback, that could be a rationale for a hardship

[1:09:47] Voice 2: and it could be potentially minor in nature.

[1:09:50] Voice 2: So it wouldn't go to the LTC for decision.

[1:09:53] Voice 2: There is a board made up of three community members,

[1:09:55] Voice 2: which are community, the board members are voted in by,

[1:09:59] Voice 2: or elected by the LTC.

[1:10:02] Voice 2: So property owners have those two different

[1:10:06] Voice 2: application processes.

[1:10:08] Voice 2: Board of variance is based on hardship

[1:10:10] Voice 2: and have to be minor.

[1:10:11] Voice 2: And then development variance permit

[1:10:13] Voice 2: will come to the LTC for decision.

[1:10:15] Voice 2: I

[1:10:16] Trustee Luckham: don't

[1:10:24] Voice 5: know what my question is, but my house is over 3500 sq ft. I built it 22 years ago.

[1:10:32] Voice 5: I made accommodations for a sick sister living with me, a sick aunt, a sick mother-in-law.

[1:10:39] Voice 5: i have used and i actually could use a little bit more space i have a large family they live

[1:10:46] Voice 5: on the island i have my grandkids there i have my brothers i i think that to tell somebody

[1:10:57] Voice 5: i have two and a half acres but to tell somebody on 10 acres that they can have a smaller house

[1:11:03] Voice 5: than i have now i use we use every square inch of our house we've got wide halls for wheelchairs

[1:11:10] Voice 5: we've got bigger bathrooms we've done it to age in place and it takes a little bit more space

[1:11:19] Voice 5: um halls are a lot wider i honestly

[1:11:24] Voice 2: believe that if you i i don't think setting a 3500

[1:11:30] Voice 5: square foot

[1:11:31] Voice 5: house and i personally i just think that's sort of infringing on a person's right to live how they

[1:11:40] Voice 5: how they want to build their house i don't know that's that's me and if i wish to add on 50 square

[1:11:46] Voice 5: feet or 100 square feet to keep me out of the rain on my back porch i would have to go to the board

[1:11:52] Voice 5: of variance no no are

[1:11:54] Voice 5: you are you

[1:11:54] Voice 4: enclosing the room laundry are you cheating it's

[1:11:57] Voice 5: a porch but

[1:11:58] Voice 4: is it is it open to the sides

[1:11:59] Voice 5: it won't be i'm just asking if i have to build 200 square feet

[1:12:04] Voice 5: in my room to get me out of the rain would i have to take a variance out and put that 200 square foot

[1:12:11] Voice 5: porch on the outside of my house i

[1:12:13] Voice 4: guess the question is it's habitable space

[1:12:15] Voice 4: that yeah if it's habitable space that that is included in your calculation of floor area

[1:12:23] Voice 5: i'm already at 4 000 square feet or 3 800 so i'm already over the 3500 i'm asking for 200

[1:12:31] Voice 5: hundred square feet more I'm not going to I'm just hypothetically you

[1:12:35] Trustee Luckham: would have to go to board

[1:12:37] Voice 2: of variance well

[1:12:38] Trustee Luckham: you'd have to ask for a variance your board of variance is a different governing

[1:12:41] Trustee Luckham: body you can ask

[1:12:43] Voice 5: for a variance

[1:12:45] Trustee Luckham: yes and

[1:12:47] Voice 5: then they would ask my neighbors

[1:12:48] Voice 4: all of that yeah yeah all

[1:12:51] Voice 5: of that okay Andre

[1:12:52] Voice 4: neighbors don't have a veto just just to be clear right neighbors don't have

[1:12:56] Voice 4: a veto and i i think and i think paul summed it up nicely i think we can all agree to disagree

[1:13:03] Voice 4: not everybody

[1:13:04] Voice 4: here voted for me but but i think we're all trying to to think uh about

[1:13:10] Voice 4: the balance of how like knowing like i don't know if your neighbors didn't like your porch i mean i

[1:13:15] Voice 4: know i'd be to your house i can't see how your neighbors would be adversely affected if you if

[1:13:19] Voice 4: you had to increase the size of your porch

[1:13:21] Voice 7: so i think it was just it i

[1:13:23] Voice 4: know what i'm saying is

[1:13:26] Voice 4: i think every house every situation is specific to those

[1:13:29] Voice 4: circumstances so it's hard to make blanket

[1:13:31] Voice 4: statements that's the problem with the bylaw that we have but it's the only two we have if we had a

[1:13:35] Voice 4: more shelly sent me an email the other day if we had a more a different process where we could look

[1:13:42] Voice 4: at a more tailored way about different properties there's some merits to that but there's some

[1:13:47] Voice 4: downsides to that so you know um can't

[1:13:50] Voice 2: you just leave it the way it is right now and that's why i

[1:13:54] Voice 2: i think

[1:13:54] Voice 2: everybody in this room i'm asking i think everybody in this room would like to get rid of

[1:14:00] Voice 2: the 122 um and just if it ain't broke why

[1:14:06] Voice 5: are we fixing it that's

[1:14:08] Voice 4: my personal that's your view but

[1:14:09] Voice 4: i don't know if it's everybody's view i

[1:14:10] Voice 5: don't know oh

[1:14:11] Voice 6: yeah we're

[1:14:13] Voice 4: not yeah it's everybody

[1:14:14] Voice 4: sorry

[1:14:15] Voice 6: so

[1:14:17] Voice 4: i didn't see everybody's hand up i i guess for the story audrey i love you

[1:14:23] Voice 2: sure if i may speak yes please i

[1:14:25] Voice 2: don't know your property personally but i just want to clarify

[1:14:28] Voice 2: the whole torch it's only if you fully enclose the porch right so then yes that would mean that

[1:14:36] Voice 2: it would be included for i just want to make sure that

[1:14:38] Voice 5: everybody's aware of

[1:14:39] Voice 2: the range of your

[1:14:40] Voice 2: washer and dryer might be in exactly yeah i just wanted to make sure for clarity don't enclose it

[1:14:45] Voice 1: and say you have the approval yeah thank

[1:14:47] Voice 2: you thank

[1:14:48] Voice 1: you i wouldn't

[1:14:50] Trustee Luckham: condone that uh thank you for the

[1:14:52] Trustee Luckham: question gordy duncan next speaker thanks bill let's keep let's do try and keep laughing gordy

[1:15:02] Trustee Luckham: over to you. I

[1:15:02] Voice 5: don't know where to start. Maybe I'll sit down.

[1:15:09] Voice 6: As far as

[1:15:11] Voice 5: Cameron

[1:15:13] Voice 8: and Steve both

[1:15:15] Voice 8: have mentioned getting community input and all that kind of thing. One of the trends that I've

[1:15:20] Voice 8: seen in respect to the trustee seating input is that you do have access to APCs. You have the

[1:15:30] Voice 8: ability to appoint those and give them a job to do and if it's bill one or bylaw 122 you can sign

[1:15:39] Voice 8: that apc a job and ask them to seek and get community input and seek their advice that

[1:15:48] Voice 8: doesn't appear to have been done uh i've also sat on uh on former terms where there's things

[1:15:57] Voice 8: things called focus groups and what we did as a community the trustees asked the group of people

[1:16:06] Voice 8: to consult to the community so there is lots of ways for you as trustees to see input rather than

[1:16:14] Voice 8: a top-down process that we seem to be going through now um

[1:16:18] Voice 5: and I was hoping we might have

[1:16:21] Voice 5: a projector here so we could uh and could bring up the uh definition as written in our ocp uh of

[1:16:32] Voice 5: rural world does that work i

[1:16:36] Voice 8: could read it but we're not going to do that in my estimation the

[1:16:42] Voice 8: development that has taken place on south pander to this stage which includes 80 of the properties

[1:16:49] Voice 8: has satisfied the definition of rural where i won't say rural nature because that's not

[1:16:59] Voice 8: harder but it does satisfy our defined definition of rural very nicely we've all

[1:17:06] Voice 8: in this room while we may disagree but we are agreed that we are all pleased with the island

[1:17:14] Voice 8: that exists today and that the development that's taking place with this on it is

[1:17:21] Voice 8: we're all quite happy with it so to say that we need to prepare for all these people

[1:17:30] Voice 8: to say that we need to prepare for all these people that are going to come on island

[1:17:36] Voice 8: and rip down these little colleges

[1:17:38] Voice 5: and build these great big houses is i think

[1:17:43] Voice 5: a bit of a stretch and i'd like to maybe support that a little bit by uh something that trustee

[1:17:51] Voice 5: wright wrote in his i'm sorry and gordon do you have a question well

[1:17:56] Voice 8: i don't think i have to have

[1:17:57] Voice 8: a question do i well

[1:17:59] Voice 7: you know

[1:18:00] Voice 8: i i started out i want the trustees to explain to me using the

[1:18:08] Voice 8: the rural definition in the OCP,

[1:18:11] Voice 8: how it has so badly failed us in developing the lots

[1:18:16] Voice 5: as the developing subcontinent as we know it is today.

[1:18:20] Voice 5: Thank you. Great question.

[1:18:22] Voice 4: So Gordy, yeah, yeah.

[1:18:25] Voice 4: Gordy, thank you for that.

[1:18:25] Voice 4: There's a few things to unpack there.

[1:18:27] Voice 4: Just

[1:18:28] Voice 5: a point there.

[1:18:28] Voice 5: There actually, I did come to the definition.

[1:18:30] Voice 4: Yeah, yeah.

[1:18:31] Trustee Luckham: Why don't we read it out?

[1:18:32] Trustee Luckham: Because it

[1:18:33] Voice 4: does, I'm

[1:18:34] Trustee Luckham: just gonna look for it myself.

[1:18:35] Trustee Luckham: Our staff could read out the definition.

[1:18:38] Trustee Luckham: The staff is on it, because I think it is worth hearing that.

[1:18:46] Voice 4: Why don't we let Kim read it from the front?

[1:18:49] Voice 4: It'll be the same thing as what anybody else will read.

[1:18:51] Voice 2: So to find the definitions, I apologize.

[1:18:54] Voice 2: I apologize, they're in

[1:18:56] Voice 2: a different...

[1:19:07] Voice 2: No, but this is the LEP, not the...

[1:19:11] Voice 2: Thank you.

[1:19:14] Trustee Luckham: Thanks for the help.

[1:19:15] Voice 2: Oh, it's a paragraph, so bear with me.

[1:19:18] Voice 2: rule when used to describe the character of south pender island means the effect created

[1:19:25] Voice 2: by features and qualities including but not necessarily limited to low density density

[1:19:32] Voice 2: and relatively unstructured development comparatively undisturbed natural and varied

[1:19:40] Voice 2: landscapes freedom from disturbance and privacy from neighbors limited on island services

[1:19:47] Voice 2: and an appreciation of both individual stewardship and community regulation intended to protect

[1:19:54] Voice 2: and maintain the island's ecosystems, amenities, and its residents and property owners' land

[1:20:01] Voice 2: use needs and lifestyle.

[1:20:04] Voice 4: So now that you've...

[1:20:07] Voice 5: Yeah, sure, sure.

[1:20:08] Voice 5: Have we gone astray?

[1:20:11] Voice 5: How do you think in terms of this bylaw 122?

[1:20:17] Voice 4: well i don't

[1:20:18] Voice 4: think we've gone astray with bylaw 122. but but um you're you're i think you're

[1:20:22] Voice 4: asking how we got astray with the form the the predominant form of development that's

[1:20:26] Voice 4: being built today i think

[1:20:28] Voice 8: that's why i'm not asking that

[1:20:29] Voice 4: no you okay you

[1:20:30] Voice 8: said it served us

[1:20:31] Voice 8: very well i think i'm saying that 80 percent of the development right properties are developed

[1:20:37] Voice 8: now we all seem to agree that this is pretty good yeah so i'm not asking how the previous

[1:20:44] Voice 8: development is I'm asking how it has precipitated you to create these bylaws that you feel we need

[1:20:54] Voice 8: to create to stop these people coming aboard and ripping down their little houses and go to new

[1:21:04] Voice 8: ones. In other words, you're trying to project out into the future something that may not happen.

[1:21:08] Voice 4: Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on things. I know it's surprising. I mean,

[1:21:15] Voice 4: We do agree on some things, Gordy.

[1:21:16] Voice 4: One thing we seem to agree on is that the existing built form, the sizes that we have both identified,

[1:21:23] Voice 4: would suggest that the house sizes that are on the islands now are quite a bit smaller than what was in the 2016 bylaw

[1:21:31] Voice 4: and are actually much more aligned to what's in the bylaw 122.

[1:21:34] Voice 4: So that's one thing that we agree on.

[1:21:35] Voice 4: But I would also suggest, if you want to look to other examples in other communities, pick a drive to Caulfield.

[1:21:44] Voice 4: Caulfield is radically different now than it once was when those cute little 1930s and 1940 houses

[1:21:50] Voice 4: were built. Go up to Narrow Meadow, go to White Rock. If you're not willing

[1:21:59] Voice 4: to look to what's

[1:22:00] Voice 4: going on in the world around us I think you're going to be flat-footed for what's coming our way

[1:22:04] Voice 4: and I'm not saying that what's being built to date in most circumstances is necessarily

[1:22:10] Voice 4: necessarily a problem, but I think we need to be proactive and forward-looking. I'm not going to

[1:22:16] Voice 4: name names, but I've seen recent emails from people stating with, I think, a justifiable

[1:22:23] Voice 4: degree of concern that some of the new developments that's been going on, particularly off Southlands,

[1:22:28] Voice 4: has created quite a concern, and if that is a harbinger of things to come, then I think it would

[1:22:34] Voice 4: would be naive to assume that people aren't looking at this island and going, well, there's

[1:22:41] Voice 4: some great opportunities to redevelop those old houses, and I'm going to do it, and the bylaw is

[1:22:45] Voice 4: very permissive. That's my take on it, Gordy. You can disagree. The last thing I would say,

[1:22:51] Voice 4: when you say everything's being talked down in focus groups, I mean, sometimes these things work

[1:22:56] Voice 4: quite well. We've been having discussions on this in a variety of formats directly with you,

[1:23:02] Voice 4: not through an intermediary of the apc but directly between us and you going back to 2019

[1:23:08] Voice 4: and 2020 on some of these things so to say that everything is being top down i i i disagree well

[1:23:16] Voice 5: okay then in all the um tables that you've generated for house sizes it was probably up to

[1:23:22] Voice 5: the duration six

[1:23:24] Voice 8: or something like that every one of them you've reduced house sizes again

[1:23:29] Voice 8: gain and I have attended it to say some of these may be missed some and I have not heard a demand

[1:23:37] Voice 8: from anyone to say decrease those outside again

[1:23:41] Voice 4: well

[1:23:42] Voice 5: we just heard some today we just heard some

[1:23:46] Voice 4: today I I mean there are some people that tend not to come to these meetings because they

[1:23:52] Voice 5: sorry how many well

[1:23:54] Voice 4: this I'm glad that we've got the people that we do here but this doesn't

[1:23:59] Voice 4: aggregate to the sum total

[1:24:00] Voice 4: of everybody that lives on this island that owns property

[1:24:02] Voice 4: on this island.

[1:24:03] Voice 4: Well, for the

[1:24:04] Voice 5: public hearing binders,

[1:24:05] Voice 5: is it fair? Is

[1:24:07] Voice 4: it more fair for you to do it?

[1:24:09] Voice 4: You know what?

[1:24:10] Voice 4: Gordy,

[1:24:11] Voice 5: the other thing too,

[1:24:12] Voice 4: Gordy, with all respect,

[1:24:13] Voice 4: it's not a straw pole.

[1:24:16] Voice 4: I mean, when we went,

[1:24:17] Voice 4: I'm going to bring something up that's going to probably cause a groan,

[1:24:20] Voice 4: but when we had the STVR

[1:24:22] Voice 4: public hearing,

[1:24:23] Voice 4: there was only detractors that came to the public hearing.

[1:24:27] Voice 4: I remember that.

[1:24:28] Voice 4: When we did a mail-in survey, mail-out survey, mail-in survey responses back, we had a very healthy majority of support for what we were trying to do.

[1:24:38] Voice 4: So I think you've got to be careful about assuming that people that are motivated, organized, that show up necessarily represent the entire island, because I don't think they do.

[1:24:46] Voice 4: Why

[1:24:47] Voice 5: didn't you do a mail-out survey for reducing host sizes?

[1:24:49] Voice 5: that yeah well

[1:24:51] Voice 5: we did we did

[1:24:52] Voice 4: the we did the uh the mail-in survey uh in the case of sddrs because

[1:24:57] Voice 4: uh we were looking at a new comprehensive approach to doing something different that had not been

[1:25:02] Voice 4: done before this is not a new comprehensive approach it's further tinkering with a process

[1:25:07] Voice 4: and an approach that's already in place oh

[1:25:08] Voice 8: but you're putting a lot of people and i know you're

[1:25:11] Voice 8: going to get up with this potential for regional i think

[1:25:15] Voice 4: gordon we've already talked about that

[1:25:16] Voice 4: and i think we're all doing our best to try and find ways and we will find ways that's my

[1:25:21] Voice 4: commitment i i think we should with all respect agree that we're

[1:25:25] Voice 4: all unified in in that and i

[1:25:27] Voice 4: mean we can we can spend hours talking about that but i don't think it's going to advance us

[1:25:32] Trustee Luckham: yeah i'd like to continue to move on for other questions that um uh are on people's minds and um

[1:25:41] Trustee Luckham: So, Daphne, and to hyphenate a name here, Daphne,

[1:25:45] Voice 5: oh,

[1:25:48] Trustee Luckham: hello, thank you for joining us.

[1:25:50] Trustee Luckham: Do you have a question?

[1:25:52] Voice 5: I do indeed, sir.

[1:25:53] Voice 5: Good morning.

[1:25:54] Voice 5: Trustees, concerned community members, and new friends, I'm Daphne Turquille.

[1:25:59] Voice 5: I'm a retired veteran with 34 years of military service.

[1:26:02] Voice 5: I'm happily married to this guy, Mike Turquille, who is also a retired veteran with 40 years

[1:26:07] Voice 5: of military service and 30 years of policing.

[1:26:11] Voice 5: demographics are changing the province of bc does not now normally be able to house this aging

[1:26:18] Voice 5: population in care homes we like many people in this community came to this island with our dream

[1:26:25] Voice 5: to live out our retirements with our families and age in place thus our home design reflects

[1:26:30] Voice 5: that as audrey mentioned wider hallways wider staircases built-in elevator mike and i have

[1:26:39] Voice 5: We have been subjected to various activities during our careers where we were injured, we might look like we're healthy, but we're in a massive amount of pain.

[1:26:50] Voice 5: Every day.

[1:26:51] Voice 5: We have to go to very many medical appointments.

[1:26:56] Voice 5: and thus we're going to require care when we are uh while we're aging these two bylaws

[1:27:04] Voice 5: especially 122 will effectively prevent us to be able to age in place

[1:27:11] Voice 7: most

[1:27:12] Voice 5: quickly change the

[1:27:13] Voice 5: bylaws is of course the limiting of the square footage of our homes if you do this this aging

[1:27:18] Voice 5: community will no longer be able to accommodate our caregivers because we won't be able to have

[1:27:23] Voice 5: them within our homes the outdoor helpers like the people we will need to help assist us with

[1:27:29] Voice 5: our gardening and our yard work snow removal etc will not be able to be accommodated in our homes

[1:27:36] Voice 5: the very fact that our trustees and our municipal government i'm not going to put everything on your

[1:27:41] Voice 5: door but we do need your help with this have thus far not been able to allow the building of

[1:27:47] Voice 5: affordable housing will prohibit our caregivers from finding any place to live on this island

[1:27:52] Voice 5: them it's also kind of foolish to believe that somebody who is a caregiver or a yard worker for

[1:27:58] Voice 5: example is going to be in the income bracket where they're going to be able to afford ferry charges

[1:28:04] Voice 5: back and forth every day

[1:28:05] Voice 7: that's

[1:28:06] Voice 5: going to involve the now newly increased fuel surcharge on our ferry

[1:28:11] Voice 5: costs this is already clear and it's affecting our local businesses we're constantly seeing

[1:28:18] Voice 5: hiring signs people can't afford to live here because they can't afford to work in minimum

[1:28:23] Voice 5: jobs here minimum wage jobs here and your bylaw changes are going to eventually kill the economy

[1:28:31] Voice 5: on this island small businesses are suffering and they will go away the dodo who would want

[1:28:37] Voice 5: to vacation here if there are no shops no restaurants no cafes no kayak rental businesses

[1:28:43] Voice 5: it's great you know my husband and i we could be here if there was nobody here we're good with that

[1:28:49] Voice 5: our experiences in the military and policing that caused us to not really like humans

[1:28:55] Voice 5: so meeting these people here that we've started to get to know and the ones that we have already

[1:29:01] Voice 5: come to know has been a real blessing because they are like-minded people generations coming

[1:29:07] Voice 5: up behind us will not vacation here if there's nothing to do they won't build here if they have

[1:29:12] Voice 5: to fight endless bureaucracy they'll continue to go to places like dominican mexico and other

[1:29:18] Voice 5: places where it's more fun and easier to own a place these bylaws tables especially for the size

[1:29:25] Voice 5: of homes will affect our family in a huge way i alone have eight siblings and 19 nieces and nephews

[1:29:32] Voice 5: we're very close family we visit each other quite often my husband and i also have four daughters

[1:29:39] Voice 5: two of which who are unmarried to have married and have three grandsons in addition we'll soon

[1:29:45] Voice 5: be caring for my 84 year old mother-in-law who has mobility issues already. How can we accommodate

[1:29:53] Voice 5: our family gatherings which are frequent and care for our mom if we can't house her and her medical

[1:30:00] Voice 5: And of course, in the future, our own blanket policy will not work.

[1:30:04] Voice 5: It hurts, hurts more people than it helps.

[1:30:07] Voice 5: And we here obviously care very deeply for this island and the environment.

[1:30:14] Voice 5: People like us who are building today are building with solar power already in the design.

[1:30:21] Voice 5: We're building with rain catchment systems, rainwater recycling systems and the aim for the net zero energy efficient homes.

[1:30:29] Voice 5: homes. We're gardening with the invasive species in mind, permeable hardscaping, and re pardon me, and removing as few trees as possible. For example, our property is 3.6 acres. It's like this. The only place we can build is about a half an acre on the very top of it. Okay. We have a shared

[1:30:57] Voice 5: driveway with two other people. So it's a it's a challenge to build on our property, but

[1:31:02] Voice 5: we want to keep the rest of our environment intact. We want all those beautiful trees that

[1:31:10] Voice 5: are coming up in front of our property to stay there so our grandsons can climb up and down in

[1:31:15] Voice 5: front of our property and climb as many darn trees as they want to. So instead of making what we

[1:31:22] Voice 5: believe are damaging changes to these bylaws i believe we need to enforce the ones we have

[1:31:29] Voice 5: for example why don't we have derelict vehicles removed from people's properties that we see

[1:31:36] Voice 5: around them they're busy leaching chemicals into the ground already why are we not instead putting

[1:31:45] Voice 5: it into the bylaw that nobody can pave driveways on their property just just one example that we

[1:31:52] Voice 5: We have that permeable driveway and pathways and things like that.

[1:31:57] Voice 5: So the water, the rainwater can get to where it needs to go.

[1:32:00] Voice 5: This is critical for me.

[1:32:02] Voice 5: We've gone to places where the environment has been destroyed beyond anything you guys can imagine.

[1:32:07] Voice 5: We bear the chemical scars in our bodies because the poisons that were in those environments are killing us now.

[1:32:14] Voice 5: My husband and I feel that the Islands Trust 9 million dollar budget would be better used this way than preventing the nice, slow, even growth that we have seen in our research before we came here and that you have witnessed while you've been living here and caring for this place for the past 20, 30, 40 years.

[1:32:38] Voice 5: I give you people the respect that you deserve for doing what you have thus far.

[1:32:44] Voice 5: and we are determined to follow your example finally the proposal of adding to bylaw 123

[1:32:52] Voice 5: schedule 10 appendices proposing these guidelines where you say a person should consider having

[1:33:02] Voice 5: their houses covered a person should consider this style of home unfortunately history has shown us

[1:33:11] Voice 5: that should not long in the future becomes a loose shower

[1:33:16] Voice 6: bringing

[1:33:18] Voice 5: this document into our bylaws i

[1:33:21] Voice 5: believe is the start of a slippery slope where our landowners rights are going to be completely

[1:33:28] Voice 5: eroded you say that you want to trust us to trust you however at this time many of us feel that your

[1:33:37] Voice 5: decision is already made that this is basically just you playing the game putting a check in the

[1:33:45] Voice 5: box to show that you had these public meetings so you can go ahead and make the changes that

[1:33:50] Voice 5: you wanted please remember you represent us please attempt to reflect what we as a community would

[1:33:59] Voice 5: like to see instead of what appears to be a personal agenda and please i'm begging you

[1:34:07] Voice 5: don't assume

[1:34:09] Voice 5: that people

[1:34:11] Voice 5: who come here and who want to live

[1:34:13] Voice 5: here are

[1:34:14] Voice 5: going to tear up all the trees

[1:34:17] Voice 5: put in

[1:34:19] Voice 5: concrete all

[1:34:21] Voice 5: over the ground and build the

[1:34:23] Voice 5: horrible McMansions that

[1:34:25] Voice 5: we all dread soon.

