North Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, July 28, 2022

[0:00:11] Voice 3: Good morning. If you're joining us, just hold and stand by. We'll be starting in a moment.

[0:00:53] Voice 3: We need

[0:00:54] Voice 6: some music there.

[0:00:56] Voice 14: Yeah, I can drum something up for you here.

[0:00:59] Voice 14: All right.

[0:01:00] Voice 6: It's 10 o'clock. Are you ready to get going, Trustee McConkie?

[0:01:05] Voice 4: Yeah.

[0:01:06] Voice 6: I'm still hoping that Trustee Morrison is, I know, attempting to join us today,

[0:01:11] Voice 6: and we will hope that she can join us from her remote location.

[0:01:15] Voice 6: um okay then we'll get started uh good morning everyone i'd like to call to order the special

[0:01:23] Voice 6: meeting of the north pender local trust committee i always begin with acknowledging how fortunate

[0:01:27] Voice 6: we are to gather in the traditional territories of the coast salish peoples but i hope you're

[0:01:31] Voice 6: also taking this week to uh see the historic events that are happening in other parts of

[0:01:39] Voice 6: Canada with the Pope's travel to Canada and the apologies being made to the Catholic Church

[0:01:45] Voice 6: involvement in the residential schools. It's amazing to see the emotions that are on the

[0:01:51] Voice 6: faces of the people who are receiving these apologies. And it's a historic moment and we

[0:01:58] Voice 6: should all be trying to listen and learn from what is happening. I'm Laura Patrick. I'm elected on

[0:02:05] Voice 6: salt spring island i'm the chair of this local trust committee i'm joined today by trust uh well

[0:02:10] Voice 6: and hope and i will hope to be joined by trustee deb morrison but i am joined by trustee ben

[0:02:15] Voice 6: mcconaughey together we make up your local trust committee this is a community information meeting

[0:02:21] Voice 6: on the land use bylaw review project and we always want to hear from you on the topics that

[0:02:30] Voice 6: we're talking about and you can direct your questions to thesouthinfo at islandstrust.bc.ca

[0:02:38] Voice 6: as this is an electronic meeting we will do our best to overcome any technical issues if they do

[0:02:46] Voice 6: pop up if you are watching this through the live stream and you had intended to ask us some

[0:02:53] Voice 6: questions you will need to switch over to the attend meeting button so that you can interact

[0:02:58] Voice 6: act with us. So please take that time now to switch over to the attend button if you hadn't

[0:03:03] Voice 6: intended on asking some questions today. I'm a number of staff meeting joining us today.

[0:03:09] Voice 6: Despite the fact that they may be coming from their own homes, they have the right to a safe

[0:03:14] Voice 6: and respectful workplace. The staff members that are joining us today is a planner Kim Stockdale.

[0:03:19] Voice 6: Good morning, Kim. We have in the background our office administrator Robin Elchuk, who's helping

[0:03:25] Voice 6: run this uh in this zoom link today and our minute taker will be lauren edwards we have a very small

[0:03:32] Voice 6: agenda before us are there any changes that need to be made to the agenda so we'll approve the

[0:03:36] Voice 6: agenda through general consent and with that we have only one business item and it'll be a staff

[0:03:43] Voice 6: presentation first from um from planner stockdill and then we'll open up uh for questions that

[0:03:49] Voice 6: that people have on on the the bylaws that are before you so over to you kim thank

[0:03:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): you very much

[0:03:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): i'm just going to load the presentation up now uh for those now just to confirm you can see the

[0:04:04] Planner Stockdill (probable): entire screen everything looks good on your end okay great um this is a similar presentation to

[0:04:13] Planner Stockdill (probable): what I did on July 7th. I'm going to speak for about 30 minutes. I'm going to go over

[0:04:19] Planner Stockdill (probable): the overview of the project, how we got here, the three bylaws that the LTC is considering,

[0:04:29] Planner Stockdill (probable): as well as some of the hot topics, which are items that we've received a fair amount of comments or

[0:04:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): questions regarding and then I'm going to go into a few items that the LTC specifically have

[0:04:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): identified that they want comments from the community regarding. So I am going to dive into

[0:04:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): it now. So this we're speaking about the land use bylaw review project today and it was initiated

[0:04:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): about two and a half years ago in early 2020 and the purpose of the project was to do a full review

[0:05:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): of the land use bylaw number 103 to ensure that it was consistent with the official community plan

[0:05:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): and to implement any policies or initiatives that were in the OCP that could be put in the

[0:05:19] Planner Stockdill (probable): land use bylaw by adding regulations. Also the object was to update the land use bylaw for any

[0:05:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): technical and minor amendments. At the beginning of the project staff in the LTC identified seven

[0:05:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): topics, and those are included on your screen. They're residential maximum floor area,

[0:05:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): conservation subdivision, agricultural regulations, industrial regulations,

[0:05:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): tourist accommodation regulations, which is also known as commercial 2 or C2, marine and shoreline

[0:05:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): regulations, and as I mentioned, some minor or more technical amendments. The conservation

[0:06:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): conservation subdivision topic was actually pulled out of this project because it's an item that

[0:06:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): needs a full review on its own. So that item was removed and I believe it was placed in the

[0:06:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): projects list for the North Pender LTC. So in spring summer of 2020 staff provided the LTC

[0:06:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): with discussion papers on each of these topics and these discussion papers are a great source

[0:06:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): of information. It includes background information, current policies or regulations found in the OCP

[0:06:34] Planner Stockdill (probable): or Land Use By-law and it also lists some of the options that the LTC could consider.

[0:06:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): At that time early engagement letters were also sent to First Nations.

[0:06:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): In over the majority of fall 2020 and then one in January 2021, we had five community information

[0:06:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): information meetings and these CIMs were really focused on one or two topics to really dive into

[0:07:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): them to identify from the community what the community would like highlighted or where there

[0:07:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): was items of concern or items that they felt that were sufficient. In addition to that last year

[0:07:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): we received a referral or recommendations and comments from the special agricultural advisory

[0:07:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): Biosphere Planning Committee, the AAPC, and they provided an incredible document to the LTC

[0:07:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): outlining recommendations to the land use bylaw based on agriculture items. So that's on

[0:07:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): the LTC project website if you want to take a look at that. And the LTC incorporated

[0:07:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): the majority of those recommendations into the proposed bylaws.

[0:07:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): Last summer and fall, the LTC really narrowed the scope of each topic

[0:07:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): and then gave direction to staff to start drafting these bylaws.

[0:08:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): And early this year, we had a couple more online hot topic

[0:08:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): community information meetings.

[0:08:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): And then, as I mentioned, we had another electronic CIM on July 7th.

[0:08:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): And a lot of people may be wondering, well, why is there three bylaws for this project?

[0:08:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): Generally, if there's a project or rezoning application, you have two bylaws potentially,

[0:08:26] Planner Stockdill (probable): one to amend the land use bylaw and one to amend the OCP.

[0:08:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): So this project actually has two land use bylaw amendments and one OCP amendment bylaw.

[0:08:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): And the first one is bylaw 224.

[0:08:40] Planner Stockdill (probable): This is the new land use bylaw, if adopted, and it will replace the land use bylaw number three.

[0:08:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): So, bylaw 224 is consistent with the current OCP, and it involves the majority of the amendments.

[0:08:58] Planner Stockdill (probable): amendments. It received first reading on May 26. And after the public hearing, if there is a public

[0:09:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): hearing, the normal process for a land use bylaw to be adopted is it would require second and third

[0:09:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): reading. It would need approval from the Islands Trust Executive Committee. And then it comes back

[0:09:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): to the LTC for approval. And it's only a official community plan amendment bylaw that needs approval

[0:09:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): And on that note, the next item I'm going to talk about is by law 223 and this by law will make amendments or make changes to the official community plan. And I've listed some of those on your screen there.

[0:09:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): So there will be policies regarding when an LTC reviews development variance permits or DVPs for maximum floor area.

[0:09:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): In the OCP Amendment By-law, there's also enabling wording to permit agriculture as a principal use in a rural residential two-zone, and I'll speak to that in just a bit.

[0:10:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): There's also going to be policies to enable multi-family rental dwelling units, private morgue rezoning conditions, in addition to other site-specific OCP redesignations.

[0:10:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): So since this is an OCP bylaw, it does need approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[0:10:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): And that happens after approval of executive committee. And since this fall, as we all know,

[0:10:26] Planner Stockdill (probable): we're going into election time. If this bylaw were to move forward, and if we're waiting for

[0:10:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): sign off from the minister, it could either speed up due to the election or could drastically slow

[0:10:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): down. So we're not quite sure how long it may take for a bylaw to be approved by the Minister

[0:10:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): or a municipal affairs. The third bylaw is bylaw number 222. This is the smaller land use bylaw

[0:10:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): amendment. And the reason why we have bylaw 229 is it's currently not consistent with the official

[0:10:58] Planner Stockdill (probable): community plan. So this bylaw actually needs the OCP bylaw, I was just talking about bylaw number

[0:11:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): number 223 to be adopted first because it includes either enabling policies or changes to

[0:11:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): designations for a property that needs to be in place before bylaw 229 can be adopted

[0:11:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): bylaw 229 it has it as I mentioned it's smaller so it includes just site-specific

[0:11:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): rezoning of properties it also will add agriculture as a principal permitted use in the RR2 zone

[0:11:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): and it will have regulations for the new rental housing zone so all three bylaws were given first

[0:11:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): reading on May 26 and they can be found on the project website and this is just a snapshot of the

[0:11:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): North Pender project web page which includes the three current projects that the LTC is working on

[0:12:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): right now and in the middle of that web page is the land use bylaw review and if you see on your

[0:12:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): screen, there's a folder that says three proposed bylaws. If you click on that link, those are where

[0:12:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): the bylaws are found. Under folder seven at the bottom, other information, those are where the

[0:12:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): previous version or draft versions of the bylaws can be found. So now I'm going to go into some of

[0:12:25] Planner Stockdill (probable): the hot topics. And these, as I mentioned before, are topics that staff in the LTC have either

[0:12:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): received quite a few comments or questions about, or they've been brought up in previous CIMs.

[0:12:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): The first one is in regards to the rural residential zone.

[0:12:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): So currently the land use bylaw number 103, the one that's currently in place right now, only has one rural residential zone.

[0:12:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): The LTC is proposing to split that with bylaw 224 into two zones.

[0:13:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): And this is because there is distinct differences between these type of properties.

[0:13:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the new rural residential one zone are all properties found within Magic Lake and the Trinkle Malley water district areas. These would be rezoned to rural residential one. And the only proposed change to rural residential one compared to the rural residential zone is that there will be a total and maximum floor area regulation.

[0:13:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): All of our amendments are technical in nature. So this rural residential zone is really focused on those communities that have small lots and the primary uses dwellings.

[0:13:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): The other new zone potentially is the rural residential two zone. So these are all the other properties that were zoned rural residential in bylaw 103.

[0:13:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): They're going to be, and that aren't located in Magic Lake or Trincomalee, they're going to be rezoned to rural residential two.

[0:14:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): And the two major changes in this zone is, first, the Rural Residential 2 zone, similar to Rural Residential 1, will establish a total and maximum floor area.

[0:14:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): And in addition to that, agriculture will be permitted as a primary use.

[0:14:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): And what that means is in the Rural Residential 2 zone, if you have a bare land piece of property, there's no dwelling unit, there's no cottages, there's no anything on it.

[0:14:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): If you, say, wanted to have grazing sheep or whatever, you could have your agricultural use on that RR2 property without there being a dwelling unit or cottage.

[0:14:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): So agriculture can be a primary permitted use.

[0:14:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): And there's no changes in density for the rural residential zones.

[0:14:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): So it's just the use that's changing in Rural Residential 2, and then the establishment of these total and maximum floor areas.

[0:15:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): And so this is the table that will be found in the Rural Residential 1 zone.

[0:15:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): So it establishes the total floor area of all buildings on a property.

[0:15:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): So that includes your dwelling unit, your cottage, your detached garage, and so forth.

[0:15:18] Planner Stockdill (probable): They would be included in that second column.

[0:15:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): column. And then the third column is the maximum floor area of your house, your dwelling. So if you

[0:15:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): have a property that's less than one acre, which is less than 0.4 hectares, you would be permitted

[0:15:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): to have a total floor area of all your buildings of over 5,300 square feet. And your maximum house

[0:15:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): size would be 2,500 square feet. For the other zones where maximum floor area will be established,

[0:15:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): and I listed them there, there will be similar chart as in Rural Residential 1, but there's an

[0:16:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): additional row there, which is for dwellings located in the Agricultural Land Reserve,

[0:16:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): or potentially those properties are 16 hectares or more, you'd be permitted a larger house size of

[0:16:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): of over 5300 square feet. And the second item is legal non-conforming or grandfathering.

[0:16:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): And this is specifically regarding to establishing maximum floor area in the land use bylaw. We've

[0:16:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): heard concerns from people saying, well, you know, I have a 3000 square foot house.

[0:16:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): And if this bylaw is adopted, and I live in the rural residential one zone and my property is

[0:16:40] Planner Stockdill (probable): less than one acre, the land use policy says I can only have a house that's 2,500 square foot. So

[0:16:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): what does that mean for me? And so first, legal non-conforming, it comes from the Local Government

[0:16:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): Act, which is section 529. I always recommend to people to take a look at their Local Government

[0:16:59] Planner Stockdill (probable): Act specifically regarding the legal non-conforming items. It's worth reading over.

[0:17:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): So, Local Government Act protects people in terms of siting and size, that you could essentially, you can make alterations or changes to your dwelling unit, as long as you're not exceeding the floor area, or exceeding what you have at that time.

[0:17:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): but the but the LTC went a step ahead and added this new clause which actually allows you to

[0:17:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): rebuild your house if for example it unfortunately burns down if you have a 3,000 square foot house

[0:17:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): and it burns down you could rebuild that 3,000 square foot house rather than comply with the

[0:17:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): 2,500 the new regulation and that's what this clause says and I'm just going to kind of quickly

[0:17:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): read through it it said on a lot that contains a legal dwelling unit so if you have a legal house

[0:18:03] Planner Stockdill (probable): that currently complies to the land use bylaw a replacement dwelling unit may be reconstructed so

[0:18:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): you may rebuild your house provided the floor area of the replacement so provided the floor

[0:18:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): area of your new house does not exceed the floor area of the dwelling on the lot at the time of

[0:18:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): adoption of the bylaw. So essentially what that's saying is as long as your new house

[0:18:29] Planner Stockdill (probable): doesn't exceed the floor area of your old house at the time of adoption. So you'd be able to

[0:18:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): rebuild your 3,000 square foot house. The next item I wanted to highlight is accessory structures

[0:18:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): on bare land. So currently land use bylaw number 103 doesn't allow say a shed or a small building

[0:18:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): on your property before you have either a house or cottage built. So bylaw 224 if adopted would

[0:19:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): allow you to have one outbuilding and one pump utility shed before you construct your dwelling

[0:19:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): or a cottage because we've heard from people where they have a bare piece of land they're

[0:19:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): not ready to build their house or cottage but it'd be nice to have a small shed on their property

[0:19:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): to store their tools or their bike or what have you. So, this new regulation would allow that

[0:19:25] Planner Stockdill (probable): as long as you meet those three new regulations. So, the floor area may not exceed 100 square feet.

[0:19:34] Planner Stockdill (probable): It's a maximum of one outbuilding per lot, and the height does not exceed 4.6 meters.

[0:19:40] Planner Stockdill (probable): And I know that item or item B there has been a concern. People have said, oh, you're only allowed

[0:19:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): Does that mean I'm only allowed one accessory building on my property forever? No, no, no. The definition of an outbuilding is a building that's constructed before your dwelling or cottage. That's what an outbuilding is. An accessory building, you know, you have your house, your cottage, your detached garage or your sheds.

[0:20:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): Those are, you know, the shed and the detached garage are your accessory buildings, you're permitted those, there's no restriction on the number of accessory buildings, as long as you're within the total floor area you meet the setbacks and height and so forth.

[0:20:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): So I really wanted to make that distinction between the difference of an outbuilding, and the difference of accessory buildings and structures.

[0:20:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): The next item, helicopters. This was certainly a hot topic about a year ago. And the LTC last spring passed a resolution that they wanted staff to add a prohibition on recreational helicopters as part of this project.

[0:20:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): So staff in Section 3.2.1 have added, sorry, have added in the list of prohibited uses in all zones.

[0:21:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): We've added heliports and helipads.

[0:21:04] Planner Stockdill (probable): So those are not permitted other than for emergency evacuation use.

[0:21:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): But I should say, as we all know, aeronautics is federal jurisdiction.

