South Pender Island Local Trust Committee public hearing, August 12, 2022

[0:00:00] Trustee Luckham: Let us begin. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee

[0:00:05] Trustee Luckham: special meeting. Just note for those attempting to get in as a participant today, this is

[0:00:14] Trustee Luckham: electronic broadcast meeting with no opportunity for members of the public to participate. There

[0:00:29] Trustee Luckham: the land use bylaws number 122 and 123 that were in public hearing last month, the 23rd, I believe.

[0:00:41] Trustee Luckham: So good morning again. My name is Peter Luckham. I'm elected on Thetis Island, and I'm the chair

[0:00:47] Trustee Luckham: of the South Maryland Local Trust Committee, as well as chair of council. It's a pleasure for me

[0:00:51] Trustee Luckham: to be here and be able to work in the South Penner community again. It's also a great pleasure

[0:00:57] Trustee Luckham: every day to wake up in Coach Taylor's territory, which is an incredibly rich cultural place,

[0:01:04] Trustee Luckham: rich history. There's lots to learn about First Nations that have been here since time immemorial

[0:01:11] Trustee Luckham: and recommend that anyone and everyone take that opportunity to learn more about this place that

[0:01:18] Trustee Luckham: we live, for which I am grateful to be here. I'll introduce my co-trustees here today. Steve Wright,

[0:01:25] Trustee Luckham: White elected on South Pender and Cameron Thorne also elected on South Pender we also have with us

[0:01:31] Trustee Luckham: Kim Stockdale our planner for the South Pender Local Trust Committee area as well as many others

[0:01:38] Trustee Luckham: and in the background I know we have Robin you Chuck there helping us out with the technology

[0:01:44] Trustee Luckham: and thank you for that so we have an agenda before also just ask briefly whether there's

[0:01:53] Trustee Luckham: anything to add to the agenda at this time we

[0:01:58] Voice 1: did get we did get an email about uh a referral but

[0:02:02] Voice 1: that's it uh

[0:02:06] Trustee Luckham: uh yeah we'll just cover that in a standard meeting that's the uh island stress

[0:02:11] Trustee Luckham: conservancy referral right yeah yeah we'll do that in a standard meeting um ideally you keep

[0:02:17] Trustee Luckham: the edge the special agenda item to within what's on the agenda or was the intent of the meeting in

[0:02:22] Trustee Luckham: order to not uh leave the public out of other discussions but cameron thorne over to you

[0:02:27] Trustee Luckham: oh yeah thank you um

[0:02:28] Voice 7: um no nothing to add to the agenda i guess we'll just obviously go through the

[0:02:34] Voice 7: items uh under the draft motions and that's where if we want to make any revisions it'll occur at

[0:02:39] Voice 7: that time rather than obviously adding anything to the agenda at this time yeah

[0:02:43] Trustee Luckham: and so once we

[0:02:44] Trustee Luckham: get into that if there apparently are other amendments that need to be made that this will

[0:02:48] Trustee Luckham: be your opportunity to make those amendments just noticing my volume doesn't seem to be oh there we

[0:02:55] Trustee Luckham: go there we go let's help my volume up now um okay so then i will then by take it by general consent

[0:03:04] Trustee Luckham: that we adopt the um agenda as uh presented and um uh the first three items on the agenda are

[0:03:11] Trustee Luckham: minutes from our previous meetings so the first one being uh the local trust committee minutes

[0:03:17] Trustee Luckham: stated july the 23rd are here for adoption and so i'll just ask if there's any changes to those

[0:03:24] Trustee Luckham: minutes no then we will adopt them as presented and then local trust committee public hearing

[0:03:32] Trustee Luckham: record also of july the 23rd ask if there's any obvious errors or omissions associated with that

[0:03:39] Trustee Luckham: record mostly here for a mission for information so then we'll adopt well we don't adopt those i

[0:03:46] Trustee Luckham: guess they're just part of the public record for information and then also local trust committee