[1:34:27] Voice 6: Thank you.

[1:34:32] Voice 7: Thank

[1:34:32] Trustee Luckham: you. I'd ask

[1:34:33] Trustee Luckham: if you have that in writing

[1:34:35] Trustee Luckham: if we could receive that in some

[1:34:37] Trustee Luckham: fashion but also note that you might want to bring that same presentation to the public hearing

[1:34:42] Trustee Luckham: when

[1:34:43] Voice 7: um

[1:34:44] Trustee Luckham: when we get there because it is indeed public hearing that records this

[1:34:51] Trustee Luckham: very uh important and impassioned message you've just delivered and i thank you for it

[1:34:55] Trustee Luckham: but i want to continue on my speakers list and would really like to focus on some questions

[1:35:03] Trustee Luckham: questions, because time is precious to all of us in the room as much as ourselves here.

[1:35:11] Trustee Luckham: So Christoph Subbrian, I think, is the next speaker on my list, Christoph.

[1:35:16] Trustee Luckham: CHRISTOPH SUBBRIAN, I can't imagine your eloquence and review of how you wrote it.

[1:35:20] Voice 5: CHRISTOPH SUBBRIAN, Thank you.

[1:35:21] Voice 5: CHRISTOPH SUBBRIAN, We looked at the number of available lots.

[1:35:26] Voice 5: There's only 20% of lots on the island.

[1:35:29] Voice 5: So the changes are made, which impact 80%, a large percentage of

[1:35:35] Voice 8: us owners in the house,

[1:35:36] Voice 8: for the sake for 20% of unbuilt lots. How

[1:35:41] Voice 8: can you explain it? I know that Steve said, well,

[1:35:44] Voice 8: this is not an argument. It is an argument because it impacts us, those living on the island. Now,

[1:35:51] Voice 8: nobody can tell with certainty that this impact is not going to be critical going forward.

[1:35:59] Voice 8: so why are we doing this because the question was asked in town hall meetings what are we addressing

[1:36:07] Voice 8: are we addressing our future is there issues for us living on the island that our neighbors

[1:36:14] Voice 8: are jerks and building across the blocking the sun what we are addressing this was never really

[1:36:20] Voice 8: answered and i labeled this that this is solution looking for a problem and so putting this aside

[1:36:29] Voice 8: Why, for 20% of unbuilt lot, 80% of landowners and house owners are impacted?

[1:36:37] Voice 8: Because that's not clear to me.

[1:36:40] Voice 4: Thank you.

[1:36:41] Voice 4: Justice?

[1:36:42] Voice 4: Well, Christophe, I think we, again, we beat this topic to death in terms of avoiding impact on existing built dwellings.

[1:36:55] Voice 4: And so I'm not going to say any more on that.

[1:36:57] Voice 4: I think it would be naive as I say to assume that every you look at the building stock there

[1:37:04] Voice 4: there's buildings that go back many many years there's very old buildings and there's obviously

[1:37:09] Voice 4: some very new buildings but to assume that those buildings are going to always be there they're

[1:37:16] Voice 4: never going to be replaced again it's it's I think it's it's short-sighted thinking so we're trying

[1:37:22] Voice 4: to be proactive and respect the people that built according to the bylaws in place at the time that

[1:37:29] Voice 4: they took out the building permit. So I think that's a fair and balanced approach.

[1:37:35] Voice 8: You are

[1:37:37] Voice 8: certain that you're not a lawyer, you're not an insurance agent, you're not an underwriter,

[1:37:42] Voice 8: you have no ability to judge or predict how this will impact us. We

[1:37:47] Voice 4: know that the impact will

[1:37:49] Voice 4: Are you a lawyer? Are you an underwriter? Are you an appraiser? Are you expressing an opinion?

[1:37:56] Voice 1: It's just ridiculous. I

[1:37:58] Voice 4: turn to people around us for legal advice. I build buildings, but I don't design them myself. I hire an architect.

[1:38:06] Voice 4: You should

[1:38:06] Voice 8: try to look at what Jonah said in Star Wars. Try is not a word. Try or say we try, it doesn't give us anything.

[1:38:16] Voice 8: It opens us to possibility that, yes, there will be impact on us.

[1:38:21] Voice 8: Thank you.

[1:38:22] Voice 8: That's the problem because the pushback against this was in all the meetings that are attended.

[1:38:28] Voice 8: And yes, perhaps we are just a minority of upset people on the island.

[1:38:33] Voice 8: But the pushback was steady in every meeting.

[1:38:36] Voice 8: We questioned this.

[1:38:37] Voice 8: Why for 20% this is happening?

[1:38:40] Voice 8: Can you define the impacts this will have on your property?

[1:38:44] Voice 8: It's not about me.

[1:38:45] Voice 8: like everybody

[1:38:46] Voice 8: else, it will have an impact on me because I will be non-conforming.

[1:38:53] Voice 8: Okay,

[1:38:53] Voice 4: thanks. We're going to agree to disagree on that. Thank you.

[1:38:57] Trustee Luckham: Let's try not to get into this. There's a hostile

[1:39:02] Trustee Luckham: element that is not comfortable and just would rather not do that.

[1:39:09] Trustee Luckham: I want to provide the opportunity for people to ideally formulate questions.

[1:39:15] Trustee Luckham: So there was a question there you provided an answer I thank you for that and I thank you for the question. It's a good question.

[1:39:22] Trustee Luckham: Shelly Henshaw is our next speaker.

[1:39:27] Trustee Luckham: First

[1:39:27] Voice 5: of all, I didn't know that I had to have a question. I have something to say. I can always frame it into a question, but I do think that's rather artificial.

[1:39:36] Voice 5: And if

[1:39:36] Voice 1: you look at

[1:39:37] Voice 5: why we're invited here is for to share our views.

[1:39:41] Voice 5: and I'm really appreciating

[1:39:43] Voice 5: hearing what other people have to say

[1:39:45] Voice 5: but sure I'll put in a question

[1:39:46] Trustee Luckham: can I just for clarity just because

[1:39:49] Trustee Luckham: you're suggesting that this

[1:39:51] Trustee Luckham: is wrong and

[1:39:52] Trustee Luckham: I'm not

[1:39:53] Voice 5: saying it's wrong I'm saying

[1:39:55] Voice 5: that I don't have a question I didn't

[1:39:57] Voice 5: know that I couldn't

[1:39:59] Voice 5: stand out without a question

[1:40:01] Voice 5: because if you actually look at this

[1:40:03] Voice 5: meeting and what the expectation is

[1:40:05] Voice 5: of the attendance

[1:40:06] Voice 5: it is to share

[1:40:08] Voice 5: share our views, to obtain information, and share our views.

[1:40:14] Voice 5: I think the time would be a better time if you just spoke.

[1:40:17] Voice 5: Sure. Go ahead, Shelley.

[1:40:19] Voice 5: No, Steve.

[1:40:20] Voice 5: Okay, fair

[1:40:21] Trustee Luckham: enough. You're the chair.

[1:40:22] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[1:40:24] Trustee Luckham: Because public hearing is an opportunity for your opinions to be recorded

[1:40:28] Trustee Luckham: and become a much more substantial piece of the public record

[1:40:32] Trustee Luckham: so that we can speak to those issues that you brought to us.

[1:40:36] Trustee Luckham: That's

[1:40:36] Voice 5: what I want to do.

[1:40:38] Voice 5: Absolutely.

[1:40:40] Trustee Luckham: And that's why we call it a public hearing. And that's why we call this a community

[1:40:43] Trustee Luckham: information meeting. This is not a public hearing. It's as simple as that. But please,

[1:40:50] Voice 7: I am trying to

[1:40:51] Voice 5: be as liberal

[1:40:52] Trustee Luckham: as I can be. And so

[1:40:53] Trustee Luckham: please go ahead.

[1:40:56] Voice 5: Okay. I appreciate everybody. Everybody said I appreciate this meeting, because I actually

[1:41:03] Voice 5: haven't been part of a meeting like this and but i do remember the meeting in 2016 and i believe you

[1:41:10] Voice 5: were the chair peter of that meeting probably so

[1:41:12] Voice 5: this is like we're the same location we're redoing

[1:41:15] Voice 5: this and there's those same negative feelings the upset and community etc so for the record i agree

[1:41:24] Voice 5: with audrey why are we doing this because i think there are other ways of fixing things and

[1:41:31] Voice 5: addressing our concerns and i wrote um cameron the other day and i wouldn't normally pinpoint

[1:41:39] Voice 5: a residence but well

[1:41:41] Trustee Luckham: please don't pinpoint the rest i

[1:41:43] Voice 5: am not going to name names okay thank you

[1:41:48] Trustee Luckham: people do and i i just have to my responsibility is to be sure that this is a safe place please

[1:41:54] Voice 5: go ahead so there is a new residence to build in our house a build on our street um and there was

[1:42:02] Voice 5: blasting to accommodate the building site and there's a cliff

[1:42:06] Voice 5: and i live on southlands and

[1:42:08] Voice 5: there's a cliff there it's a

[1:42:10] Voice 5: beautiful magnificent cliff and the building site was blasted for many

[1:42:16] Voice 5: many months um john lives next door to that um and it was brought down by 10 to 12 feet i understand

[1:42:24] Voice 5: now in my opinion that is something that should not happen

[1:42:28] Voice 7: ever

[1:42:29] Voice 5: and that that is an easy fix

[1:42:32] Voice 5: there should be no blasting eclipse and i think we all would have said right oh great make it a

[1:42:38] Voice 5: bylaw that'll be fine with me so that's a fix i wrote cameron and i talked about why i think that

[1:42:46] Voice 5: these iq properties uh a 1.1 or 1.2 acre and flower farm in the valley and i really don't

[1:42:55] Voice 5: see why i'm confined to having a 3 500 square foot house when i have 40 acres in the valley

[1:43:04] Voice 5: and i would say i'm a large family with spouses and children etc i think that as well when you

[1:43:12] Voice 5: look at what sizes of houses were before i know when i came here as a kid we had a little cottage

[1:43:19] Voice 5: and that's kind of the way it was uh 60 years ago where people were coming here um and they would

[1:43:29] Voice 5: have little cottages and some of them a lot of them are still standing but then the next generation

[1:43:34] Voice 5: and the next generation has come here for retirement perhaps which is what i've done

[1:43:39] Voice 5: and so it's different the situation is different and i also think that i was really surprised when

[1:43:45] Voice 5: when I looked at the OCP and when they were looking at the OCP

[1:43:51] Voice 5: and about the rural definition and what people are doing here,

[1:43:55] Voice 5: that there was an appreciation that people were actually using their computers

[1:44:01] Voice 5: and having home offices, which I

[1:44:03] Voice 5: actually think showed a lot of foresight.

[1:44:05] Voice 5: With the pandemic happening, I think a lot of people now have discovered

[1:44:10] Voice 5: that they can work from home here, and so they need offices.

[1:44:13] Voice 5: There are a lot of artists around.

[1:44:15] Voice 5: there are a lot of people who have um um skills that they want to have rooms or a facility in

[1:44:24] Voice 5: their houses so they can have a workman or a workshop something like that i also appreciate

[1:44:29] Voice 5: the age in place and um not that i think i'm old but i think i will get old and i think there's

[1:44:39] Voice 5: nothing wrong with having a caretaker in a residence i'm sure my children would be very

[1:44:44] Voice 5: grateful for that and it provides a home and accommodation so i i think you look at these

[1:44:50] Voice 5: houses and this formula you have and it totally after your explanation when john said it seemed

[1:44:58] Voice 5: arbitrary it's totally it is arbitrary uh steve said it's because um small houses are more rural

[1:45:06] Voice 5: So that is your very impressionist view of what is rural, a small house.

[1:45:15] Voice 5: Big house is not rural.

[1:45:16] Voice 5: Well, I disagree with that.

[1:45:18] Voice 5: I totally disagree.

[1:45:21] Voice 5: So there are a lot of reasons why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy with this one size fits all.

[1:45:28] Voice 5: 3,500, that's it.

[1:45:30] Voice 5: One size fits all.

[1:45:31] Voice 5: Well, I think that's completely unfair.

[1:45:33] Voice 5: fair and I do think what we did in 2016 which was implemented in I think final one in 2016

[1:45:40] Voice 5: was fair and it was a struggle and it was unpleasant really unpleasant we've done it

[1:45:46] Voice 5: all over again in a pandemic and I personally I don't appreciate it I have a you know when I

[1:45:54] Voice 5: thank you for your return email on this subject Cameron but when you said to me when I had said

[1:46:03] Voice 5: about you know i this house has happened how could there be blastings to such an extent on this

[1:46:09] Voice 7: property

[1:46:09] Voice 5: and couldn't we do something because we have a very unusual our eye in the topography it

[1:46:17] Voice 5: varies it couldn't be more varied so it's a challenge i think that you have an artificial

[1:46:24] Voice 5: end date if you think all this has to be done by the end of your term and i don't think something

[1:46:29] Voice 5: like this can possibly be rushed because that that would be you your personal agenda that's

[1:46:35] Voice 5: not the community's agenda um you said you would be happy to discuss further with me

[1:46:41] Voice 5: alternative approaches well here we are we've had bylaw reading number one and you're saying yeah

[1:46:47] Voice 5: i'll talk more well i think these discussions should have been happening all along

[1:46:52] Voice 5: about what are the alternatives but we actually never knew what the bylaw was going to look like

[1:46:58] Voice 5: and just as a point i think it was and i'm going to use the word underhanded at the may 6th meeting

[1:47:06] Voice 5: we all left in good faith that that was a good decision to make because we were overcrowded

[1:47:11] Voice 5: but you would carry on with your meeting which is fine like i wouldn't even

[1:47:15] Voice 5: dream of staying behind

[1:47:16] Voice 5: to see what happened and then it turns out there's a whole new formula for house sizes

[1:47:22] Voice 7: well i

[1:47:24] Voice 7: don't

[1:47:25] Voice 5: think that was appropriate the other things that you said which i totally agree with

[1:47:30] Voice 5: cameron is that you said well you know if if we attached um strings to certain properties which

[1:47:40] Voice 5: were challenging to build on we said what would be the criteria for determining what properties

[1:47:46] Voice 5: ought to have special permits who would be making these decisions what would be the requirements

[1:47:52] Voice 5: that we need to be adhered to by property owners of such identified properties in order to obtain

[1:47:58] Voice 5: a special permit, I would be genuinely interested in your ideas on creative options. I appreciate

[1:48:04] Voice 5: that. Thank you. But that's where I think we're in early days yet. And I think there must be

[1:48:10] Voice 5: experts around. You're not an expert in this. I don't expect the trustees to be experts in this.

[1:48:16] Voice 5: I'm not an expert but we have no science no literature no road map I mean what why don't

[1:48:24] Voice 5: we have a whole panel of experts who say you know what you people could do you could do this and

[1:48:29] Voice 5: this and this and I can be behind that if there's a rationale not Steve's opinion that big houses

[1:48:35] Voice 5: are not real that is his interpretation by the way and the other she also debated another one

[1:48:42] Voice 5: Another comment, who's someone trained as a lawyer.

[1:48:45] Voice 5: I get that every time I write to Union State.

[1:48:48] Voice 5: I'm disappointed in you because of your training as a lawyer,

[1:48:51] Voice 5: because of

[1:48:52] Voice 5: your experience as a lawyer.

[1:48:53] Voice 7: And

[1:48:54] Voice 5: the only other person who did that was my ex.

[1:48:56] Voice 5: So that leads us to the end of the talk.

[1:49:01] Voice 4: Thank you, Shelly.

[1:49:03] Voice 4: A couple of things.

[1:49:07] Voice 4: Policy, I'll give you, thanks for your thoughts.

[1:49:10] Voice 4: And we did have a fun dialogue last night,

[1:49:12] Voice 4: but

[1:49:12] Voice 5: yes

[1:49:14] Voice 4: public policy is not a one-time thing it's it's whether it's in our community or whether

[1:49:24] Voice 4: it's in other places public policy evolves based on a variety of different things sometimes it's

[1:49:31] Voice 4: changing circumstances to a to to an event that changes people's perceptions of something

[1:49:37] Voice 4: sometimes it's real life examples their public policy is always changing i am not suggesting

[1:49:43] Voice 4: that that the bylaws that we are uh proposing today are the end all be all and they should

[1:49:51] Voice 4: never be changed a couple things and again i said this at the beginning of the meeting

[1:49:54] Voice 4: steve and i agree to disagree on things we sometimes we're aligned sometimes we're not i

[1:49:58] Voice 4: personally one one vote on the ltc i personally do not believe 3 500 is the appropriate number

[1:50:05] Voice 4: for properties more than 10 acres i believe it should be 4 000 which is what i advanced before

[1:50:10] Voice 4: again these are numbers and they're based on they're based on i'm just just putting it out

[1:50:14] Voice 4: there they're they're numbers they're based on uh i think it was you once that said to me why are we

[1:50:21] Voice 4: changing things i like things the way they are and again one of the reasons for looking at the the

[1:50:27] Voice 4: house sizes that were that are in uh in the bylaw is we've tried to calibrate them to what's

[1:50:34] Voice 4: capturing about the 90th percentile in most cases of houses in any one category so we're not taking

[1:50:40] Voice 4: the median we're not taking the average so but but but i don't believe that bylaw 122 is going

[1:50:47] Voice 4: to be like okay we've done that and we're never going to have another conversation about about

[1:50:50] Voice 4: house size or about process when

[1:50:53] Voice 7: i know but

[1:50:54] Voice 4: just just just hear me out i if you and i can come up

[1:50:57] Voice 4: and come up with a dream process for how to deal with with land use um with with the topics that

[1:51:04] Voice 4: were back and forth in our email but i'm i don't have the power to actually do anything

[1:51:09] Voice 4: to actually give it legal effect so i am stuck with a very tiny toolbox that the provincial

[1:51:15] Voice 4: government came to us so i don't see if we want to get to a more ideal way of looking at how we

[1:51:21] Voice 4: develop plans based on unique topography and and all the things that you identified great ideas

[1:51:27] Voice 4: But to actually be able to give legal effect to that is going to take some time to work with the government.

[1:51:35] Voice 4: So in the meantime, I am simply saying, Shelley, I don't think that I want to be caught with my pants down, to put it frankly.

[1:51:41] Voice 4: I feel like the bylaw is too permissive in some areas, and we're coming in, we're seeing changes to our community that we're not necessarily happy about.

[1:51:49] Voice 4: out. So I am saying, let's try and put a bit of governor on things, recognizing that these are

[1:51:56] Voice 4: not absolute numbers. So if somebody came in, like the woman that was here earlier, or you're

[1:52:01] Voice 4: still there, I commend you, by the way, for solar, rainwater catchment, all these great ideas.

[1:52:07] Voice 4: I'm not against big houses. I am simply trying to say, where's the safety net? Where's the baseline

[1:52:13] Voice 4: that we set for people that don't have your attitude to say, I'm going to come in, I'm going

[1:52:19] Voice 4: people so we're trying to look at a baseline as I said earlier outright approval do whatever you

[1:52:25] Voice 4: want don't take anybody else into consideration but to go beyond something uh that baseline

[1:52:30] Voice 4: let's have a bit of a safety governor so that we we can say sure let's let's look at a bigger house

[1:52:35] Voice 4: let's look at reduced setbacks based on the unique topography but but we I do believe we need some

[1:52:41] Voice 4: safe safety mechanisms so that good good people like you Daphne um uh or not understand that you

[1:52:48] Voice 4: You may be a good person.

[1:52:49] Voice 4: There's other people that may not share that same value system

[1:52:51] Voice 4: and are going to want to come in and do something different.

[1:52:53] Voice 4: I don't want to stop you from building your dream house.

[1:52:55] Voice 5: We've got a 4,500 square foot plan.

[1:52:58] Voice 4: Well, you've got also three and a bit acres, right?

[1:53:00] Voice 4: Is that what you were saying?

[1:53:01] Voice 4: 1.6.

[1:53:02] Voice 5: Yeah.

[1:53:02] Voice 4: Okay.

[1:53:02] Voice 4: So, I mean, let's talk.

[1:53:04] Voice 4: But the other thing I would suggest is when we talk about topography,

[1:53:12] Voice 4: and I've got a steep property myself.

[1:53:14] Voice 4: itself. I've got the topography is it imposes challenges on where you built. One of the ideas

[1:53:20] Voice 4: why we went back after talking to Audrey and Dave here a couple weeks ago about about one of the

[1:53:25] Voice 4: unforeseen issues of amalgamating from I guess it was from going from five to four lot categories

[1:53:31] Voice 4: and why we proposed to reinstate it was to reinstate that total buildable area so people

[1:53:36] Voice 4: had more flexibility. So my concern has always been about massing that you don't want some

[1:53:43] Voice 4: especially when you've got one tiny little spot

[1:53:46] Voice 4: and you're putting this very large,

[1:53:48] Voice 4: large single massing on one spot,

[1:53:51] Voice 4: particularly when your property might be here.

[1:53:54] Voice 4: Like I think about your neighbors

[1:53:57] Voice 4: that make their wonderful bread,

[1:53:58] Voice 4: their house is here, somebody else is here,

[1:54:01] Voice 4: they're building a big mass up here,

[1:54:03] Voice 4: that can be very impactful.

[1:54:04] Voice 4: So

[1:54:04] Voice 5: that's why-

[1:54:05] Voice 5: If they had never been allowed to last like that.

[1:54:08] Voice 4: Fair enough.

[1:54:08] Voice 5: But Cameron, that's the thing about it.

[1:54:11] Voice 5: You know, you've got this and all of a sudden

[1:54:13] Voice 5: we're really we've got to get on with it and prevent stuff and i'm thinking you know if your

[1:54:18] Voice 5: action plan two years ago was we need experts to advise us because how are we going to structure

[1:54:25] Voice 5: the island we need experts and people who are have expertise in this area but in the meantime

[1:54:30] Voice 5: no blasting no changing the cliff faces anywhere and everybody would have agreed well

[1:54:35] Voice 4: i mean i

[1:54:36] Voice 5: think the glass sitting there projected toward between the adjoining houses because they got

[1:54:43] Voice 5: to glass down 10 or 12 feet on the cliff well

[1:54:47] Voice 5: that's shocking i

[1:54:48] Voice 4: i agree my point is is that

[1:54:50] Voice 4: a lot of us have properties that are that are challenged one of the ideas about again giving

[1:54:55] Voice 4: somebody a bigger overall area of buildable so you've got you've got an envelope of buildable

[1:55:01] Voice 4: area of which your dwelling is a subset of that by giving somebody an overall big envelope of

[1:55:08] Voice 4: buildable area they can put on their property the idea was to also encourage rather than having

[1:55:12] Voice 4: one large single structure that you could also look at you know in your case it could be a guest

[1:55:19] Voice 4: cottage or or other or other smaller structures on the property that might integrate better with

[1:55:24] Voice 4: the topography so that that's been personally my thinking i i don't say i'm an expert but i do

[1:55:29] Voice 4: spend it professionally spend most of my waking hours thinking about these topics so i i do feel

[1:55:36] Voice 4: like

[1:55:36] Voice 7: we

[1:55:37] Voice 4: have some sense of understanding which we should have

[1:55:41] Voice 5: been working on it maybe that we were

[1:55:43] Voice 5: we

[1:55:44] Trustee Luckham: were we had she might

[1:55:45] Voice 5: have been scary scaring that right okay

[1:55:49] Trustee Luckham: can we move on

[1:55:50] Trustee Luckham: here some other points of view here thank

[1:55:54] Voice 5: you very much by the way

[1:55:55] Trustee Luckham: and thank you shelly for

[1:55:56] Trustee Luckham: what you brought to us i do appreciate it thanks for the question um

[1:56:04] Voice 5: Yeah, and I forget it.

[1:56:09] Trustee Luckham: Jane, you're next on my list. Do you have another question?

[1:56:13] Voice 5: I'm trying to get a question. So first of all, first of all, I have to make a statement.

[1:56:18] Voice 5: I just want to go back. I want to go back to the floor area because it says floor area means some of the horizontal areas of all stories in a building.