[0:21:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): And therefore, it is most likely not enforceable.

[0:21:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): but we've included it in there just in case down the road less legislation changes you never know

[0:21:25] Planner Stockdill (probable): but currently aeronautics is federal jurisdiction it's not within the jurisdiction of local

[0:21:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): governments the next item i want to speak to is the mckinnon road properties which are west of

[0:21:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): the bc ferries and their zoned tourist accommodation this is that c2 zone which i was speaking about

[0:21:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): out between the four properties that are there they have a total build-out of 55 tourist

[0:21:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): accommodation units so what that means is potentially between those four properties

[0:21:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): they could have 55 little cabins or 55 units within a like a motel or whatnot so those have

[0:22:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): been identified by the LTC and staff it's historical zoning but most of them have not

[0:22:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): not even built out to the current density that they have. So there's been a discussion and

[0:22:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): lengthy discussion between the property owners and the LTC. And then they've come to agreeance

[0:22:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): that they will move forward with reducing their density. And you can see those proposed densities

[0:22:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): in that third column. So instead of 55 units, there would be a maximum of 20, am I doing my

[0:22:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): my math right, 28 units. So that's a potential reduction of 30, 32 units. The second to last

[0:22:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): item of Hot Topics is docks. Currently, the area around North Pender is zoned Water 1. And Water 1

[0:22:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): allows the use of private docks for upland residential use. The LTC is considering

[0:23:03] Planner Stockdill (probable): considering rezoning the majority of the area around North Pender to Water 3. And Water 3 does

[0:23:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): not permit private docks. That being said, those areas where there is an existing private dock

[0:23:18] Planner Stockdill (probable): or those areas where there's an existing or in progress private dock lease with the province,

[0:23:25] Planner Stockdill (probable): they will retain the Water 1 zoning. So they'll retain that private dock use.

[0:23:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): So if you have a residential or a property residential property that's on the water, and the four shores zoned water three does not permit a private dock, and you would like to go through the process of applying for a private dock, you would have to go through

[0:23:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): the rezoning process to rezone to water one.

[0:23:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): And I just want to quickly show this map of Port Browning. You can see there that those, I always call them little teeth that were coming off the land.

[0:24:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): Those are those areas that either have a private dock or they have an application with the province.

[0:24:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): So they are retaining that water one zone, and the other areas are generally zoned water three that don't permit the private docks.

[0:24:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): This was one slide that I missed at the July 7th meeting, but I just want to quickly touch on some new and updated regulations in terms of groundwater.

[0:24:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): water. The LTC also has a groundwater project in progress. But the LTC decided to pull in some of

[0:24:32] Planner Stockdill (probable): those land use bylaw amendments from the groundwater project into this project. And those

[0:24:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): include including new groundwater related definitions to bylaw 224, updating the

[0:24:44] Planner Stockdill (probable): subdivision requirements in terms of water supply standards, and also adding a new regulation for

[0:24:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): cisterns and you can see on your screen there that this new cistern requirement states that

[0:24:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): at a building permit stage on a lot outside of a community water system and the community water

[0:25:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): systems are uh magic lake trincomalee and razor point so if you're outside of those areas

[0:25:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): a building permit will not be issued for a dwelling or cottage unless you have a cistern

[0:25:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): or combination of cisterns located on the lot for the storage of fresh water having a total capacity

[0:25:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): capacity of at least 18,000 liters. And these system requirements are very similar to what's

[0:25:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): required on Galliano and also South Pender. So these type of system requirements, I'm starting

[0:25:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): to see other LTCs starting to look at them and starting to adopt them into their land use bylaw.

[0:25:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): So that's just one item that I wanted to flag. The next section, which is the very last section,

[0:25:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): are these items that the LTC is specifically wanting to hear from you, from community members

[0:25:50] Planner Stockdill (probable): about. The first one is in regards to agriculture buildings in the new Rural Residential 2 Zone.

[0:26:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): So as we know, the Rural Residential 2 Zone will allow agriculture as a principal permitted use.

[0:26:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): So you'd be permitted to have agricultural buildings in your Rural Residential 2 Zone. So

[0:26:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): generally those are the smaller zones that are outside of Magic Lake and Trincomalee.

[0:26:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): Agricultural buildings are permitted to be 10 meters in height, which is approximately 33 feet.

[0:26:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): If it's located within 100 feet from your lot line, of course, they still have to meet setbacks.

[0:26:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): Or an agricultural building could be up to 50 feet, which is 15 meters, if it's located 30 meters or more from any lot line.

[0:26:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): So, an unintended consequence we've noticed is that on smaller lots, a 50-foot building would be quite enormous. So, the LTC is starting to consider, well, perhaps we'd only allow these taller agricultural buildings, perhaps 10 meters or more, on larger lots.

[0:26:58] Planner Stockdill (probable): So, the LTC wants to hear from community members, would you support these large agricultural buildings on smaller lots, or is it something that should only be on larger lots?

[0:27:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): lots. The next item is the Old Port Washington store. I mean, this is historical zoning, right?

[0:27:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): This is, it's been zoned commercial 1A for quite some time. Of course, the use, the commercial use

[0:27:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): hasn't been active for many, many, many years. So there's new property owners for these two

[0:27:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): properties. It's a, as you can see on your screen there, there's the larger property and then the

[0:27:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): little sliver there. The new property owners are hoping to amalgamate the two lots so it turns into

[0:27:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): one. They're also wanting to do a lot line adjustment to formalize the parking there along

[0:27:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): the road so that would actually become formalized parking and then a portion of the road right way

[0:27:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): I believe to the north where their well is for the property would become part of the property.

[0:27:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the new property owners are requesting the LTC to rezone that to rural residential too

[0:28:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): and this would allow a dwelling unit one dwelling unit on those two properties so again this is an

[0:28:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): item it would the LTC or will community members support something like that the rule I mean the

[0:28:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): majority of properties in that area are rural residential too so reflect the the you know the

[0:28:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): majority of the current use elsewhere in that area the next item is a portion of the Driftwood

[0:28:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): center um it's actually a portion tucked behind driftwood center and it's currently zoned

[0:28:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): commercial two right that's that tourist accommodation zone that i was speaking to

[0:28:40] Planner Stockdill (probable): previously the c2 zone on that portion of property would allow up to 27 tourist accommodation units

[0:28:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): so the ltc has been listening to community members and they're wanting to address

[0:28:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): adding some type of additional affordable rental housing units on the island. So the LTC is

[0:29:03] Planner Stockdill (probable): considering rezoning that portion of the property to rental housing. So the LTC again wants to hear

[0:29:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): from community members if it would support the use of rental housing over tourist accommodation.

[0:29:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): There's three more properties I want to speak to and they're all in regards to waste transfer.

[0:29:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): The first one is on McDonald Farm, which is 4415 Bedwell Harbor Road. That's where the current waste transfer site is located.

[0:29:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): The uses currently are permitted by a temporary use permit. They're not permitted by zoning, and that's because that portion of that property is zoned rural.

[0:29:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the LTC is considering legalizing the uses found in the temporary use permit, legalizing the uses by rezoning that portion of the property to allow the waste transfer facility.

[0:30:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): composting recycling and some storage of vehicles. So the LTC wants to hear from community members if this current site where the waste transfer is, has it been working? Has it not been working? These are the things that the LTC wants to hear.

[0:30:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): The LTC has also identified two other potential sites for waste transfer, and those are both located on 3418 South Otter Bay Road.

[0:30:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): The first portion of the property on the upper right hand of your screen, you'll see the area that's outlined in purple.

[0:30:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): That's the Gulf excavating site or the old batch plant.

[0:30:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): It's currently zoned for site-specific industrial uses, but the LTC is considering to rezone it to only permit waste transfer facility, commercial composting, and recycling and reuse facility.

[0:30:50] Planner Stockdill (probable): We have heard from family members of the property owner that are requesting additional uses for that site-specific property.

[0:31:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the LTC may want to consider legalizing the existing contractor yard uses for that portion.

[0:31:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the LTC could be potentially adding one or two more uses to the ones you see on your screen.

[0:31:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): And the next site is circled in orange, and that is the property just east of the recycling depot.

[0:31:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): currently it's a zone site-specific industrial use but the LTC would like to rezone it to allow

[0:31:31] Planner Stockdill (probable): all the uses in the general industrial zone in addition to that permit those waste transfer uses

[0:31:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): the composting the recycling and reuse so the LTC wants to hear from you are those other potential

[0:31:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): sites that may work for the community or may not work in terms of next steps we have an in-person

[0:31:54] Planner Stockdill (probable): person community information meeting on Saturday, August 13th, 11 a.m. at the Anglican Hall. I

[0:32:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): really hope everybody can join. The first portion of that CIM will be an open house. As you can see

[0:32:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): in these pictures, I hope to have posters up and some pictures that we can have those one-on-one

[0:32:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): discussions. And also after the open house, we'll have the formal town hall where it's the question

[0:32:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): and answer. So I really hope everybody can make it out for August 13th. Before that though on

[0:32:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): August 11th the LTC will have their its regular LTC meeting and at this meeting staff is providing

[0:32:34] Planner Stockdill (probable): a report to the LTC outlining potential amendments to the bylaws and also asking the LTC to give

[0:32:42] Planner Stockdill (probable): direction to schedule a public hearing. So more than likely if the LTC does support the scheduling

[0:32:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): of a public hearing that would happen sometime in september and potentially bylaw number 224

[0:32:54] Planner Stockdill (probable): could be adopted um late september early october but in terms of bylaws 223 and 229

[0:33:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): they will take some time because 223 that ocp amendment bylaw needs to be approved by the

[0:33:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): minister so that might not be adopted until later this fall or even sometime next year

[0:33:13] Planner Stockdill (probable): And I'm going to, my last remark here, as Chair Patrick had mentioned, any correspondence regarding this project, if you're sending it to the trustees, please also cc this email address, southinfo at islandstrust.bc.ca.

[0:33:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): And the reason why that's important is it's sent to staff. So then we can file that correspondence, it officially becomes part of the public record, and it can be posted to the website.

[0:33:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): So it's really important that when you're sending correspondence out to the LTC that you want to be a part of the public record to include that south info email, email address.

[0:33:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): And that is where I'll end and I will pass it back to Chair Patrick.

[0:34:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): strike.

[0:34:01] Voice 6: Oh, thank you, Planner Stockville. You are gifted in your way of presenting very complex

[0:34:07] Voice 6: information in an

[0:34:08] Voice 6: easy way. As you know, we had our, if you did join us in the last community

[0:34:14] Voice 6: formation on July 7th, we have not met, made any changes. So if you go, why didn't the comments I

[0:34:20] Voice 6: make from July 7th not be considered yet? That's because we did, we haven't met and haven't made

[0:34:25] Voice 6: any changes. So it's important. This is not a public hearing. This is not the place to say I

[0:34:31] Voice 6: like or don't like these bylaws. This is really your chance to get some clarification on

[0:34:36] Voice 6: understanding what these are and your comments. And I think these trustees do like to hear

[0:34:41] Voice 6: specific suggestions. If you have an idea where you'd like to see an improvement, please share

[0:34:46] Voice 6: those. That's what's important to us. I do know you'll be very respectful and I'm not going to

[0:34:55] Voice 6: run a timer but if you're carrying on i may ask you to wrap up your your conversation so with that

[0:35:01] Voice 6: this is your opportunity to speak i see many of you are already raising your hands uh robin will

[0:35:07] Voice 6: help me uh open up the microphone for you and we'll go from there so the first one i see is

[0:35:12] Voice 6: there's two kathys but the the first kathy there hello

[0:35:19] Voice 3: kathy if you take yourself off mute we

[0:35:21] Voice 3: we should be able to hear you there's two Kathy so one of you okay if your name is Kathy try taking

[0:35:36] Voice 6: your um there we go hello nope my hand has gone down all

[0:35:40] Voice 6: right try the second Kathy there um

[0:35:42] Voice 3: Robin right there we go hello

[0:35:53] Voice 11: hi there sorry oh that's okay anyway um I can't stay for the whole

[0:36:00] Voice 11: meeting because I'm in town visiting my mother in hospital so but I did want to bring this up again

[0:36:06] Voice 11: Again I've sent in emails and I have chatted about it so it's just something I've thought

[0:36:12] Voice 11: out a little bit more and talked to people and it was regarding the 2,500 square feet

[0:36:16] Voice 11: and the fact that with people with slope lots that have basements that are crawl spaces under

[0:36:24] Voice 11: the eight foot livability mark leaves a lot of people not being able to have 2,500 square feet

[0:36:32] Voice 11: livability. So I wanted to sort of look at that and suggest it either gets raised to 3000, or

[0:36:40] Voice 11: perhaps that in the bylaw, it's put that the 2500 refers to anything that's eight feet and higher

[0:36:49] Voice 11: in for ceiling height, so that people do get that livability for having, you know, their seniors come

[0:36:56] Voice 11: and live with them, etc, etc. Because I think getting a variance is can be quite onerous,

[0:37:02] Voice 11: and if there's a lot i mean it would be nicer that you know you can do that anyway that was

[0:37:07] Voice 11: just a comment i wanted to put in there because i know you haven't met and probably haven't talked

[0:37:11] Voice 11: about it um you know in that regard so i'm just throwing that out there again no

[0:37:17] Voice 6: thank you thank

[0:37:18] Voice 6: you very much kathy thank you and we have heard these comments and i know the trustees will be

[0:37:24] Voice 6: be discussing it thanks a bunch

[0:37:26] Voice 3: mary beth here we go hi there

[0:37:34] Voice 5: um i i kim i sent you um an email

[0:37:39] Voice 5: earlier about um the base bylaw and and i was looking for a black line version and thank you

[0:37:47] Voice 5: for putting the previous black line versions of i think bylaw 224 is what i'm interested in

[0:37:53] Voice 5: um but right now for the I think you've incorporated a base bylaw or a model bylaw

[0:38:00] Voice 5: is that true um okay let me let me just do my little thing because I just didn't know if that

[0:38:07] Voice 5: was true or not um and um so let me just run through that um okay so I was trying I was trying

[0:38:14] Voice 5: to um show my neighbor what's changed and then that's how I figured out that what we're looking

[0:38:20] Voice 5: at is a new base bylaw. And that is great, because I think I'm going to go back to zoom and look at

[0:38:28] Voice 5: your head nodding. I think what you're trying to do is, is uniform, get uniform bylaws across

[0:38:35] Voice 5: the islands with common base bylaws, which I actually think is really important. I agree

[0:38:40] Voice 5: with it. There's lots of people that don't agree with that. But in my background, I think that's

[0:38:44] Voice 5: really important um so uh all right so that um nevertheless uh it's impossible even for someone

[0:38:54] Voice 5: like me who spent a career in policy now to go through and show you know you've got a base bylaw

[0:39:02] Voice 5: then you've got the amendments um and there's no black line version so what i have to do to explain

[0:39:08] Voice 5: it to my neighbor is i have to go back and forth uh and and actually what i think i have to do is

[0:39:13] Voice 5: go through every section of the base bylaw um that is shown on the website now and um figure

[0:39:20] Voice 5: out the differences between both that and the proposed amendments although i appreciate the

[0:39:25] Voice 5: proposed amendments were on black line copies that you have now posted so um what i would have

[0:39:32] Voice 5: thought um is that while i appreciate the base bylaw is important um to incorporate i'm really

[0:39:38] Voice 5: really surprised that you're trying to do it at the same time um and um right at the i you know

[0:39:45] Voice 5: right at the end of the process um okay so that's sort of now that that's my thing if you want to

[0:39:51] Voice 5: comment on that is

[0:39:54] Voice 14: there a question in there why

[0:39:56] Voice 5: why are you trying to um incorporate a base bylaw

[0:40:03] Voice 5: at the same time as your proposed bylaw amendments it was a lot simpler before

[0:40:07] Voice 5: um well i appreciate is there like some uh provincial deadline you have to be meeting

[0:40:13] Voice 5: or like what's the reason for for bringing in this whole new base bylaw um that we have to

[0:40:20] Voice 5: now go through point by point and it's actually two separate processes for me the base bylaw

[0:40:25] Voice 5: should be part of a community information meeting that just says well it's actually just changing

[0:40:31] Voice 5: changing the order of the definitions it's unifying things like you look at the north

[0:40:37] Voice 5: pender bylaw and even under definitions it's got weird it's got some weird headings in there so

[0:40:42] Voice 5: you know that have kind of creeped in over time yeah that has to be fixed if that's the only reason

[0:40:47] Voice 5: that the base bylaw changes but i suspect there's also some meat to the base bylaw that is is

[0:40:53] Voice 5: changes other than administrative yeah

[0:40:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): and and that's a really good question marybeth and i can

[0:41:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): empathize with the difficulty of then you know dealing with a new base bylaw and referring back

[0:41:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): to the old bylaw and where are the changes and and so I tried to list as many as I could in those

[0:41:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): previous versions of black line but of course when then when you adopt and or when you start

[0:41:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): drafting a new base bylaw it's almost impossible to show all those amendments but like you said

[0:41:26] Planner Stockdill (probable): That it is basically for consistency throughout the Islands Trust to have some consistency with our land use bylaws.