[0:03:50] Trustee Luckham: public hearing record bylaw number 123 also july the 23rd that's there for information are there

[0:03:57] Trustee Luckham: any obvious errors or omissions associated with that no okay that's great so then let's move

[0:04:03] Trustee Luckham: directly to business items uh the first one being land use bylaw amendments and we have a report

[0:04:10] Trustee Luckham: court attached um thank you kim this is a complex process um uh i'm sure it makes complete sense to

[0:04:18] Trustee Luckham: you i think it requires some clarity for me anyway so i'll turn it over to you uh planner stockdale

[0:04:24] Trustee Luckham: and uh we'll uh we'll hear what you have to say there and then we'll go to the trustees and see

[0:04:30] Trustee Luckham: what questions are and what actions they would like to take over

[0:04:34] Voice 9: to you thank you chair luckham

[0:04:36] Voice 9: I'm going to be very brief because I really this is the time for the LTC to make decisions and also I am under the weather right now and I don't want to be coughing and and all that so as we know this bylaw number 122 in relation to the land use bylaw amendments is post public hearing.

[0:04:57] Voice 9: And so what that means is that the LTC cannot make any amendments in terms of density and use, but the LTC can make amendments to the bylaw on siting and size regulations based on comments received from the public hearing, from staff reports, and so forth.

[0:05:16] Voice 9: So, with that said, there are a number of outlined amendments and discussion that I've included in the staff report. They're all in draft format, and the draft motions are included on page one of the staff report.

[0:05:30] Voice 9: So my suggestion to the LTC is to work through these, have a discussion, and once the bylaw, after all the amendments are completed, the LTC has the option to give second and third reading, and then also to send to the EC for approval.

[0:05:50] Voice 9: And those motions are under options in the staff report.

[0:05:57] Voice 9: So I'm just going to keep it. I think that's all I'm going to say right now because really this is we have limited time and like the LTC to work through these amendments and if there's any specific questions about the amendments I've listed.

[0:06:09] Voice 9: I'm happy to provide more information.

[0:06:12] Voice 9: So, a chair luck I'm I'm going to pass it back to you and perhaps it's just a matter of working through number one the staff report, working through each amendment.

[0:06:19] Voice 9: Okay,

[0:06:22] Trustee Luckham: so what you're suggesting then is skipping past the recommended motions and going through each of the sections here, starting with item one, rebuilding a dwelling clause?

[0:06:35] Trustee Luckham: Yes,

[0:06:35] Voice 9: that's right, because those discussions, I've actually included the draft motion from those discussions in that draft motion, if I'm making sense.

[0:06:48] Voice 9: sense so

[0:06:49] Trustee Luckham: trustees are you comfortable with that does that make sense do you understand what we're

[0:06:53] Trustee Luckham: going to do yeah

[0:06:55] Voice 1: fair enough i i do have one question and a proposed bylaw that um that is

[0:07:00] Voice 1: on on the agenda and that's uh section 2.5 where it says despite and i believe that

[0:07:07] Trustee Luckham: okay so steve

[0:07:08] Trustee Luckham: before you get into that uh so we'll go through this a section at a time just to make sure we're

[0:07:14] Trustee Luckham: claire so if we're going

[0:07:15] Voice 1: to be one and then

[0:07:16] Trustee Luckham: go to 2.5 yeah

[0:07:17] Voice 1: i think it's i think it's an error in

[0:07:19] Voice 1: in in in the bylaw itself it's a grammatical error so i'm not sure we it's not really spoken

[0:07:28] Voice 1: to it's just kind of on that

[0:07:29] Trustee Luckham: okay so where would you suggest we how would you suggest we manage

[0:07:33] Trustee Luckham: those additional

[0:07:34] Voice 1: items okay it's on page 23 we

[0:07:40] Voice 9: do in my staff report there is another error in

[0:07:42] Voice 9: the bylaw it's point number

[0:07:43] Voice 9: seven the staff report perhaps it for all other errors that we've noted