[1:56:27] Voice 5: So it's also important to look at the definition of a building.

[1:56:31] Voice 5: and so the building means a roof structure totally or partially enclosed by walls

[1:56:37] Voice 5: used or intended to be used for supporting or sheltering any user occupancy so

[1:56:42] Voice 5: i wanted that clarified because we've been accused of uh in our community newsletter that we're

[1:56:48] Voice 5: providing false information that's where this comes from the definition must look at all parts

[1:56:53] Voice 5: of it so there is a word there that needs to be defined as well so you don't uh if you have a

[1:56:58] Voice 5: depth that's not totally enclosed it's still counted as floor area um as is as is a grant

[1:57:04] Voice 5: as a car as is a carport so those are important in terms of this overall figure that's being

[1:57:10] Voice 5: talked about as the house size because those become part of the floor area which is not normal

[1:57:15] Voice 5: so that i just wanted to clarify because i don't think him you gave the correct information in

[1:57:21] Voice 5: terms of even adding

[1:57:23] Voice 2: a definition of building to that floor area staff have taken that into

[1:57:28] Voice 2: consideration and again carports covered balconies porches are not included in floor area but it's a

[1:57:39] Voice 5: garage

[1:57:39] Voice 2: but i don't know how you can argue with the definition in your own how can you measure

[1:57:44] Voice 2: the floor area of a porch if there's

[1:57:47] Voice 5: no exterior walls and why is it why do you say building

[1:57:50] Voice 5: That's the

[1:57:50] Voice 2: definition of a building.

[1:57:51] Voice 2: Is

[1:57:52] Voice 5: a roof structure wholly

[1:57:52] Voice 5: or partially enclosed by walls.

[1:57:55] Voice 5: That's very telling.

[1:57:57] Voice 5: It's, you know, I

[1:57:58] Voice 5: don't know how else to interpret that.

[1:58:00] Voice 5: If you have a car porch, it's got a roof and it's wholly or partly,

[1:58:04] Voice 5: maybe wholly or partially enclosed by walls.

[1:58:06] Voice 5: So that was where this came from.

[1:58:10] Voice 5: So I don't want anybody to think we're providing false information.

[1:58:14] Voice 5: I only look at the definitions in the file.

[1:58:15] Voice 5: So I just wanted to throw that out there for consideration

[1:58:18] Voice 5: as you're still under, I hope you're still, you know, not just planning to race forward

[1:58:23] Voice 5: on June 24th with all this stuff, seeing as what we've heard here already, but going back

[1:58:27] Voice 5: to, you know, the house size too, I, you know, I have to agree with Shelley and Sherbrooke

[1:58:34] Voice 5: and we know we did have a fraction of time last time around when you were chair when

[1:58:40] Voice 5: we arrived at the floor size of the cabinet, and we've all come to accept that, and we

[1:58:46] Voice 5: we thought we were done. It's not, you know, we did a comprehensive bylaw review of our land use

[1:58:52] Voice 5: bylaw. We set some things in place. I assume the trustees of the day thought that was rural

[1:58:57] Voice 5: in their decision. So I don't know what's happened since new trustees came on that

[1:59:03] Voice 5: made that not rural. And that's a question I have. Also, in terms of, I don't even see any

[1:59:12] Voice 5: logic in some of these things because what what makes it different you know why isn't

[1:59:16] Voice 5: footprint being considered you can have a 3 200 square foot dwelling on two floors

[1:59:22] Voice 5: 1600 feet on each floor 3.6 percent rock coverage but now you could have a 3 000 square foot house

[1:59:30] Voice 5: 6.7 percent rock covers if you're really concerned about the environment or what is it that we're

[1:59:36] Voice 5: saying that's that's a question i don't think that's being that rationally um building up

[1:59:41] Voice 5: versus no no i mean there's there's differences in terms of setbacks um i think um two things to

[1:59:51] Voice 5: think about there particularly on the ocean um uh quite a few properties i know ours for sure

[2:00:00] Voice 5: a comment on it at the time of subdivision usually there is a geotechnical survey and

[2:00:05] Voice 5: things like the slope are considered and they are covenants with all these properties

[2:00:09] Voice 5: we have a covenant on our property it's point four point four of an acre on our property it's

[2:00:15] Voice 5: along the fourth it's along today along canal road similar so this whole thought about um

[2:00:21] Voice 5: increasing those setbacks anymore there has been some consideration for that because they would

[2:00:26] Voice 5: it seems to be not the,

[2:00:28] Voice 5: you wouldn't put a building on this area.

[2:00:30] Voice 5: So I think there has been some protection for that already.

[2:00:33] Voice 5: And if you do think about increasing that to 25,

[2:00:37] Voice 5: sort of 25 feet to 50 foot or short,

[2:00:41] Voice 5: the only thing that's gonna happen

[2:00:42] Voice 5: is somebody is gonna cut down a whole lot more trees

[2:00:45] Voice 5: to get their view.

[2:00:46] Voice 5: So maybe not intended consequence

[2:00:48] Voice 5: of what we've been thinking about.

[2:00:50] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:00:52] Voice 5: So

[2:00:52] Voice 4: there was a couple of questions there.

[2:00:54] Voice 4: there um uh yeah i mean one thing jay i mean this is an observation is i kind of feel like we're

[2:01:00] Voice 4: damned if we do and we're damned if we don't because we previous iterations of lubs did have

[2:01:06] Voice 4: site coverage in it i understand your arguments where you could make an ecological environment

[2:01:12] Voice 4: for a smaller footprint but some people might say well now you're forcing me to get the area that i

[2:01:19] Voice 4: want you're forcing me to to go on to two floors rather than one i i'm going to age in place i'm

[2:01:24] Voice 4: I'm not building an elevator.

[2:01:25] Voice 4: I want it all in one.

[2:01:26] Voice 4: So, you know, we're criticized for whatever we do.

[2:01:29] Voice 4: So by staying silent on it, the idea was to try and get people a bit more flexibility.

[2:01:33] Voice 4: The very thing that I think I'm hearing from most people.

[2:01:35] Voice 4: We're trying to come up with a baseline minimal number of requirements and just let people do what they want to do.

[2:01:42] Voice 4: And if they want to go above that, then let's start talking about details.

[2:01:45] Voice 4: I

[2:01:45] Voice 5: think if you would have stopped saying staying silent, that would have been great.

[2:01:49] Voice 5: Because I think that's what we're all after.

[2:01:51] Voice 5: It's just people we have.

[2:01:53] Voice 5: Well,

[2:01:53] Voice 4: and so what's your view on setbacks?

[2:01:55] Voice 4: Because, I mean, you know, I think, I know we had, I guess I'm asking you a question now.

[2:02:00] Voice 4: We had a number of meetings over the last, oh, I don't know, starting probably since August of last year on the rationale for setbacks.

[2:02:11] Voice 4: And I did note the link expressed some concerns about them and some things that, frankly, didn't compute.

[2:02:18] Voice 4: cute uh just we can sort of talk about the math of it but but I you know I that that's something

[2:02:24] Voice 4: I heard from design experts some very very uh experienced design experts that if one of the

[2:02:31] Voice 4: ways that well kind of one of the more easy ways if that's the way we can put it that we could

[2:02:36] Voice 4: achieve the goals of the OCP as it related to freedom from disturbance visually private

[2:02:41] Voice 4: private settings that looking at a setback,

[2:02:47] Voice 4: a side yard setback would be a good approach.

[2:02:51] Voice 4: And I think also something that's interesting

[2:02:54] Voice 4: is some people have expressed horror

[2:02:55] Voice 4: that we would go from 10 to 20 for a dwelling.

[2:02:58] Voice 4: And it's the 10 foot setbacks come

[2:03:02] Voice 4: from a more suburban setting.

[2:03:06] Voice 4: It is interesting that predominantly

[2:03:09] Voice 4: predominantly the form of development on this island, for the most part, there's not, there's

[2:03:14] Voice 4: some, but there's not a lot of examples of, you know, a common road with a home here 25 feet back

[2:03:21] Voice 4: and a home here 25 feet back from the road. So you've got a lot of space generally from where

[2:03:33] Voice 4: your house is situated as it faces the road, and oftentimes you look into no neighbors, or if there

[2:03:37] Voice 4: there are neighbors there's quite some distance away and yet when it comes to the side yards

[2:03:43] Voice 4: we've got a minimum of 10 so you've got a separation of 20 feet between homes which is

[2:03:48] Voice 4: not a whole lot and yet if you did have a situation where you had somebody across the

[2:03:53] Voice 4: street from you you've got 25 you've got a 66 foot road set up a road right of way and then

[2:04:01] Voice 4: you've got another uh 25 feet so you've got over 100 feet of of separation between properties in

[2:04:09] Voice 4: in one in in one direction but yet everybody seems to or not everybody but some people

[2:04:14] Voice 4: said no there's no need to deal with the 10-foot setbacks and i and i was a bit confused about that

[2:04:20] Voice 4: and um and uh you know would be happy to explain a little further some of the rationales for it

[2:04:27] Voice 4: including um maybe correcting some errors that you know that i know somebody said 51 of properties

[2:04:34] Voice 4: on a typical one acre parcel would be lost to setbacks and that's frankly just absolutely not

[2:04:39] Voice 4: true did

[2:04:41] Voice 7: you have a question yeah

[2:04:42] Voice 4: i did i want to know your thoughts on that maybe well i mean

[2:04:45] Voice 4: you're part of the link and i know that the link had a lot of criticisms about setbacks so and

[2:04:49] Voice 4: maybe it's a question of recording i don't know

[2:04:51] Voice 7: actually

[2:04:55] Voice 5: we actually never were directly

[2:04:59] Voice 5: directly contact without Facebook is the method that's why

[2:05:02] Voice 4: I didn't I don't use Facebook but but

[2:05:03] Voice 5: now you're saying something but did you contact for this about it no no

[2:05:08] Voice 4: I received the link I

[2:05:10] Voice 4: received the link newsletter on on on the weekend and it it made um some assertions that on a

[2:05:18] Voice 4: typical property using a remember the drawing that I did six years ago I guess I'd call it

[2:05:23] Voice 4: plagiarism burning or misaligned

[2:05:26] Voice 5: in the public record okay

[2:05:27] Voice 4: well thanks for taking note but i

[2:05:28] Voice 4: don't know if it's quite accurately redrawn

[2:05:30] Voice 5: using my old drawing but nonetheless

[2:05:35] Voice 4: anyhow there was it was a bit of a flattery i guess

[2:05:38] Voice 4: it's flattering yeah but but um but

[2:05:41] Voice 4: i think it's a bit misleading to say or very misleading to say that the new setbacks

[2:05:46] Voice 4: results in 51% of area lost to.

[2:05:51] Voice 4: I'm sure.

[2:05:52] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[2:05:53] Trustee Luckham: Let's not fight over this.

[2:05:55] Voice 4: Go on.

[2:05:55] Voice 4: I'm going to do a drive on the side because it's.

[2:05:57] Voice 5: Well, you know.

[2:05:59] Voice 5: No,

[2:06:00] Voice 4: but we are just, just to be on the record here.

[2:06:02] Voice 4: It's, it's, it's information like that.

[2:06:05] Voice 4: That left unresponded to.

[2:06:08] Voice 4: Creates a belief that we're losing 51% of, of, of, again,

[2:06:13] Voice 4: Again, using the sort of the typical one acre property.

[2:06:16] Voice 7: It's

[2:06:16] Voice 4: not a, it's not.

[2:06:18] Voice 4: But the other thing, Gordie, just to think about it,

[2:06:20] Voice 4: just, I'm sorry, Chair,

[2:06:22] Voice 4: but people are gonna walk away from this meeting

[2:06:24] Voice 4: thinking that they're losing a significant amount

[2:06:27] Voice 4: of their property.

[2:06:29] Voice 5: You're missing, you've got,

[2:06:30] Voice 5: it's not one acre, it's less than one acre.

[2:06:33] Voice 4: It doesn't matter, frankly.

[2:06:35] Voice 4: The idea would be the same,

[2:06:37] Voice 4: whether it's less than one acre or one acre.

[2:06:38] Voice 4: they're the idea of going from a 10 foot side yard setback to a 20 20 foot side yard setback

[2:06:46] Voice 4: um for a place only to a dwelling or a cottage um that the error in in the approach was

[2:06:55] Voice 5: no no

[2:06:58] Voice 4: i'm okay i'm talking about the drawing that you did in the community link or maybe i don't

[2:07:02] Voice 4: know who did somebody somebody did we were talking about a non-waterfront property so we were talking

[2:07:07] Voice 4: talking about and and using the using the drawing that you use which I know is one acre

[2:07:14] Voice 4: 41 if you're talking non-waterfront 41 that's correct 41 from 28 to 40 okay so the point being

[2:07:22] Voice 4: glory is that get a setback for the side yard setback runs along both sides of the property

[2:07:31] Voice 4: from going from canton yeah okay I'm just clarifying for people in the room it's probably

[2:07:36] Voice 4: be easier to draw it but your idea that there would be there would be 41 percent lost to these

[2:07:42] Voice 4: setbacks would suggest that that that all of that extra 10 foot strip down the side yard would

[2:07:50] Voice 4: otherwise be usable to build a house which you you you in effect you're really only talking about

[2:07:57] Voice 4: a very small sliver of one portion of a side yard setback that would be that would be utilized that

[2:08:03] Voice 4: would otherwise be lost because of the setback so i think i've lost people but it's it's wrong

[2:08:09] Voice 4: it's

[2:08:09] Trustee Luckham: wrong i mean

[2:08:10] Voice 4: just just it's wrong with all respect it's it's incorrect yeah

[2:08:14] Trustee Luckham: so i think you

[2:08:15] Trustee Luckham: have lost people you've certainly lost me um and we've definitely lost steve which is a problem

[2:08:22] Trustee Luckham: um we still have a forum so i'm going to continue but you know the other reality check here it's

[2:08:28] Trustee Luckham: great to hear all these stories it's one o'clock i don't know how much more time you all want to

[2:08:34] Trustee Luckham: spend here but i've got five more people on this list and we haven't got to bylaw 123 yet per se

[2:08:41] Trustee Luckham: i think i owe my staff and everybody in the room a bit of a break here so i'm going to suggest that

[2:08:47] Trustee Luckham: seeing as we've lost steve anyway he's gone for a break how about we have a 10 minute break and

[2:08:52] Trustee Luckham: we come back with the rest of this list and we'll move on i'm here as long as you want to be but i

[2:08:57] Trustee Luckham: want to be respectful of everybody's needs and the lighting can we

[2:09:01] Voice 7: break for 10 minutes

[2:09:03] Voice 7: okay

[2:09:04] Trustee Luckham: i'm not seeing any dissenters until we're breaking

[2:09:08] Voice 5: okay

[2:09:08] Trustee Luckham: thanks everybody for the break i i know that my blood sugar levels have to drop rapidly

[2:09:14] Trustee Luckham: after having eaten for three hours and uh that's the case here today and uh so um i'm feeling

[2:09:22] Trustee Luckham: feeling refreshed and to have had an opportunity to have a break.

[2:09:25] Trustee Luckham: So I quite honestly, trustees had a couple of requests from members

[2:09:31] Trustee Luckham: of the public to ask that the trustees responses be more succinct and short.

[2:09:37] Trustee Luckham: And so let's provide the opportunity if that's what we're doing is having

[2:09:42] Trustee Luckham: an opportunity for not just questions, but points of view.

[2:09:46] Trustee Luckham: And as I said to somebody in the room,

[2:09:49] Trustee Luckham: Ideally, a point of view that prepares us to provide an opportunity for more clarity or understanding about the bylaw.

[2:09:59] Trustee Luckham: That's what,

[2:09:59] Trustee Luckham: in my mind, community information meetings are for.

[2:10:02] Trustee Luckham: And it protects the sanctity of public hearing where everything you say is recorded as an opinion that we must consider in the further movement of a bylaw.

[2:10:14] Trustee Luckham: So I'm, I'm thankful to you all and I'm thankful to be here in your community and work through these issues.

[2:10:21] Trustee Luckham: So, I've got five fresh names here on my second speakers list and if we've exhausted the questions I'll certainly ask for more than perhaps we'll go to 123, maybe there'll be less interest in a conversation around the official clean plan

[2:10:39] Trustee Luckham: amendments maybe there'll be more we have asked the hotel for more time here so we can stay we

[2:10:46] Trustee Luckham: were actually going to get tossed out at two o'clock or something so we've asked for some

[2:10:50] Trustee Luckham: more time so we can be here now till five i think and so um we'll continue

[2:10:58] Trustee Luckham: i can be here as

[2:10:59] Trustee Luckham: long as you want but i am going to ask you to try and keep your answers the same

[2:11:03] Trustee Luckham: there you go um so uh i think i see uh is it christian uh pass off oh

[2:11:12] Voice 5: there you are sorry

[2:11:13] Trustee Luckham: for making a mess of that um christina christina christina okay very good so christina i think i

[2:11:19] Voice 5: was writing that with my glasses off so i apologize um i have a couple questions and a

[2:11:25] Voice 5: clarification point that i'd like to bring forward in the beginning uh when the question was raised

[2:11:31] Voice 5: about um the house sizes uh the average house size in canada was said to be about 2000 square feet

[2:11:37] Voice 5: correct 22 to 23 so the average lot size in canada which wasn't brought forward is 3300 square feet

[2:11:44] Voice 5: so we are definitely larger than 3300 square feet um so and and this has been brought forward in

[2:11:54] Voice 5: the past as well about the we want to avoid getting into the richmond monster houses and

[2:11:58] Voice 5: and things like that, those houses are 20,000 square feet.

[2:12:03] Voice 5: So I don't think we're going to be in that position.

[2:12:06] Voice 5: So there's a couple of clarification points.

[2:12:09] Voice 5: My questions are, why are we reducing the house sizes again

[2:12:16] Voice 5: from when they were reduced in the previous term?

[2:12:20] Voice 5: What is driving this change?

[2:12:23] Voice 5: And I know that the answer before has said

[2:12:26] Voice 5: that it's been beaten to death.

[2:12:27] Voice 5: However, this question still has not been answered.

[2:12:33] Voice 5: So that's one of my questions.

[2:12:35] Voice 5: And I'd like to have that answered first, and then I'll go forward with my other question.

[2:12:42] Voice 5: Well, I think it was explained at previous meetings.

[2:12:48] Voice 5: Let's hear the answer today.

[2:12:50] Voice 8: Yeah, I'm working on it.

[2:12:51] Voice 8: we um we uh assume uh we are assumed to take a precautionary principle and by doing so that

[2:13:00] Voice 8: leads to proactive planning rather than reactive planning so if i do that just a second so if we

[2:13:06] Voice 8: do that and we follow trends and look at trends that are taking place in other places including

[2:13:11] Voice 8: rural areas the trends are towards larger homes being built and when that starts to occur as it

[2:13:21] Voice 8: has in a couple of instances maybe not to prop to owners the impacts are not felt on owners of

[2:13:28] Voice 8: larger properties but one that happens to to adjacent property owners that um are suddenly

[2:13:34] Voice 8: faced with a um a development on their property that is quite massive then uh our phone starts

[2:13:41] Voice 8: ringing off the hook and asking why aren't we doing this and why aren't we stopping this whether

[2:13:46] Voice 8: whether it's blasting, whether it's a number of different items.

[2:13:50] Voice 8: So we are taking a precautionary principle and throwing out some numbers

[2:13:53] Voice 8: that more reflect the existing home sizes that are on the island.

[2:14:00] Voice 8: People say if you want it like it is, these numbers reflect what is here already.

[2:14:06] Voice 8: And so if people are not happy with that, then I'm happy to hear your opinion,

[2:14:12] Voice 8: but essentially that was the purpose of doing this as well.

[2:14:15] Voice 8: Okay,

[2:14:16] Voice 5: so quick, quick talk to your response. Precautionary principle, who said that we need to move forward with precautionary principle? I know that's a support quote on the policy statement, but that was also refuted. Precautionary principle is normally reserved for technical companies.

[2:14:36] Voice 5: companies um we in in this type of situation uh moving forward with a precautionary principle it's

[2:14:43] Voice 5: a very dangerous step to take um i'm not in favor of of that um precautionary principle is stating

[2:14:51] Voice 5: and i i had it down before but i don't have it up right now that if anything can happen in the

[2:14:58] Voice 5: future that will be detrimental all of these things must be taken into account just to prevent

[2:15:03] Voice 5: it from happening that's almost also like fear-mongering for the future i personally don't

[2:15:09] Voice 5: agree with if that is the reason why we're reducing it from four years ago because of what could

[2:15:15] Voice 5: potentially happen in the future i i i think that that is the wrong position to be taking um like we

[2:15:23] Voice 5: said we went i wasn't here for the for the initial reduction i've been full-time on this island now

[2:15:28] Voice 5: for about two years um so i wasn't here then if it was a very painful process then and we we finally

[2:15:36] Voice 5: came to an agreement i mean forward as soon as the next term comes in we're reducing again why

[2:15:44] Voice 5: precautionary principle aside what is driving it is is it just precautionary principle that

[2:15:50] Voice 5: is driving us well

[2:15:51] Voice 8: i don't think anybody's going to argue that the world has changed in the last

[2:15:54] Voice 8: five years level in the last three years so um and that's what uh land use planning is long-term

[2:16:00] Voice 8: planning is it is to try and look at trends and uh try and get some idea of what may take place

[2:16:07] Voice 8: and try and take steps in order to prevent adverse reactions or responses to it

[2:16:15] Voice 8: if if you have a problem with the precautionary principle then um i mean that's that's a choice

[2:16:22] Voice 8: to make um i've used precautionary principle all my life raising my kids i don't wait for them

[2:16:28] Voice 8: to get injured before I take steps in order to prevent a potential injury that's just the way

[2:16:33] Voice 8: it is that's I

[2:16:34] Voice 5: don't think I don't want to be referred to as a child but I'm not I'm not

[2:16:39] Voice 5: referring

[2:16:39] Voice 8: to you as a child I'm referring to my own children um people

[2:16:43] Voice 8: use a precautionary

[2:16:44] Voice 8: principle

[2:16:45] Voice 5: every day in their life I don't think you should be surprised but

[2:16:47] Voice 5: we just did this four

[2:16:50] Voice 5: years ago so was that not long term was that not done on a precautionary principle back then if

[2:16:55] Voice 5: that's what it was well

[2:16:56] Voice 8: situations situations change and if if uh you disagree with that then

[2:17:01] Voice 8: then that's we're here to hear okay

[2:17:02] Voice 5: so my my next question then is what do we need to do as a

[2:17:10] Voice 5: community like how what what do we have to present to you in order to um get you just to to to drop

[2:17:21] Voice 5: this to drop this bylaw that you're that you're pushing through that's like this specifically the

[2:17:27] Voice 5: the further reduction in house sizes that one piece well

[2:17:31] Voice 4: can i ask you know just certainly

[2:17:33] Voice 4: convince me on where i mean again christina they can't speak for for the ultimate um thinking of

[2:17:42] Voice 4: the trustees back in 2016. i know we did have a long conversation on it we also a lot of some

[2:17:49] Voice 4: some people wrote in and go what's the evidence what data do you have to back up these numbers

[2:17:53] Voice 4: so back in 2016 we took our best guesstimates because a lot of people said we like things the

[2:17:58] Voice 4: way they are a lot of people have for a long time said we like things the way they are let's not

[2:18:02] Voice 4: change them so we took guesstimates in the absence of any data uh lordy and myself both did an

[2:18:10] Voice 4: exhaustive review of house sites so we have some data some people might say well it's the level of

[2:18:16] Voice 4: certainty of your data is only 97%. Okay, fair enough. Maybe it's 96%, but it's a lot more than

[2:18:21] Voice 4: what we had back in 2016. So we looked, as I said earlier, looked at the data that we had compiled

[2:18:28] Voice 4: of what's here now, again, trying to calibrate house sizes to, in some cases, the 90th percentile

[2:18:35] Voice 4: or greater, and then allowing for variances. So that was one of the things that at least had some

[2:18:40] Voice 4: kind of data-driven rationale for why we looked at the house sizes. I guess the other thing is,

[2:18:48] Voice 4: what can we do to convince you? I mean, you are speaking your mind and that's good.