[0:41:34] Planner Stockdill (probable): Of course, each LTA is going to be slightly different.

[0:41:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): So the content is going to be slightly different.

[0:41:39] Planner Stockdill (probable): But some of the definitions and so forth and how a zone is laid out, we want to have some consistency there.

[0:41:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): So we're not trying to meet any type of legislation deadline.

[0:41:50] Planner Stockdill (probable): It's just strictly something internally that we're trying to have consistency with with our bylaws, and also a bylaw that's hopefully easier to interpret, and you know I went through most of these regulations and the ones that I had difficulty

[0:42:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): understanding I really tried to make them easier to understand. So, there were quite a few technical changes.

[0:42:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): changes. So if there's specific areas that you want to go over one on one that you have questions

[0:42:18] Planner Stockdill (probable): about, I'm happy to do that. But yeah, it was basically it's a consistency thing with other

[0:42:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): LTCs and other own land use bylaws.

[0:42:29] Voice 5: Okay, I did understand that. And thank you for clarifying,

[0:42:32] Voice 5: Kim. So my question then to trustees is like, do you guys actually understand to understand that

[0:42:38] Voice 5: the entire bylaw has fundamentally been reordered? And do you like have you looked at it? Because I

[0:42:44] Voice 5: Right. So maybe Kim, I don't know what, maybe one idea is take the base bylaw. Cause you did all

[0:42:50] Voice 5: those like good for you. Huge, huge task of going through every little one and fine tune combing it.

[0:42:57] Voice 5: Great job. Could we get a black line of that one? And then, you know, so that like, I would just

[0:43:03] Voice 5: like to be able to look through quickly and say, okay, the base bylaw that you're proposing is

[0:43:08] Voice 5: there's nothing in there that I'm interested in, or that I can tell my neighbors they need to be

[0:43:12] Voice 5: worried about or things like that is that a possible way forward like really trustees do

[0:43:17] Voice 5: you understand that a base bylaw has come in at the same time as these amendments and do you

[0:43:22] Voice 5: understand every clause because i sure don't and i i started working on it's hours and hours of work

[0:43:28] Voice 5: that kim has already done thank

[0:43:31] Voice 6: you and thank thank you marybeth for for raising this issue

[0:43:34] Voice 6: we're trying to make it as easy as possible for people to understand um but

[0:43:38] Trustee McConchie: i can i can answer

[0:43:40] Trustee McConchie: the question yes i understand this process very bad uh there's always there's complexities to

[0:43:46] Trustee McConchie: understanding the details i agree if you have specific concerns uh please uh write an email or

[0:43:53] Trustee McConchie: or let us know exactly what should be brought to our attention that'd be that'd be very helpful

[0:43:57] Trustee McConchie: uh certainly as a public official it's extremely it's it's impossible to have everything memorized

[0:44:03] Trustee McConchie: that's why we have staff and planners so uh i certainly have an understanding and comprehension

[0:44:08] Trustee McConchie: of it to answer your question yes could

[0:44:13] Voice 5: we get could we get the black line kim like like ben to

[0:44:18] Voice 5: answer your question show me details that means thanks a lot i have to go through every single

[0:44:22] Voice 5: clause and black line it myself so i can't say what the changes to the base bylaw are until i

[0:44:30] Voice 5: go through every single one i know a couple of people on the island have done that good for them

[0:44:33] Voice 5: i just um like it would it be simple to do that to put something up that we can understand the base

[0:44:39] Voice 5: bylaw?

[0:44:40] Planner Stockdill (probable): Simple, potentially, but very time-consuming. So something like that would have to come

[0:44:44] Planner Stockdill (probable): direction from the LTC.

[0:44:47] Voice 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mary Beth. Like I said, we hear you. We'll be

[0:44:50] Voice 6: meeting soon.

[0:44:53] Trustee McConchie: Sorry, Chair Patrick. Let's put this on the agenda, the 11th meeting to discuss

[0:44:59] Trustee McConchie: because Deb's not, Trustee Morrison's not here. It's certainly a good point to compare old bylaws

[0:45:05] Trustee McConchie: as with the current proposal so um yeah absolutely I think this should be discussed and and uh whether

[0:45:12] Trustee McConchie: we should allocate staff time towards it uh it's certainly an important consideration so thank you

[0:45:16] Trustee McConchie: thank

[0:45:17] Voice 6: you thank you Mayor Beth um I see

[0:45:20] Voice 3: Mayreed Bolin's hand raised you know Mayreed if you take

[0:45:27] Voice 3: yourself off mute hi

[0:45:30] Voice 7: uh hi uh thank you for um allowing me to speak so um I'm going to speak

[0:45:38] Voice 7: on water it's my favorite topic i have something written so i'll read it fairly quickly nobody on

[0:45:45] Voice 7: these islands would deny that water should be a concern to everybody i am from saturn the various

[0:45:53] Voice 7: island stress water projects state explicitly that they will be deployed on all the islands

[0:45:59] Voice 7: so i'm questioning them here in advance of them becoming a fate accompli on saturn and elsewhere

[0:46:05] Voice 7: were. My questions are, what happened to being guided at all times by the best available science

[0:46:12] Voice 7: and data? When will the flaws and uncertainties in the GW Solutions water reports be addressed?

[0:46:21] Voice 7: When will my questions be answered? In spite of stating repeatedly that you would adhere to the

[0:46:28] Voice 7: best available science and data, you have ignored the technical reports you commissioned from GW

[0:46:34] Voice 7: solutions at a cost of upwards from 80k, $80,000. Why, I ask myself. Perhaps because you thought

[0:46:43] Voice 7: you knew the answers already. Despite not addressing the flaws and uncertainties in

[0:46:49] Voice 7: the reports, you're galloping ahead on Pender, cisterns for all, regardless, and on Galliano,

[0:46:55] Voice 7: DPA for the entire island to protect perfectly adequate but now deemed critical recharge areas.

[0:47:01] Voice 7: areas. I've repeatedly asked specific and detailed questions about the reports, in particular the

[0:47:08] Voice 7: third one on water availability. The data and the results are at the least difficult to comprehend

[0:47:14] Voice 7: and may be flawed. I was told in mid-March that in May, and this was in answer to my emails,

[0:47:22] Voice 7: there would be a workshop, frequently asked questions and the GW solutions were being asked

[0:47:27] Voice 7: to refine their water use estimates.

[0:47:30] Voice 7: I've heard nothing.

[0:47:31] Voice 7: A week or so ago, I was told that the same questions

[0:47:35] Voice 7: raised in a Ceterna LTC in May

[0:47:38] Voice 7: would be answered in October the 20th at an LTC.

[0:47:42] Voice 7: So why do you persist in deploying regulations on water

[0:47:47] Voice 7: without refining and answering questions

[0:47:49] Voice 7: about the GW Solutions reports you commissioned?

[0:47:53] Voice 7: commissioned. PS, two large plastic cisterns are roughly, i.e. what you would need for 18,000

[0:48:01] Voice 7: metres, are roughly equivalent to approximately five tonnes of CO2. How many of these will be

[0:48:07] Voice 7: unnecessary? And PPS, I just want to say that the presentation on water made by staff in September

[0:48:14] Voice 7: September 2021, Depender and Galliano contained screenshots, albeit in draft, with a legend

[0:48:23] Voice 7: indicating up to 50% use of recharged water before an area was deemed to be stressed.

[0:48:28] Voice 7: This 50% use of cut-off is the figure most commonly used to designate an area to be water

[0:48:39] Voice 7: and was apparently expected to be appropriate in the islands.

[0:48:43] Voice 7: In the final GW Solutions reports provided late October, December, January,

[0:48:51] Voice 7: the cutoff was dropped to 5% in order to allow any areas to be regarded as water-stressed.

[0:48:59] Voice 7: This may be justified, but it has never been discussed or explained, despite questions from multiple people.

[0:49:06] Voice 7: the province in a peer review of the reports recommend zeroing in on areas that are demonstrated

[0:49:13] Voice 7: to be water stressed and making plans to mitigate in those areas funnily enough they also refer to

[0:49:19] Voice 7: a greater than 50 use of recharge as a danger level so again my question is why are you

[0:49:26] Voice 7: persisting in carrying on with these water regulations across large tracks in fact entire

[0:49:33] Voice 7: the entire islands without reference to the reports that you commissioned thank you thank

[0:49:39] Voice 6: you may read for your questions I think for this project it is primarily the cisterns that are

[0:49:45] Voice 6: involved in this yes

[0:49:46] Voice 7: indeed but they are the thin end wedge I would argue and blanketing them across

[0:49:52] Voice 7: the entire island when they may not be necessary is possibly a carbon footprint step too many

[0:50:02] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:50:03] Voice 6: All right, thank you, Mary.

[0:50:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): Oh, if I may, Chair Patrick. Mary, if you have what you've

[0:50:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): just read out in a written form, if you're able to email that in, it'd be really appreciated so

[0:50:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): I can forward it to William Shulbaugh and Planner Nerissa Chadwick concerning the groundwater

[0:50:20] Planner Stockdill (probable): project. You can email that to southinfo at islandstrust.bc.ca.

[0:50:25] Voice 7: Sure, thank you. Mary,

[0:50:26] Trustee McConchie: do mary thanks for speaking today uh there was like six questions in there uh but one of the

[0:50:32] Trustee McConchie: important questions i'm not sure chair patrick if you can address the mary's concern is that

[0:50:38] Trustee McConchie: we haven't sourced or referenced the gw solutions report so i i'm actually unfamiliar with that

[0:50:45] Trustee McConchie: particular issue so i'm i'm not clear of what she's referring to if we can provide a question

[0:50:49] Trustee McConchie: for her in this forum is that if i'm wondering if you can assist with that well

[0:50:55] Voice 6: i do know i don't i

[0:50:56] Voice 6: I do know because I also chair Saturna that Mary's had a number of questions and I know William is working on responding to her detailed questions and I think that's what she I was not at Saturna's meeting last week but it's coming.

[0:51:08] Trustee McConchie: So we do have staff working on responding to Mary's work because it seems like Mary's gone and done a lot of work and has a number of legitimate questions.

[0:51:17] Trustee McConchie: May read, it's a good question you raised.

[0:51:19] Trustee McConchie: We've discussed this at the last local trust committee

[0:51:21] Trustee McConchie: regarding cisterns, you know,

[0:51:23] Trustee McConchie: whether the local government or the state

[0:51:25] Trustee McConchie: should tell people that they have to put in a cistern.

[0:51:28] Trustee McConchie: There are loopholes that people can get away

[0:51:30] Trustee McConchie: with putting it in and getting it out.

[0:51:33] Trustee McConchie: Or the debate is whether or not

[0:51:35] Trustee McConchie: we should let islanders decide

[0:51:36] Trustee McConchie: how to store their own water.

[0:51:38] Trustee McConchie: This is something that we need to debate

[0:51:40] Trustee McConchie: definitely at our next meeting.

[0:51:42] Trustee McConchie: So thank you for bringing up your questions

[0:51:44] Trustee McConchie: and concerns today.

[0:51:45] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:51:46] Voice 7: I mean, my basic premise is that the GW Solutions reports, there are questions that need to be answered and they have not been answered.

[0:51:54] Voice 7: We have not had a workshop. We have not had frequently asked questions.

[0:51:58] Voice 7: We have not had the further work to refine the water use estimates.

[0:52:02] Voice 7: And despite that, regulations are being imposed on Galliano and North Pender.

[0:52:09] Voice 7: So that is my fundamental question.

[0:52:11] Voice 7: Why are you ignoring the data and the science that we paid a lot of money for?

[0:52:16] Trustee McConchie: Well, just to be clear, there's no there's no like we're not enforcing this.

[0:52:22] Trustee McConchie: We are debating whether to create a bylaw about it right now.

[0:52:26] Trustee McConchie: Sure. So

[0:52:26] Trustee McConchie: and we're discussing that just to be clear.

[0:52:28] Trustee McConchie: And so just let us know if you do not receive the appropriate response that you're looking for.

[0:52:32] Trustee McConchie: Please keep us in the loop regarding this. So thank you.

[0:52:35] Voice 7: Yeah, I'm debating it, too. So thank you for the opportunity.

[0:52:39] Voice 7: OK, I appreciate

[0:52:40] Trustee McConchie: your work on this. Thank you, Mary. Thank you.

[0:52:45] Voice 6: I see the next speaker there it says Stephenson I believe

[0:52:51] Voice 14: that's Ann Stevenson ah Ann Stevenson

[0:52:53] Voice 6: sorry there you go Ann if you take yourself off mute hello yes

[0:52:59] Voice 1: okay sorry I have a few questions

[0:53:02] Voice 1: um some are small and some are a bit uh more complicated but I hope I hope you give me time

[0:53:08] Voice 1: but um the first question I have about the proposed bylaws is under the siting and setback

[0:53:15] Voice 1: regulations i think it's section 3.3 and i understand that you know for a number of years

[0:53:21] Voice 1: there's been a 50 foot setback for dwellings from the water but now i think it's being changed to

[0:53:28] Voice 1: include structures such as fences and asphalt and concrete and i guess my question was does this mean

[0:53:38] Voice 1: that you no longer will be able to erect a fence within 50 feet of the waterfront and if that's

[0:53:47] Voice 1: true could someone explain the rationale for that i mean a lot of us need deer fencing childproof

[0:53:54] Voice 1: fencing pets you know put fencing up for pets and gardens and i'm just wondering why fences

[0:54:00] Voice 1: fences are now going to not going to be allowed within 50 feet setback of the water that's the

[0:54:09] Voice 1: first question i don't know do you want each question individually or yes

[0:54:14] Voice 6: it'll help if we

[0:54:15] Voice 6: can go through one question at a time because otherwise we lose track so who can best answer

[0:54:20] Voice 6: that one kim so

[0:54:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): and you are correct so fences paved areas such as asphalt asphalt concrete or

[0:54:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): similar material materials are considered structures therefore they will have to meet

[0:54:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): the setbacks in terms of you know staff's rationale really we're trying to reduce the built

[0:54:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): form um within the sensitive foreshore area or the upland area so that you know that's the rationale

[0:54:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): coming from staff um i'm not sure if the trustees want to add to that at all um but that's where the

[0:54:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): the rationale was coming from staff.

[0:54:55] Voice 1: Okay, so no fences now until 50 feet.

[0:55:00] Voice 1: So if you have an existing fence and it fell down,

[0:55:05] Voice 1: you can't put anything?

[0:55:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): If

[0:55:07] Voice 1: you have an existing

[0:55:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): fence and it fell down,

[0:55:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): you could rebuild it.

[0:55:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah, because as part of the Local Government Act,

[0:55:13] Planner Stockdill (probable): section 529, you're able to repair.

[0:55:18] Voice 1: Okay, my next question was under the new zone.

[0:55:21] Trustee McConchie: You asked for trustees rationale. I think it's a good question.

[0:55:26] Trustee McConchie: I hadn't even thought about fencing as being part of this and the impacts of

[0:55:31] Trustee McConchie: having that on. So I appreciate you bringing the question to the forefront so I

[0:55:34] Trustee McConchie: can ponder this.

[0:55:36] Trustee McConchie: Cause I don't have a rationale for the circumstance in which you're

[0:55:39] Trustee McConchie: describing. I have a child fence that was built because we were worried about

[0:55:44] Trustee McConchie: kids falling off a cliff. And

[0:55:45] Voice 1: I understand

[0:55:46] Trustee McConchie: what you're saying.

[0:55:47] Trustee McConchie: We

[0:55:48] Voice 1: have lots of cliffs.

[0:55:51] Voice 1: Okay, and the next one is RR2 zone, the new proposed zone, which that will be my zone.

[0:55:59] Voice 1: My first question, I think you've answered it.

[0:56:02] Voice 1: I was wondering what subsection C where it says placeholder, what that meant, but I guess

[0:56:06] Voice 1: that means once the other bylaw is passed, making agriculture a principal use.

[0:56:12] Voice 1: the other part of it is subsection g where it says accessory agritourism and agritourist

[0:56:20] Voice 1: accommodation i was just wondering why that is being added into the rr2 zone my understanding

[0:56:27] Voice 1: of agritourism and agritourist accommodation is that it only applies to alr land and there's no

[0:56:36] Voice 1: no ALR land in RR2 so I'm just wondering why that's even there.