[0:07:47] Voice 9: in the final perhaps we could discuss it then would that work

[0:07:50] Trustee Luckham: great yep

[0:07:51] Voice 8: okay

[0:07:54] Trustee Luckham: you're okay with

[0:07:54] Trustee Luckham: that cameron uh yes

[0:07:56] Voice 6: okay

[0:07:57] Trustee Luckham: so then let's go to uh item one rebuilding and dwelling cause um flaws

[0:08:08] Trustee Luckham: um and so the amend kim can you just help us out with that and let's just start with

[0:08:15] Trustee Luckham: section one i'll get you just to introduce each yeah

[0:08:17] Voice 9: so um proposed a motion a this is based on

[0:08:22] Voice 9: comments from um our legal representative that they thought that it would be make sense to add

[0:08:28] Voice 9: further clarity to that clause just stating that it is the owner's responsibility provide some type

[0:08:37] Voice 9: of proof that the dwelling had a certain floor area prior to the adoption of bylaw 122 and

[0:08:49] Voice 9: generally the owners actually have this information already because if you go through a building

[0:08:54] Voice 9: permit process you would have that those floor floor plans already so really that's what this

[0:09:00] Voice 9: addition to the clause is for motion a is that it reiterates that it's really the owners property

[0:09:06] Voice 9: owner's responsibility to provide that information so

[0:09:11] Trustee Luckham: is that clear to everybody

[0:09:13] Trustee Luckham: so uh cameron

[0:09:16] Voice 7: um sorry uh chair uh luckum um just a couple of things we're obviously getting into

[0:09:23] Voice 7: the um the draft motions i guess the only thing i would say it at the appropriate time here um

[0:09:30] Voice 7: you know i've reflected obviously a lot over the last couple years uh i've reflected a lot of since

[0:09:36] Voice 7: since the public hearing on the 23rd of July,

[0:09:39] Voice 7: and I've been listening to the community

[0:09:40] Voice 7: over the last couple of years.

[0:09:41] Voice 7: And so at some appropriate time

[0:09:43] Voice 7: before we start getting into these things,

[0:09:44] Voice 7: it might be helpful for,

[0:09:46] Voice 7: and I don't know if Trustee Wright is interested,

[0:09:49] Voice 7: but just maybe in speaking to things

[0:09:51] Voice 7: before we go too deep into each amendment.

[0:09:54] Voice 7: And I guess the other item I would say

[0:09:57] Voice 7: just on this first item about the proof

[0:10:01] Voice 7: is maybe could we park that for a minute

[0:10:03] Voice 7: it uh because it does relate to my suggestion that i'll raise again here about the schedule

[0:10:09] Voice 7: to the bylaw because i think the schedule to the bylaw that would would would probably effectively

[0:10:15] Voice 7: provide that option i did i have mentioned this idea in the past so if that's could be

[0:10:22] Voice 7: set aside until uh until i make my motions okay

[0:10:29] Trustee Luckham: so what you're saying then is you would like to

[0:10:32] Trustee Luckham: make some broad introductory introductory remarks associated with the land use bylaw and steve do

[0:10:38] Trustee Luckham: you want to do that as well i don't mind certainly yeah that's fine okay well then that's that's a

[0:10:43] Trustee Luckham: good idea so let's start off with that so cameron the floor is yours okay

[0:10:48] Voice 7: all right well thank you

[0:10:49] Voice 7: uh sure welcome um again i'm just going to uh to take a couple minutes here uh for me is there a

[0:10:57] Trustee Luckham: way to get a bit more volume from your place situation i got my volume cranked and i am having

[0:11:02] Trustee Luckham: a hard time hearing you so

[0:11:04] Voice 7: you can't hear me very well yeah

[0:11:06] Trustee Luckham: it's a little tiny bit garbled so it

[0:11:08] Trustee Luckham: makes it difficult to hear that but you just go ahead i'll