[2:18:52] Voice 4: There's a plurality of views in this community. I have also heard from people both today in this

[2:18:58] Voice 4: room as well as letters and emails that I've gotten who are speaking, who are expressing

[2:19:05] Voice 4: seeing a different view than you so again I don't know whether I mean I hope that there's not an

[2:19:13] Voice 4: expectation that one person's views trump the views of somebody else's I mean it's a balance

[2:19:19] Voice 4: we're trying to find a balance and I and so I respect your views but I also respect the views

[2:19:23] Voice 4: of other people in our community and that's that's the that's the wrestling that we have to do as

[2:19:27] Voice 4: trustees and try to find balanced outcomes okay

[2:19:30] Voice 5: so could you answer my answer my question now

[2:19:31] Voice 5: what do you need from the community to to withdraw the changes to the house sizes that you're

[2:19:38] Voice 5: proposing

[2:19:39] Voice 4: that's a really strange question to answer christina because the community doesn't

[2:19:45] Voice 4: speak with a singular voice if

[2:19:46] Voice 5: the community so if the community i know the community doesn't

[2:19:49] Voice 5: speak with a single voice but there is a majority voice and

[2:19:52] Voice 4: there is a minority

[2:19:53] Voice 8: voice and there is

[2:19:54] Voice 8: that's your view and i appreciate it but what do

[2:19:56] Voice 5: you need from us as a community because there i

[2:19:59] Voice 5: I like the majority of people that I'm speaking to.

[2:20:02] Voice 8: Tell me how your interests are affected.

[2:20:06] Voice 5: Tell

[2:20:06] Voice 8: me how your interests are affected.

[2:20:08] Voice 5: How my interests are affected?

[2:20:14] Voice 6: You're going to be limiting me as to

[2:20:15] Voice 5: what I can build on my property.

[2:20:17] Voice 5: Would you require a document or something that is, okay,

[2:20:23] Voice 5: I've never created one in the military because that would have been a

[2:20:26] Voice 5: charge and I wouldn't have done that.

[2:20:28] Voice 5: that but now that i'm a

[2:20:29] Voice 5: clap face city um would you require something like an open letter to you

[2:20:35] Voice 5: with everybody's signatures on it saying we would ask you not to change this would that be something

[2:20:45] Voice 5: that you as a group would need in order to make a change to that or to revert back to the two

[2:20:52] Voice 5: you

[2:20:52] Voice 4: you the community is welcome whether singularly or in groups of people to to organize

[2:20:58] Voice 4: themselves to say i mean i sign polls for things too i think we've all been approached

[2:21:02] Voice 4: in in

[2:21:02] Voice 4: various occasions and asked to sign a form letter or or some other document expressing our

[2:21:09] Voice 4: views i think we've all done that those documents have been sent into different levels of government

[2:21:14] Voice 4: no just just a question just a second audrey uh people have expressed whether it's whatever you

[2:21:20] Voice 4: can send in an open letter and everybody can sign it that's fine i'll take that under advisement

[2:21:25] Voice 4: but but my job as a trustee is to make decisions based on not just somebody sending me a letter

[2:21:33] Voice 4: with 500 signatures well there's not that many on the island but i i i everything that i receive as

[2:21:39] Voice 4: input i try and take into consideration but it's not uh it's not as simple as saying i got

[2:21:46] Voice 4: got a form letter from this number of people.

[2:21:49] Voice 4: And so therefore that an idea that a group of people felt

[2:21:55] Voice 4: was either good public policy or bad public policy

[2:21:58] Voice 4: that I should somehow set aside thinking that I've,

[2:22:03] Voice 4: and the input that I've received from many people

[2:22:05] Voice 4: in coming up with an independent decision.

[2:22:07] Voice 4: I'm elected to make an independent decision

[2:22:10] Voice 4: based on feedback from many, many people.

[2:22:13] Voice 4: Otherwise we

[2:22:14] Voice 4: might as well just put it into a computer

[2:22:15] Voice 4: and get him to spit out a response but

[2:22:17] Voice 5: isn't there already isn't there already a methodology

[2:22:21] Voice 5: or practice to evaluate this and that is by putting it to a vote for example if i ask you

[2:22:27] Voice 5: john you how

[2:22:28] Voice 4: many how many different municipalities have you done work in how many times i'm not aware

[2:22:33] Voice 4: of any municipalities that i work in where when a public hearing on a rezoning or a new policy that

[2:22:39] Voice 4: that they put everything out to a vote that's that's

[2:22:41] Voice 5: if there is a meaningful outcry they do

[2:22:44] Voice 5: do stuff. I think

[2:22:47] Voice 4: we're

[2:22:48] Voice 5: going to agree to disagree.

[2:22:49] Voice 4: You'd like to change the system

[2:22:51] Voice 4: of democracy in terms of decision-making, and

[2:22:53] Voice 5: that's for a bigger discussion.

[2:22:55] Voice 5: So let's stop this

[2:22:57] Trustee Luckham: argument, okay? The question was, what can be done to change this? So the

[2:23:05] Trustee Luckham: mechanisms that exist in this structure of governance, right, is come to public hearing.

[2:23:10] Trustee Luckham: everybody come to public hearing and tell us what you think or put it in writing individually put

[2:23:16] Trustee Luckham: it in writing the opportunity for referendum does not exist within the day-to-day business or affairs

[2:23:24] Trustee Luckham: of the office trust the only

[2:23:25] Trustee Luckham: chance for referendum is at election time and certainly you can choose

[2:23:30] Trustee Luckham: to elect different trustees but at election time through special dispensation from the province

[2:23:36] Trustee Luckham: we had the referendum on salt spring incorporation for instance but it's not easy and not regularly

[2:23:43] Trustee Luckham: done and would likely not be considered by the province for something like floor

[2:23:49] Voice 5: area but it'll

[2:23:51] Voice 5: and i'll do respect so uh there must be a mechanism what we keep hearing every time i come to the

[2:23:58] Voice 5: meetings and i'm well enough experienced in public meetings to know that the people that show up are

[2:24:03] Voice 5: the ones that have a strong opinion typically or they're there there may be a few people that

[2:24:07] Voice 5: disagree but mostly they're the people with strong opinions it keeps getting cited and i know this i

[2:24:14] Voice 5: know this exists but it keeps getting cited that there's another opinion out there that cameron

[2:24:19] Voice 5: and steve are hearing from other people and they want something else but and they're they're they

[2:24:24] Voice 5: keep saying this we just heard it again there is another opinion that's out there well how how how

[2:24:31] Voice 5: How do we know?

[2:24:33] Voice 5: Is it one

[2:24:34] Voice 5: person? Five people?

[2:24:38] Voice 5: I didn't say there's anything

[2:24:40] Voice 8: wrong with your picture.

[2:24:41] Voice 8: If I could just say that the mandate of the Islands Trust is not all about you and it's not all about me.

[2:24:49] Voice 8: It also has to take into consideration future generations and what they expect to see in this trust area,

[2:24:55] Voice 8: which is considered unique and special within the entire process.

[2:24:57] Voice 8: Our mandate also says we have to listen to the people of British Columbia in their entirety.

[2:25:04] Voice 8: And every time that there is a survey that's sent out to the public that is broadly cast,

[2:25:15] Voice 8: those polls generally come in that have been responded to by people that do not live within these islands,

[2:25:23] Voice 8: come in very strongly on the size of preserving the environment and preserving the rural character

[2:25:30] Voice 8: of these islands this is what people generally feel isn't the priority and the most important

[2:25:35] Voice 8: thing that the islands trust could do in this area so we cannot just ignore everybody else in

[2:25:44] Voice 8: the province because that would be going against part of the mandate of the trust we also have to

[2:25:50] Voice 8: consider the future. It is not just about me. It is not just about the people in the room or the

[2:25:56] Voice 8: current property owners.

[2:25:57] Voice 5: So you asked me earlier, how is this going to directly affect me? By

[2:26:01] Voice 5: reducing what I can build on my property, I'm not going to be able to have the age in place that

[2:26:11] Voice 5: that was a term used. I'm not going to be able to have my children move in with me. I'm not going

[2:26:16] Voice 5: to be able to have them with their own offices to work from home in so you're saying to look to the

[2:26:21] Voice 5: future generations but the societal workforces change with the ability to be able to work from

[2:26:27] Voice 5: home therefore requiring larger spaces but you've reduced them so drastically that that is no longer

[2:26:33] Voice 5: going to be a viable option on this island so you're

[2:26:37] Voice 8: looking at these bylaws as prohibitions

[2:26:42] Voice 5: if you

[2:26:43] Voice 8: want to if you want to uh but you require a larger home you can apply for a very and how

[2:26:51] Voice 5: much how much do the variances cost on top of all the other things that we're going to be

[2:26:56] Voice 5: so that the larger house insurance now we've got to do pay for the variances then we have to pay

[2:27:02] Voice 5: and possibly be turned down and still not be able to do it why again again my question is

[2:27:08] Voice 5: why are we reducing the house sizes so much because again it still hasn't been answered

[2:27:15] Voice 5: i

[2:27:16] Voice 4: just don't think you'd like the answer christine i mean we've given our i mean we're trying to

[2:27:21] Voice 4: tailor bylaws it's

[2:27:22] Voice 5: not a binary decision also of the same opinion that this person hasn't

[2:27:25] Voice 5: yeah

[2:27:26] Voice 4: but i see people around us that are not nodding their head in the affirmative with you

[2:27:30] Voice 4: so it's not a binary black white decision here we're trying to and over the course of again

[2:27:39] Voice 4: many many months now the bylaw has evolved some people say well geez a bylaws of all well yeah

[2:27:44] Voice 4: i guess so because we've been listening to people a plurality of opinions making a step back and a

[2:27:50] Voice 4: step forward a step to the side all trying to come up with something that that creates a bylaw

[2:27:56] Voice 4: that is reflective of a plurality of views.

[2:28:01] Voice 4: So sometimes policymaking can be a bit messy

[2:28:03] Voice 4: and yes, we're having discussions to listen to people.

[2:28:08] Voice 4: So

[2:28:08] Voice 1: you're saying people are actually asking for this change.

[2:28:13] Voice 1: Yeah,

[2:28:13] Voice 4: it's crazy, isn't it?

[2:28:14] Voice 1: Yeah, they are.

[2:28:15] Voice 1: People are really, you're telling people here

[2:28:17] Voice 1: that this is what is generating the bylaw change

[2:28:21] Voice 1: is because this is what the majority of people are asking for.

[2:28:27] Voice 5: is it the majority that's asking

[2:28:28] Voice 5: for this i

[2:28:30] Voice 4: i don't know if you're the majority i don't know

[2:28:32] Voice 4: if somebody else is the majority i mean i'm hearing that that's

[2:28:34] Voice 4: not the question

[2:28:36] Voice 1: it's the majority of people asking for the but who is the

[2:28:40] Voice 1: majority of people sir

[2:28:42] Voice 6: you tell

[2:28:43] Voice 1: me you keep talking about the majority

[2:28:46] Voice 4: minority and we're vocal i know you're vocal but

[2:28:50] Voice 4: i don't know if you're majority so this

[2:28:51] Trustee Luckham: question is going to be unanswered and i

[2:28:55] Trustee Luckham: apologize for

[2:28:56] Trustee Luckham: saying that. Public hearing is the opportunity for you to express your opinions again. The trustees

[2:29:02] Trustee Luckham: are obligated to consider those amongst the other opinions that they receive. Certainly there's weight

[2:29:07] Trustee Luckham: to what you bring to us in a public hearing, because if you choose as a community or as an

[2:29:13] Trustee Luckham: individual to contest the outcome of a decision of this LTC, then those aspects that were the

[2:29:20] Trustee Luckham: rationale for the decision that was made would be considered at some process.

[2:29:25] Trustee Luckham: How do you

[2:29:26] Voice 5: contest it? What is the process of contesting it?

[2:29:34] Trustee Luckham: Ultimately, you end up probably taking us to court as a court action to overturn a bylaw.

[2:29:40] Trustee Luckham: What are we going here?

[2:29:42] Voice 1: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. A question was asked. We've not had an answer. Are you

[2:29:48] Voice 1: saying that we're not going to get an answer? The question was, why the change to the size?

[2:29:54] Voice 1: And we've not had an answer, we've had a lot of

[2:30:00] Voice 1: verbiage not trying to be insulting but the question was asked said a couple of hours ago

[2:30:05] Voice 1: why the change we've not had that answer and that's what people are asking so

[2:30:10] Trustee Luckham: it might be

[2:30:11] Trustee Luckham: verbiage the trustees i think have attempted to provide an answer from their point of view

[2:30:15] Trustee Luckham: and that's their answer i don't see them changing their answer no as i

[2:30:22] Trustee Luckham: apologize but that's what

[2:30:24] Trustee Luckham: they've chosen

[2:30:24] Trustee Luckham: yeah the

[2:30:26] Voice 5: answer was precautionary principle yeah

[2:30:30] Voice 4: well that's not the full answer

[2:30:31] Voice 4: shelly that's that that's it that's not so sorry i'm sorry sorry sorry shelly i was just like

[2:30:37] Voice 4: that's that that's one that's one answer i gave a different answer um uh so

[2:30:45] Trustee Luckham: we're not going to

[2:30:46] Trustee Luckham: be able to we're not going to be able to sort this particular question out um and i apologize

[2:30:51] Trustee Luckham: I apologize that we don't have the answer for that, but there is

[2:30:53] Voice 7: no clear answer.

[2:30:55] Voice 7: I

[2:30:55] Trustee Luckham: don't know why you're doing it.

[2:30:57] Trustee Luckham: I'm gonna go to the

[2:31:00] Trustee Luckham: next speaker, because I'd like to just move us along. Is it Dag or Dave Fallock?

[2:31:06] Trustee Luckham: It's Dag, yes. Dag, thank you for joining us.

[2:31:09] Trustee Luckham: I've been

[2:31:10] Voice 5: patiently waiting. Thank you for all of you who are still here.

[2:31:15] Voice 8: My name is Dag Fogh. There's a number of things I want to address here, but maybe first I should just mention about the question being requested to put it in a question.

[2:31:30] Voice 8: I may or may not be able to ask this. And when I came in, Steve, you mentioned that you were here to listen.

[2:31:37] Voice 8: And, you know, if you're listening, you're not actually asking questions.

[2:31:41] Voice 8: question. You know, like, that's the conversation, right? Somebody asks a question, somebody

[2:31:47] Voice 8: listens, right, to the answer. And I think it's a two-way thing. I think we need to both ask

[2:31:52] Voice 8: questions and answer questions. So I don't see that that has any relevance. If you wish me to

[2:31:58] Voice 8: not give my comments, please let me know, even if I don't have a question. Do you wish me to stop?

[2:32:07] Voice 6: I'll try to speak

[2:32:08] Voice 8: up to you remind me again I tend to be soft spoken

[2:32:13] Voice 8: uh the question that I will not ask is is what is the rationale for for this change because I've

[2:32:22] Voice 8: heard so many people ask the question and clearly there is the answer is not there it's not

[2:32:28] Voice 8: forthcoming so asking it again seems fruitless uh i

[2:32:37] Voice 5: you know i want to talk a little bit about

[2:32:39] Voice 5: the process and

[2:32:41] Voice 8: i i think the process has been you know i'm kind of new to this here i've been

[2:32:47] Voice 8: on tender for self and two years two and a half here and and by the way i live in a 1200 square

[2:32:53] Voice 8: foot house so and i'm not planning on expanding it at this point maybe although you're giving

[2:32:59] Voice 8: my ideas all day so maybe i need to but but so so i don't have a stake in it personally i know

[2:33:07] Voice 8: i don't want to you know yeah i don't have a stake in this personally at this time for sure

[2:33:12] Voice 8: but i i do think that it doesn't make any sense because i haven't heard the rationale

[2:33:17] Voice 8: like i can't support the change the bylaw change because i do not understand what it's about and to

[2:33:24] Voice 8: To me, the things that I would care about are, you know,

[2:33:27] Voice 8: like taking care of water better, installing, you know,

[2:33:30] Voice 8: encouraging solar power, you know,

[2:33:33] Voice 8: environmental issues, protecting the environment we live in.

[2:33:37] Voice 8: Those are issues that I care about.

[2:33:38] Voice 8: And if the house size has direct implication for that,

[2:33:42] Voice 8: then I would be all ears.

[2:33:45] Voice 8: But I haven't heard the connection.

[2:33:46] Voice 8: I haven't heard anybody say the big house size is going to impact our

[2:33:51] Voice 8: environment or any of that kind of stuff.

[2:33:53] Voice 8: and maybe it does but maybe it doesn't and that's the conversation i would need to hear first

[2:33:59] Voice 7: uh so uh yeah

[2:34:06] Voice 8: and i just want to say too that there there seems to be an assumption

[2:34:10] Voice 8: that's being suggested is that being opposed to the bylaw change means that the person who is

[2:34:18] Voice 8: opposed to the bylaw change is less caring i just want to say i don't think that's true and i think

[2:34:24] Voice 8: that's an assumption for me personally i am opposed to the bylaw change because i don't have

[2:34:29] Voice 8: any evidence to tell me otherwise uh so at this point i cannot support it but that's not from

[2:34:36] Voice 8: lack of caring caring about the environment caring about our our rural uh character environment you

[2:34:43] Voice 8: know all of these things it's actually if i was going to assess myself i would say it's because

[2:34:48] Voice 8: i care more or at least as much as somebody else doesn't matter what so don't make the assumption

[2:34:54] Voice 8: please that we don't care and that we're having an opinion about this because we don't care

[2:34:58] Voice 8: because we don't care about the development no we just want bigger houses don't you know i don't

[2:35:03] Voice 8: want a bigger house somebody else might want a bigger house but don't judge them or us for

[2:35:08] Voice 8: for not being caring you know we don't care what happens on tenders as long as i get my big house

[2:35:13] Voice 8: i do not hear that from this room i have not heard anything to indicate that

[2:35:19] Voice 8: So I think that's an important

[2:35:20] Voice 5: point to make.

[2:35:23] Voice 5: I wanted to also just mention with

[2:35:26] Voice 8: this opportunity to speak

[2:35:28] Voice 8: is that it's very difficult to find anything

[2:35:30] Voice 8: on the website from the staff.

[2:35:32] Voice 8: I was

[2:35:32] Voice 8: wondering, and I maybe haven't spent enough time there

[2:35:35] Voice 8: but is it possible to make like a video or a tutorial?

[2:35:40] Voice 8: Here's where you find bylaws,

[2:35:42] Voice 8: here's where you find proposed changes to bylaws,

[2:35:45] Voice 8: here's where you find stuff.

[2:35:46] Voice 8: because I've been up and down and all around.

[2:35:49] Voice 8: It's taken me a long time to get around,

[2:35:52] Voice 8: so I'm just wondering if that's possible.

[2:35:53] Voice 8: That's

[2:35:54] Trustee Luckham: a good idea.

[2:35:57] Voice 8: Now, respectful communication.

[2:35:59] Voice 8: I feel like it's teetering a little bit here during this meeting.

[2:36:05] Voice 8: We're not all having great, respectful conversations,

[2:36:08] Voice 8: and it's very difficult to have tough topics and maintain that,

[2:36:12] Voice 8: but that's got to be what we strive for.

[2:36:14] Voice 8: and I want to share with you that I do not feel that I've been listened to I mean first of all

[2:36:25] Voice 8: I'm only speaking now but but the viewpoints that I've heard from others that have been spoken that

[2:36:30] Voice 8: I agree with I have not felt heard for those viewpoints and I feel like there's a coercedness

[2:36:38] Voice 8: for instance the suggestion that we have to ask a question to me that feels like and it may not be

[2:36:44] Voice 8: but it feels to me like that's the way to make me not say as much I feel

[2:36:50] Voice 8: restricted by it so I feel like that's the course it's a method to not listen I

[2:36:59] Voice 8: would like more signals that you are listening and not just listening as in I

[2:37:04] Voice 8: heard what you said okay now done with that moving on listening to me means you

[2:37:09] Voice 8: take into consideration the fullness of the arguments or the points of view and

[2:37:14] Voice 8: and tell the person back, like active listening,

[2:37:18] Voice 8: I heard you say this, and we have considered this,

[2:37:23] Voice 8: or we are considering that now,

[2:37:24] Voice 8: and the points that you made,

[2:37:26] Voice 8: here are the counterpoints to those points,

[2:37:30] Voice 8: and then move the conversation forward.

[2:37:31] Voice 8: Instead of saying, we have heard,

[2:37:33] Voice 8: we're taking everybody into consideration,

[2:37:36] Voice 8: and then moving on.

[2:37:38] Voice 8: Listening needs an active process.

[2:37:41] Voice 5: So I'm missing that.

[2:37:45] Voice 5: i think i got it all i i'm very

[2:37:53] Voice 8: strongly considering running for um the next election

[2:38:06] Voice 4: thanks for your comments um i you know i i guess the video will will will tell all of us the extent

[2:38:13] Voice 4: to which there is active listening and backward dialogue i sincerely hope that you know my style

[2:38:18] Voice 4: is i know most of the people in the room my style is to to to have engaged in it to the degree

[2:38:25] Voice 4: possible two-way conversation with people and i i think that is active listening uh so uh uh you

[2:38:32] Voice 4: know and i'm going to continue to do that and i know you you've your view is that and the view

[2:38:39] Voice 4: of a few others is that we haven't given i guess a satisfactory rationale for for these for for

[2:38:47] Voice 4: these proposals um i tried to be lucid in in explaining the rationales i guess the other one

[2:38:55] Voice 4: that I will uh go back and I use as a bit of a an underpinning to to my approaches is I will read a

[2:39:05] Voice 4: very short section of the land of the official community plan um and it reads regulatory

[2:39:12] Voice 4: provisions pertaining to numbers of buildings maximum floor area lot size coverage buildings

[2:39:18] Voice 4: and structure setbacks in land use regulatory bylaws and permits are we are to be developed

[2:39:25] Voice 4: with regard to land use compatibility the retention of rural my own character the protection

[2:39:31] Voice 4: of natural views and the maintenance of residential privacy so there's there's you know we i guess we

[2:39:38] Voice 4: can all choose to interpret that somewhat different but when i think about those i think that that's

[2:39:44] Voice 4: why for example i i believe there's there's validity in looking at at a at a an increase

[2:39:51] Voice 4: to the side yard setback for a dwelling or a cottage not changing the side yard setback for

[2:39:57] Voice 4: accessory buildings because people don't typically live in those so that's just one small example

[2:40:02] Voice 4: we're trying to you know we want to have policies that are actually hinged back to or anchored back

[2:40:09] Voice 4: to some of the policies and i think i've said many times that my i take my cues to the to the

[2:40:14] Voice 4: degree possible from ROCP so

[2:40:17] Voice 8: so that's an example if you could give us specifics as to what about

[2:40:22] Voice 8: setting it back further links

[2:40:25] Voice 4: to the to the objective well I'll give you one quick example

[2:40:29] Voice 4: and I think I I want to be quick because I'm getting criticized for speaking too long but

[2:40:33] Voice 4: as I said earlier that the setbacks that we have from the from the front yard if there's a property

[2:40:39] Voice 4: across the street you're over 100 feet separation between your your living space and somebody else's

[2:40:46] Voice 4: living space but yet right now we can be as a minimum of 20 feet between between um houses

[2:40:52] Voice 4: and there's there's the issue of of of um audible noise uh you know the transmission of sound uh

[2:41:02] Voice 4: people's act if we can if we can separate human dwelling spaces more than by 10 foot setbacks

[2:41:09] Voice 4: that's going to create the the retention of privacy and freedom from disturbance which is

[2:41:14] Voice 4: another things here so that's and again this was based on looking at uh both the ocp and speaking

[2:41:22] Voice 4: to um some some some some very good architects that i that i know that have designed a lot of

[2:41:29] Voice 4: homes in in in in british columbia so that would that would be my approach so i think that's

[2:41:36] Voice 5: excellent a good

[2:41:38] Voice 8: start at answering the question that's been coming forward from several places

[2:41:42] Voice 8: and and you know that should have been fleshed out and if i could you know project what would

[2:41:48] Voice 8: have maybe been helpful in this process and made it made it a little less cumbersome would have

[2:41:54] Voice 8: been to have every one of those proposed setbacks and you know all of the variations that are made

[2:42:02] Voice 8: to the current bylaw if each one was backed up with in order to create less sound disturbance

[2:42:10] Voice 8: from neighbors we propose exchange to the to the setback you know to stop chances of disturbance

[2:42:19] Voice 8: we propose that if that's the reason but why what why wasn't it presented like that because if we

[2:42:25] Voice 8: would have heard all of that we could have been discussing the real reasons instead of just

[2:42:29] Voice 8: talking about i want it i don't want it i

[2:42:32] Voice 4: want it i don't want it that's what we're doing here

[2:42:34] Voice 4: right now well i i guess i guess it would rewind the clock back and i'm

[2:42:38] Voice 4: i appreciate your your thank you for being engaged in the community

[2:42:43] Voice 4: i i have been having conversations like this for a couple of years now in in various settings like

[2:42:50] Voice 4: this and through this dialogue these very various rationales have been discussed uh you know i i do

[2:42:57] Voice 4: my best to try and articulate it each time i'm meeting with somebody but it's not like this is

[2:43:02] Voice 4: an aha moment and it was never discussed before so the question was raised four or

[2:43:06] Voice 8: five times here

[2:43:07] Voice 8: what is the reason what's the rationale and those would have been good like finally you're getting

[2:43:13] Voice 8: there that's great okay why

[2:43:14] Voice 8: didn't you answer that before okay thank you very much let's go

[2:43:19] Voice 8: farther down that road more of that type of practical measurable repeatable whatever

[2:43:25] Voice 8: things that we can say, yes, I agree or I disagree.