[0:56:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah you are correct Anne

[0:56:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): there isn't any RR2 zones that I'm aware of that are in the agricultural land reserve so it's an

[0:56:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): item that is you know redundant but we left it in there based on the fact that we're adding

[0:56:56] Planner Stockdill (probable): agriculture as a primary permitted use and perhaps down the road there is a property owner who wants

[0:57:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): to include their their rr2 property in the in the agricultural land reserve so we left it in there

[0:57:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): but as you stated currently that wouldn't be applicable to any lands i'm aware of that are

[0:57:15] Planner Stockdill (probable): will be zoned residential rural residential too well

[0:57:18] Voice 1: perhaps it should okay perhaps it should say

[0:57:22] Voice 1: if you're going to leave it in that it somehow it should be tied to farm status that the land

[0:57:27] Voice 1: whoever may in the future, that at least they should have farm status, be an actual farm.

[0:57:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah, that's a great comment. You know, we could add an information note stating that those two

[0:57:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): uses are only permitted for properties that are located in the agricultural land reserve.

[0:57:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): There are additional regulations for agritourism and agritourist accommodation in the general

[0:57:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): regulations at the beginning of the bylaw, but it may be worthwhile adding an information note

[0:57:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): in that zone reiterating that that you need the ALR status or

[0:58:01] Voice 1: farm status farm status is different

[0:58:05] Voice 1: to ALR status that's

[0:58:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): correct and and these um uses are are tied to the uses permitted by the

[0:58:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): agricultural land commission well farm status

[0:58:16] Voice 1: is the BC assessment that's correct okay and and then

[0:58:22] Voice 1: And I guess my last one is I'm really, with a couple of other people, I've really been

[0:58:27] Voice 1: trying to understand the industrial rezoning.

[0:58:33] Voice 1: And I know there's quite a few different bylaws dealing with that.

[0:58:37] Voice 1: So I very easily could have missed it.

[0:58:39] Voice 1: But I can't get a clear picture of which properties are being rezoned industrial.

[0:58:46] Voice 1: I've seen some maps that are highlighted in red on one of the bylaws.

[0:58:51] Voice 1: and it doesn't give a legal or a civic description and it appears to be a property

[0:58:58] Voice 1: on one side of home hardware but then when you look at the zoning map in bylaw 224 the new zoning

[0:59:06] Voice 1: seems to have two properties on the other side of home hardware and i'm just using home hardware as

[0:59:13] Voice 1: as it's it's just a pillar where i can see i don't know if it's east west north south

[0:59:18] Voice 1: But I'm just not sure how many properties, some of us think two, some of us think three, and then they're all getting the same permitted uses.

[0:59:32] Voice 1: But the existing industrial properties are very site-specific, and they are being restricted to only a couple of uses, but these new properties are getting to do all sorts of things.

[0:59:47] Voice 1: that I didn't even know anybody wanted to do.

[0:59:50] Voice 1: And I was just wondering, has that been considered?

[0:59:54] Voice 1: And I guess the other thing that I would like to point out

[0:59:58] Voice 1: is just the original.

[1:00:00] Voice 1: The original charter of this project was not to change the OCP, it was to make sure the land use bylaw complied with the OCP.

[1:00:08] Voice 1: And it says in the OCP under 2.5 industrial land uses, it says the industrial objectives and subsection 3 says to prevent strip development.

[1:00:24] Voice 1: development and it seems to me I mean I'm have nothing to do with industrial zoning but it it

[1:00:30] Voice 1: seems like that's almost what is being done it's being the Port Washington corridor is being made

[1:00:37] Voice 1: into a strict development of industrial lands and the OCP says not to do that so anyway that was

[1:00:45] Voice 1: that's just has anybody considered that I guess that's my question that's it and

[1:00:50] Planner Stockdill (probable): I just want to

[1:00:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): say i really appreciate your comments and i can understand the confusion with you know what's

[1:00:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): changing is it just the rezoning is it also ocp amendments so i'll make a point of creating maps

[1:01:04] Planner Stockdill (probable): to make that extremely clear especially at the in-person august 13th meeting so i'll make a

[1:01:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): point making maps about that and i'll also try to get them on the website as well um and i'm sorry

[1:01:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): i'm going looping back to the um the agri-tourist use you're right you do need the the alc or sorry

[1:01:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): the alr and the farm status so i can add both of those in the information note

[1:01:28] Voice 1: okay and okay

[1:01:30] Voice 1: and if we could yeah just really if we could just clarify the industrial because it's very confusing

[1:01:38] Voice 1: and that's it

[1:01:39] Voice 14: i'm open go ahead thanks sam go ahead no

[1:01:43] Voice 6: it's just and did you have another

[1:01:45] Voice 6: comment uh nope that was it thanks thank you very much and

[1:01:52] Trustee McConchie: thank you for pointing out and

[1:01:53] Trustee McConchie: the comment from the ocp uh it's something that i try to follow and uh the beginning of the

[1:01:59] Trustee McConchie: discussion about industrial land uh you know we've that's been one of the things we've had

[1:02:03] Trustee McConchie: had to deal with the past three and a half years three and a quarter years uh and certainly it's

[1:02:08] Trustee McConchie: um it needs to be clarified really clearly to the community uh what these proposals are so we can

[1:02:15] Trustee McConchie: have a good conversation and a good debate um in the future months ahead so thanks for asking those

[1:02:23] Trustee McConchie: questions and okay

[1:02:26] Voice 6: uh i see no other hands raised but i can't believe the north thunder here we go

[1:02:31] Voice 6: Oh, okay. Karen Bell. Karen, if you could take yourself off mute. Karen Bell, can you take

[1:02:50] Voice 6: yourself off mute?

[1:02:53] Voice 2: There we go. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I am a resident of the

[1:03:00] Voice 2: north end of North Pender, just down the road from Ann Stevenson. And I wanted to raise concerns

[1:03:07] Voice 2: about the RR2 zoning that is set out in 224.

[1:03:14] Voice 2: I'd like to understand why we are including agriculture.

[1:03:20] Voice 2: I heard Planner Stockdale talk

[1:03:23] Voice 2: about the committee wanting agriculture.

[1:03:28] Voice 2: I'm totally supportive of our real farmers

[1:03:31] Voice 2: in the neighborhood, but I as a resident

[1:03:34] Voice 2: and as someone who moved to Pender

[1:03:36] Voice 2: to live in a rural residential neighborhood on the water, as many of my neighbors do,

[1:03:42] Voice 2: I have no desire for agriculture to take place. Agriculture, even in the new 224 bylaw,

[1:03:51] Voice 2: is defined as the use of lands, buildings, and structures for a farm operation. Farm operations

[1:03:58] Voice 2: under the new bylaw are defined as governed by the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

[1:04:07] Voice 2: um stock uh planner stockdale suggested that horticulture is the same as agriculture it is not

[1:04:14] Voice 2: horticulture is defined as the rearing of plants that is not agriculture and then agritourism as

[1:04:21] Voice 2: we just discussed uh is defined and it is defined as related to a working farm so the whole business

[1:04:31] Voice 2: of farms as governed, not by our bylaw, but by the Agricultural Land Commission Act and

[1:04:37] Voice 2: the ALR.

[1:04:39] Voice 2: I understand that there are people with farm status who own our rural residential lots

[1:04:46] Voice 2: who wish to allow their sheep or their goats to graze, to keep bees, to do all sorts of

[1:04:52] Voice 2: things, and that there is a desire to accommodate them if they have a vacant lot to proceed

[1:04:59] Voice 2: to carry on those activities without the need to build a house which is the current requirement

[1:05:04] Voice 2: i fully understand that but i think it is ill-advised to start blowing up our rr2 into

[1:05:13] Voice 2: the opportunity for anybody to come along who may or may not choose to be a resident of the area

[1:05:19] Voice 2: and start a farm operation because that is what agriculture is yeah and it's got very specific

[1:05:28] Voice 2: definitions. As I say, even though it may not be more than I've described in our bylaw,

[1:05:34] Voice 2: the other acts, pieces of legislation govern those areas. So I have that concern. I want to

[1:05:43] Voice 2: understand from you what I have to do to bring those forward. I understood you explained today,

[1:05:50] Voice 2: today is not the day to air the particulars of grievances, but I'd like to understand

[1:05:57] Voice 2: how i can best bring this forward because i really need to appreciate for whose benefit

[1:06:03] Voice 2: this provision is if it's for a small group of people i believe we can use variances we can use

[1:06:09] Voice 2: as you've used the analogy to forestry we can make special provisions to accommodate a very

[1:06:15] Voice 2: small group of people but i for one and many of my neighbors wish to preserve our current

[1:06:21] Voice 2: rural residential status and there are a number of lots which are not acreage right we have 0.7

[1:06:28] Voice 2: we own another lot that's 0.8 so you know there are many under two acres just down the road and

[1:06:37] Voice 2: we want to make sure we maintain a residential feel so the question

[1:06:45] Voice 2: is what do i do to bring

[1:06:47] Voice 2: that general concern forward okay

[1:06:50] Trustee McConchie: can i ask so maybe i can help karen so in this community

[1:06:53] Trustee McConchie: information meeting if you have a grievance like it's almost like jeopardy like form it in the

[1:06:57] Trustee McConchie: question you know so if i can help karen karen's asking two questions if i'm understanding

[1:07:02] Trustee McConchie: correctly perhaps you could have if and click correctly if i'm wrong karen um what is the

[1:07:07] Trustee McConchie: rationale and justification for including agriculture uh in rr2 is kind of a question

[1:07:13] Trustee McConchie: that perhaps minor stock bill can address and then karen wants to obviously express to trustees

[1:07:17] Trustee McConchie: at a public hearing how to express herself and and that's a simple answer that would be on

[1:07:22] Trustee McConchie: on August 11th, the Thursday in-person meeting at 10 a.m. at the Anglican Church. And I'm not

[1:07:28] Trustee McConchie: sure about the other, maybe Planner Stockdove or Chair Patrick, you want to take a stab at that

[1:07:33] Trustee McConchie: first question?

[1:07:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): Well, yeah, I actually really appreciate your comments, Karen. And those are

[1:07:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): really items that I've been thinking about and questions I've posed previously is, okay, if

[1:07:44] Planner Stockdill (probable): agriculture is a primary permitted use, should it perhaps only be permitted on larger lots, right?

[1:07:50] Planner Stockdill (probable): Right. Not all lots, but perhaps lots over, you know, I don't know, three, four acres.

[1:07:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): Similar to what I mentioned about farm buildings and these larger farm buildings.

[1:08:03] Planner Stockdill (probable): Should the larger height ones be permitted on larger lots?

[1:08:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): Now, I can't really speak for the AAPC because I don't have it in front of me.

[1:08:14] Planner Stockdill (probable): about their rationale about um i'm not sure if there's an aapc member here currently that wants

[1:08:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): to speak but from my understanding their intent was like i mentioned a bare piece of land and they

[1:08:26] Planner Stockdill (probable): wanted to do some like low impact um agriculture uses when there isn't a a current uh dwelling or

[1:08:36] Planner Stockdill (probable): or cottage and i should mention the rural residential zone you have to have a house or

[1:08:42] Planner Stockdill (probable): or cottage before you can have some agricultural uses,

[1:08:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): like it's listed in the zone, pig farming,

[1:08:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): dog breeding, birding kennels,

[1:08:51] Planner Stockdill (probable): keeping of livestock and so forth.

[1:08:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): Those are all accessory uses.

[1:08:54] Planner Stockdill (probable): But again, and I believe those may be only permitted

[1:08:59] Planner Stockdill (probable): on lots larger than 1.2 hectares, some of them.

[1:09:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): So that might be something like,

[1:09:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): if you were thinking about that,

[1:09:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): that might be a recommendation to the LTC saying,

[1:09:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): saying those agriculture uses that may have more of an impact to the neighbors,

[1:09:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): perhaps they should only be permitted on larger lots.

[1:09:21] Voice 2: Thank you. Yes. So I've got a long list of points to contribute,

[1:09:26] Voice 2: but it was to understand how this came to be.

[1:09:32] Voice 2: I understand from the committee that they're not looking for the breads of language that you have drafted,

[1:09:38] Voice 2: but uh we can converse and so it's the 11th and not the 13th it's the 11th that i should prepare

[1:09:44] Voice 2: for well

[1:09:46] Voice 6: that's that's our next meeting um and that but that's not the public hearing as well

[1:09:49] Voice 6: so if you still want to have input into the local trust committee we'll take your input anytime

[1:09:54] Voice 6: um and you can also speak to us again at the august 11th meeting and

[1:09:59] Planner Stockdill (probable): if you have time please

[1:10:00] Planner Stockdill (probable): write a letter as well i find it helpful when i can read something and then you know i can bring

[1:10:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): those comments forward to the next ltc meeting on august 11th and when the ltc is considering

[1:10:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): amendments to the bylaw it's really important to get those comments in before august 11th okay

[1:10:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): we'll do all right

[1:10:17] Voice 2: very well i have uh two other matters if uh yeah just one second

[1:10:21] Trustee McConchie: just to clarify

[1:10:22] Trustee McConchie: one more time just for folks listening you can speak at the august 11th meeting and you can speak

[1:10:29] Trustee McConchie: at the august 13th meeting those are two opportunities if you can't make one or the other

[1:10:33] Trustee McConchie: if that just to clarify for folks but sorry karen go ahead thank

[1:10:37] Voice 2: you ben uh the issue goes around

[1:10:39] Voice 2: screening i've read the old bylaw and the new bylaw and they talk about screening and what

[1:10:46] Voice 2: screening consists of but it'll say you have to screen where the bylaw tells you have to screen

[1:10:52] Voice 2: and um although i've gone over both bylaws i i've been troubled to find when you screen other than

[1:11:00] Voice 2: with the storage container, what I call the railway containers. I see provision in the new

[1:11:07] Voice 2: bylaw that says there's going to be a limit on those, and for those who have them, we have to

[1:11:13] Voice 2: screen. What about the structures when people are building an accessory building and they are

[1:11:20] Voice 2: permitted to build it of a height, but the setbacks are, again, some of our lots are less

[1:11:28] Voice 2: than two acres and and people can be building um within you know within the designation of the of

[1:11:35] Voice 2: the setback but it is it's relatively nothing you know and then you've got this huge structure

[1:11:42] Voice 2: um has there been any consideration to articulating when more screening can be used for

[1:11:48] Voice 2: large structures other than those railway storage containers um

[1:11:54] Planner Stockdill (probable): if i could quickly add the easiest

[1:11:57] Planner Stockdill (probable): way to determine when landscape screens are required is what I simply do is you do a search

[1:12:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): of the land use bylaw and it will pull up every time that landscape screening is required. So

[1:12:08] Planner Stockdill (probable): there is landscape screening in the commercial one zone for external storage areas. I know that

[1:12:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): there's landscape screening requirements for the industrial zone. So it is kind of sprinkled

[1:12:22] Planner Stockdill (probable): throughout the bylaw. I don't have the full list, but that's a helpful way to look at all those

[1:12:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): instances when screening is required. And also, if somebody is applying for either a rezoning

[1:12:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): or a development permit, specifically within the commercial or industrial areas,

[1:12:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): screening can be a condition of approval or a requirement.

[1:12:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): Right.

[1:12:48] Voice 2: Kim, I was really more focused on the rural residential, the kinds of places where we live. If I was in a commercial area, I'd be set for commercial activity. But I'm concerned not just in terms of visual, but noise, what people do in their accessory buildings.

[1:13:07] Voice 2: And so there's lots of different kinds of screening, but there's nothing provided for it concerning the zones I'm interested in as a resident, other than what I've seen you add around the storage container.

[1:13:22] Voice 2: We're now limiting people to one storage containers and it needs adequate screening.

[1:13:27] Voice 2: So that's what I was referring to.

[1:13:28] Voice 2: Right.

[1:13:29] Voice 2: Am I correct?

[1:13:29] Voice 2: There's no other screening provisions about accessory buildings in rural residential?

[1:13:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): No, there isn't.

[1:13:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): the only type of not screening but on larger lots in the rural residential rural zones you're

[1:13:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): supposed to maintain a landscape strip around your property but that's only a larger zone or

[1:13:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): larger properties pardon me but nothing for screening accessory buildings or structures

[1:13:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): right

[1:13:54] Voice 2: okay well just a comment for you i i will be raising my concerns about rural residential

[1:14:00] Voice 2: zoning but if if I fail to be persuasive and they move forward then I'm concerned about the

[1:14:09] Voice 2: building of these 30 feet 33 foot structures that are only what 15 feet from the lot line

[1:14:19] Voice 2: and you're staring at it from your home so that's not a consideration of if we're going to start

[1:14:25] Voice 2: allowing big structures on any piece of land that be considered. And then my final question for

[1:14:32] Voice 2: today was, with going back to those storage containers, what if people have more than one

[1:14:39] Voice 2: at the moment? Will they be grandfathered or will they be asked to remove it?