[0:11:13] Voice 7: sure i'll try and be as clear as i can

[0:11:17] Voice 7: today's addition decision point to a community discussion that has been underway for nearly two

[0:11:21] Voice 7: years throughout this period i've had discussions with many people expressing a variety of

[0:11:27] Voice 7: perspectives that i have genuinely tried to understand and reflect upon in their viewpoints

[0:11:31] Voice 7: i'm a believer that good public policy doesn't get generated in a vacuum and instead is the

[0:11:36] Voice 7: byproduct of consideration of various perspectives and rigorous discussions that's why some 14

[0:11:42] Voice 7: separate ltc meetings and special meetings on house size setbacks and design guidelines have

[0:11:47] Voice 7: been held between september 26 of 2020 and june 17 of 2022. i'm proud of the extent of community

[0:11:56] Voice 7: engagement we've undertaken and of the time dedicated to hearing everyone's perspective

[0:12:01] Voice 7: i've kept an open mind on the viewpoints i've heard which explains why elements of the proposed

[0:12:06] Voice 7: violence have evolved in my mind uh the decision before us today is not just about arriving at a

[0:12:12] Voice 7: good public policy outcome it is also about seeking common ground on policy in the interest

[0:12:18] Voice 7: of bringing the community together we're a small community and i'm saddened by the divisiveness

[0:12:23] Voice 7: that has been generated during the course of this discussion.

[0:12:27] Voice 7: This is not the time or place to call people out,

[0:12:30] Voice 7: but it seems some have amplified and fomented divisiveness

[0:12:33] Voice 7: through inflammatory and often inaccurate commentaries on social media.

[0:12:39] Voice 7: While I'm not happy with this, I'm not going to apologize

[0:12:41] Voice 7: for upholding my duties as a trustee to ensure that our land use bylaw

[0:12:44] Voice 7: is consistent with our OCP.

[0:12:46] Voice 7: In fact, our provincially approved OCP states at the outset

[0:12:50] Voice 7: that quote that every bylaw passed by the by the ltc most notably the self-pendered land use bylaw

[0:12:57] Voice 7: has to be consistent with the ocp the the the ocp sets out a number of policies and goals that have

[0:13:05] Voice 7: guided my approach uh uh to uh to the proposed bylaw 122. in brief they are to maintain the

[0:13:13] Voice 7: island's rural character to protect the natural features and biological diversity of the island

[0:13:18] Voice 7: to ensure land use development and associated servicing are compatible with the rural island character and that their growth is gradual and sustainable.

[0:13:26] Voice 7: And finally, that regulatory provisions pertaining to buildings, maximum floor area, lot size coverage, building and structure setbacks, height screening, parking are developed with regard to land use compatibility,

[0:13:39] Voice 7: the retention of the rural island character, the protection of natural views, and the maintenance of residential privacy.

[0:13:45] Voice 7: see if some people believe that these values are no longer important then that is a debate

[0:13:51] Voice 7: for the future but it is my duty to uphold these values in the ocp developing public policy can

[0:13:57] Voice 7: sometimes be a messy affair and that's okay some people have complained that our minds were made

[0:14:02] Voice 7: up and that we weren't listening and then the next breath were complaining that we were revising

[0:14:06] Voice 7: elements of the bylaws regrettably some people will only be satisfied if their will prevails

[0:14:11] Voice 7: and see my willing to recognize that our opinions are not embraced by everyone this is the challenge

[0:14:16] Voice 7: in the responsibility of being a trustee which is trying to reach decisions in the best interest of

[0:14:21] Voice 7: the whole community a number of people seem intent on trying to change our system of governance such

[0:14:27] Voice 7: that land use decisions are determined by a referendum of yeas and nays rather than through

[0:14:31] Voice 7: the thoughtful consideration of varying viewpoints in the directions provided by our ocp trying to