[2:43:29] Voice 8: Agreeing or disagreeing with the setback,

[2:43:32] Voice 8: how can you do that if you don't know all the implications,

[2:43:35] Voice 8: all the rationale and being forward thinking

[2:43:38] Voice 8: and precautionary principle,

[2:43:40] Voice 8: but what are we precautioning against, right?

[2:43:43] Voice 8: I can say precautionary is great,

[2:43:45] Voice 8: but we've got to be precautioning against something specific.

[2:43:49] Voice 8: So more specifics tied directly

[2:43:53] Voice 8: to the proposed bylaw changes.

[2:43:55] Voice 8: That's what I think needs to happen, you know, in the structure of the way these meetings are run and the way that the trust runs.

[2:44:04] Trustee Luckham: Okay. Thank you, Dag. And I'm going to say what I've heard is we need more specificity around this.

[2:44:10] Trustee Luckham: And I'll just say this is not an excuse, but it's like copy editing.

[2:44:16] Trustee Luckham: You know, you read it and you read it and you read it and you read past the same mistakes and you miss all the information and you don't tell a credible story to people.

[2:44:25] Trustee Luckham: people. And that's a weakness. Are you suggesting we're not telling a credible story? No, I'm just

[2:44:30] Trustee Luckham: using

[2:44:30] Voice 4: it. Okay, I just want to be clear, because there's a lot of things that come out, especially

[2:44:34] Voice 4: when you speak, people take it and they go, the chair said X, and then it's going to come out

[2:44:39] Voice 4: in public dialogue. So I just want to be really careful how we, I'm serious.

[2:44:43] Voice 5: Okay,

[2:44:44] Voice 4: let's go to the next

[2:44:46] Trustee Luckham: speaker. Susan Artefabe.

[2:44:54] Voice 5: I live

[2:44:55] Voice 5: at 9909 Dallas Point Road across from Audrey and Dave and I've been living here for

[2:45:04] Voice 5: the past eight years but we bought our property in 1980 or 81 and we were weekenders and we

[2:45:12] Voice 5: did a little

[2:45:13] Voice 5: bit here a little bit there built up the place it probably complies with most if

[2:45:18] Voice 5: not all of the desires in the design guidelines and not because anybody made us to do it but

[2:45:26] Voice 5: because we thought it was a good idea

[2:45:28] Voice 7: it's

[2:45:29] Voice 5: the size it is under 2 000 square feet because that's

[2:45:33] Voice 5: really all we needed most of the people who are here in this room have also built under what the

[2:45:39] Voice 5: requirements were or the upper level of the requirements were because that's all they needed

[2:45:45] Voice 5: the people who live here the people who want to be here want to be here because of what we have

[2:45:52] Voice 5: I love it here this is my home and it's going to be my home I like walking down the street

[2:46:00] Voice 5: I like saying hello to people that I know people that I don't know I like shaking hands with the

[2:46:07] Voice 5: people who are on opposite sides of the question from me I like being friendly with everybody who

[2:46:14] Voice 5: who's here. It really upsets me that there is this level of dissension in the community

[2:46:21] Voice 5: over something that is completely needless. One of the things that I like about being here

[2:46:28] Voice 5: is that people do things that are responsible in their own way. They do things that are

[2:46:35] Voice 5: considerate of their neighbors in their own way. And I can say that of the big houses that I have

[2:46:43] Voice 5: heard complaints about i think those houses fit in with the rural character of this property

[2:46:49] Voice 5: just as much as my 1800 square foot home and the people who live in them are good people

[2:46:56] Voice 5: they're islanders they're my neighbors and my friends i want to welcome them and i want them

[2:47:01] Voice 5: to feel welcome and if there are other people who want to build homes like that on the island i'm

[2:47:06] Voice 5: going to go out and welcome them and treat them as my neighbors and friends as well when i uh

[2:47:14] Voice 5: put my name on the speaker's list i didn't know quite how far down i was and there were three

[2:47:19] Voice 5: things that i wanted to ask about and number one was the rationale for the changes to be made

[2:47:26] Voice 5: at all because in my point of view we have the ideal rural community right now under the present

[2:47:35] Voice 5: bylaws as they are and i don't see the sky falling i don't think we need to prepare for it i don't

[2:47:43] Voice 5: think we need to build the bridges the suspenders the belts that might prevent people from doing the

[2:47:50] Voice 5: worst case scenario other than blasting down their neighbors property i don't think it's necessary

[2:47:56] Voice 5: and i wanted to ask what is the reason for all of this upset that's being caused in the community

[2:48:03] Voice 5: why is all of this dissension coming about now when only six years ago we went through the same

[2:48:10] Voice 5: process and we came out with something that not everybody wanted and there are views on both sides

[2:48:17] Voice 5: of the question there are probably views on three or four sides of the question because questions

[2:48:22] Voice 5: don't have this black or white answers some people will like some parts of the bio some people will

[2:48:28] Voice 5: like other parts and some people will say i don't like any of it at all but we're all members of

[2:48:34] Voice 5: this community and we all need to get along and we all need to be civil with each other and despite

[2:48:42] Voice 5: that general preface and despite your accounts to tell us what you feel is the reason why changes

[2:48:49] Voice 5: need to be made, I don't think you have convinced anybody here why these changes need to be made.

[2:48:58] Voice 5: The other, I was going to bring that as a question, but obviously everything dealt with, and I don't

[2:49:05] Voice 5: think we're going to get any more of an answer to that than we've already got. The other thing I

[2:49:12] Voice 5: wanted to ask is how you settled on figures that you did and there are several things that you have

[2:49:21] Voice 5: mentioned but steve the first sort of objective way to determine a figure was what you mentioned

[2:49:29] Voice 5: today was the average size of the canadian house i'd never heard that as being any kind of a

[2:49:35] Voice 5: justification for these numbers being picked as opposed to numbers 500 square feet on one side

[2:49:43] Voice 5: or 500 square feet on the other and at least there is some objective basis for the numbers

[2:49:49] Voice 5: to be hit and i was looking to hear that but i wanted to ask you what christina had asked

[2:49:58] Voice 5: was that the average based on the size of the property uh sizes that we have here and it's not

[2:50:07] Voice 5: so is that really a valid reason to pick those particular numbers and i know that you have

[2:50:15] Voice 5: have tried to be a little bit generous. And I know that you are doing what you think is the

[2:50:20] Voice 5: right thing to do. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. I know you were convinced that you

[2:50:25] Voice 5: were doing the right thing. And I know you were elected to be leaders. But

[2:50:32] Voice 5: if people will draw

[2:50:33] Voice 5: on you, you're not winning anything.

[2:50:36] Voice 6: The other

[2:50:38] Voice 5: thing that I wanted to ask you was the numbers

[2:50:42] Voice 5: themselves um i want to know what the numbers are on other similar property uh

[2:50:50] Voice 5: groupings for example saturn for example the asylum for example uh

[2:50:58] Voice 5: not salt spring that's probably a special case but um may not are the lot size restrictions

[2:51:04] Voice 5: the same there as what's being proposed here or are they significantly different

[2:51:08] Voice 5: perhaps our staff members I would just like to have a comparison to know how these restrictions

[2:51:17] Voice 5: would put us um basically the other um the other comparables in our booth

[2:51:26] Voice 2: I'm happy to answer I'm happy to answer the last question you had um I can't speak to

[2:51:35] Voice 2: Galeano Maine and Saturnix I'm not quite familiar with their projects but

[2:51:40] Voice 2: but I don't believe they're looking at maximum floor area right now.

[2:51:45] Voice 2: North Pender LTC is looking at establishing a maximum floor area.

[2:51:51] Voice 2: Currently they do, or currently the LUB,

[2:51:54] Voice 2: the land use bylaw for North Pender does not have a maximum floor area.

[2:51:59] Voice 2: And this is something that they're considering right now.

[2:52:02] Voice 2: And I can just quickly go over some of the numbers that they're considering.

[2:52:07] Voice 2: I'm just bringing them up right now.

[2:52:12] Voice 2: I know, but I'm going

[2:52:13] Voice 4: to ask for comparison, right?

[2:52:15] Voice 4: So do you want the answer?

[2:52:18] Voice 2: Maybe,

[2:52:19] Voice 4: maybe not.

[2:52:20] Voice 2: Answering your question, North Pender is looking at it for properties less than an acre.

[2:52:25] Voice 2: They're looking at a maximum flow area of 2,500 square feet, properties from one to three acres, 3,000 square feet, and properties greater than three acres, 3,500 square feet.

[2:52:39] Voice 2: but these have not been adopted yet.

[2:52:42] Voice 5: Is there any island that has adopted sizes that we could look

[2:52:47] Voice 5: at versus because I mean it's the same as here it's something that's on the floor right now

[2:52:52] Voice 5: but it hasn't been adopted and it could change significantly one way or another.

[2:52:56] Voice 2: I don't have

[2:52:57] Voice 2: the numbers in front of me it's something that we can all look at look at each individual land use

[2:53:02] Voice 2: by law to see that would be right so

[2:53:05] Voice 5: they're not in a maximum total dwelling size they're 25

[2:53:10] Voice 5: they have lot

[2:53:14] Voice 2: coverage uh 25 which will potentially include uh impervious

[2:53:19] Voice 2: services and they are also looking at total floor area of all buildings

[2:53:24] Voice 2: Okay. Yeah.

[2:53:27] Trustee Luckham: Sir, can I just jump in on that?

[2:53:29] Trustee Luckham: Mike Turkeel.

[2:53:33] Trustee Luckham: Sir, the reasoning that was

[2:53:35] Voice 5: explained earlier that these numbers were obtained from was that it was a Canadian mean average.

[2:53:43] Voice 5: Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly,

[2:53:46] Voice 4: sir?

[2:53:47] Voice 4: We

[2:53:48] Voice 8: used that as a starting point.

[2:53:49] Voice 8: A starting point.

[2:53:50] Voice 5: So I'm not sure how many in this room have been coast to coast to Canadian mean.

[2:53:55] Voice 5: I have, Daphne has, we've been posting every single product.

[2:53:59] Voice 5: And I can tell you that the average mean in

[2:54:02] Voice 8: those individual communities are drastically different because of the demographics, because of the environment, because

[2:54:10] Voice 5: of the economies that are there.

[2:54:13] Voice 5: this community the gulf islands are markedly different from almost any other place because

[2:54:23] Voice 5: it's very very unique in my opinion if you're going to come up with an average of what is

[2:54:29] Voice 5: deemed as

[2:54:30] Voice 4: an acceptable house size based on real estate one acre two acre whatever the case may be

[2:54:36] Voice 4: it should be on the demographics of here not on the canadian mean because what's in newfoundland

[2:54:44] Voice 4: sitting on the rock in St. John's is drastically different from here or wherever so I don't I

[2:54:50] Voice 4: believe that number is you know I understand the reasoning of it you explained it to a bit to us

[2:54:58] Voice 4: earlier but an average mean has to be based on what is the economy of this area how these people

[2:55:05] Voice 4: are

[2:55:05] Voice 5: living how they're developing their homes in concert with their environment and what I've seen

[2:55:11] Voice 5: so far yes there's going to be a fly in the ointment there's a one one up because people

[2:55:17] Voice 5: are people but the vast majority of them are living very well in concert with their environment

[2:55:24] Voice 5: if there's

[2:55:25] Voice 4: an exception deal with the exception don't use it as a just just just to my to your

[2:55:31] Voice 4: point and i speak steve of course had expressed his views on on one of the one of the factors

[2:55:38] Voice 4: that was his thinking on house size,

[2:55:39] Voice 4: which is the Canadian size.

[2:55:42] Voice 4: My focus was on your latter point,

[2:55:45] Voice 4: which was it should be correlated

[2:55:48] Voice 4: to the island that we're living on.

[2:55:50] Voice 4: And so, and I'm happy to share with you,

[2:55:53] Voice 4: and maybe if you want another voice,

[2:55:56] Voice 4: you should ask Gordy Duncan to share his data with you.

[2:55:59] Voice 4: Again, as a starting point,

[2:56:00] Voice 4: as at least a point of reference,

[2:56:02] Voice 4: the numbers that I based,

[2:56:08] Voice 4: My thinking on the house size was based on the sizes of homes that are built to date on the island of South Pender.

[2:56:15] Voice 4: And again, in looking at the numbers, we didn't take the mean or the average because that would be quite small.

[2:56:23] Voice 4: We took we try to look at somewhere around the 80th, 85th and 90th percentile of homes in any lot category.

[2:56:32] Voice 4: So you're catching most of them and saying, OK, the 90th percentile is X.

[2:56:36] Voice 4: and then looking at that number as a bit of a guide to the to the house size for that for that

[2:56:44] Voice 4: same lot area and I'm certainly happy if you you share with me your email or something I'm sure

[2:56:48] Voice 4: certainly happy to send send that to you again it was it was meant to be a baseline

[2:56:57] Voice 4: that was not an absolute but it was meant to be a baseline to give some correlation between

[2:57:04] Voice 4: between those sizes and what's around there, recognizing that there's circumstances, and I

[2:57:07] Voice 4: think you've outlined a great one in your own case, where there's rationales for homes being

[2:57:12] Voice 4: larger. And it isn't meant to be, Shelley, to your point, I don't want a one-size-fits-all either.

[2:57:17] Voice 4: I'd love more ability to tailor and work and come up with unique circumstances. But we, again,

[2:57:24] Voice 4: we've got a limited set of tools. We're trying to have at least a bit of a safety net to protect

[2:57:28] Voice 4: protect uh what we all love about this island recognizing that there's there is an ability to

[2:57:34] Voice 4: to go above and beyond that baseline but i'll send you the email if i'll send you the data

[2:57:38] Voice 4: i

[2:57:38] Voice 5: appreciate that point as long as it's not going to be at a cost to

[2:57:45] Voice 4: that individual to deviate from

[2:57:47] Voice 4: the average from the norm if you want to call it that because they're already because

[2:57:55] Voice 5: of their own

[2:57:55] Voice 5: situations paying for that luxury of building a larger home having those other you know additional

[2:58:02] Voice 5: amenities and that sort of thing but if they have to jump through all these hoops

[2:58:08] Voice 5: at

[2:58:10] Voice 4: a cost to deviate from

[2:58:11] Voice 5: it other than the

[2:58:13] Voice 4: construction portion of it and the permitting

[2:58:16] Voice 4: portion of it that would not always be there then fine have a flexible format yeah and and you know

[2:58:23] Voice 4: just just i mean there is i mean a variance there is a cost i think it's around fifteen hundred

[2:58:29] Voice 4: dollars i i could don't it could be slightly various for a variance yeah it's pretty cheap

[2:58:35] Voice 4: i know but it's one thousand five hundred dollars is it

[2:58:38] Voice 6: as

[2:58:39] Voice 4: as i mean as if you look at it as a cost

[2:58:42] Voice 4: of overall cost of what you're building it it it it's not even a rounding error i mean it's

[2:58:46] Voice 4: It's very small.

[2:58:49] Trustee Luckham: Okay, let's move on if we can.

[2:58:51] Trustee Luckham: And I'm hoping that we were able to at least address some of your questions there, Susan.

[2:58:57] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[2:58:58] Trustee Luckham: I know Mike was a different, he kind of jumped in there.

[2:59:03] Trustee Luckham: And I just want to say, Mike, you and Daphne, thank you for your service.

[2:59:07] Trustee Luckham: And thank you for the sacrifices you've made in your life.

[2:59:09] Trustee Luckham: And your story was well received.

[2:59:12] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[2:59:13] Trustee Luckham: um the next person on my list is wayne edwards

[2:59:18] Trustee Luckham: thank

[2:59:20] Voice 5: you chair um i'll try to stay away from repeating the earlier comments

[2:59:27] Voice 5: um and focusing on

[2:59:29] Voice 5: some of the combined i tried to get an answer for what you did to um

[2:59:38] Voice 5: You can do a count changing multiple variables at the same time in a file log.

[2:59:43] Voice 5: For example, your lowering host size is what the same time change is set at.

[2:59:49] Voice 5: And how does this affect what can be built and the sustainability of that structure for an aging population?

[3:00:00] Voice 5: environmentally conscious, which is what we're supposed to be doing.

[3:00:03] Voice 5: For example, in our case, we have a one acre property.

[3:00:10] Voice 5: So as an engineer, environmental engineer, I wanted to minimize my power consumption.

[3:00:17] Voice 5: So I put my subject field beside my house rather than above,

[3:00:23] Voice 5: the other below it and the field on the other side of it.

[3:00:27] Voice 5: I collect all my water, but we don't use a well. We collect all drinking water and other water from our root system and store it in our garage, which is beside the house.

[3:00:40] Voice 5: So that I, as an aging person, I would minimize going up and down on steeply sloping property my whole life.

[3:00:50] Voice 5: But we live on Plumper Sound, Nile Road, so we have quite a grade on the carpet.

[3:00:56] Voice 5: But with the setbacks that you're now proposing, the septic tank system couldn't be where it is

[3:01:07] Voice 5: in reducing our power consumption because now I can rely on gravity to do the work.

[3:01:13] Voice 5: I have to put it on the other side of the house so that I could now get the wider setback.

[3:01:19] Voice 5: The garage probably couldn't be where it is either because of the wider setback.

[3:01:24] Voice 5: So now I'm moving the garage up above the house or below the house.

[3:01:30] Voice 5: And now it's really not as attractive to people, to my neighbors, really, because right now it's kind of hidden from our side yard.

[3:01:39] Voice 5: So you see the interplay, and certainly some of you sound, you know, directors sound like you have building and development experience.

[3:01:49] Voice 5: these kind of factors should have been taken into account,

[3:01:52] Voice 5: how the various parameters in the biome affect the design

[3:01:58] Voice 5: and use and environmental sustainability of that development.

[3:02:03] Voice 5: But it doesn't sound like it is,

[3:02:04] Voice 5: but maybe I missed something or it just didn't come up.

[3:02:07] Voice 5: So I'd like to find out what you did

[3:02:11] Voice 5: to take into account those factors that would lead to,

[3:02:18] Voice 5: You know, the impact of change, those changes on plant lawn and house sizes, on placement,

[3:02:25] Voice 5: power use, water consumption, how you're going to design it.

[3:02:29] Voice 5: Because it doesn't sound like I would, you know, by implementing those new bylaws and

[3:02:35] Voice 5: building now, I would have ended up with this environmentally sustainable development.

[3:02:47] Voice 4: uh you know it's sir it's it's

[3:02:50] Voice 4: it go back to the point i made earlier we've got a we're working with an imperfect system

[3:02:57] Voice 4: we're working with a very crude instrument the only one that we have the land use bylaw

[3:03:03] Voice 4: which which allows us to uphold our responsibilities under the ocp under the islands

[3:03:09] Voice 4: trust act the preserve and protect the retention of privacy and all and on and on we've got we've

[3:03:14] Voice 4: We've got a few basic tools of setback,

[3:03:17] Voice 4: a lot covered should we choose to use it,

[3:03:20] Voice 4: which is not in the land use bylaw right now,

[3:03:22] Voice 4: house size and height.

[3:03:24] Voice 4: So they're not finely tuned instruments.

[3:03:29] Voice 4: And as I said to Shelly earlier, in a perfect world,

[3:03:33] Voice 4: the considerations that you have

[3:03:35] Voice 4: or the things you've pointed out

[3:03:37] Voice 4: about the unique circumstances of your property,

[3:03:39] Voice 4: I don't doubt them,

[3:03:41] Voice 4: but you can't take your circumstances

[3:03:43] Voice 4: and apply it to somebody in the valley, for example.

[3:03:46] Voice 4: It's a different circumstance.

[3:03:48] Voice 4: And yet, so we're working with one crude set of tools

[3:03:52] Voice 4: to try and take into account all of the factors

[3:03:56] Voice 4: and all the topography across this island.

[3:03:59] Voice 4: And it makes it really, really tough.

[3:04:01] Voice 4: In an ideal world, we would have a different way

[3:04:04] Voice 4: where, as a gentleman pointed out to me last week,

[3:04:10] Voice 4: why do we need setbacks?

[3:04:12] Voice 4: Why do we need house sizes? Why can't we just look to that property and what the neighbors think will work and set things accordingly?

[3:04:20] Voice 4: That would be, you know, in some ways a more ideal way.

[3:04:25] Voice 4: We don't have those abilities right now, so we're working with a crude set and, again, allowing that while that's the best tools we have at the current time,

[3:04:35] Voice 4: that if we have a mechanism to allow people to say, well, no, no,

[3:04:38] Voice 4: I know your intentions were good for these reasons,

[3:04:40] Voice 4: the ones that you and I just talked about, for example, on setbacks and privacy with neighbors,

[3:04:45] Voice 4: but it doesn't work in my circumstance. I need a different thing. But to say, okay, we don't want

[3:04:51] Voice 4: to affect anybody. Let's make the setbacks five feet so that we protect your circumstances, but we

[3:04:56] Voice 4: create unintended consequences somewhere else. So it's a challenge. We're doing the best we can

[3:05:02] Voice 4: with what we've got.

[3:05:03] Voice 5: I think other people have other comments. I think your answer is

[3:05:10] Voice 5: known. We did not take that into consideration because we didn't think it applied broadly enough

[3:05:17] Voice 5: to everyone else. The point is that was an example. I didn't intend it to be a case study.

[3:05:24] Voice 7: What

[3:05:25] Voice 5: I meant was I was trying to frame it in a way of what did you look at it in an objective way

[3:05:32] Voice 5: so that you can anticipate these kind of adverse effects because I could build what I'm hearing

[3:05:39] Voice 5: is I could build with the existing by-law

[3:05:42] Voice 5: a more environmentally sustainable

[3:05:46] Voice 5: and better for an aging population

[3:05:48] Voice 5: house with the old by-law

[3:05:50] Voice 5: than what you're proposing.

[3:05:53] Voice 5: So you can see why I'm not a supporter

[3:05:55] Voice 5: of these changes

[3:05:56] Voice 5: because you're going the wrong direction.

[3:05:59] Voice 5: To my mind, we need more affordable housing.

[3:06:03] Voice 5: We need more future flexibility

[3:06:06] Voice 5: in how we use what we do build.

[3:06:08] Voice 5: So what is built today is reusable in the future for a much longer period of time

[3:06:14] Voice 5: without modifying or rebuilding it. And by adding more rules, restrictions,

[3:06:22] Voice 5: somehow reading in our minds what we might do in the future, we're in a way going contrary

[3:06:29] Voice 5: to the objective for the adult violence, for the elements of trust. You're going to end up being

[3:06:36] Voice 5: less environmental and sustainable because you've got a lot of rules and regulations you're going

[3:06:41] Voice 5: to add costs which are already over you know out of sight on building a new house you know for ours

[3:06:51] Voice 5: it was bad enough double the house what i did or twice the price i was told here i could build

[3:06:58] Voice 5: in Vancouver, Victoria.

[3:07:01] Voice 5: So now it's even gone 50% higher from what I do.

[3:07:06] Voice 5: So here people come to the aisle

[3:07:08] Voice 5: hoping to have a lifetime like you've heard stories today

[3:07:12] Voice 5: of a multi-generational use of property.

[3:07:15] Voice 5: It wouldn't happen, they couldn't afford to buy.

[3:07:17] Voice 5: And you're adding more regulations,

[3:07:20] Voice 5: thinking we're gonna apply for variances

[3:07:23] Voice 5: on every property almost because there's so many rules

[3:07:26] Voice 5: or every 10 properties where you find there are two.

[3:07:30] Voice 5: So I just don't

[3:07:32] Voice 5: hear the rationality.

[3:07:35] Voice 5: You're not solid on why we're really doing this

[3:07:39] Voice 5: and the outcomes that will come from it, I'm sorry to say.

[3:07:44] Voice 4: Okay, well, it's the first time

[3:07:45] Voice 4: and maybe I'll hear it again today,

[3:07:47] Voice 4: but it's the first time I've heard that lesser setbacks

[3:07:49] Voice 4: in a larger homes are more environmentally friendly

[3:07:52] Voice 4: and aligned with the objectives of the trust act.