[1:14:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah, no, they are

[1:14:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): grandfathered as part of Section 529 of the Local Government Act. So you are able to retain those

[1:14:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): shipping containers well

[1:14:57] Voice 2: i don't use them i just know other people who do so i was just interested

[1:15:00] Voice 2: yeah to

[1:15:01] Voice 2: know that thank

[1:15:05] Trustee McConchie: you good questions karen yeah i i'm i don't recall us having a very in-depth

[1:15:10] Trustee McConchie: conversation about shipping containers uh is that what we're talking about like the shipping

[1:15:14] Trustee McConchie: containers that are being recycled and they're used as kind of cheap buildings and i don't know

[1:15:18] Trustee McConchie: if we we haven't even really had a substantive debate about that chair patrick to my recollection

[1:15:23] Voice 6: No, it's just one of the many items that's in this.

[1:15:26] Trustee McConchie: No, it's a

[1:15:26] Trustee McConchie: very good point, Karen.

[1:15:27] Trustee McConchie: Thank you very much for raising it with us today.

[1:15:30] Trustee McConchie: Very good point.

[1:15:31] Voice 6: No, thank you.

[1:15:32] Voice 6: Okay, Mary Beth, I'm going to hold on to you

[1:15:34] Voice 6: because you've already spoken once

[1:15:35] Voice 6: and I'm going to get people that haven't spoken yet

[1:15:38] Voice 6: to go before you.

[1:15:39] Voice 6: So I see Anne Burdett.

[1:15:49] Voice 10: Hello.

[1:15:50] Voice 10: Hello, Anne.

[1:15:52] Voice 10: I have a question.

[1:15:54] Voice 10: I love Jeopardy.

[1:15:57] Voice 10: So can we be, can our property be added

[1:16:00] Voice 10: added to the industrial land use bylaw review.

[1:16:06] Voice 10: We would like to be added for the sections E, F and I,

[1:16:13] Voice 10: especially I, because I has been added during this review

[1:16:19] Voice 10: to the industrial uses.

[1:16:21] Voice 10: And it's, if you don't have I

[1:16:23] Voice 10: to your site specific regulations,

[1:16:25] Voice 10: you will not be allowed any accessory uses,

[1:16:29] Voice 10: buildings or structures.

[1:16:31] Voice 10: it's that's come to our attention by staff can we be added to the land use bylaw review and add

[1:16:39] Voice 10: e f and i please i

[1:16:42] Planner Stockdill (probable): could quickly answer that if you like chair patrick um and so you you i mean

[1:16:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): simple answer is yes it's up it's the discretion of the ltc the bylaw right now can be amended

[1:16:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): so that's something the ltc can consider um as you're aware you're going to be a delegation at

[1:16:59] Planner Stockdill (probable): the august 11th meeting and i've actually provided some specific comments on your it's the the boat

[1:17:06] Planner Stockdill (probable): storage portion of your property if i'm understanding i've added some specific

[1:17:10] Planner Stockdill (probable): comments on your property for the ltc to consider at the august 11th meeting so there will be a

[1:17:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): lengthy discussion about that

[1:17:17] Voice 10: okay can i can i see those comments beforehand uh

[1:17:21] Planner Stockdill (probable): when they when the

[1:17:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): uh the agendas are released which it may

[1:17:26] Planner Stockdill (probable): be released in the next day or two if not on tuesday

[1:17:28] Planner Stockdill (probable): say okay

[1:17:29] Voice 10: sounds good um i would think that probably the rest of the industrial property owners

[1:17:36] Voice 10: on pender island would probably also like i added to their site specific i'm i'm i haven't asked

[1:17:46] Voice 10: them but to me that would be a very important um because then they are not allowed any accessory

[1:17:53] Voice 10: reuses buildings or structures within their industrial

[1:17:56] Voice 3: zones okay thank you is that a

[1:18:05] Voice 10: question is there

[1:18:06] Trustee McConchie: a question there ann well

[1:18:07] Voice 10: um you may want to ask the other industrial

[1:18:10] Voice 10: land use owners um if they would like i added to their site specific um i'll just i'll use

[1:18:18] Voice 10: home hardware as an example they're allowed lumberyard sales um and but without i

[1:18:25] Voice 10: accessory uses or buildings or structures wouldn't be allowed so they wouldn't be allowed say a

[1:18:32] Voice 10: shipping container um the shipping containers would be would have to be removed um you're not

[1:18:40] Voice 10: allowed a shed you wouldn't be allowed a shed well you would allow

[1:18:44] Planner Stockdill (probable): you would be permitted the

[1:18:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): these i mean if they contain the use right if you're if you have landscape materials or supplies

[1:18:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): then they would be permitted okay your property is a little bit different why

[1:18:58] Voice 10: would why would

[1:18:59] Voice 10: ours be different because

[1:19:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): your your only use you're permitted is boat storage and that's really

[1:19:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): specific for your property and that's why we're having the discussion on august 11th if the ltc

[1:19:13] Planner Stockdill (probable): would consider adding any additional accessory uses so

[1:19:20] Voice 10: so we need a definition of the word

[1:19:23] Voice 10: word only because because every industrial land uh designated land use has the word

[1:19:35] Voice 10: only in their site-specific regulations i

[1:19:42] Planner Stockdill (probable): think it's just yourself and the um

[1:19:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): the home hardware but and we can talk about that if you want one-on-one um but we again we're going

[1:19:52] Planner Stockdill (probable): to be talking about this on august 11th i'm not sure if the ltc is prepared to make any specific

[1:19:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): comments about your site-specific property.

[1:19:58] Trustee McConchie: Sure. Maybe, Chair Patrick, if I can help and

[1:20:01] Trustee McConchie: form of

[1:20:02] Trustee McConchie: the question, can the LTC please consider adding permitted uses on our property? The answer

[1:20:09] Trustee McConchie: is yes, we will consider it. Next

[1:20:12] Trustee McConchie: question, have we contacted other industrial property owners

[1:20:17] Trustee McConchie: regarding industrial land? I certainly have in the past couple of weeks, literally gone and met

[1:20:21] Trustee McConchie: with folks some folks saying they don't want any changes to any of these uh to the to the

[1:20:26] Trustee McConchie: industrial regulations uh on their land uh so i'm not sure uh to answer your question if everybody

[1:20:33] Trustee McConchie: would be on board with that with what you're suggesting um but your question would be uh can

[1:20:38] Trustee McConchie: the ltc consider these things and absolutely the ltc should and and uh we look forward to your

[1:20:44] Trustee McConchie: delegation on the 11th and

[1:20:45] Voice 10: super

[1:20:46] Voice 6: thank you thank you very much am okay

[1:20:50] Voice 3: i see michael sketch next

[1:21:00] Voice 3: can you hear me yes we can thank

[1:21:03] Voice 8: you i'd like to speak to the port washington shed rezoning

[1:21:06] Voice 8: it came as something of a surprise given the 1994 to 2014 intense community interest in

[1:21:16] Voice 8: residential use of that shed and in 2014 the courts found against residential use

[1:21:23] Voice 8: And as part of a land use bylaw review, suddenly we find that the new land owner has asked staff, evidently, according to a letter, for residential use, and that has been added to the land use bylaw and, in fact, the OCP mapping.

[1:21:41] Voice 8: And I'm asking, why did staff make that recommendation, given the extensive and contentious history of residential use on the foreshore?

[1:21:57] Voice 8: Admittedly, not admittedly, but the present request for rezoning does not apply to the foreshore section, only to the upland portion, but it would predispose residential use of both portions.

[1:22:11] Voice 8: Now, today we learn that that is not mentioned in the letter from the landowner that's published, that the owners, in fact, wish to amalgamate the two lots and put one residence.

[1:22:24] Voice 8: But that's not what's said in the letter. And it is not what the land use bylaw and the OCP mapping show.

[1:22:33] Voice 8: They show two separate parcels, each with residential zoning. So my question is, why did staff make that suggestion to the LTC and to the community that there be residential zoning to replace the commercial zoning? What's the staff rationale for that recommendation, which the owners quote in their letter?

[1:23:04] Voice 14: that's my question

[1:23:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): i'm happy to answer that and um i did mention earlier when i was discussing

[1:23:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): the these two properties that really the intention was that there hasn't been an active commercial

[1:23:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): use on that property for many many many years and there may not be an active commercial use

[1:23:24] Planner Stockdill (probable): on that property and there's a property owner who's come forward who has a proposal which will

[1:23:30] Planner Stockdill (probable): provide some community benefit based on the fact that it would legalize the parking and

[1:23:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): staff are making a recommendation that only one dwelling unit would be permitted

[1:23:43] Planner Stockdill (probable): for those two properties so staff are working on language around that so that is something

[1:23:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): that staff's identified that even though there is two lots we want to ensure it's only one

[1:23:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): dwelling unit and in terms of the um the old shed as you mentioned um it is in the water four zone

[1:24:04] Planner Stockdill (probable): so it can't be used for any residential use it has to be used for only those uses in the w4 zone

[1:24:12] Planner Stockdill (probable): and the property owner is aware of that um

[1:24:17] Voice 8: thank you may i supplement my comment yes

[1:24:22] Voice 13: please um

[1:24:23] Voice 8: And what I'm concerned about is an amendment to the land use bylaw. And as it's now written, and as the OCP map schedule shows, there are two parcels, and each will be given residential zoning.

[1:24:37] Voice 8: Now that, not necessarily, but it would predispose an application to rezone the W4 for a residential permitted use, which in turn would predispose an application to the province for a foreshore lease.

[1:24:55] Voice 8: But step one is to have the local government zoning in place. And that step is being taken without, I don't think, adequate community consultation from the hugely contentious situation 1994 to 2014.

[1:25:10] Voice 8: uh the first nation's interests are clearly uh affected by this and i doubt they've been asked

[1:25:17] Voice 8: um i i uh and there's absolutely nothing in the in the bylaw changes that requires

[1:25:25] Voice 8: amalgamation of the two lots nothing so if these these bylaws go through as written today written

[1:25:31] Voice 8: there will be uh zoning for residents on two properties one of which is a little sliver and

[1:25:39] Voice 8: And I think it's absolute folly to proceed that way.

[1:25:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): As I mentioned, Michael, staff are suggesting an amendment to those two properties to only allow one dwelling unit.

[1:25:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): Most likely, it will be a site-specific rural residential two zone that only permits one dwelling unit.

[1:26:02] Planner Stockdill (probable): it in terms of the shed area it's retaining the water for area and staff would not support

[1:26:09] Planner Stockdill (probable): rezoning that water for area where the shed is for any type of private residential use and that

[1:26:16] Planner Stockdill (probable): is also as you mentioned based on um the court so that water for zoning will be retained a future

[1:26:25] Voice 8: ltc and staff may not have the same opinion i'll close my case there please uh

[1:26:31] Trustee McConchie: there's a question

[1:26:32] Trustee McConchie: in there uh planner stockdale was staff aware of the court case uh i'm sure robert was part of that

[1:26:37] Trustee McConchie: absolutely

[1:26:37] Planner Stockdill (probable): yes what was

[1:26:38] Trustee McConchie: the ruling just for public that mike is bringing up

[1:26:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): unfortunately i don't

[1:26:42] Planner Stockdill (probable): have it in front of me and i don't have the full breadth of knowledge like robert does but i can

[1:26:47] Planner Stockdill (probable): prove i can provide it at the august 11th when we speak about this property specific property

[1:26:53] Voice 8: right this is the residential

[1:26:54] Voice 8: use was precluded according to the land use bylaw that's the essence

[1:26:59] Voice 8: okay thank you

[1:27:02] Voice 8: and

[1:27:03] Voice 6: thank you very much michael is there anyone else that would like to address us

[1:27:08] Voice 6: today or have a comment or question oh here come the hands

[1:27:14] Voice 3: dorothy murdoch hi good morning good

[1:27:21] Voice 3: morning um yeah i'd like to

[1:27:25] Voice 13: speak on the c2 zoning behind driftwood center um i i think one

[1:27:32] Voice 13: of my first questions is why did it ever come up that everything should be taken away from that c2

[1:27:40] Voice 13: zoning and only rental housing be put in there what was the reasoning or the logic behind that

[1:27:49] Voice 3: decision can anybody kind of give me an answer on that do

[1:27:59] Trustee McConchie: you want me to take a stab at that go ahead

[1:28:02] Voice 13: sure

[1:28:02] Trustee McConchie: um so dorothy here's the pro here's how the process has played out so far and it's important

[1:28:06] Trustee McConchie: I'm very, you know, interested to hear your thoughts.

[1:28:10] Trustee McConchie: Planners identified all the existing tourist commercial zoning on North Pender Island.

[1:28:16] Trustee McConchie: So we looked at the McKinnon Road, the stuff that hadn't been built yet, and the zoning that was still available for to be built under tourist commercial accommodation.

[1:28:26] Trustee McConchie: Staff identified this as something to discuss between the LTC is, do you want to maintain the current zoning?

[1:28:33] Trustee McConchie: zoning? Is it appropriate? Are there any concerns? So this was kind of flagged by the professional

[1:28:41] Trustee McConchie: planning staff at Dallas Trust. Now we're at a point where we're very interested to hear from

[1:28:46] Trustee McConchie: community members and from yourself about the proposal, because that was one of my proposals,

[1:28:52] Trustee McConchie: Dorothy, was hearing from all the residents, you know, because I've been to lots of meetings

[1:28:57] Trustee McConchie: where it's kind of a grassroots thing and hearing from folks who have no place to live right now

[1:29:02] Trustee McConchie: on Pender or have unstable housing and in response to that I made this proposal that perhaps

[1:29:09] Trustee McConchie: instead of a tourist commercial zone behind the driftwood that it would be beneficial to

[1:29:14] Trustee McConchie: businesses it would be beneficial to the development of the center core of Pender to

[1:29:20] Trustee McConchie: be able to provide some subsidized or affordable housing instead of tourist commercial. Now you've

[1:29:27] Trustee McConchie: come back at Hartle Management has come back with your correspondence which we greatly appreciate

[1:29:31] Trustee McConchie: appreciate requesting that you keep the tourist commercial zoning the way it is, and also that

[1:29:36] Trustee McConchie: you had intent to build a campsite. So that's where we're currently at right now. And I mean,

[1:29:44] Trustee McConchie: the question I would give back to you is, what are the reasons you'd be against the proposal to

[1:29:50] Trustee McConchie: change the tourist commercial to zone for affordable housing units?

[1:29:55] Voice 13: Well, I think that's an

[1:29:58] Voice 13: That's an easy answer.

[1:30:00] Voice 13: to build affordable units on pender island is impossible it costs between and i've heard this

[1:30:08] Voice 13: from a couple of good construction people on pender it costs between 300 to 400 a square foot

[1:30:16] Voice 13: to build any sort of residential housing that's not even including the infrastructure

[1:30:24] Voice 13: so to put any kind of housing up there and make it affordable would be impossible

[1:30:29] Voice 13: possible um we did come back to islands trust saying that we had some other ideas which might

[1:30:37] Voice 13: be more affordable and i think you know we we've tried we've come up and said look there's a

[1:30:45] Voice 13: possibility that we can put apartments on top of the old buildings at driftwood center they were

[1:30:51] Voice 13: originally designed to be two-story um so so six apartments could easily be put up there we think

[1:30:58] Voice 13: as long as building permission was given and also as you know we have permits for buildings five

[1:31:06] Voice 13: six and seven retail buildings five six and seven both all three of which are two-story

[1:31:13] Voice 13: and again apartments could be put up there the infrastructure is already in place so it

[1:31:21] Voice 13: it makes more sense to go that route than to start changing the c2 zoning up the back

[1:31:29] Voice 13: as i said it'd be impossible to put rental affordable rental housing up there it would

[1:31:35] Voice 13: be too expensive okay

[1:31:37] Trustee McConchie: thanks for your feedback so are you know just to answer one of your comments

[1:31:41] Trustee McConchie: dorothy so you're aware of the plum tree court um housing uh society yes okay so that is an example

[1:31:48] Trustee McConchie: so you you've stated that it's impossible uh but then that that society exists so i'm i'm confused

[1:31:55] Trustee McConchie: and also there's federal and provincial subsidies available to make this happen so you you're saying

[1:32:02] Trustee McConchie: that even if the zoning was to be changed you're saying that you that it's it's it's a non-starter

[1:32:09] Trustee McConchie: it would not it would not be financially viable we

[1:32:12] Voice 13: would have no problem in having it added to

[1:32:16] Voice 13: permitted use i i think that to me is the most logical way to go then over time we can certainly

[1:32:24] Voice 13: look at it but if you look at the costs of building um and yes plum tree is is there and

[1:32:32] Voice 13: it was built years and years ago when it was a lot more affordable and if you remember the era of

[1:32:38] Voice 13: 2008 when we had planned to put in the adult housing adult and senior housing up the back

[1:32:44] Voice 13: then building was a 135 dollars a square foot um but now it just would not be feasible to do that

[1:32:54] Voice 13: and you know yes there's government grants but to give them to private ownership probably not so

[1:33:00] Voice 13: um unless you can guarantee that we would get a grant to help assist building this it would be

[1:33:08] Voice 13: totally out of the question for us to go ahead and do rental housing on that piece of property

[1:33:13] Voice 13: Okay.