[0:14:37] Voice 7: arrive at a rational policy outcome that takes into consideration various important and at times

[0:14:41] Voice 7: competing in objectives is not best reached through a binary decision process of either

[0:14:47] Voice 7: yes or no, as it is unable to consider the nuances of policy options or approaches

[0:14:52] Voice 7: that find common ground. These perspectives and the public impact received have led me to

[0:15:03] Voice 7: the following perspectives on Bylaw 122 and, to some extent, 123. We have only basic land use

[0:15:11] Voice 7: tools to influence how dwellings are sited and masked and their relationship to or respect for

[0:15:15] Voice 7: adjacent properties we have no ability to influence materiality color and outward presentation good

[0:15:21] Voice 7: bad or otherwise while i appreciate that some property owners try to consider their adjacent

[0:15:26] Voice 7: neighbors in the character of their neighborhood there are others who have little or no concern

[0:15:30] Voice 7: for the neighbors and simply build what they want subject only to the limitations in the land use

[0:15:34] Voice 7: bylaw large poorly set of dwellings especially when located 10 feet from a shared property line

[0:15:40] Voice 7: might be defended as property rights of that owner,

[0:15:43] Voice 7: but what about the property rights of the adjacent property owners

[0:15:46] Voice 7: who will be negatively impacted by that dwelling

[0:15:49] Voice 7: and who may experience a loss of privacy,

[0:15:52] Voice 7: freedom from disturbance, and a reduction in property values?

[0:15:54] Voice 7: This would be one of my key objectives,

[0:15:57] Voice 7: is trying to balance property rights of adjacent properties.

[0:16:00] Voice 7: Larger side yard setbacks between dwellings

[0:16:03] Voice 7: create greater visual and audible privacy between living spaces

[0:16:05] Voice 7: and support the OCP goal of maintaining a sense of tranquility,

[0:16:09] Voice 7: privacy and freedom from disturbance the apc in their july 16 2021 minutes noted quote it is

[0:16:18] Voice 7: unfortunate that the building design and citing guidelines do not address the urban nature of

[0:16:22] Voice 7: current setbacks in the land use bylaw well it's the role of the land use bylaw not voluntary

[0:16:27] Voice 7: guidelines to establish setbacks setbacks the point is that a minimum separation of 20 feet

[0:16:33] Voice 7: which is 10 feet on either side of a property line provides for the squeezing together of houses

[0:16:38] Voice 7: houses.

[0:16:38] Voice 7: In terms of creating space between dwellings, it's worth noting the front yard setbacks

[0:16:43] Voice 7: in our by-law result in over 110 feet of separation between houses as they face each other, but

[0:16:48] Voice 7: only 20 feet side to side.

[0:16:52] Voice 7: I do also want to comment some of the other comments that I think helpful comments I've

[0:16:56] Voice 7: received from members of our community.

[0:16:59] Voice 7: One was the idea that property owners consider voluntarily placing a covenant on their property

[0:17:04] Voice 7: that would place restrictions on the size or dwellings of the structure.

[0:17:07] Voice 7: I think it's a great idea if people want to do that, but I would note that this is not a substitute for land use bylaws of general application, as a voluntary covenant by one or several property owners would do nothing to prevent other surrounding properties from proceeding with the construction of much larger dwellings that could impose a dominating mass sharply out of context with the preservationist-minded owners who registered covenants on their properties.

[0:17:32] Voice 7: I also want to note that I've heard from some property owners that living in a rural environment necessitates greater floor area for mechanical equipment, such as water pumps and pressure tanks, and more area for storage than typically required in a more urban environment.

[0:17:47] Voice 7: I agree with this, and I believe we need to provide some floor space exclusions to accommodate these needs.

[0:17:54] Voice 7: I'm also less concerned about the absolute square footage of a dwelling than how it presents itself on the landscape.