[3:07:55] Voice 4: So that's the end

[3:07:59] Voice 5: of play between all these variables leads to what I built is better than what I could build if I was a future builder.

[3:08:14] Voice 4: Sir,

[3:08:15] Voice 5: maybe that's

[3:08:17] Voice 4: okay. I think we're just going to have to move on.

[3:08:20] Voice 5: Thank you for your response to what people are saying.

[3:08:24] Voice 5: You are so defensive.

[3:08:29] Trustee Luckham: Okay, thank you.

[3:08:35] Trustee Luckham: Now, Mike Turkeel is the last on my list here.

[3:08:38] Trustee Luckham: Did you say what you needed to say?

[3:08:41] Trustee Luckham: We're all good.

[3:08:42] Trustee Luckham: I don't want to be the dead worst.

[3:08:45] Voice 6: I think I'd rather

[3:08:46] Trustee Luckham: avoid all those kinds of terminologies,

[3:08:49] Trustee Luckham: he's actually dead or just beating that to death and all this kind of thing doesn't seem like a

[3:08:53] Trustee Luckham: very i

[3:08:54] Voice 5: have questions with regards to the language within a 123 yes

[3:09:05] Trustee Luckham: we're going to get to 123 in a minute

[3:09:08] Trustee Luckham: absolutely that's a suggestion that was a good idea i know that still is okay

[3:09:20] Trustee Luckham: So I'm just going to ask on bylaw 122, is there any more questions or

[3:09:24] Voice 5: remarks?

[3:09:25] Trustee Luckham: Well,

[3:09:26] Voice 5: we were asked to put our names down if we had some more questions.

[3:09:29] Voice 5: So I think you have another list that there are a couple more names on.

[3:09:31] Trustee Luckham: I have a list here for bylaw 123.

[3:09:34] Trustee Luckham: It's for 122.

[3:09:35] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, I haven't got there yet.

[3:09:36] Trustee Luckham: It was for 122.

[3:09:39] Trustee Luckham: We are still on

[3:09:41] Trustee Luckham: bylaw 122.

[3:09:42] Voice 5: The list that I added my name to, I understood, was for 122.

[3:09:46] Voice 5: This

[3:09:46] Trustee Luckham: is for 123.

[3:09:47] Trustee Luckham: Oh, sorry.

[3:09:48] Voice 5: All right.

[3:09:50] Voice 5: Right, so

[3:09:50] Trustee Luckham: you've spoken once already,

[3:09:52] Trustee Luckham: and that's sort of the protocol.

[3:09:53] Trustee Luckham: Is there anybody that hasn't spoken already

[3:09:55] Trustee Luckham: that would like to speak?

[3:09:56] Trustee Luckham: And I'll recognize this lady back here.

[3:09:58] Trustee Luckham: I don't think I've seen you speak yet.

[3:09:59] Trustee Luckham: Hi,

[3:09:59] Voice 5: I'm Heather.

[3:10:00] Voice 5: I live in a 1750-square-foot house.

[3:10:06] Voice 5: I don't have really any plans to build anything more than that.

[3:10:10] Voice 5: I'm actually the person to

[3:10:11] Voice 7: speak in

[3:10:12] Voice 5: front of you guys.

[3:10:13] Voice 5: What I want to say is I've looked at the bylaws on San Juan.

[3:10:20] Voice 5: they all mention quickly, so there is equipment, and then there is the size of your house.

[3:10:28] Voice 5: I haven't heard that. I've heard a couple of people mention this before, but why isn't it...

[3:10:33] Voice 5: For one thing, I would seriously like to have this whole thing thrown out rather than anything else.

[3:10:40] Voice 5: But why is it, you know, here you are, allowing me on my 2.00, whatever it is,

[3:10:47] Voice 5: acre lot, to build a 3,500 square foot house now, and I can have lot coverage of 9,000 square feet, right?

[3:10:56] Voice 5: So I can build my 3,500 square foot house and I can have a guest car that's about 750 square feet or something,

[3:11:05] Voice 5: which would leave quite a lot of space to cover it with accessory building.

[3:11:10] Voice 5: And if I were considering having a multi-generational family, which is the trend now, especially since COVID, I would have to think

[3:11:20] Voice 7: about, you know, if I were going to live and work, I'd have to develop those things in the accessory buildings, which are now

[3:11:27] Voice 5: coupling more area and reducing the space.

[3:11:31] Voice 5: we've heard this before. But what I wonder is, is this about population control? Was this because

[3:11:37] Voice 5: we want to keep our numbers down on the island? Because, you know, I

[3:11:43] Voice 5: know several people who have

[3:11:45] Voice 5: houses bigger in the city than

[3:11:48] Voice 7: 3,500 square feet

[3:11:50] Voice 5: with maybe 10 feet apart. You know, thank you for

[3:11:56] Voice 5: a service of you too. I come from a family of two veterans who came back from the war and we all

[3:12:03] Voice 5: lived probably you know in I come from a place where it was subsidized housing at first where

[3:12:12] Voice 5: everybody else or later on got to purchase their house. Most of the houses in there were from 800

[3:12:18] Voice 5: hundred square feet to about 1200 and then people raised them and I think we had maybe 500 or sorry

[3:12:27] Voice 5: five feet from the lot line to the next house maybe that was 10 feet I don't ever remember

[3:12:33] Voice 5: hearing a lot of noise or or anything because people learned to get along

[3:12:40] Voice 7: that's what happened

[3:12:41] Voice 5: you know and these are people who obviously had you know post-traumatic stress syndrome and

[3:12:48] Voice 5: everything that wasn't addressed back then we all learned to get along nobody sure did hear the other

[3:12:54] Voice 5: argument but it was part of people you know so that side set back and i'm still not convinced

[3:13:02] Voice 5: that it's going to do very much i'm not convinced about all of this and would love to know whether

[3:13:10] Voice 5: this was based on population control for coffee numbers down i've heard oh well you know i think

[3:13:17] Voice 5: that 3 000 square feet or 3 500 square feet is all anybody needs that is completely subjective

[3:13:25] Voice 5: i've been in a house at 6 000 square feet there's 2 000 square feet on each level and houses in the

[3:13:30] Voice 5: neighborhood are like that and they're very tasteful every one of them and this is in surrey

[3:13:35] Voice 5: by the way where you know we don't want anything like surrey but you know you know what i mean

[3:13:42] Voice 5: that's that's uh that's what that's and that's my question is this based on population control

[3:13:48] Voice 5: just where are where did the 3500 square foot number come from other than totally totally

[3:13:55] Voice 5: subjective my sister lived in a 3600 square foot house uh there were three of them and you know we

[3:14:02] Voice 5: all went out there and stay overnight if we had to you know i've got a 1750 square foot house

[3:14:09] Voice 5: my family members most of them have bigger homes and to come over here it's like

[3:14:13] Voice 5: we're going to say oh 450 dollars a night you know this and that

[3:14:20] Voice 7: not

[3:14:21] Voice 5: to me at all and i would love to know the rationale if it is because of keeping the

[3:14:27] Voice 5: population down where did it come from i can tell you the

[3:14:30] Voice 8: population never

[3:14:32] Voice 5: entered my mind

[3:14:34] Voice 5: yeah and what did they never did no and what did uh character and environment environment we've

[3:14:43] Voice 5: already heard from environmental environmental environmental people i was reading one i read

[3:14:50] Voice 5: that whole package by the way which you might be page on um who you know we've heard from people

[3:14:57] Voice 5: with urban design uh or urban planning background environmental uh background that was moving for

[3:15:05] Voice 5: one person with a lot of immediate experience i'm sure you're all completely um and they don't even

[3:15:12] Voice 5: think that the environmental aspect of it is all that important not that it's not important but

[3:15:18] Voice 5: that it can be addressed other ways than living in the house size my bar house is 850 square feet

[3:15:31] Voice 5: the proper direction i spoke with um but whether it was back then um almost 20 years ago to get

[3:15:39] Voice 5: proper uh coatings based on the the surface of the window where the weather was in which wasn't

[3:15:48] Voice 5: the window makers were doing at the time but our house is warm almost all the time and we

[3:15:54] Voice 5: have electricity we haven't had to go to anything else other than bar wood stove right so there are

[3:16:02] Voice 5: way more ways to think about this i'm certainly not an environmental planner but i think there

[3:16:08] Voice 5: are people among us who who don't agree with their 3500 square foot having anything to do

[3:16:14] Voice 5: really with sustainability and the environment especially if you're spreading it all over on one

[3:16:21] Voice 5: one level, then, you know, I agree about permeability of services and that, if it's

[3:16:30] Voice 5: possible and if it's not hugely costly, which I think I could have is to do concrete, things like

[3:16:38] Voice 5: that. But, you know, those are the things

[3:16:40] Voice 7: that we maybe shouldn't want to do.

[3:16:43] Voice 7: And I'm always using it.

[3:16:46] Voice 7: Okay.

[3:16:48] Trustee Luckham: Thank you very much. Is there somebody else that hasn't spoken yet

[3:16:52] Trustee Luckham: If I could just ask a question

[3:16:58] Voice 5: of the trustees, if someone was to bring to you proof, say

[3:17:06] Voice 5: a petition with people's names and addresses that showed that the majority of the people

[3:17:13] Voice 5: on some federal island, copper builders, don't want these changes made, would you then not

[3:17:21] Voice 5: not make those changes or consider them?

[3:17:29] Voice 5: Well,

[3:17:29] Voice 4: that's a hypothetical question.

[3:17:32] Voice 4: Do you have a survey from every...

[3:17:36] Voice 4: Do

[3:17:37] Voice 5: you have such a thing? No,

[3:17:38] Voice 4: I wanted to

[3:17:40] Voice 4: know should you

[3:17:42] Trustee Luckham: receive...

[3:17:44] Trustee Luckham: It's a hypothetical question. Would

[3:17:47] Voice 4: you take it

[3:17:48] Voice 4: into consideration? I'd consider it, but I also think that

[3:17:51] Voice 4: that um that uh i mean look at will i run again i don't know i mean i'm sure i'm not getting a lot

[3:17:59] Voice 4: of votes from the people in this room some people who said i should run again i don't know my wife

[3:18:03] Voice 4: says i'm stupid if i do who knows but i i will make i will do my best to make decisions based

[3:18:10] Voice 4: on what i think is in the best long-term interest of this island

[3:18:14] Voice 5: even if it's not opposition to what

[3:18:17] Voice 5: we're requesting even

[3:18:18] Voice 4: if it's in opposition to what i what i believe is obviously a pretty strong

[3:18:23] Voice 4: majority in this room i'm not going to be uh saying well one here one there like you know

[3:18:28] Voice 4: that's not how we make decisions in in uh in a community like this i need to make

[3:18:33] Voice 4: i need to

[3:18:34] Voice 4: listen to everybody's opinion and i'm trying to come up with balanced opinions but you this is

[3:18:40] Voice 4: this does feel a bit like we're looking for a referendum on something and that's as the chair

[3:18:45] Voice 4: noted earlier that's not how we make decisions uh typically or i think i've never seen it in local

[3:18:51] Voice 4: government except you know on funding initiatives for building a community center or something like

[3:18:56] Voice 4: that but that's not typically how decisions are made i've been to lots and lots of public hearings

[3:19:00] Voice 4: and lots and lots of communities i've heard spirited arguments i know

[3:19:03] Voice 4: it's tough for mayors

[3:19:04] Voice 4: and councils uh to to make decisions um and and i think they try and make decisions based on the

[3:19:11] Voice 4: best long-term interests of their communities and I'm trying to do the same. I mean the interesting

[3:19:16] Voice 4: thing about aging in place and I mean I don't doubt it we have a population probably an average

[3:19:23] Voice 4: age that might be a greater than other parts of the region so I think the aging in place thing is

[3:19:31] Voice 4: a is a valid thing um uh but i i think that if we set the house sides to say well um it's got

[3:19:41] Voice 4: to be set for for aging in place as a baseline there'd be lots of other people that are that

[3:19:47] Voice 4: have no intentions of multi-generational families but we just got and it's not even that so much

[3:19:52] Voice 4: it's not you know to me it's about again this crude set of tools and we're doing our best to

[3:19:57] Voice 4: uphold the values of the OCP, including the massing and the expression of the built form

[3:20:04] Voice 4: on the natural environment and how it affects people around us. And so one single large

[3:20:11] Voice 4: structure can be more impactful, particularly if it's sited on a high point relative to people

[3:20:17] Voice 4: around you. We've heard that just even on Southlands. That can be far more impactful

[3:20:21] Voice 4: than if an opportunity was given to provide maybe a number of smaller structures,

[3:20:27] Voice 4: the equivalent of or greater than the square footage of that single building.

[3:20:32] Voice 4: So, again, it's not so much people.

[3:20:36] Voice 4: It's really just trying to figure out if somebody wants to live, two people live in a large house, that's not, I'm not here to contest that.

[3:20:44] Voice 4: that. I'm really trying to make sure that just that the form that we're building works with

[3:20:50] Voice 4: the community around it. Okay,

[3:20:55] Voice 5: just so that I understand that I heard you correctly. So

[3:21:01] Voice 5: the majority of the people who elected you

[3:21:10] Voice 5: want something or want something not done you're still going to do what you think

[3:21:17] Voice 4: is best you're

[3:21:18] Voice 4: saying the majority of the people that elected me or the majority of people on the island

[3:21:21] Voice 1: people

[3:21:21] Voice 4: on the island who elected that's the answer that's not just i'm

[3:21:28] Voice 1: just i am i am not

[3:21:29] Voice 4: going to be i'm not going to answer the question without without i think it's hypothetical but i

[3:21:34] Voice 4: I also believe that there's other people and other people's views that I will take into account.

[3:21:40] Voice 4: I'm also going to take into account what the objective of the Islands Trust Act is.

[3:21:45] Voice 4: So I'm just being honest with you, Max.

[3:21:49] Voice 4: I mean, you know,

[3:21:50] Voice 4: sure, I'm democratically inclined, very, very democratically inclined.

[3:21:55] Voice 4: But I also have to make decisions that I think are in the best long-term interest of the community.

[3:22:03] Voice 4: And I'm listening to a lot of people.

[3:22:05] Voice 4: that's why we're having this discussion that's why the bylaw has evolved and and gone through

[3:22:10] Voice 4: various iterations to the glisten store so we're doing the best we can okay

[3:22:16] Trustee Luckham: so i didn't see any

[3:22:17] Trustee Luckham: other new speakers and there are a couple questions lingering on bylaw 122 still and

[3:22:23] Trustee Luckham: i've got a short list of 123 folks that want to

[3:22:26] Voice 5: speak so

[3:22:27] Trustee Luckham: please we've lost cameron

[3:22:30] Trustee Luckham: go ahead no we're still on 122.

[3:22:39] Trustee Luckham: anybody else on any remaining questions on 122 sir okay so

[3:22:46] Trustee Luckham: uh i

[3:22:47] Voice 5: said this before and i want to be

[3:22:49] Voice 5: very upfront about it i think that the trustees had an unenviable job to try to

[3:22:56] Voice 5: uphold what they believe is the right thing relative to everybody's interest i think it's a

[3:23:02] Voice 5: a really, really challenging position. I appreciate that there are cautionary principles

[3:23:12] Voice 5: being taken into account. I'm not sure that other considerations like providing for aging in place

[3:23:22] Voice 5: to provide for a caretaker suite, for example, that might support that for a population that

[3:23:29] Voice 5: is disproportionately older than the provincial averages has been taken into account. There's

[3:23:37] Voice 5: another consideration that is really important and that is trying to provide ways to create

[3:23:45] Voice 5: additional housing, if you will, for a community that as it ages needs to rely more on people

[3:23:56] Voice 5: providing services and those people are not being able to find accommodation here we hear that more

[3:24:01] Voice 5: and more all the time so i think that the bylaw as proposed is negligent for failing to take into

[3:24:11] Voice 5: account those two very important considerations and then the other part is that and we've had

[3:24:19] Voice 5: this discussion i think that there's a lot of good intention however a compelling case hasn't been

[3:24:29] Voice 5: made for for what is being put forward nor is it complete and cameron made the point to me in

[3:24:37] Voice 5: response to communities that change make recent rezonings and everything else i can say having

[3:24:44] Voice 5: been involved in the development industry for coming up on 40 years that the community the

[3:24:50] Voice 5: industry has evolved the municipalities involved and they have processes processes now where

[3:24:57] Voice 5: they understand that the way that they did things before doesn't work either they will never

[3:25:02] Voice 5: necessarily reach consensus but that they can really benefit from a collaborative process where

[3:25:12] Voice 5: where they go into the communities

[3:25:14] Voice 5: and they help people understand why change,

[3:25:18] Voice 5: why change needs to be responded to in a way

[3:25:21] Voice 5: that is different from what those mechanisms are

[3:25:24] Voice 5: that are currently in place.

[3:25:26] Voice 5: And they work through that process to bring people along.

[3:25:29] Voice 5: And so we've spent a lot of time today

[3:25:32] Voice 5: and at other meetings fixated

[3:25:35] Voice 5: on what seemed to be arbitrary numbers for house sizes

[3:25:40] Voice 5: when what happens in Magic Lake

[3:25:42] Voice 5: has no reference really or importance to what happens here nor to what happens for a Canadian

[3:25:48] Voice 5: average. That really doesn't matter. What matters is a solution that's appropriate to this place

[3:25:54] Voice 5: and I'm not convinced in terms of what I'm seeing or hearing or what I read that what's

[3:25:59] Voice 5: been put forward in the bylaw respects that and takes that into the sufficient account.

[3:26:04] Voice 5: out. The mechanism for a variance that does exist, thank you for taking my earlier comment

[3:26:13] Voice 5: saying that you can take that into consideration and maybe some statement that's added to a

[3:26:19] Voice 5: bylaw or whatever that reflects that. But there's another part of this process, and

[3:26:24] Voice 5: that is there, land use bylaws and these types of codifications are about providing some

[3:26:33] Voice 5: an element of certainty and that element of certainty needs to be relied upon not only by

[3:26:37] Voice 5: the property owner but people that that actually rely upon that to design buildings but also the

[3:26:43] Voice 5: planners in terms of making a decision as to whether something fits or not uh what i'm not

[3:26:51] Voice 5: seeing is a is a strong enough articulation nor is it reflected adequately to give some tool

[3:26:59] Voice 5: tool that enables staff, because right now, so you're saying you can apply for a variance.

[3:27:05] Voice 5: So let's say you make the house size 2,500 square feet, but you can apply for a variance.

[3:27:12] Voice 5: You pay your $1,900 and you apply for a variance. Who are you applying to? You're applying to

[3:27:18] Voice 5: Islands Trust and the local office is trying to take that into interpretation. Well, who

[3:27:25] Voice 5: Who adjudicates that?

[3:27:27] Voice 5: How does that process?

[3:27:28] Voice 5: The LTC

[3:27:29] Voice 5: adjudicator.

[3:27:30] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:27:31] Voice 5: Well, we already heard at the last meeting where there was an adjudication made with regard to permitting to allow site work to go where the trustees were not consulted.

[3:27:41] Voice 5: And they determined that, in fact, there was an active rafters nest on that property that staff hadn't taken into consideration.

[3:27:49] Voice 5: So there's a gap in the process.

[3:27:52] Voice 5: process and are we saying that staff are sufficiently well informed in all aspects

[3:28:00] Voice 5: that they can adjudicate that individual situation but they can be completely objective of it like i

[3:28:08] Voice 5: don't like how well articulated is that process is there a better way because i'm not convinced

[3:28:15] Voice 5: of what's been put forward it really reflects the adequacy well

[3:28:20] Trustee Luckham: i can't speak to the circumstances

[3:28:21] Trustee Luckham: As you just mentioned, but normally staff don't make decisions on applications.

[3:28:27] Trustee Luckham: There's been some change recently in legislation that does facilitate some of that, but that's not necessarily the case at the end.

[3:28:36] Voice 5: I understood there was a planning commission at one point.

[3:28:38] Voice 5: Was that the advisory planning commission?

[3:28:41] Voice 5: Did they get

[3:28:42] Voice 5: involved in those sort of things?

[3:28:43] Trustee Luckham: The APC only provides recommendations to the LTC.

[3:28:47] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[3:28:48] Voice 4: So John, just

[3:28:49] Voice 4: that's superfluous.

[3:28:52] Voice 4: to the question you're asking so so a question came up the other day about the involvement

[3:28:59] Voice 4: of trustees in the issuance of permits and so my answer to that person and my answer now

[3:29:06] Voice 4: is if the way that the way the process works is if somebody makes an application

[3:29:11] Voice 4: as part of that application there's a form that is sent into the isles crest office and the and the

[3:29:19] Voice 4: No,

[3:29:20] Trustee Luckham: Cameron, we're going to be here

[3:29:22] Voice 4: all night if we talk about it.

[3:29:24] Voice 4: I guess I'm saying the process is not perfect with what we've got.

[3:29:27] Voice 4: The staff will verify an application to see if it's compliant with the land use bylaw.

[3:29:33] Voice 4: If it's compliant with the land use bylaw, a notice sent to the CRD, they check it for BC building code issues, and that's the end of the story.

[3:29:40] Voice 4: We have zero involvement.

[3:29:42] Voice 4: The first time I know about something is when there's work undertaken on the site.

[3:29:45] Voice 4: The only time that we would get involved is if there is some request to do something different by way of a variance.

[3:29:51] Voice 4: And the design guidelines were meant to be a bit of a guidance to to because you ask, well, what's the.

[3:30:00] Voice 4: process for making decisions right now if somebody came to us tomorrow and said i want a variance to

[3:30:04] Voice 4: build something different uh my lament is that there's no there's no yardstick there's no there's

[3:30:11] Voice 4: no there's no guidance that that uh the trustees have in making an applicant you know there's there's

[3:30:18] Voice 4: there's no criteria or metrics that they have when they're making a decision on a variance they just

[3:30:22] Voice 4: i guess they listen to the arguments and and the event you know the propositions and go from there

[3:30:27] Voice 4: whereas the design guidelines were meant to provide some kind of uh sense of well these are

[3:30:33] Voice 4: the correct criteria that should be taken into account but

[3:30:35] Voice 5: it shouldn't then the focus be on on

[3:30:38] Voice 5: improving the mechanism because it's fine but what you're saying okay so we're going to change the

[3:30:42] Voice 5: oh you

[3:30:43] Trustee Luckham: know i i'm gonna i want to stick to bylaws 122 123 we're going to go down a rabbit hole here

[3:30:49] Trustee Luckham: that is enormous i'd

[3:30:50] Voice 4: love to talk about processes sometime but we don't as i said to a few other

[3:30:54] Voice 4: people it's we our toolbox is our toolbox right now john we can talk about how to create a better

[3:31:00] Voice 4: toolbox and i'd like to but but it's it's going to involve the provincial government and all sorts

[3:31:05] Voice 4: of things and it's that's that's a future discussion yeah

[3:31:09] Trustee Luckham: sure on bylaw 122 anybody else

[3:31:11] Trustee Luckham: in the

[3:31:13] Voice 5: back yeah i saw you there earlier thank you

[3:31:15] Voice 5: when i just did explain that um just to clarify the maximum house areas that you have in the

[3:31:24] Voice 5: proposed bylaw does that also include uninhabitable crawl space that's not uh up to the threshold

[3:31:32] Voice 5: if it's

[3:31:37] Voice 2: less than five feet it would not be included

[3:31:39] Voice 2: it

[3:31:41] Voice 5: yeah so i'm saying if you live on a grave in many areas as we've heard

[3:31:47] Voice 5: have destroyed steep grades and there's other rules to preserve height of property you know

[3:31:55] Voice 5: like peak height of roofs and not alter the terrain too much property um that led to our

[3:32:02] Voice 5: house having something like 400 square feet

[3:32:04] Voice 8: or something above just over five or the threshold

[3:32:09] Voice 8: all 4.9 and that so that's why I'm asking if

[3:32:14] Voice 5: that's rolled in to say a number that you're

[3:32:18] Voice 5: saying 3 000 is a square footage on one acre property what you really are saying is oh no

[3:32:28] Voice 5: on that

[3:32:29] Voice 8: grade you're probably limited to an inevitable space more like 2500 so it's a

[3:32:37] Voice 8: significant factor i don't

[3:32:38] Voice 5: think you should consider that i think it should be based on

[3:32:43] Voice 5: a maximum if you go down the road i don't like but if you persist setting maximum house areas

[3:32:50] Voice 5: then it should only be the inhabitable space not throwing in other factors that lead to the crawl

[3:32:57] Voice 5: space areas being considered for storing the boxes okay

[3:33:03] Voice 7: thank you anything else on 122.