[1:33:14] Trustee McConchie: Okay. Thanks for your feedback. So one more question. So if it's really expensive to build and it's not possible, why keep the zoning for 27 tourist commercial units when that's actually quite unaffordable to build as well?

[1:33:27] Voice 13: Well, because that's what the property was purchased for in the beginning. And certainly down the line, next generations might be interested in doing that.

[1:33:38] Voice 13: um so i'm just saying that i don't have a problem or hardell doesn't have a problem if you want to

[1:33:47] Voice 13: add rental housing to permitted use but to take away everything else and especially as we're in

[1:33:54] Voice 13: the process now of planning a campground up there because we still do believe that there's more

[1:34:00] Voice 13: beneficial to driftwood to have tourists some sort of tourist accommodation and the campground is a

[1:34:06] Voice 13: logical way of going nowadays so um yeah adding it adding it to the permitted use um we're certainly

[1:34:15] Voice 13: in favor of taking away everything else and turning it into rental housing no totally opposed

[1:34:21] Voice 13: to that okay

[1:34:23] Trustee McConchie: so so we can we can this is great dorothy this helps us frame the debate that we

[1:34:26] Trustee McConchie: can have in the future so that's why i'm asking these questions i appreciate you clearly articulating

[1:34:29] Trustee McConchie: this there's no there's no discrepancy so what you guys are asking for heartland management

[1:34:33] Trustee McConchie: is to have it keep its own tourist commercial uh to to add the permitted uses to possibly build

[1:34:39] Trustee McConchie: rental housing and possibly uh add zoning for a campsite because i believe planner stockdale

[1:34:45] Trustee McConchie: wouldn't have to be zoned forestry to be no

[1:34:47] Voice 13: it's just it's

[1:34:49] Voice 13: already zoned is

[1:34:52] Trustee McConchie: the zoning for for

[1:34:52] Trustee McConchie: campsite as well planner stockdale just so we're clear on the yes

[1:34:55] Voice 3: it is yeah you could have okay

[1:34:57] Trustee McConchie: great so now that we understand uh dorothy where you're staying i think i i i mean it's

[1:35:02] Trustee McConchie: unfortunately, Trustee Morrison's not here today and asked more questions. But I think that this

[1:35:09] Trustee McConchie: is a very important and worthwhile debate. And we appreciate you clearly articulating what

[1:35:13] Trustee McConchie: Hartle Management and the Driftwood would like to see happen.

[1:35:18] Voice 6: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[1:35:20] Voice 6: Thank you, Dorothy.

[1:35:22] Voice 3: Who else has any questions today? I see Michael's back again. But I do know

[1:35:35] Voice 6: that Marybeth was also a second speaker that was looking to speak so if I'm gonna let Mary

[1:35:41] Voice 6: Marybeth can go next and then Michael because she's been asking there you go Marybeth hi there

[1:35:47] Voice 5: um I actually have three questions but I didn't want a long time okay so that this question is

[1:35:53] Voice 5: about um the rezoning from water one to water three and I did also send a few questions in on

[1:35:59] Voice 5: that um so if I understand water one will be rezoned it's proposed to be rezoned to water

[1:36:05] Voice 5: except for existing docks, which are exempt,

[1:36:10] Voice 5: then through these proposed bylaw and OCP amendments,

[1:36:15] Voice 5: the water one will become more restrictive

[1:36:17] Voice 5: with both zoning bylaw changes and an OCP criteria changes

[1:36:22] Voice 5: on how you can get things that can be,

[1:36:26] Voice 5: well, policies that will be taken into consideration

[1:36:29] Voice 5: if you want to get a private dock.

[1:36:32] Voice 5: On the island, I'm just gonna look for head nodding,

[1:36:36] Voice 5: Okay, thank you. Sorry, I'm reading at the same time. Okay. So then, if you want to, if you now have W1, you didn't quite get around to putting a dock or maybe as one neighbor that or friend that I know about, you know, they just don't want a dock, it's too expensive.

[1:36:58] Voice 5: of um and they don't have a boat but their property could it's one of the very few that

[1:37:03] Voice 5: are left on the island i think that could get a dock um and so they would have to uh you know

[1:37:10] Voice 5: they uh they if they went to sell um this is my first question to me this constitutes a down

[1:37:16] Voice 5: zoning um and i believe that again there's criteria for down zoning where you have to have

[1:37:22] Voice 5: the approval of the owner to reduce your zoning or you have to compensate um so i would ask that

[1:37:30] Voice 5: maybe that should be looked into and my friend did say that she's she's a much better more experienced

[1:37:37] Voice 5: retired planner than i am um so that then they would have to uh go back and say the new owners

[1:37:47] Voice 5: would have to rezone back to water one with uh you know slightly more restrictive bylaws no boat ramps

[1:37:54] Voice 5: and a whole list of ocp criteria so um uh one more question so one question now related to that is

[1:38:06] Voice 5: from the list of the ocp amendments being proposed for if you want to get a dock on pander island

[1:38:13] Voice 5: if this go but these bylaws go through how many of these items on your list are already covered

[1:38:21] Voice 5: by provincial approval processes and i the answer i've gotten from some people in the know because

[1:38:27] Voice 5: i don't i don't have a doc and won't have one um um is that i think the only other one is that

[1:38:35] Voice 5: you have to investigate a community doc okay so i'll just leave that out there um as i go on

[1:38:43] Voice 5: Um, so if, if you have to investigate, um, not having a private doc, what is the process

[1:38:51] Voice 5: for, do you, do you have to go talk to your neighbor and say, well, I talked to them and

[1:38:56] Voice 5: they said, no, so I want a private doc or do you, is there, you know, so I'm just going

[1:39:00] Voice 5: to say, what is the criteria for that OCP, um, section?

[1:39:07] Voice 5: Um, I have a question because this has been an ongoing, I'm moving on to another question.

[1:39:12] Voice 5: this has been an ongoing concern for the community you've heard lots of response

[1:39:17] Voice 5: there's a exceptionally good letter from someone who runs it in the public correspondence that has

[1:39:25] Voice 5: I think it's 12 page letter that outlines pretty much everything I would say about it

[1:39:29] Voice 5: I personally worked on a petition and I think there are 20 or so names on the petition against

[1:39:36] Voice 5: this whole w1 rezoning um so i'm just curious what is the summary of response in favor and against

[1:39:45] Voice 5: for the community docs so that's the next question um and then i would point out that

[1:39:52] Voice 5: in the june islands trust commentary and the june trust uh june trust council staff report

[1:39:58] Voice 5: port um the idea of docks was not popular um according to the public engagement and um not

[1:40:10] Voice 5: just that but there are a whole bunch of reasons why it is no longer really considered restricting

[1:40:14] Voice 5: private docks is really no longer considered to be that astute given i would say evacuations have

[1:40:23] Voice 5: have to be considered in the event of wildfire, etc. So much so that at June's staff report said

[1:40:30] Voice 5: 3.9, explore possible refinements to the draft directive policy to prohibit new private docs

[1:40:37] Voice 5: that carefully consider and balance the various impacts received from First Nations and the public.

[1:40:45] Voice 5: Thank you. So why are you going ahead with it, I guess?

[1:40:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): I can take a stab at a few of them. And I

[1:40:55] Planner Stockdill (probable): I must apologize, Mary Beth, I had issues with my speaker or my headset. So I missed a portion of

[1:41:01] Planner Stockdill (probable): that. But yes, you are correct. The conditions in the OCP bylaw number 223 are very similar to what

[1:41:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): the province has. And the reasons why we included it in the or staff recommend including it in the

[1:41:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): OCP bylaw is because provincial requirements could change. You know, there's no guarantee

[1:41:23] Planner Stockdill (probable): that they're going to keep those requirements so it's more of an insurance to the LTC that there's

[1:41:29] Planner Stockdill (probable): that they have these requirements in case the province changes theirs in terms of the condition

[1:41:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): for looking into I think common or shared docs yeah more than likely it becomes you know we'd

[1:41:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): look at if the applicant has talked to their neighbors to see if there's any way to share a doc

[1:41:46] Planner Stockdill (probable): or you know if there's a a public doc right next to your property yeah those things we would consider

[1:41:53] Planner Stockdill (probable): in terms of down zoning the LTC does have the legal authority to amend a land use by-law to

[1:42:03] Planner Stockdill (probable): amend use I believe the only thing the LTC can't do is to remove all uses from that land to make

[1:42:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): it stagnant and I'm not sure exactly what I think there was more questions about the policy

[1:42:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): policy statement and I may turn that over to chair Patrick or trustee McConkie if I can

[1:42:24] Voice 6: um well I don't have any much to add if there is a uh in the draft there is a comment about

[1:42:29] Voice 6: docs and that those conversations are ongoing with the trust programs committee and uh

[1:42:35] Voice 6: trustee McConkie maybe you're you were on that last committee meeting so

[1:42:40] Trustee McConchie: uh we're talking about the policy statement of the trust program like I mean I'm I wouldn't

[1:42:44] Trustee McConchie: Okay, so I wouldn't mind addressing what Meredith said, because I thought I've addressed this several times, and I still haven't heard a response, so I'm hearing the same questions over and over again, so I'll be really clear this time on my rationale as a trustee.

[1:42:57] Trustee McConchie: First of all, we have, it's essentially a copy of the self-pender zoning bylaw for docs that was introduced for five years ago. This is what North Pender is adopting.

[1:43:07] Trustee McConchie: opting uh and we have a case study and how it's working i mean i i maybe if you could find folks

[1:43:14] Trustee McConchie: that they find that the zoning uh on self-pender for docs and the change to w1 has had a detrimental

[1:43:21] Trustee McConchie: impact on people's ability i i i haven't heard anything like that uh so it seemed to me logical

[1:43:28] Trustee McConchie: therefore to keep some uniformity about how we take care of our foreshore how how our local

[1:43:34] Trustee McConchie: governments have a voice in this. So, and I really like to hear this because I actually

[1:43:40] Trustee McConchie: totally, Mary Beth, think you have valid points, but I haven't heard the following argument against

[1:43:45] Trustee McConchie: this, the following I'm about to say. What is the problem with having local government,

[1:43:52] Trustee McConchie: local trustees be a part of the process of docs? For sure, there's areas where trustees should

[1:44:00] Trustee McConchie: potentially mind their own business. And that's what Trust Council debates.

[1:44:03] Trustee McConchie: But with this particular issue, I'm having trouble understanding what's wrong with folks applying to the province, then asking local trustees what they think.

[1:44:16] Trustee McConchie: Yes, you could argue there is a cost associated. Yes, there's a bureaucracy associated. So I hear you on those.

[1:44:23] Trustee McConchie: But from my perspective, it's about local democracy. It's about being able to have a say.

[1:44:29] Trustee McConchie: And then the other question that you had about respondents to this issue, I haven't tabulated the letters for or against, and that's a very good point that I will work on over the coming weeks to tabulate.

[1:44:45] Trustee McConchie: Perhaps, Planner Stockdale, we could, I'm not sure, just figure out how much correspondence we've had regarding this stocks issue.

[1:44:52] Trustee McConchie: I'm not sure if I've answered your questions, Mary

[1:44:54] Trustee McConchie: Beth, without turning this into a big debate.

[1:44:57] Trustee McConchie: I would like to hear your thoughts on what I just addressed.

[1:45:01] Voice 5: Yeah, thank you.

[1:45:03] Voice 5: So you talked about what, why, I think, in general, repetition of similar or same things

[1:45:10] Voice 5: that an upper level government is regulating.

[1:45:14] Voice 5: And I would suggest, from what I've seen, that we have to be extremely careful in our

[1:45:19] Voice 5: tiny, tiny, tiny government, with limited resources and taxpayers that are feeling the

[1:45:25] Voice 5: the burden, that undertaking enormous science projects like, you know, even the water, you

[1:45:35] Voice 5: can see there's lots of problems with the water when citizen scientists start looking

[1:45:38] Voice 5: at it.

[1:45:40] Voice 5: So I would suggest that you actually should be following upper levels of government.

[1:45:43] Voice 5: And if they change, there's a reason.

[1:45:46] Voice 5: Then we have to go back and amend our OCPs.

[1:45:49] Voice 5: I don't think that's solid.

[1:45:51] Voice 5: solid um yes i mean i don't think you should underestimate the amount of time and cost to

[1:45:59] Voice 5: repeat the rezoning just to ask the question about just they asked the question about eelgrass again

[1:46:05] Voice 5: and uh you know did you did you people are complaint i've never heard ever heard so many

[1:46:11] Voice 5: complaints about people and the permitting process how long it takes and and the world i come from is

[1:46:17] Voice 5: If you do not need prescriptive bylaws, you never, never get involved in them because then you have to regulate them and enforce them. They're massively complex. So I don't know if that's just off the top of my head. Does that answer a little bit?

[1:46:33] Trustee McConchie: That's great. I'm just curious. So you're not in favor of the local government, the small, tiny little local government, having their elected or acclaimed representatives have a say in this. That's just what I wanted to be clear on.

[1:46:48] Voice 5: no in this case because it's already covered by up very very well by upper levels of governments

[1:46:53] Voice 5: no of course you would never get involved why should you i mean okay

[1:46:58] Trustee McConchie: okay that's what that's

[1:47:00] Trustee McConchie: i just want to clarify i mean we can debate this long time but i understand

[1:47:03] Trustee McConchie: your position clearly

[1:47:04] Trustee McConchie: thank you marybeth and

[1:47:07] Voice 5: i have one more thing but i don't want to i don't want to go ahead marybeth

[1:47:12] Voice 5: just uh okay setbacks um a previous speaker uh spoke a little bit about the um new setbacks for

[1:47:21] Voice 5: or sea or water waterfront I understand because I watched the May 2021 meeting again

[1:47:30] Voice 5: that the 15 meter setback and the 1.5 above sea level is related to the upper level provincial

[1:47:36] Voice 5: government sea level rise requirements which is all good but then islands trust is now maybe this

[1:47:41] Voice 5: is a very good example of what we just talked about is now talking about additional requirements

[1:47:45] Voice 5: for sensitive ecosystems in general.

[1:47:48] Voice 5: I'm not using that as a quoting term,

[1:47:50] Voice 5: but just in general.

[1:47:51] Voice 5: Sensitivity of the setback area, that 15 meters.

[1:47:55] Voice 5: So there is no structures allowed in there,

[1:48:02] Voice 5: but that has been enhanced to include stairs

[1:48:05] Voice 5: and as the previous speaker said, fences,

[1:48:08] Voice 5: and even driveways.

[1:48:11] Voice 5: But it does still allow pump houses,

[1:48:13] Voice 5: which is different than South Pender.

[1:48:15] Voice 5: Oh, just one thing while I think about it.

[1:48:17] Voice 5: If you're following South Pender or Galliano, you might want to rethink that.

[1:48:22] Voice 5: That's, you know, it's much smaller on South Pender for dogs.

[1:48:27] Voice 5: Okay, so sorry, going back to it.

[1:48:29] Voice 5: So if it's not for sea level ice.

[1:48:31] Trustee McConchie: Can I point to Claire?

[1:48:33] Trustee McConchie: There's no following.

[1:48:34] Trustee McConchie: Just Mary Beth, I just want to be clear.

[1:48:36] Trustee McConchie: I was talking about South Pender five years ago, just to be clear on my comments.

[1:48:40] Voice 5: I know, I know.

[1:48:41] Trustee McConchie: Not the current trustees.