[0:17:59] Voice 7: I do want to talk for a minute about some of the letters we've received about scientific

[0:18:05] Voice 7: evidence and data, and complain that there wasn't that information.

[0:18:13] Voice 7: Scientific evidence is an amorphous term, and demanding it as the yardstick for a decision

[0:18:21] Voice 7: on the bylaws can obfuscate the conversation, which for some may have been the intent.

[0:18:26] Voice 7: tent. While there is science to support reducing the size of dwellings, there are other more

[0:18:30] Voice 7: tangible planning considerations that I also took into account. However, on the topic of

[0:18:35] Voice 7: science or technical evidence, I do want to respond to comments at the public hearing

[0:18:39] Voice 7: by Mr. Perch regarding house sizes and his references to LEED, which awards points to

[0:18:45] Voice 7: buildings based on their energy consumption and environmental design. Mr. Perch states that a

[0:18:50] Voice 7: large home constructed to LEED standards can produce a far smaller carbon footprint than a

[0:18:55] Voice 7: smaller home that is not constructed to that standard mr perchson asserts the proposed

[0:19:00] Voice 7: bylaws based on unqualified personal ideas that are in conflict with professionally accredited

[0:19:05] Voice 7: energy and environmental design principles this is quite a leap in logic if we're to have a

[0:19:11] Voice 7: rational conversation about house size and the correlation to environmental impacts it must be

[0:19:15] Voice 7: based on this comparison in other words other things being equal a larger home built to lead

[0:19:21] Voice 7: standards will have a larger carbon footprint in terms of construction materials and will

[0:19:26] Voice 7: use more carbon during its operation than a smaller home built to the same LEED standards.

[0:19:31] Voice 7: Notably, the LEED point system rewards or penalizes homes for their size compared to

[0:19:36] Voice 7: the reference home. Homes can earn one additional point for every 4% decrease in square footage

[0:19:42] Voice 7: or lose points for every 4% increase in square footage compared to the reference home, the

[0:19:48] Voice 7: reference home, which is 2,200 square feet for a three-bedroom home and 2,800 square feet for a

[0:19:53] Voice 7: four-bedroom home. If Mr. Perch wishes for these bylaws to be aligned with LEED standards, he

[0:19:59] Voice 7: should be supportive of the provisions in our proposed revisions to house size. Finally, I want

[0:20:06] Voice 7: to say a primary consideration for me is the preservation of rural character. During the July

[0:20:11] Voice 7: 23rd public hearing, a number of speakers opined that there was little or no correlation between

[0:20:16] Voice 7: between rural character and house size.

[0:20:18] Voice 7: The argument was effectively that our island is rural

[0:20:21] Voice 7: and building larger houses will change that.

[0:20:24] Voice 7: I strongly disagree.

[0:20:26] Voice 7: The feelings of space, quiet and openness

[0:20:29] Voice 7: within a lush vegetative setting

[0:20:30] Voice 7: that we experienced on this island

[0:20:32] Voice 7: are in large part due to the relative absence

[0:20:34] Voice 7: of large homes that dominate the landscape.

[0:20:37] Voice 7: For the most part, existing homes are much smaller

[0:20:39] Voice 7: than the maximum size is permitted under the bylaw

[0:20:41] Voice 7: and their scale and massing are generally subordinate

[0:20:44] Voice 7: to the surrounding vegetation and trees. We are blessed with this existing condition.

[0:20:50] Voice 7: Now imagine the future scenario where many of the properties have been redeveloped with much

[0:20:54] Voice 7: larger dwellings as permitted under the current bylaw, resulting in a scale amassing far more

[0:20:59] Voice 7: dominant upon the landscape. As Frank Ducote noted, places like people have a personality.

[0:21:05] Voice 7: If we don't act now on addressing house sizes that allow for much larger dwellings than currently

[0:21:10] Voice 7: exist, the personality of South Pender and its role character will be changed forever.