[3:33:12] Voice 7: one final question just a

[3:33:14] Voice 5: clarification getting back to me and two and a half acres i can

[3:33:19] Voice 5: new under the new bylaw if you go to having 3,500 square feet is that right

[3:33:26] Voice 5: now shelly was saying that she's got 40 or 42 acres and cameron did you say you were going to

[3:33:31] Voice 5: allow her 1,000 more square feet or did i miss did i not hear it

[3:33:36] Voice 6: i don't think that

[3:33:37] Voice 6: well what

[3:33:39] Voice 5: What did you say that you would consider in here?

[3:33:42] Voice 5: He didn't say anything, but I'll take it.

[3:33:48] Voice 5: So shall we, according to you, it's no,

[3:33:51] Voice 5: on your lady's

[3:33:52] Voice 2: sake, it's 3,530 for the 42 acres?

[3:33:57] Voice 4: That is what is, that is what is,

[3:34:00] Voice 4: was given first reading, Audrey.

[3:34:02] Voice 4: And I've said earlier,

[3:34:05] Voice 4: I don't expect my colleagues to always agree with me on things,

[3:34:08] Voice 4: that I felt like there was room to make that larger for properties worth $10,000.

[3:34:12] Voice 4: I

[3:34:12] Voice 2: thought I heard $4,000, but maybe I was wrong.

[3:34:15] Voice 2: I wasn't wrong?

[3:34:16] Voice 4: No.

[3:34:18] Voice 5: One more thing.

[3:34:19] Voice 5: We didn't take a talk about the Agricultural Land Commission with respect to house size.

[3:34:25] Voice 5: And I know that with your recipe for house sizes,

[3:34:30] Voice 5: that you say you want to be in alignment with the Agricultural Land Commission.

[3:34:35] Voice 5: And those houses that are allowed,

[3:34:37] Voice 5: so my farm you're saying 3 500 is a max that if these this bylaw goes through but that's not what

[3:34:44] Voice 5: the alr says the alr provides for a larger 5 000 square feet yeah

[3:34:48] Voice 5: so why do you think you know

[3:34:50] Voice 5: better than the alr and why when you your express view is or goal was to align with the alr and you

[3:35:01] Voice 5: do contrary take a contrary step i

[3:35:05] Voice 4: don't know if we said we were yeah

[3:35:07] Voice 5: that's exactly what's in there

[3:35:08] Voice 5: in the materials

[3:35:10] Voice 5: is that you are attempting the reason why you're looking at agricultural land

[3:35:13] Voice 5: is because you want to or um looking at farmland is because you want to align with the alr

[3:35:21] Voice 5: and so now you're saying no not really don't no we don't

[3:35:25] Voice 4: i'm not sure i said i want to align with

[3:35:28] Voice 4: The ALC

[3:35:30] Voice 5: places

[3:35:32] Voice 8: a maximum of 5,400 square foot house on ALR lands.

[3:35:37] Voice 8: I

[3:35:37] Voice 5: can use BLR and ALC.

[3:35:40] Voice 8: The Agricultural Land Commission is in

[3:35:42] Voice 5: charge of the agricultural land reserve.

[3:35:44] Voice 5: I know

[3:35:44] Voice 7: what it is. Sorry.

[3:35:45] Voice 8: Okay. So they have stated that if any local authorities want to reduce that figure, that is fine by them as long as they don't increase it beyond 5,400.

[3:35:55] Voice 8: Right.

[3:35:56] Voice 5: And why can't you accept and concur and agree with the Agricultural Land Commission that's running the place?

[3:36:03] Voice 5: Why can't you accept that?

[3:36:05] Voice 8: A lot of

[3:36:05] Voice 5: the agricultural lands that are in agricultural reserve are fairly significant parcels.

[3:36:14] Voice 5: they are quarter sections or larger and their regulations have

[3:36:23] Voice 8: some proportionate

[3:36:28] Voice 8: rationale to the size of these properties for instance you can have in agricultural

[3:36:34] Voice 8: land desert you can have up to 22,000 square feet of commercial area selling farm goods well

[3:36:41] Voice 8: Well, I think even on 42 acres,

[3:36:44] Voice 8: I think 22,000 square feet for selling your flowers

[3:36:49] Voice 8: would be a little...

[3:36:50] Voice 8: That's completely unreasonable.

[3:36:53] Voice 8: I'm

[3:36:53] Voice 5: saying about the house size is that you're saying...

[3:36:56] Voice 8: Well, that's why we are not sticking to the alignment of the ALC

[3:37:00] Voice 8: because in some instances,

[3:37:03] Voice 8: they are not applicable to the property sizes

[3:37:06] Voice 8: that we have on South Canada.

[3:37:07] Voice 8: so we're just trying to we're just trying to relate some some form of proportionality yeah

[3:37:14] Voice 8: but i get you i get to what you're saying you don't want 3500

[3:37:20] Voice 8: well

[3:37:20] Voice 5: there shouldn't be that restriction we'll already have the

[3:37:23] Voice 5: agriculture land commission who is looking after this

[3:37:29] Voice 5: just to be clear in your proposal you did you did say the first proposal you were bringing the ale

[3:37:37] Voice 5: the agricultural provisions in mind

[3:37:39] Voice 5: that the Agricultural Land Commission

[3:37:40] Voice 5: wants to explain.

[3:37:41] Voice 5: You said that.

[3:37:42] Voice 5: It's in the,

[3:37:43] Voice 5: just read your minutes.

[3:37:44] Voice 5: It is.

[3:37:45] Voice 5: And you subsequently,

[3:37:46] Voice 5: that changed last year,

[3:37:48] Voice 5: in the last meeting,

[3:37:49] Voice 5: after we got left,

[3:37:50] Voice 5: we changed the paper

[3:37:51] Voice 5: based on,

[3:37:52] Voice 5: I think that's your question.

[3:37:54] Voice 5: And the Land Commission,

[3:37:55] Voice 5: when they did it,

[3:37:55] Voice 5: I have to say,

[3:37:56] Voice 5: I was an employee

[3:37:57] Voice 5: of the Land Commission

[3:37:57] Voice 5: for 15 years.

[3:37:59] Voice 5: I consulted with them

[3:38:00] Voice 5: for another 15 years.

[3:38:01] Voice 5: I pretty well know

[3:38:02] Voice 5: the legislation.

[3:38:03] Voice 5: And their legislation,

[3:38:04] Voice 5: obviously,

[3:38:05] Voice 5: they did a study.

[3:38:05] Voice 5: they they didn't just get that paper out of the air they consulted all their the whole province

[3:38:13] Voice 5: and they allowed and it's true what you do say yes you could make it smaller

[3:38:18] Voice 5: local authorities can do that so that's true they did have much in house

[3:38:23] Voice 5: and also i know

[3:38:26] Voice 5: for you too it's hard when you say for local trustees to make decisions on

[3:38:30] Voice 5: of what size somebody needs for a farm building.

[3:38:34] Voice 5: I don't know what kind of expertise you use for that

[3:38:37] Voice 5: because it's kind of, I've heard you,

[3:38:40] Voice 5: you've done your, well, should that be 200?

[3:38:43] Voice 5: Should it be 500?

[3:38:44] Voice 5: I mean, I listened to your meeting.

[3:38:45] Voice 5: You were just showing figures out there

[3:38:47] Voice 5: as if it meant nothing.

[3:38:48] Voice 5: It means something when people are farming.

[3:38:51] Voice 5: They need things and it depends on the type of farming.

[3:38:53] Voice 5: And so you need to keep that into consideration

[3:38:56] Voice 5: and farming changes.

[3:38:57] Voice 5: So what Shelly has now,

[3:38:58] Voice 5: what she's selling doesn't matter it's what can happen in the future and you want to keep your

[3:39:04] Voice 5: options open so the restrictions and such that nothing to i'm sorry but sorry

[3:39:09] Voice 6: i'm sorry to say

[3:39:10] Voice 5: that for me okay

[3:39:13] Trustee Luckham: um can we move on to 123 thank you very much um so kim would you like to introduce

[3:39:21] Trustee Luckham: Can we take a five-minute break?

[3:39:24] Trustee Luckham: Again?

[3:39:25] Trustee Luckham: Again?

[3:39:25] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[3:39:27] Voice 7: Carry on.

[3:39:28] Trustee Luckham: I've

[3:39:29] Voice 5: got to walk around.

[3:39:31] Voice 5: Good for this.

[3:39:32] Voice 5: Let's carry on.

[3:39:33] Trustee Luckham: You want to take a five-minute break, everybody?

[3:39:35] Trustee Luckham: No.

[3:39:35] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[3:39:36] Trustee Luckham: Sorry, Steve.

[3:39:37] Trustee Luckham: You're up.

[3:39:38] Trustee Luckham: That's democracy.

[3:39:41] Trustee Luckham: Kim, over to you.

[3:39:42] Voice 2: All right.

[3:39:43] Voice 2: I'll keep this very, very brief.

[3:39:45] Voice 2: 123, the two aspects of this proposed bylaw.

[3:39:49] Voice 2: The first is to add an introductory statement acknowledging First Nations and that introductory statement would be placed at the front of the official community plan.

[3:40:02] Voice 2: and the second are proposed building design and signing guidelines and these would come

[3:40:10] Voice 2: into consideration if a if the ltc is reviewing a development variance permit

[3:40:16] Voice 2: in terms of increasing the maximum floor area of a residential uh dwelling um so

[3:40:23] Voice 2: um the applicant would be encouraged to um include some of these um design principles into their

[3:40:33] Voice 2: to their project i'm going to keep it short and sweet and that's it okay perfect

[3:40:40] Trustee Luckham: thank you um so

[3:40:42] Trustee Luckham: i've got a few names here uh paul petrie there you are yeah

[3:40:47] Voice 5: thank you chair um i would like to speak

[3:40:51] Voice 5: strongly in favor of bylaw 123 and in particular the first nations reconciliation provisions i

[3:40:59] Voice 5: think it's really important this community recognize the long history that the sanich

[3:41:05] Voice 5: first nations have had on this land the archaeological study up at the canal site

[3:41:11] Voice 5: showed that there was a permanent village here 4500 years ago when pyramids were being built

[3:41:17] Voice 5: some of the earliest findings of northwest coast art have happened right here on this island

[3:41:22] Voice 5: this is a very sacred place for the wasanich people and recognition of that is long overdue

[3:41:29] Voice 5: and i think that what you've put in this bylaw uh is is really exemplary and it's it's gonna

[3:41:37] Voice 5: it's gonna speak loudly to that community i have to say that community has been engaging with

[3:41:43] Voice 5: with South Tender, I think South Tender is a bit of a leader

[3:41:45] Voice 5: in the Gulf Islands in terms of that engagement

[3:41:48] Voice 5: with First Nations, with many educational opportunities

[3:41:53] Voice 5: that they've come over and provided about their history.

[3:41:57] Voice 5: I remember sitting in this room with 48 Islanders

[3:42:03] Voice 5: and WSANIC First Nations elders and some younger people,

[3:42:08] Voice 5: some community members,

[3:42:10] Voice 5: and that was a breakthrough moment here.

[3:42:13] Voice 5: uh for them because then the elders were on board to really interact and relate to this community

[3:42:19] Voice 5: and um so the changes that you're proposing here are going to open up a very

[3:42:31] Voice 5: positive atmosphere for dialogue and i have to say both trustees uh have been involved in this

[3:42:38] Voice 5: process. Steve, you've taken a leadership position early on in this process, and this community is

[3:42:45] Voice 5: being recognized as respecting First Nations history and welcoming them back to this island.

[3:42:56] Voice 5: In terms of their ceremonies, we had the reef net fishery

[3:43:02] Voice 5: uh, um, ceremony, uh, or not ceremony, but exercise of fishing with their youth over here.

[3:43:09] Voice 5: So this was a breakthrough for their youth. We had the first salmon ceremony here last summer

[3:43:15] Voice 5: in July, where, uh, this is bringing back some of that culture and recognizing and respecting

[3:43:24] Voice 5: that culture. So I want to speak strongly in favor of, of that. I think that's a very positive

[3:43:30] Voice 5: step forward thank you paul thank you thank

[3:43:43] Trustee Luckham: you for that um i actually wanted to say in

[3:43:46] Trustee Luckham: my opening remarks that um this particular location in the salish sea is a historic

[3:43:53] Trustee Luckham: cultural economic um hub um for the first nations and so thank you all for your comments

[3:44:03] Trustee Luckham: John Kuartuk. I made my comments with regard to 122. I thought you did.

[3:44:10] Voice 5: I'm glad I didn't miss it. I fully appreciate and support the principles that are put forward.

[3:44:18] Trustee Luckham: Okay, thank you. John

[3:44:20] Voice 5: Kelly. My question was actually on 122 and it was answered by the panel

[3:44:27] Voice 5: and so I'm quite happy.

[3:44:29] Trustee Luckham: Oh, I see. Okay,

[3:44:29] Voice 5: great. Thank you.

[3:44:32] Trustee Luckham: That's Krista, right? Christina.

[3:44:38] Voice 5: I just have a quick thing. Thank you very much for your information. That was great.

[3:44:47] Voice 5: It does take up a significant portion of the guidelines bylaw. My statement here is I don't

[3:44:56] Voice 5: believe that guidelines should be included under a bylaw as they're just guidelines.

[3:45:03] Voice 5: guidelines. Normally the guidelines document is held as a separate document, the same as

[3:45:07] Voice 5: policies are. And building and citing guidelines are generally used in master plan communities

[3:45:17] Voice 5: and are retired once the buildings have been completed. I don't believe that South Kendra

[3:45:22] Voice 5: is a master plan community, but the majority of what's in there I'm not opposed to. But

[3:45:29] Voice 5: But my point is, I don't believe that they should be held under the bylaws.

[3:45:34] Voice 5: If they're under the bylaws, then the shoulds could turn to shells very easily and become enforceable.

[3:45:41] Voice 5: And I know that that was not the idea behind this.

[3:45:45] Voice 5: They were just meant to be used as a reference document.

[3:45:47] Voice 5: document. So my question is, can these be pulled out from the bylaws and be held as a separate

[3:45:54] Voice 5: supporting document

[3:45:55] Voice 6: used

[3:45:56] Voice 5: in the manner in which they're being presented as to help with,

[3:46:02] Voice 5: like Cameron was saying, used to help within decision makings of variances that are presented

[3:46:09] Voice 5: forward?

[3:46:12] Trustee Luckham: Well, that's an interesting question, I will say. And staff, do you have any remarks on

[3:46:17] Trustee Luckham: on guidelines within OCPs, which I think is a pretty standard question.

[3:46:21] Voice 2: It's a standard thing we have for temporary use permits.

[3:46:23] Voice 2: There's guidelines there.

[3:46:25] Voice 2: So official community plans can include guidelines.

[3:46:28] Voice 2: I'm

[3:46:28] Voice 5: not talking official community plans.

[3:46:30] Voice 5: I'm talking about calling it a bylaw and having it within the bylaws

[3:46:34] Voice 5: versus a guideline and a policy which are separate from bylaws.

[3:46:40] Voice 2: Guidelines

[3:46:40] Voice 1: are not enforceable is the point.

[3:46:42] Voice 2: Well, the OCP is a bylaw.

[3:46:45] Voice 1: Is a bylaw.

[3:46:46] Voice 2: Okay so

[3:46:47] Voice 2: then if the OCP

[3:46:48] Voice 5: is a bylaw then technically guidelines and policies should

[3:46:52] Voice 5: actually be held separate from bylaws. Isn't the guideline already separate?

[3:46:59] Voice 5: No it's being

[3:47:01] Voice 5: included as a

[3:47:01] Voice 1: bylaw. No but it's being attached to the...

[3:47:04] Voice 5: Currently it exists, that guideline exists as it is in some form. No this

[3:47:09] Voice 5: is brand new.

[3:47:12] Voice 5: well on the website there's a reference to the island's trust guidelines for the citing and

[3:47:19] Voice 2: everything

[3:47:19] Voice 5: else that's already there in terms of advice that

[3:47:21] Voice 2: could be just an information document

[3:47:23] Voice 2: and that's another

[3:47:24] Voice 2: option the ltc could consider it's just

[3:47:26] Voice 2: an information document it isn't the

[3:47:29] Voice 5: proposal to take that and make it formal no

[3:47:34] Voice 7: this is pieces of our government well

[3:47:37] Trustee Luckham: you know like

[3:47:38] Trustee Luckham: Like I said, it's an interesting question.

[3:47:39] Trustee Luckham: We do normally have guidelines in OCPs,

[3:47:42] Trustee Luckham: and I'll tell you the rationale for having guidelines

[3:47:45] Trustee Luckham: in the OCPs, which comes to your point

[3:47:47] Trustee Luckham: about shoulds could change to shalls.

[3:47:50] Trustee Luckham: In order for any should to change to a shall,

[3:47:53] Trustee Luckham: we have to go through a public process.

[3:47:56] Trustee Luckham: And so it's not easy.

[3:47:59] Trustee Luckham: We would have to go through a full formal process

[3:48:01] Trustee Luckham: as we are with this,

[3:48:02] Trustee Luckham: community information, public hearing,

[3:48:04] Trustee Luckham: and ministerial approval on OCP amendments.

[3:48:08] Trustee Luckham: So it's not quite so easy.

[3:48:11] Trustee Luckham: And the important point, I think, in my mind

[3:48:14] Trustee Luckham: is that the guidelines are actually guidelines

[3:48:18] Trustee Luckham: directed, I think, more specifically to the trustees.

[3:48:21] Trustee Luckham: And when they're making decisions about land use bylaws,

[3:48:25] Voice 7: that

[3:48:25] Trustee Luckham: the guidelines frame that

[3:48:28] Trustee Luckham: and that the decisions that they make

[3:48:30] Trustee Luckham: need to be supported in those guidelines.

[3:48:32] Trustee Luckham: So again, those guidelines are crafted with some public assurance about how decisions

[3:48:39] Trustee Luckham: will be made with respect to language bylaws.

[3:48:42] Trustee Luckham: So it's an interesting...

[3:48:43] Voice 5: I'm just going to pull

[3:48:44] Voice 5: something up because I've sat

[3:48:45] Voice 5: on boards before and it's not being

[3:48:47] Voice 5: done in this manner and...

[3:48:49] Trustee Luckham: Well, we're not a board.

[3:48:49] Trustee Luckham: We are an agency of the Crown.

[3:48:51] Voice 1: That's understood.

[3:48:53] Voice 5: Yeah.

[3:48:53] Voice 1: But going by what the BC government says about local government bylaws, therefore to regulate

[3:49:01] Voice 1: prohibit or impose requirements they are backed with a statutory authority

[3:49:10] Voice 1: prohibit activities require certain actions and they can be followed up by

[3:49:16] Voice 1: by action a guideline you can't so if I come to you and I design my property my

[3:49:22] Voice 1: house and I choose not to go with the guidelines are you going to do deny me

[3:49:27] Voice 1: because i've not done that yes you will but planners will say no and so then we have another

[3:49:34] Voice 1: problem because that is not a law it's just a guideline this is what we would like you to do

[3:49:40] Voice 1: you've chosen not to do it we're not giving you approval that's the way you run foul they should

[3:49:46] Voice 1: not be in a bylaw they should be separate still a document that you could use to help you but not

[3:49:53] Voice 1: Not in the bylaw that you are going to try and enforce.

[3:49:57] Voice 1: Because you enforce bylaws, you don't enforce guidelines.

[3:50:00] Voice 1: That is the point that we're making on this.

[3:50:04] Voice 1: It's an interesting question.

[3:50:08] Voice 5: I don't know the

[3:50:09] Trustee Luckham: answer, except that it is a standard practice.

[3:50:13] Voice 5: Right, but it's being presented to us that these guidelines are not to be enforced.

[3:50:18] Voice 5: They are not to be mandatory.

[3:50:20] Voice 5: regulatory, but they will be used to guide decision making.

[3:50:25] Voice 7: So

[3:50:25] Voice 5: if that is the case, then they shouldn't be part of the fine.

[3:50:29] Voice 5: They shouldn't be fall under the OCP by law.

[3:50:32] Voice 5: Well, that's your opinion.

[3:50:34] Voice 5: I think it's also the government's opinion.

[3:50:38] Voice 5: Our

[3:50:38] Trustee Luckham: OCPs are approved.

[3:50:39] Trustee Luckham: Our OCPs are

[3:50:41] Trustee Luckham: approved by the

[3:50:42] Voice 2: guidelines are held separate from bylaws.

[3:50:46] Voice 2: Official community plan is a bylaw.

[3:50:49] Voice 2: I understand that.

[3:50:52] Trustee Luckham: anyway let's just

[3:50:55] Trustee Luckham: we'll accept that

[3:50:56] Trustee Luckham: for information that's a it's a very interesting

[3:50:58] Trustee Luckham: proposition and will require some thought thank you yeah

[3:51:02] Trustee Luckham: shelly uh henshaw are you still here

[3:51:14] Voice 5: um i just wanted

[3:51:16] Voice 5: i just have uh a question to ask or confirm the answer are we the only gulf island

[3:51:24] Voice 5: um that has these uh proposed draft um building and design guidelines here we are the only item

[3:51:32] Voice 5: correct i believe that's the case but i just i

[3:51:35] Trustee Luckham: i can't say for sure but it's certainly not common

[3:51:38] Trustee Luckham: um we have uh we have sighting and use permits on some of the north islands but uh not citing

[3:51:45] Trustee Luckham: these built what do we call those up in the north siding and use permits which is a slight variation

[3:51:50] Trustee Luckham: on the theme but i'm not uh familiar with guidelines outside of strata corporations

[3:51:57] Trustee Luckham: so so

[3:51:58] Voice 5: the answer is no we don't have anything on any of the gulf islands that talks about the

[3:52:04] Voice 5: color of your house um the suggested building materials how to landscape how to do your

[3:52:10] Voice 5: pathways and driveways correct i

[3:52:12] Trustee Luckham: can't say definitively i would just say that it's not

[3:52:15] Trustee Luckham: common does

[3:52:16] Voice 5: kim do you know

[3:52:16] Voice 2: i'm not aware of any other ltcs right they

[3:52:19] Trustee Luckham: do there is um because i

[3:52:21] Voice 5: would think that's something you should know peter because that would really help us if we know that

[3:52:25] Voice 5: this is something that's being done and it's like not extreme or new or unusual i think that's

[3:52:31] Voice 5: important because five or another

[3:52:33] Voice 5: audience we're doing that we go oh so i think that we could

[3:52:35] Trustee Luckham: definitively provide that answer i just i'm not prepared to speak we have 26 ocbs and language

[3:52:42] Trustee Luckham: it's hard to know every every paragraph I

[3:52:45] Voice 8: think there is informational

[3:52:47] Voice 8: I don't

[3:52:48] Voice 5: want to go and research I don't think I have to

[3:52:51] Voice 5: go and do the research Steve

[3:52:52] Voice 5: I think it'd be really great if you just answered just now or I don't know well

[3:52:58] Trustee Luckham: I don't know that's

[3:52:59] Trustee Luckham: the answer I

[3:53:01] Voice 5: think there is there are there is informational factors and guidelines for

[3:53:07] for

[3:53:07] Voice 5: sustainable development, for climate change.

[3:53:11] Voice 5: Oh,

[3:53:12] Trustee Luckham: yeah, but it's not in an OCP.

[3:53:13] Voice 5: But it's not in an OCP.

[3:53:14] Voice 8: Yeah, I think that's the point.

[3:53:15] Voice 8: Okay, about

[3:53:15] Voice 5: the OCP part.

[3:53:17] Voice 5: Are there building and design guidelines,

[3:53:20] Voice 5: such as the ones you've drafted for Bill 501.23,

[3:53:24] Voice 5: in existence on any other Gulf Islands?

[3:53:28] Voice 4: Is there

[3:53:29] Voice 5: a specific?

[3:53:30] Voice 4: I don't think so, Shirley.

[3:53:33] Voice 4: I'm not sure.

[3:53:34] Voice 4: Sure. But, but I don't know. Does that change? So if so, I

[3:53:40] Voice 5: think that is quite dramatic for somebody like me

[3:53:43] Voice 5: who says, okay, nobody else has done this. So we don't know whether those guidelines are in effect, and they're actually working, and the community is good with it and they're successful.

[3:53:54] Voice 5: So that's what

[3:53:55] Voice 5: I would want to look at is, do they work? Are they good? What's the problem with them? What other island has them? That's what I want to know.