[1:48:42] Trustee McConchie: east okay just

[1:48:43] Voice 5: no but i'm no but i'm yeah okay well good point but i i

[1:48:46] Voice 5: think i've heard feedback

[1:48:47] Voice 5: that you know they didn't have the trust policy statement to get everybody involved as it has now

[1:48:53] Voice 5: on the islands and they didn't have the support like we do now so um maybe maybe it just went

[1:49:00] Voice 5: through easily i mean what how many are there you know docks on south bender honestly left there's

[1:49:04] Voice 5: probably like two properties that are left you only get one dock a year or even one every few

[1:49:09] Voice 5: years down there so maybe that's what's really going on anyway sorry back to it um okay so

[1:49:16] Voice 5: if it is not for sea level rise as prescribed by senior government it is the ecosystems what

[1:49:22] Voice 5: about emergency evacuation on our gulf islands for the stairs down to the water um uh what about

[1:49:31] Voice 5: most stairs are wood and you know they don't last are they allowed to be replaced um those stairs

[1:49:37] Voice 5: or once they rot then they just they're gone they can't get it again what if a driveway needs to go

[1:49:44] Voice 5: through as part of the setback and there's no way to get to the house as part of the use of the site

[1:49:49] Voice 5: you'd have to allow it i i assume then that the the process there is through a variance actually

[1:49:55] Voice 5: i'm just gonna go back to look would it be through a dvp if if you had to have a driveway to get you

[1:50:02] Voice 5: to your house that has to go through the 15 meter setback if it's paved

[1:50:07] Planner Stockdill (probable): yes but if it's gravel no

[1:50:10] Voice 5: concrete or asphalt yeah because that's what's exempt okay okay so any any type of gravelly

[1:50:16] Voice 5: thing can go through there but

[1:50:18] Voice 5: if you want to pave that okay okay thanks sorry um okay um but

[1:50:24] Voice 5: let's say you wanted to pave it uh or you wanted to put your stairs back in is that a development

[1:50:30] Voice 5: permit variance and then i i think you've got a letter previously where um the use of the variances

[1:50:37] Voice 5: i think is quite irregular it is strict an unusual circumstance rather than what i've heard saying

[1:50:43] Voice 5: repeatedly by trustees on variety of islands is the use of the dvp process development variance

[1:50:50] Voice 5: permit process as a way if you crank the zoning really tight and then they have to come asking

[1:50:57] Voice 5: asking for a DVP for everything now and then I have heard it said by trustees that this is now

[1:51:03] Voice 5: a type of conditional zoning and now they're included in the package the bylaw package is

[1:51:10] Voice 5: criteria for getting a DVP so my question might be something like if I want to put a driveway or

[1:51:17] Voice 5: replace my stairs or whatever I need a DVP do I have to put in an 18,000 liter cistern to get

[1:51:24] Voice 5: that because that's one of the new criteria for um for the um the dvp process so a couple

[1:51:35] Planner Stockdill (probable): misconceptions here the cistern potential requirement again it's where feasible is only

[1:51:41] Planner Stockdill (probable): when the ltc is looking at a dvp to vary the maximum floor area of a residential building

[1:51:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): not for siting dvps so if you want a a paved driveway within that set back to the natural

[1:51:58] Planner Stockdill (probable): boundary of the sea yes a dvp would be required if you want gravel no a dvp is not required

[1:52:04] Planner Stockdill (probable): if you have stairs currently going down to your foreshore and the pilot changes to no longer

[1:52:11] Planner Stockdill (probable): allow stairs you are protected under the local government act section 529 that you're still

[1:52:17] Planner Stockdill (probable): able to maintain and um not amend but maintain those stairs and rebuild as long as you're not

[1:52:27] Planner Stockdill (probable): encroaching further into the setback and that if you are if you have to maintain your stairs and

[1:52:33] Planner Stockdill (probable): you have to make changes and it is increasing or it's you're making it larger then a development

[1:52:38] Planner Stockdill (probable): variance permit would be required okay

[1:52:41] Voice 5: that helps thank you

[1:52:43] Trustee McConchie: can i uh just ask a point clarification

[1:52:45] Trustee McConchie: Okay, so there's a discussion about the evacuation plans

[1:52:49] Trustee McConchie: and docs, and I believe this would be under a question

[1:52:53] Trustee McConchie: to ask the jurisdiction of the Southern Gulf Islands

[1:52:57] Trustee McConchie: Emergency Preparedness Program.

[1:52:59] Trustee McConchie: We haven't received or engaged with them

[1:53:02] Trustee McConchie: on that particular topic, or if they have concerns

[1:53:05] Trustee McConchie: that us, the local trust committee creating a zoning process

[1:53:10] Trustee McConchie: will impact the evacuation potential

[1:53:12] Trustee McConchie: potential in the event of a catastrophic event.

[1:53:18] Trustee McConchie: That's not something I, I mean,

[1:53:20] Trustee McConchie: that's I guess something Chair Patrick,

[1:53:22] Trustee McConchie: I suppose we could ask the Southern Gulf Island CRD groups

[1:53:25] Trustee McConchie: or the fire department about the impacts

[1:53:28] Trustee McConchie: of our potential zoning amendments on evacuation.

[1:53:33] Trustee McConchie: I don't even know what the plan is

[1:53:35] Trustee McConchie: if there's a fire on Pender, to be honest.

[1:53:37] Trustee McConchie: I think it's a good point, Mary Beth,

[1:53:39] Trustee McConchie: but I'm not sure I've never addressed an emergency issue with regards to zoning and how it should be

[1:53:46] Trustee McConchie: factored in I'm not sure Patrick if you have any experience with that on Salt Spring I don't know

[1:53:52] Voice 6: the CRD does have emergency planning services for the southern gulf islands and so that would have

[1:53:58] Voice 6: to be a question directed to them yeah

[1:54:01] Trustee McConchie: it's it's a it's a it's a good question I haven't thought

[1:54:04] Trustee McConchie: about so I can certainly contact Bridget I think and Paul Brent or those guys and see what they

[1:54:10] Trustee McConchie: think so i'll do that in the coming weeks i

[1:54:13] Voice 5: would think you want to make it formal with a letter

[1:54:15] Voice 5: and you might want

[1:54:16] Trustee McConchie: to ask the fire chief okay well then i gotta wait till the 11th to write

[1:54:19] Trustee McConchie: a formal letter unless we could do that right now in this meeting i don't i mean well

[1:54:24] Voice 5: why do you

[1:54:24] Voice 5: have to wait what's the push i would think you'd want to formally

[1:54:28] Voice 5: apply well

[1:54:31] Trustee McConchie: yeah fair enough yeah

[1:54:32] Trustee McConchie: that's that sounds good to me yep okay

[1:54:35] Voice 6: thank you thanks

[1:54:36] Voice 14: marybeth thank

[1:54:36] Voice 6: you marybeth um i see

[1:54:39] Voice 6: and bradette is next then michael sketch hello

[1:54:47] Voice 10: hello ann hi so um ben you asked mary beth about

[1:54:53] Voice 10: um did you think that uh our small local government should be involved with the dogs

[1:55:01] Voice 10: uh i concur with mary beth i think a lot of our community members would probably agree right now

[1:55:07] Voice 10: that we're being over-regulated. And I don't think we need much more. And with all due respect,

[1:55:17] Voice 10: Kim and her interpretations of how the bylaws are read, 20 years from now, the bylaws will be

[1:55:24] Voice 10: read differently by a different set of planners, where they interpret words like only in a

[1:55:37] Voice 10: different way and the way uh the the bylaws are written right now and they'll interpret them

[1:55:42] Voice 10: different 20 years from now thanks and

[1:55:45] Planner Stockdill (probable): is there a question

[1:55:46] Voice 10: nope i'm just i

[1:55:48] Planner Stockdill (probable): may be here for 20

[1:55:49] Planner Stockdill (probable): years from now and you never know

[1:55:51] Voice 10: hopefully not for you

[1:56:00] Voice 6: thank you i

[1:56:01] Voice 4: appreciate it okay

[1:56:02] Voice 6: michael sketch uh

[1:56:10] Voice 8: can you hear me yes thank you

[1:56:12] Voice 8: My first question is why the, I think it's just probably an omission, but there is, why have the LTC and staff not considered a setback from the natural boundary for sewage disposal fields?

[1:56:28] Voice 8: I think Galliano has one, 100 feet, the same as the distance between a well, a drilled

[1:56:37] Voice 8: well and a sewage disposal field.

[1:56:40] Voice 8: But the First Nations interest, for instance, is very definitely affected by the potential

[1:56:47] Voice 8: for leakage of sewage to the foreshore.

[1:56:50] Voice 8: And it may be worth adding to the land use by-law regulation.

[1:56:55] Voice 8: I have another more lengthy topic.

[1:57:00] Voice 6: Okay, I'll look to actually find our stock bill in regards to.

[1:57:05] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not sure why it was included or not included. And I can't say whether or not if this is something that is required at the time that somebody is applying for their sewage permit through Island Health and the CRD. So it's something I'll look into, but I appreciate you flagging that.

[1:57:29] Planner Stockdill (probable): Yeah,

[1:57:30] Voice 8: thank you. Just on that, when a registered professional installs a sewage disposal field, the health authority, in this case, VHA, must be sent plans thereof. But if a sewage disposal field is simply built, it may or may not be 100 feet from the natural boundary.

[1:57:50] Voice 8: boundary and um the islanders trust by law enforcement officer should the matter come up

[1:57:55] Voice 8: has nothing to go on so that setback i think is a matter for local government to to have

[1:58:02] Voice 8: regulation available to it i

[1:58:05] Voice 6: do know that island health does have a 15 meter setback

[1:58:08] Voice 6: yes

[1:58:09] Voice 8: uh and then the question is whether the setback should not be the same as between a

[1:58:16] Voice 8: drilled well and um and a sewage disposal field and that's 100 feet or 30 30 meters

[1:58:24] Voice 8: um and i think the first nations if asked would uh prefer 130 meters to 15

[1:58:30] Voice 8: because of the risk of of contamination on the foreshore and eventually cleaning up the

[1:58:36] Voice 8: foreshore it's contaminated now my other topic if i may i'd i'd like to pay more attention with

[1:58:45] Voice 6: And the

[1:58:46] Voice 8: second one is the C2 zoning. Dorothy Murdoch did mention this topic, but it is a subject that needs very, very careful consideration.

[1:58:57] Voice 8: consideration. And the first is, is it appropriate to concentrate affordable housing all in a lump

[1:59:08] Voice 8: using a single point source with a point source impact on, for instance, the water resource?

[1:59:16] Voice 8: And the LTC and staff may or may not be aware of a comprehensive, I think, 60-page report

[1:59:25] Voice 8: submitted by justine stark to the crd board with an eye to attracting provincial funding for

[1:59:32] Voice 8: specifically for affordable housing and i think it's page seven of that report uh there's a sub

[1:59:38] Voice 8: subtitle called smart growth and she makes the point uh by the way having been an islands trust

[1:59:46] Voice 8: planner for for some years she makes the point that the smart growth model of concentrating

[1:59:52] Voice 8: trading development is not a good idea in Gulf Islands because of the point impact on the water

[1:59:58] Voice 8: resource.

[2:00:00] Voice 8: And this is a report that was approved by the CRD board and then will be used to attract provincial funding for affordable housing projects.

[2:00:10] Voice 8: I discussed that matter with her and she said, or I think she agreed, that, for instance, the 20% undeveloped lots in Magic Lake could have distributed affordable housing units with provincial funding if that funding becomes available.

[2:00:28] Voice 8: and screened from neighbors if that's necessary

[2:00:31] Voice 8: because there would be two dwellings

[2:00:33] Voice 8: rather than one probably,

[2:00:35] Voice 8: and would be a much better approach

[2:00:37] Voice 8: to the manifest need for affordable housing

[2:00:41] Voice 8: than lumping it all together

[2:00:43] Voice 8: in a water-challenged, sewage-disposal-challenged area

[2:00:48] Voice 8: behind the driftwood.

[2:00:50] Voice 8: And I think that project needs some very careful

[2:00:54] Voice 8: community thought and input

[2:00:56] Voice 8: before going ahead with a change in zoning.

[2:00:58] Voice 8: Once the zoning has changed, it is very difficult to unchange, as we all know. Thank you.

[2:01:11] Voice 14: From you, Laura.

[2:01:13] Voice 6: Thank you, Michael. Is there anyone else that has comments? I see we're coming up to noon here, which was the intended end of this session.

[2:01:22] Voice 6: This is not the end of this discussion. We do have our local trust committee meeting coming up on the 11th, and we do have an in-person community information meeting on the 13th.

[2:01:35] Voice 6: And so if there are no other questions today, please get your comments in. If you have comments and questions, send them in. We want to hear from you. It's important. And you're invited, of course, to come to our meeting on the 11th, speak to us in the town hall, and I absolutely hope you can make it to the 13th.

[2:01:55] Voice 6: Anything else anyone else would like to add?

[2:01:57] Voice 6: Yeah,

[2:01:58] Trustee McConchie: I'd just like to thank everyone. It was a really good conversation. It's become North Pender, just really great detailed thoughts. Not personal, which I really appreciate. It can be hard in a small community to really keep your thoughts, you know, more calm and calm language. So I really appreciate everyone's logical thoughts today. It's something that I'm going to seriously consider.

[2:02:20] Trustee McConchie: and I'm really looking forward to seeing people at the community hall for those two events and I

[2:02:26] Trustee McConchie: particularly want to thank Lauren and everyone at the south office there and especially planner

[2:02:30] Trustee McConchie: Stockdale for she looks comfortable in an air conditioning room I think you're comfortable

[2:02:35] Trustee McConchie: there planner Stockdale but thank you very much for giving a good presentation today and if anyone

[2:02:41] Trustee McConchie: has any concerns I'll just reiterate that south info at islandstrust.bc.ca which is a hopefully

[2:02:47] Trustee McConchie: a great way to let us know what you think about all these proposals and uh the last comment i'll

[2:02:52] Trustee McConchie: make is uh none of our minds are made up about these complex issues uh so we really look forward

[2:02:57] Trustee McConchie: in the in the weeks and months ahead before the term is up uh to discuss these issues uh or to

[2:03:04] Trustee McConchie: leave them alone so uh thanks very much everyone for for for being here that's all i have to

[2:03:08] Trustee McConchie: mention thank

[2:03:09] Voice 6: you thank you very much and with that i will call this i guess we probably need

[2:03:14] Voice 6: a motion to adjourn

[2:03:15] Trustee McConchie: i'd like to make a motion to adjourn and enjoy the 30 degree weather i'll

[2:03:18] Voice 6: second that and um um we will see everyone soon so thank you very much thanks

[2:03:25] Trustee McConchie: kim did you want

[2:03:26] Trustee McConchie: to hang on to the after and we'll make sure the live's off and i'll just hang on

[2:03:30] Voice 6: for a second bye

North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 1 of 8 
 
 
North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
July 28, 2022 
Electronic Meeting 
 
Members Present: Laura Patrick, Chair 
 Benjamin McConchie, Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Kim Stockdill, Island Planner 
 Lauren Edwards, Recorder 
  
Absent: Deb Morrison, Trustee 
 Robert Kojima, Regional Planning Manager 
 Phil Testemale, Planner 2 
  
Public Present: There were approximately 28 participants 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Patrick called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.  She acknowledged that the meeting was 
being held in the traditional territory of the Coast Salish First Nations.  She commented on the 
historic nature of the Pope’s travel to Canada to offer apologies regarding residential schools.   
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent the agenda was approved as presented. 
3. BUSINESS ITEMS 
3.1 Staff Presentation – Land Use Bylaw Review Project and overview of proposed Bylaws 
223, 224, and 229 
Planner Stockdill’s presentation on the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) project included: 
Project Overview 
 The project was initiated in early 2020 to do a full review of LUB #103 to ensure it was 
consistent with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and implement policies or initiatives 
within the OCP and update LUB for amendments; 
 The LTC identified seven topics:   residential maximum floor area; conservation subdivision; 
agricultural regulations; industrial regulation; tourist accommodations (C2 zoning review); 
marine and shoreline regulations; and other minor/technical amendments;  
A D O P T E D 

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 2 of 8 
 
 The Conservation Subdivision topic was pulled out as it needs a full review on its own and is 
on the LTC’s Project List; 
 In spring 2020, staff provided a discussion paper which included background, current 
policies and regulations and options for the LTC to consider;    
 Early engagement letters were sent to First Nations; 
 In fall 2020 and January 2021, there were five community information meetings (CIM) 
focussed on topics for the community to identify; 
 There were recommendations and comments provided by the Special Agricultural Advisory 
Planning Committee (AAPC) on agricultural items.  This is on the LTC project site and the LTC 
incorporated the majority of the recommendations into the proposed bylaw; and  
 Early this year, there were a couple of online CIMs regarding hot topics and there was an 
electronic CIM held on July 7
th
.  
 