[0:21:16] Voice 7: Thank you. Those are my comments.

[0:21:21] Trustee Luckham: Okay. Thank you, Cameron. Trustee Wright,

[0:21:25] Trustee Luckham: you have something?

[0:21:28] Voice 1: Yeah. Well, after reviewing my notes and rereading the written submissions

[0:21:33] Voice 1: where we've received over the length of this process, the perspectives of those who oppose

[0:21:40] Voice 1: and those who support this proposal seem to be split.

[0:21:44] Voice 1: There are those who are concerned about their own properties if the by-law should proceed,

[0:21:49] Voice 1: and those who are concerned with the broader community should it not.

[0:21:53] Voice 1: I don't think it would be too far-reached to say that some have raised a fundamental question

[0:21:58] Voice 1: about the relevance and the purpose of the Honours Trust itself.

[0:22:02] Voice 1: Are Trust Council's policies optional for communities to consider,

[0:22:07] Voice 1: or are the policy statement and council's declarations

[0:22:10] Voice 1: on reconciliation and climate emergency

[0:22:13] Voice 1: intended to generate affirmative action

[0:22:16] Voice 1: by being incorporated in all OCPs

[0:22:19] Voice 1: and land use bylaws throughout the trust area?

[0:22:22] Voice 1: Many of the opposing arguments seem to have neglected

[0:22:25] Voice 1: to take that into account.

[0:22:27] Voice 1: And I think that the mandate, the Allens Trust,

[0:22:31] Voice 1: must have an influence on all our local issues.

[0:22:35] Voice 1: But in fact, no policy,

[0:22:37] Voice 1: or regulation can be put forward by a local trust committee if it is contrary to or in variance with

[0:22:44] Voice 1: the policy statement or those declarations and comparisons to other jurisdictions who do not

[0:22:51] Voice 1: have similar legislation doesn't have much relevance within the guiding principles of

[0:22:59] Voice 1: the policy statement it states when making decisions and exercising judgment trust council

[0:23:05] Voice 1: will place priority on preserving and protecting the integrity of the environment and amenities

[0:23:10] Voice 1: of the trust area it also says the trust council believes that to achieve the islands trust object

[0:23:17] Voice 1: the rate and scale of growth and development in the trust area must be carefully managed

[0:23:22] Voice 1: and may require limitation the goal of the policy statement is to recognize one as humans occupy and

[0:23:30] Voice 1: modify the trust area ecosystems are subject to various pressures protection of these ecosystems

[0:23:36] Voice 1: is essential if they are to remain healthy and productive for the benefit of future generations

[0:23:43] Voice 1: two planning must account for the cumulative effects of existing and proposed developments

[0:23:49] Voice 1: to avoid detrimental effects on watersheds groundwater supplies and trust area species

[0:23:55] Voice 1: species and habitats. The principle of sustainability must be upheld. Protective measures

[0:24:02] Voice 1: are varied and can include actions ranging from preservation of natural areas in the form of parks

[0:24:08] Voice 1: and ecological reserves to increasing public awareness and understanding of the need for

[0:24:13] Voice 1: sustainable use and stewardship by all landowners. I think that most people will agree that the

[0:24:21] Voice 1: protection of the environment and rural character of South Pender is important. They just disagree

[0:24:25] Voice 1: agree on how to do it and that is why we look to the goals of the south pender official community

[0:24:31] Voice 1: plan which cameron has has uh commented on certainly 2.2.1 2.2.4 2.4.3 are the ones that

[0:24:43] Voice 1: he mentioned but i'd also like to note that 2.4.4 states that in its decision making the local trust

[0:24:51] Voice 1: Trust Committee will ensure that land use planning and development promote deductions in greenhouse gas emissions,

[0:24:58] Voice 1: support efforts to adapt to climate change impacts, and recognize the role of existing rural and natural areas in the absorption of carbon.