[3:54:03] Voice 4: sure okay so maybe just like wind back the clock a little bit um uh the um guidelines

[3:54:13] Voice 4: um and i you know i i admit when i i i am not too um i'm never proud to say that you know i took

[3:54:21] Voice 4: an angle and i had a i had a i had a change change trajectory but i started off working

[3:54:29] Voice 4: on the design guidelines back in 2019 and those were based on what i thought was great examples

[3:54:35] Voice 4: of other great very desirable communities and those included some of the san juan islands

[3:54:40] Voice 4: they included uh places like carmel which um i think generally uh evidence

[3:54:47] Voice 5: no no

[3:54:48] Voice 4: i'm not saying

[3:54:48] Voice 4: it is but i'm saying that that i'm not i'm not shelly it wasn't like we need to take the carmel

[3:54:55] Voice 4: all guidelines and make them our guidelines, but it was looking at how guidelines led to

[3:55:01] Voice 4: communities where there was, and there's room for differences. So I'm just saying we went and

[3:55:05] Voice 4: looked at things where they seemed to have some successful implementation in preserving what they

[3:55:11] Voice 4: felt were community values. Then I looked at Southlands in Vancouver. They also had,

[3:55:17] Voice 4: you know, because they had an agricultural background or a history. I'm not

[3:55:21] Voice 4: saying that.

[3:55:22] Voice 4: I'm just saying I looked at other examples to see how they'd approach things and how it reflected

[3:55:26] Voice 4: itself in the built form. Then we obviously try to think about those ideas from other communities,

[3:55:36] Voice 4: things like solar effect.

[3:55:38] Voice 5: Carmel and Vancouver are very urban, so what I see is those guidelines

[3:55:43] Voice 5: are there. I'm trying

[3:55:45] Voice 4: to fast forward

[3:55:45] Voice 5: because we're actually all very tired and I

[3:55:48] Voice 5: have to go

[3:55:48] Voice 5: home

[3:55:49] Voice 4: but just

[3:55:50] Voice 5: to say that about those guidelines they're very urban so i live in

[3:55:54] Voice 5: fort langley and

[3:55:55] Voice 5: all the houses are the muted colors and and we don't do stupid polka dot doors or anything like

[3:56:01] Voice 5: that because there is this scheme of what we are meant to look like and when you go in there and

[3:56:07] Voice 5: you buy in there you know that's what it's going to be like so that's no no surprises that's fort

[3:56:12] Voice 4: langley fort langley yeah

[3:56:13] Voice 4: and is that okay or is that bad news

[3:56:15] Voice 5: it's fine it's very urban it's like

[3:56:18] Voice 5: Like, I live close to Jal, and it's great.

[3:56:21] Voice 5: It's fine.

[3:56:22] Voice 5: But this is Pender Island, and I do think people get –

[3:56:25] Voice 5: it's part of the rural character.

[3:56:27] Voice 5: People have interesting homes.

[3:56:30] Voice 5: And when

[3:56:31] Voice 5: I drive up and down, I see all these things,

[3:56:34] Voice 5: and that's rural character and rural.

[3:56:36] Voice 4: I don't think that there's any

[3:56:38] Voice 4: thou shalt not paint your door this color in the guidelines.

[3:56:41] Voice 4: I mean, one thing that we did is we asked staff to look at the –

[3:56:44] Voice 4: to refine the guidelines based on, obviously,

[3:56:47] Voice 4: comments such as yours right now and to look at there is some pamphlets that the trust puts out on

[3:56:52] Voice 4: on on the similar topic so so really it's gone through the washing machine four or five times

[3:56:58] Voice 4: trying to look at how to make it principled to provide guidance without being prescriptive and

[3:57:02] Voice 4: and my my last point shelly on that is is if if whether it's this island or another island and

[3:57:08] Voice 4: somebody's looking for a variance i always think it's better to have some some type of consistent

[3:57:12] Voice 4: consistent approach to somebody said well why did you deny the the variance or why did you

[3:57:16] Voice 4: support the variance and somebody says i don't know i got out of bed on the left side today

[3:57:21] Voice 4: instead of the right side like what's the what is the underpinning for why a decision i think

[3:57:26] Voice 5: common sense but the common

[3:57:28] Voice 5: sense for you and somebody else

[3:57:29] Voice 4: might be different no there is

[3:57:31] Voice 5: common sense and common sense and i would hope that people in positions of leadership have common

[3:57:37] Voice 5: common sense and experience and have ability and so when somebody comes with a variance application

[3:57:46] Voice 5: you have all of that I just find I don't think

[3:57:49] Voice 5: you need the building and guidelines and have

[3:57:51] Voice 5: your little tip sheet to say this is not the right color that

[3:57:55] Voice 4: door is too

[3:57:55] Voice 5: big I don't like

[3:57:56] Voice 5: the pathway Etc Etc but that you're saying

[3:57:58] Voice 4: something different than that I think maybe

[3:58:01] Voice 5: I'm wrong to what John

[3:58:02] Voice 4: said which is what what are some of the principles or criteria that we have

[3:58:08] Voice 5: she

[3:58:08] Voice 4: doesn't want okay

[3:58:09] Voice 5: i'm super sorry i would

[3:58:13] Voice 4: be criticized by other people by saying i didn't

[3:58:15] Voice 4: have any criteria upon which to make my decision so you know again i sometimes feel like people

[3:58:21] Voice 5: done so far well

[3:58:22] Voice 4: i'm not saying but

[3:58:24] Voice 5: today what how decisions

[3:58:25] Voice 4: have been made in the absence of

[3:58:27] Voice 5: these guidelines

[3:58:28] Voice 5: i hope with common sense experience i

[3:58:32] Voice 1: hope so too but

[3:58:41] Voice 5: it um yeah

[3:58:44] Trustee Luckham: we certainly can i'm just trying to do a quick check here actually for salt spring

[3:58:48] Trustee Luckham: because um i've been asked to provide information building form is a guideline on salt spring which

[3:58:56] Trustee Luckham: has been in place

[3:58:56] Trustee Luckham: for a very long time

[3:58:57] Voice 2: building

[3:58:59] Trustee Luckham: form is a guideline on salt spring but that may

[3:59:01] Voice 2: maybe for commercial development, which is right.

[3:59:04] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, that's different.

[3:59:06] Trustee Luckham: So good question. Don't

[3:59:08] Trustee Luckham: know the answer. Well, an important question, though. I'm not saying it's not an important

[3:59:13] Trustee Luckham: question. It's

[3:59:15] Trustee Luckham: the first time it's come up. Anybody else want to speak about bylaw 123?

[3:59:22] Voice 1: I was, please, from before. I

[3:59:26] Trustee Luckham: said, I'll wait for bylaw 123.

[3:59:27] Voice 5: Well,

[3:59:28] Trustee Luckham: thank you for waiting.

[3:59:30] Trustee Luckham: No problem.

[3:59:32] Voice 5: I want to speak basically towards the First Nations portion of it.

[3:59:36] Voice 5: And it's mainly language, I think, and some of the assumptions that are made.

[3:59:42] Voice 5: And I just want to get clarity on them.

[3:59:45] Voice 5: So some of these things are softball questions.

[3:59:49] Voice 5: So in reference to the First Nations portion of proposed bylaw 123,

[3:59:53] Voice 5: I'd like to ask our LTC members a few questions.

[3:59:57] Voice 5: To be brief, I've edited lengthy bylaw text so that

[4:00:00] Voice 5: I'm quoting without damaging its meaning. So first quote, as part of the South Bender Island

[4:00:04] Voice 5: Local Trust Committee commitment to support the goals of reconciliation, the LTC recognized the

[4:00:10] Voice 5: importance of preserving and protecting and following culturally significant plants and

[4:00:14] Voice 5: food slash medicines for First Nations and Indigenous communities. And

[4:00:19] Voice 1: my question is,

[4:00:20] Voice 1: what Indigenous communities?

[4:00:25] Trustee Luckham: Well, those Indigenous communities that consider in this particular day

[4:00:30] Trustee Luckham: southender to be uh uh what did i say so i guess my question is

[4:00:37] Voice 5: johnson speaking do you know the

[4:00:39] Voice 5: definition of indigenous person an indigenous person is either a first nation a metis or an

[4:00:47] Voice 5: inuit yes an indigenous person yes so you've already mentioned first nations so the indigenous

[4:00:53] Voice 5: people have to be either inuit or maybe i'm a metis and i don't know of any community here and

[4:00:59] Voice 5: and I don't think there's any Inuit here either.

[4:01:00] Voice 5: I'm just saying the language,

[4:01:02] Voice 5: like I

[4:01:02] Voice 7: think you can

[4:01:03] Voice 5: kind of cut that one off, right?

[4:01:05] Voice 5: Because it's just a misunderstanding

[4:01:07] Voice 5: of what an indigenous person is.

[4:01:09] Trustee Luckham: Right.

[4:01:10] Voice 5: Good point.

[4:01:10] Voice 5: Whoever texted it.

[4:01:11] Voice 5: Very good point.

[4:01:12] Trustee Luckham: We do get guidance on trying to use the right language

[4:01:14] Trustee Luckham: when we learn along the way.

[4:01:16] Voice 5: Okay.

[4:01:17] Voice 5: That's why I'm bringing up now instead of the public hearing.

[4:01:19] Voice 5: I'll make some subtle changes.

[4:01:23] Voice 5: All right.

[4:01:23] Voice 5: All right, the Biola also goes on to preserving

[4:01:29] Voice 5: and protecting a number of things.

[4:01:31] Voice 5: And it's very specific.

[4:01:33] Voice 5: I had to read them so people can hear them.

[4:01:35] Voice 5: It's quite lengthy, but commas in any areas of matters

[4:01:38] Voice 5: or cultivation areas, ocean spray for making tools

[4:01:41] Voice 5: for arrows and harpoon shafts, salmon skewers and needles,

[4:01:45] Voice 5: salmon berry and single berry plants,

[4:01:47] Voice 5: the shoots and berries in cultivation areas,

[4:01:50] Voice 5: porphyra, edible seaweeds and the conservation

[4:01:52] Voice 5: of shoreline and upland areas that preserve habitat,

[4:01:55] Voice 5: crabs, little neck clam, butter,

[4:01:57] Voice 5: butter clams, horse clams, cockles, bay mussels,

[4:02:01] Voice 5: civic oysters, and the areas where they're harvested.

[4:02:05] Voice 5: Western red cedar for house posts and planks,

[4:02:08] Voice 5: totem poles, dug-up canoes,

[4:02:09] Voice 5: mats, baskets, clothing, and cordage, which is rope,

[4:02:12] Voice 5: and the preservation of the species,

[4:02:14] Voice 5: broadleaf maples for paddles and spindle orals,

[4:02:17] Voice 5: but Douglas fir, grand fir, arbust, et cetera.

[4:02:19] Voice 5: My question is, this is admirable, but I'm saying, what is the intent?

[4:02:26] Voice 5: Is this for people to come back and stop using the modern tools they do now, the First Nations, and restore those old uses, like start making rope again?

[4:02:37] Voice 5: Or is it for just historical reasons? I'm trying to find out.

[4:02:42] Voice 5: Again, this is the question people are asking with 122.

[4:02:44] Voice 5: do the reason behind this like it would be easier to understand if we knew because I don't think

[4:02:49] Voice 5: people are going to be making harpoon shafts and needles and rope and things like that I think

[4:02:55] Voice 5: there's something that you have to explain there I'm just saying the language doesn't quite explain

[4:03:01] Voice 5: that

[4:03:01] Trustee Luckham: yeah see what you're saying so

[4:03:03] Voice 5: maybe it's for ceremonial purposes or whatever I don't know

[4:03:06] Voice 5: let's say it you know um if I could just say in in my understanding all of these things that had

[4:03:14] Voice 5: that part of their culture and the traditional uses

[4:03:17] Voice 5: are still very important to the people.

[4:03:21] Voice 5: And therefore, anything to do with their culture

[4:03:24] Voice 5: needs to be

[4:03:25] Voice 8: recognized, appreciated, and protected.

[4:03:29] Voice 5: So we're taking,

[4:03:32] Voice 8: we're kind of taking their lead on this.

[4:03:34] Voice 8: We're not saying that we think this should be done.

[4:03:38] Voice 8: This is a direct request

[4:03:42] Voice 5: from First Nations.

[4:03:45] Voice 5: I'm glad you said that, because that's another question coming up about that.

[4:03:48] Voice 5: Yeah, perfect.

[4:03:50] Voice 5: All right.

[4:03:51] Voice 5: I guess for homeowners and property owners,

[4:03:55] Voice 5: I think there should be information about what does this mean,

[4:03:59] Voice 5: the preservation and protection of these things?

[4:04:02] Voice 5: Because I probably have all of them.

[4:04:06] Voice 5: What does that mean for private land?

[4:04:09] Voice 5: And what does it mean for your foreshore?

[4:04:11] Voice 5: I mean, I think that has to be explained.

[4:04:13] Voice 5: Like, what do you expect to do?

[4:04:14] Voice 5: are you going to stop taking clams or is there some other method? I think this needs fleshing

[4:04:21] Voice 5: out. I'm just saying it's not clear what's going on and I think again it's like the other people

[4:04:27] Voice 5: are saying like let's give the reasons for things. I think we need more information to flesh this out.

[4:04:33] Voice 5: I mean it's admirable move but I'm saying like you just need to explain it more because

[4:04:36] Voice 5: no one knows what that means and I can see people getting really excited about that saying well

[4:04:41] Voice 5: well, look at this, I can't touch a tree on my property.

[4:04:44] Voice 5: Is that what it means?

[4:04:45] Voice 5: I don't think so, but explain.

[4:04:48] Voice 5: Can

[4:04:49] Voice 6: I ask a

[4:04:50] Voice 5: question better directed to those institutions?

[4:04:55] Voice 2: Sorry, which question?

[4:04:57] Voice 5: The question that he's raising,

[4:04:58] Voice 5: what do these cultural things mean to private landowners,

[4:05:06] Voice 5: the current landowners?

[4:05:09] Voice 5: What implications does the protection of those cultural...

[4:05:13] Voice 2: in

[4:05:13] Voice 5: terms of their yeah i mean that yeah that could

[4:05:15] Voice 2: be i think

[4:05:15] Voice 5: i think we need to probably

[4:05:21] Voice 5: well i

[4:05:22] Trustee Luckham: think that's evolving you know we're very much um at the leading edge of this kind of

[4:05:30] Trustee Luckham: thought and um it's out of a genuine interest to recognize the history of the place and the

[4:05:37] Trustee Luckham: traditional uses um but certainly more clarity would be um a good thing to achieve um yeah and

[4:05:47] Voice 8: i and i i can say i really don't think dennis and i i mean this respectfully of first nations

[4:05:55] Voice 8: they have got so much on their plate right now and so many issues that they're dealing with

[4:05:59] Voice 8: i'm not even absolutely sure that that they can give you a definite answer on that i think that

[4:06:05] Voice 8: that they are basically saying these are important to us

[4:06:09] Voice 8: and when they have the time they will respond accordingly.

[4:06:14] Voice 8: Maybe Paul can reach closer.

[4:06:16] Voice 5: If I can offer just a quick clarification on that point

[4:06:19] Voice 5: without interrupting you, is that okay?

[4:06:21] Voice 5: Yeah, sure.

[4:06:22] Voice 5: Thank you.

[4:06:23] Voice 5: So one of the things that's happening now

[4:06:25] Voice 5: is the revitalization initiative that the CRC is involved in

[4:06:34] Voice 5: and the Wasanich Leadership Council and the Wasanich School Board.

[4:06:37] Voice 5: We're in the process of producing five videos,

[4:06:41] Voice 5: one for each of Pender, Mains, and Saturna,

[4:06:46] Voice 5: a larger video on the bigger picture for the Wasanich,

[4:06:50] Voice 5: and then an animation video about the creation story of the islands.

[4:06:56] Voice 5: So what they want to do is engage in communication

[4:06:59] Voice 5: and conversation with the islanders.

[4:07:01] Voice 5: so what's going to happen on the three islands this summer is there's going to be a community

[4:07:07] Voice 5: forum to show these films and to engage in some conversation and I can tell you right now I'm

[4:07:14] Voice 5: reviewing the films as they're being produced their approach is not an approach to encroach

[4:07:21] Voice 5: but rather to have their values recognized and respected I have

[4:07:28] Voice 5: have ocean spray on my property. What I know about ocean spray is that Earl Claxton Senior,

[4:07:36] Voice 5: the elder who does the salmon bakes, the traditional salmon bakes, those are very

[4:07:41] Voice 5: important to them. There's a sacredness about them. They're not looking for more sticks,

[4:07:46] Voice 5: as Earl calls them sometimes, but they're looking for recognition that, you know, if I

[4:07:53] Voice 5: I happened to cut down an ocean spray.

[4:07:55] Voice 5: I saved the stick for Earl.

[4:07:57] Voice 5: He's got more sticks than he can use now, but anyway.

[4:08:00] Voice 5: So I think for people who are approaching this

[4:08:05] Voice 5: from maybe a concern that there's too many unknowns,

[4:08:09] Voice 5: I think what's gonna be happening over the next five

[4:08:11] Voice 5: or 10 years is a conversation and an opportunity to engage

[4:08:15] Voice 5: and to hear them and for them to hear us.

[4:08:18] Voice 5: And I have to say they are very open to that conversation

[4:08:21] Voice 5: in a respectful way and so i think what this bylaw does is open up that respectful conversation i hope

[4:08:30] Voice 5: that helps yeah it does to a certain extent but um my next concern was this um the data the research

[4:08:39] Voice 5: and again i'm not sure if it happened because we don't really have any record of this like what's

[4:08:43] Voice 5: took place to come up with this information my concern is that perhaps the first nations

[4:08:49] Voice 5: haven't had enough input into this um i think you consulted 14 first nations and national council

[4:08:57] Voice 5: nation councils uh with the bylaw proposal but you only got two replies and neither of them

[4:09:05] Voice 5: offered guidance so you're kind of working blind from that point of view and my concern is did they

[4:09:11] Voice 5: really look at this list and come up with it and it can't be something ad hoc that i talked to

[4:09:17] Voice 5: somebody and they said this, and I appreciate what Paul's saying, like they got a different

[4:09:21] Voice 5: forum and stuff, but it can't be like word of mouth from that group over the trust and the

[4:09:25] Voice 5: trust can do it. There has to be some connection. And the reason I say that is because you need,

[4:09:31] Voice 5: first of all, time. And I'm sure you're aware that the provincial government just recently set aside

[4:09:36] Voice 5: two years to discuss the preservation of old growth forests of the First Nations. They said

[4:09:41] Voice 5: it's going to take that to get this discussion. It can't be rushed forward like this bylaw.

[4:09:45] Voice 5: and also i'm sure you at least the chair will be aware of a protocol there's two actually one in

[4:09:50] Voice 5: your island but there's also another one between the synonym of the first nation gabriela it's a

[4:09:56] Voice 5: protocol for how you deal with any community plan zoning and land use bylaw and in that protocol

[4:10:03] Voice 5: they have extensive documented process of direct consultation dialogue agreements between the two

[4:10:11] Voice 5: before it's presented like this. So I'm just saying those two things set some precedence

[4:10:16] Voice 5: that I think you should actually follow rather than rushing into this unless you have some basis

[4:10:22] Voice 5: that we don't know about but it clearly didn't come from the local First Nations. So anyways the

[4:10:28] Voice 5: moving on I don't have a little thing here. Some time ago I have a complaint actually this is this

[4:10:35] Voice 5: is a complaint. Some time ago as an Indigenous person I

[4:10:40] Voice 1: took an interest in the United Nations

[4:10:43] Voice 1: rights of Indigenous people under it and the federal government enacted this in Canada,

[4:10:49] Voice 1: then the provincial government acted on this in Canada. All these things deal with healthcare,

[4:10:54] Voice 1: education, housing, recognition,

[4:10:57] Voice 5: really good. There's 10 lofty subjects there.

[4:11:01] Voice 5: there. There's nothing about land use planning. That's not in there. So the move to use First

[4:11:09] Voice 5: Nations as a reason for land use planning issues is kind of a stretch. And I'll give

[4:11:15] Voice 5: you an example. Bylaw 123 says to consider changes in land use building heights and density

[4:11:22] Voice 5: to reduce impacts in areas defined as culturally sensitive and or significant due to cultural

[4:11:27] Voice 5: heritage sites or cultural food sites i don't see the connection between those two and i don't think

[4:11:32] Voice 5: any i'm just guessing but i'm saying i don't think any first nation person would see the connection

[4:11:36] Voice 5: either they this thing about restricting restricting the building heights and density

[4:11:42] Voice 5: is a subject that seems to be coming in as one trustee who i'm named right here said

[4:11:48] Voice 5: is uh the trojan horse that the trust is using other issues inside the gate

[4:11:55] Voice 1: you know you you tack on some issue you want and say well

[4:11:59] Voice 5: it's for first nations well

[4:12:01] Voice 5: i think that was a rough stretch i really do so anyways that's basically all i have to say

[4:12:07] Voice 5: except that i really can't support file 123 based on that and because steve brought up

[4:12:15] Voice 5: the precautionary principle i want to mention that too just briefly um i agree with you steve

[4:12:20] Voice 5: precautionary principles good but if something's going to do harm damage unknown consequences

[4:12:28] Voice 5: the precautionary principle is you don't go through with it

[4:12:31] Voice 6: so

[4:12:32] Voice 5: you have bylaws you've already

[4:12:34] Voice 5: been told all these things are wrong precautionary principle way you stop them you don't put them

[4:12:40] Voice 5: thank you thank

[4:12:42] Trustee Luckham: you for that

[4:12:42] Voice 5: message um thank

[4:12:46] Trustee Luckham: you for your entire message

[4:12:47] Trustee Luckham: definitely take that into consideration anybody else on bylaw

[4:12:53] Voice 1: 123 i think bylaw itself the

[4:12:57] Voice 1: guidelines are fairly well written they're fairly bland they're they're really good to

[4:13:03] Voice 1: to follow i personally have no problem with it they're they're pretty well crafted they don't

[4:13:09] Voice 1: offend me whatsoever it's my right to be offended but i'll just say this this one thing and then i

[4:13:15] Voice 1: I'm going to shut up. You've mentioned several times, but the people in this room are mainly

[4:13:22] Voice 1: those who are anti-negative. They don't represent the majority.

[4:13:29] Trustee Luckham: Well, I wouldn't

[4:13:30] Trustee Luckham: say that's a consensus opinion of the LTC. Some members just bear

[4:13:34] Voice 1: this in mind.

[4:13:35] Voice 1: Not everybody turns up. Where are other people then who are in agreement? Why aren't they here?

[4:13:43] Voice 1: it if that's

[4:13:45] Voice 2: the assumption that

[4:13:46] Voice 1: you're making and then let's stretch it back to when it comes

[4:13:49] Voice 1: to election time how many people actually vote of the ones who are entitled to it's only this much

[4:13:57] Voice 1: if you got 60 you'd be breaking world records what you're about 30 something like that only a few

[4:14:05] Voice 1: people actually even bothered voting so be grateful that there's people here even if we've got some

[4:14:13] Voice 1: negative things to say it means that we care about what's what's going on we don't have to agree but

[4:14:20] Voice 1: when we do disagree with something we do get some blank statements and shooting down oh well you

[4:14:27] Voice 1: just be my priority and then in the same online i've only been here since january and i've seen

[4:14:32] Voice 1: all this stuff online yeah well you you're just vocal you're making a noise you don't represent

[4:14:39] Voice 1: represent everybody. You don't represent everybody, you represent the people, not

[4:14:44] Voice 1: supposedly the people who voted for you, but really you represent everybody, whether

[4:14:49] Voice 1: they voted for you or not. Just bear that in your mind. I'll be quiet now.

[4:14:54] Voice 1: Thank

[4:14:54] Trustee Luckham: you very much. Anything else on ballot 123? Do you want to go home?

[4:15:00] Trustee Luckham: If you're late.

[4:15:01] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[4:15:02] Voice 7: The bar's open.

[4:15:03] Trustee Luckham: because we have

[4:15:04] Trustee Luckham: the doors open you're right about that um okay so let me just think here so yeah

[4:15:09] Trustee Luckham: there's nothing further today our next electronic meeting will be on the 17th of june that's right

[4:15:16] Trustee Luckham: and um so thank you for joining us today and um pleasure to be back in your community and

[4:15:21] Trustee Luckham: thank you for your

[4:15:22] Voice 6: taking the time

[4:15:26] Voice 6: thanks for showing

[4:15:27] Voice 8: up and giving us a lot to think about i really appreciate the feedback

[4:15:30] Voice 8: Can somebody

[4:15:31] Voice 2: get BC Ferries to run

[4:15:32] Trustee Luckham: out of time next time?

[4:15:33] Voice 8: We do

[4:15:34] Voice 2: have to scoot.

[4:15:35] Voice 2: We have to head on to...

[4:15:36] Voice 2: We've got to be quick to make the next ferry.

[4:15:39] Voice 2: It's

[4:15:40] Voice 1: going to get worse.