Bylaws being considered: 
 
 The project has two LUB amendments and one OCP amendment bylaw;   
 Bylaw 224 replaces LUB 103 and is consistent with the OCP.  It needs approval from Islands 
Trust Executive Committee and then it comes back to the LTC for approval;  
 Bylaw 223 makes amendments to the OCP.  This will require approval from the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs once Islands Trust Executive Committee has approved it.  It is not known 
how long it will take for the bylaw to be approved at the ministerial level;   
 Bylaw 229 needs OCP Bylaw 223 to be adopted first as it needs policies in place before it can 
be adopted; and   
 All three bylaws were given first reading on May 26
th
 and can be found on the Project 
website.   
Hot Topics: 
 Regarding Residential Rural (RR) Zoning, Bylaw #103 has one RR zone and the LTC proposes 
to split into two zones due to distinct differences in properties.  The properties in Magic 
Lake and Trincomalie will be rezoned for total and maximum floor areas.  The focus is on 
communities with small lots with primary use as residences.  Properties rezoned to RR2 will 
establish a total and maximum floor area and, in addition, agricultural use will be permitted 
as primary use.  This also includes bare land for agricultural use.  There are no changes in 
density for zones; 
 Regarding legal nonconforming or grandfathering, the Local Government Act protects for 
building siting and size to make alterations so long as it does not exceed current footprint.  
The LTC added a new clause for rebuilding a house back to the grandfathered square 
footage not to exceed the floor area of the old house at the time of bylaw adoption. 
 Regarding accessory structures on bare land, Bylaw 224 would allow one outbuilding and 
one utility shed before construction;  
 Regarding helicopter prohibitions, heliports and helipads are not permitted except for 
evacuation use.  Aeronautics is under federal jurisdiction which means the bylaw is likely 
unenforceable;  

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 3 of 8 
 
 With regards to C2 zones, property owners of four commercial properties have agreed to 
reduce densities from 55 tourist accommodation units down to a maximum of 28 tourist 
accommodation units;     
 With regards to Docks Water 1 for upland residential use, the LTC is considering rezoning 
the area around North Pender to Water 3 which does not permit private docks.  Where 
there is existing private dock or in-progress leases with the province, those properties will 
retain Water 1 zoning.  If you are within Water 3 zoning, a rezoning process would be 
necessary to construct a dock; and   
 Regarding groundwater, the LTC has decided to pull into this project some LUB amendments 
which include groundwater definitions, water supply standards and new cistern 
requirements.   
 
Comments requested from the community: 
 
 Regarding agricultural buildings and the new RR2 Zone where agriculture is the principle use 
and agricultural buildings are permitted, the LTC wants to hear if the community would 
support large agricultural buildings on small lots or on larger lots only; 
 Regarding commercial property 1A at Port Washington store property, the new property 
owners wish to amalgamate two lots and do a lot line adjustment to formalize parking.  
They are requesting rezoning to RR2 to allow one dwelling unit;  
 Regarding the portion of property behind the Driftwood Centre, C2 zoning would allow up 
to 27 tourist accommodation units.  The LTC is considering rezoning for affordable rental 
housing;  
 With regards to waste transfer properties, the Bedwell Harbour Road property is currently a 
Temporary Use Property (TUP) zoned rural.  The LTC is considering legalizing the use by 
rezoning for waste transfer, commercial recycling and composting and accessory storage.  
The LTC would also like to rezone two other waste transfer sites on Otter Bay Road to all 
industrial zone use plus waste transfer, commercial composting and recycling and reuse 
facility.   
Next steps: 
 An in-person CIM is scheduled for Saturday, August 13
th
 at 11:00 a.m. at the Anglican hall;   
 A regular LTC meeting is scheduled for August 11
th
 and staff will report on potential 
amendments and ask the LTC to have a Public Hearing likely to be in September; and  
 Any correspondence to the LTC should be cc’d to:  southinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca for filing, 
the public record and for posting to the website. 
Chair Patrick opened the community discussion: 
 Kathi D. commented on emails and discussions regarding 2500 sq. ft. maximum which 
includes basements or crawlspaces.  She would like to see allowable square feet expanded 
to 3000 or height increase for basements and crawlspaces to eight feet or higher for 
livability;    

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 4 of 8 
 
 Mary Beth Rondeau commented on the difficulty of going through a base bylaw and then 
amendments without a blackline version.  She questioned why incorporate a base bylaw at 
the same time as proposed bylaw amendments;   
 Planner Stockdill responded on the need for bylaw consistency and ease of bylaw 
interpretation throughout Islands Trust areas and offered to help clarify her understanding;    
 Mary Beth Rondeau requested that a blackline version be created;  
 Trustee McConchie asked that specific concerns be communicated in writing and requested 
that creating a blackline version be put on the agenda for consideration at the August 11
th
 
meeting;   
 Mairead Boland read from text her concerns regarding Islands Trust’s approach to water 
project deployments, using guiding science, data and technical reports, educating the public, 
the actions being taken and the carbon footprint associated with cisterns; 
 Planner Stockdill requested that she email her written statement to 
southinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca; 
 Ann Stephenson questioned whether siting and setback regulations, which now include 
structures such as fences and asphalt, means that a fence cannot be erected within 50’ of 
waterfront.  She commented that fencing may be required for deer or children;   
 Planner Stockdill confirmed this and provided that the rationale is to reduce impact on 
sensitive areas.  She stated that existing fences can be rebuilt as repairs are permitted; 
 Ann Stephenson questioned the RR2 zone with subsection for agri-tourism and 
accommodation.  She commented that agri-tourism usually only applies to AR land;   
 Planner Stockdill responded that agricultural use is a primary permanent use, but property 
owner may choose; 
 Ann Stephenson stated that perhaps it should be tied to farm status; 
 Planner Stockdill stated that information notes could be added, for the two uses in 
agricultural land reserve properties;   
 Ann Stephenson said that the map is not clear and asked how many properties are being 
rezoned to industrial use.  She said that properties being rezoned are getting the same 
permitted uses, but existing industrial properties are site specific while rezoned properties 
are being permitted many uses.  She said that the original Community Charter was not to 
change the OCP but to ensure the bylaws comply.  She referenced a clause that prevented 
strip developments, but said it appears the Port Washington property will be made into a 
strip of industrial land which she said goes against the OCP; 
 Planner Stockdill stated that she will make a point of creating maps to make this extremely 
clear at the August 13
th
 meeting and get that information onto the website as well.  She will 
also add ALR and farm status to the information note; 
 Karen Bell, a resident of the north end of Pender, commented on the RR2 zoning in Bylaw 
224.  She would like to understand why agricultural use is included.  She said that as a 
resident who moved to a rural residential area on the water, she has no desire for 
agricultural activities to take place.  She commented that even under the new bylaw, farm 
operations are governed by the Agricultural Commission Act which does not define 
horticulture as agriculture.  She said that, as a farm business, agriculture is governed by the 
ALR.  Further comments were that, while there is a desire to accommodate people’s 
activities without building a house, she feels it is ill advised to blow up the RR2 and start a 
farm operation which has specific acts and legislation that govern those areas.  She asked 

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 5 of 8 
 
what she should do to bring this forward and who benefits from this?  She stated that a 
small group of people can be accommodated by a variance and that she and many of her 
neighours wish to preserve the RR status and maintain a residential feel;   
 Trustee McConchie suggested that she bring her concerns forward at the August 11
th
 
meeting;    
 Planner Stockdill asked if agriculture is the primary use, should this only be permitted on 
larger acreages.  She said that, while she cannot speak for the Agricultural Advisory Planning 
Commission, their rationale and intent was for low impact on bare land where there is no 
residence or cottage.  She said that RR zoning requires a house or cottage and suggested the 
issue of impact on neighbours for property with agricultural uses be discussed and whether 
it should considered only for larger lots.  She asked that a letter be written for the LTC 
consideration on this issue;  
 Karen Bell asked about screening for buildings and is concerned about commercial activity 
noise; 
 Planner Stockdill responded that LUBs will indicate when landscape screening is required 
and it may also be a condition for a development variance permit (DVP).  Also, larger 
properties must maintain a landscape strip, but there is no screening for structures.   
 Karen Bell stated that she will be raising her concern regarding rural residential screening as 
she is concerned about allowing a 30 foot structure 15 feet from the lot line.  She would like 
consideration regarding big structures and also asked whether properties will be 
grandfathered where there is more than one shipping container; 
 Planner Stockdill responded that shipping containers are grandfathered;   
 Trustee McConchie said he did not recall any discussion regarding shipping containers;   
 Ann Burdett asked whether her property could be added to the industrial LUB, especially for 
sections e, f and especially section i without which there would not be any uses, buildings or 
structures allowed; 
 Planner Stockdill responded that it is up to the discretion of the LTC as the bylaw can be 
amended.  She reported that she has provided specific comments on Ann Burdett’s property 
for the LTC to consider at the August 11
th
 meeting and that comments are in the agenda.  
She said that if structures contained a use, they would be permitted.  She offered to discuss 
this issue with her directly;  
 Michael Sketch raised his concern about the Port Washington shed rezoning and mentioned 
that in 2014, the courts found against residential use.  He commented that due to the LUB 
and the landowner’s request, residential use has been added.  He also commented that the 
rezoning does not apply to the foreshore, but it would predispose residential use of both 
portions and that the owners wish to amalgamate the two lots, but that is not what is said in 
letter, bylaw or mapping.  He said that those show two separate parcels each with 
residential zoning.  He asked what the rational was for staff to suggest there be residential 
zoning to replace commercial zoning; 
 Planner Stockdill reported that there has not been active commercial use on that property 
for many years and may not be; and, that the owner made a proposal that is beneficial.  She 
reported that language is being developed to ensure there is only one dwelling unit even 
though there are two lots and, in terms of the old shed, it is in the Water 4 zone and can 
only be used as W4 zone permits for which the owner is aware;   

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 6 of 8 
 
 Michael Sketch stated that he is concerned about an amendment to the LUB which currently 
shows that both parcels of the Port Washington site will be given residential zoning.  He said 
this would predispose an application to rezone the W4 parcel for residential use and would 
in turn predispose an application to the province for foreshore lease.  He stated that step 
one would be to have local government zoning in place, which he feels is occurring without 
adequate community consultation from the contentious situation of 1994 to 2014.  He 
stated that the First Nation interests are affected by this and that there is nothing in the 
bylaw that requires the amalgamation.  His concern is that, if these bylaws go forward, there 
will be zoning for residences on both properties;  
 Planner Stockdill responded that staff are suggesting an amendment to those two 
properties to allow only one dwelling, most likely site specific, and that staff would not 
support rezoning Water 4 for residential use; 
 Michael Sketch said that the next LTC may not have the same view; 
 Planner Stockdill stated that she can provide the court ruling at the August 11
th
 meeting;   
 Dorothy Murdoch asked for the reason for removing everything and allow only rental 
housing for the C2 zoning behind the Driftwood Centre;   
 Trustee McConchie stated this issue was flagged by planning staff and there is interest to 
hear from the community about the proposals.  With some people experiencing unstable 
housing on Pender, it was proposed that it may be beneficial to businesses and the 
development of the centre’s core to provide some housing.  He commented that her 
response was to keep tourist zoning and build a campsite and he asked for her reasons 
against the proposal; 
 Dorothy Murdoch responded that affordable housing builds are impossible due to high 
costs.  She said she proposed more affordable ideas to Islands Trust such as several 
apartments on top of the Driftwood Centre and retail buildings 5, 6 and 7 which could 
accommodate apartments on the second story and that the infrastructure is already in 
place;  
 Trustee McConchie referenced the Plumtree Court Housing Society and federal and 
provincial subsidies that may be available; 
 Dorothy Murdoch stated that there is no problem having it added as permissive use and 
that building was more affordable in the past.  She said that unless there is a guarantee for a 
grant, it would be totally out of the question to build rental housing; 
 Trustee McConchie questioned the affordability for retaining 27 tourist accommodation 
units; 
 Dorothy Murdock responded that is what the property was purchased for and adding rental 
housing as a permitted use is acceptable.  However, she does not agree to take away other 
uses including the planned campground.  She stated the tourist accommodation use would 
be beneficial;  
 Trustee McConchie confirmed that Dorothy Murdock’s request is for the property to be kept 
zoned as tourist accommodation and possibly add rental housing;  
 Mary Beth Rondeau is concerned that under W1 zoning without a current dock, this 
constitutes a downzoning at resale.  She stated that it is required to get approval of the 
property owner for downzoning or otherwise to compensate them.  New owners would 
have to rezone to Water 1 with a whole list of OCP criteria.  From the list of OCP 
amendments being proposed for getting a dock, she questioned how many are already 

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 7 of 8 
 
covered by the provincial approval processes.  She questioned what the process criteria is 
for private docks in the OCP and what the summary of response in favour or against the 
community docks were.  She stated that in the June Trust Commentary and June Trust 
Council Staff Report, the idea of docks was not popular according to the public engagement 
and that restricting private docks is no longer considered to be astute given the 
consideration for emergency evacuations.  She read from the June Staff Report which stated 
that input from the public and First Nation should be sought.  She asked why the Trust was 
going ahead with this; 
 Planner Stockdill responded that the conditions in OCP bylaw 223 is similar to what the 
province has and staff recommend including it as an insurance because the provincial 
requirements can change.  With regards to common or shared docks, it will be determined if 
the applicant has talked to neighbours to share a dock or if there is a public dock nearby.  In 
terms of downzoning, the LTC has legal authority to amend use, but cannot remove all uses;  
 Chair Patrick reported that conversations are ongoing; 
 Trustee McConchie commented that South Pender had a zoning bylaw for docks introduced 
five years ago and he is not aware of detrimental impacts.  He said that uniformity for the 
foreshore seems logical and asking local trustees for their opinion after applying to the 
province allows for a local democratic process.  He stated that he has not tabulated the 
letters for or against, but will do so; 
 Mary Beth Rondeau commented that Islands Trust should be careful not to replicate upper 
government or take on the taxpayer burden of large science projects.  She warned against 
unnecessary prescriptive bylaws.  She stated this is covered by upper level government and 
does not think Islands Trust should get involved; 
 Mary Beth Rondeau raised the issue of waterfront setbacks.  She has concerns for 
evacuations given the enhanced limitation of structures such as stairs, fences and 
driveways.  She asked whether replacement of wooden stairs or putting in a driveway, if 
necessary, could be done in the waterfront area.  She was also concerned that a cistern was 
a new criteria for the DVP process;  
 Planner Stockdill responded that the potential requirement for cisterns is only when the LTC 
is considering a DVP to vary the maximum floor area of a residential building and that it is 
not for siting DVPs.  She stated that a paved driveway would require a DVP but a gravel 
driveway would not; and, that stairs currently going down to the foreshore are protected by 
the Local Government Act and can be maintained and rebuilt without a DVP when not 
encroaching further into the setback;  
 Trustee McConchie said he will write a letter to Paul Brent, CRD, regarding the impact the 
zoning process may have on evacuation during a potential catastrophic event;   
 Anne Burdett said that she concurred that there is overregulation and in 20 years, planners 
will read the bylaws differently and the word “only” will be interpreted differently; 
 Michael Sketch questioned why a setback from the natural boundary for sewage disposal 
fields has not been considered.  He commented that the First Nations interest is affected.  
He suggested this be added to the LUB. 
 Planner Stockdill responded that she will investigate this issue; 
 Chair Patrick reported that Island Health does have 15 metre setback. 
 Michael Sketch questioned whether the setback should be the same distance between a 
drilled well and sewage field which is 100 feet.  He commented that he believes the First 

 
North Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting, Community Information Meeting 
July 28, 2022 ADOPTED Page 8 of 8 
 
Nations, if asked, would prefer 30 metres to prevent contamination.  He said that the 
foreshore should eventually be cleaned up as it is currently contaminated.   
 Michael Sketch commented that the C2 zoning subject needs careful consideration.  He 
questioned whether it is appropriate to concentrate affordable housing all in a lump using a 
point source for water and that “smart growth” was documented in a report used by CRD as 
not being a good idea because of the impact on the water resource.  He mentioned that 
undeveloped lots in Magic Lake could have affordable housing and screening and would be a 
much better approach than lumping it all together in a water and sewage challenged area 
behind the Driftwood Centre.    
Chair Patrick stated that meetings are scheduled on August 11
th
 and 13
th
 and asked for 
comments and questions to be sent to southinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca.   
4. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 12:02 pm. 
 
________________________ 
Laura Patrick, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
______________________ 
Lauren Edwards, Recorder