[0:25:08] Voice 1: The Climate Change Emergency Declaration by Trust Council is a clear indication that Trust Council recognizes

[0:25:17] Voice 1: recognizes that any steps towards reducing carbon energy consumption and taking further steps to

[0:25:24] Voice 1: mitigate the impact of climate change is imperative if we are to begin taking steps towards mitigation

[0:25:32] Voice 1: we must begin within our own communities to those who ask why should we be first I would answer why

[0:25:40] Voice 1: not us and if not then who this discussion has also raised the question about a trustee's role

[0:25:47] Voice 1: Some have suggested that our role and responsibility is to the community and we

[0:25:53] Voice 1: should act only with the consent of a majority of property owners. While trustees do represent

[0:25:59] Voice 1: their community to Trust Council, we also represent Trust Councils to our community.

[0:26:04] Voice 1: Furthermore, the Act requires us to speak on behalf of all residents of British Columbia.

[0:26:09] Voice 1: We must hold this broader perspective and not be intimidated into narrowing our view

[0:26:14] Voice 1: to what is directly in front of us.

[0:26:17] Voice 1: Many writers have noted their opposition to Bylaw 122,

[0:26:21] Voice 1: but have not provided reasons.

[0:26:23] Voice 1: They may be fundamentally anti-government,

[0:26:25] Voice 1: or they simply do not want change.

[0:26:27] Voice 1: Many have said they like it the way it is,

[0:26:30] Voice 1: but that is difficult to ascertain because the island has

[0:26:32] Voice 1: and always will continue to change.

[0:26:38] Voice 1: Many are opposed on the basis of, unfortunately,

[0:26:42] Voice 1: the misinformation that has been passed around.

[0:26:44] Voice 1: the continual reference to legal non-conforming is an example staff has emphasized that no property

[0:26:51] Voice 1: will become legal non-conforming and trustees have included specific provisions in the bylaw

[0:26:57] Voice 1: that allows all existing properties to retain their legal status still if any owner continues

[0:27:04] Voice 1: to be unconvinced they can have their property included in a schedule for added assurance

[0:27:10] Voice 1: Comments about home insurance and assessments have also been tossed around without proof

[0:27:15] Voice 1: they are legitimate concerns.

[0:27:17] Voice 1: We've heard complaints about the use of a development variance, even though its use

[0:27:22] Voice 1: is common in most jurisdictions to allow development to take place that is contrary to the existing

[0:27:28] Voice 1: bylaws.

[0:27:29] Voice 1: And one understated benefit of a variance is that it notifies adjacent property owners

[0:27:35] Voice 1: and provides them with a chance to comment on the changes being anticipated.

[0:27:39] Voice 1: This is an opportunity that does not exist at the moment.

[0:27:42] Voice 1: It's an opportunity that some owners have regretted.

[0:27:46] Voice 1: Some have raised objections in order to stall

[0:27:49] Voice 1: or postpone the process suggesting

[0:27:51] Voice 1: we have not sufficiently consulted the community

[0:27:54] Voice 1: or are rushing the process.

[0:27:56] Voice 1: Yet these complaints contradict

[0:27:57] Voice 1: the long history of this proposal.

[0:28:00] Voice 1: We have been accused of not listening,

[0:28:02] Voice 1: then heard complaints that we have made too many amendments,

[0:28:05] Voice 1: amendments made in response to what we have heard.

[0:28:08] Voice 1: we hear a common concern about climate change and the need to address its impacts

[0:28:13] Voice 1: but we hear little willingness to change the very lifestyle and habits that we have that contribute

[0:28:19] Voice 1: to it we have been accused of not providing sufficient data but when offered it has been

[0:28:25] Voice 1: rejected because it is not relevant to self-pender as though we are separate from the outside world

[0:28:31] Voice 1: and are not susceptible to its influences we have heard of the perceived negative implications to

[0:28:38] Voice 1: to personal properties.

[0:28:39] Voice 1: It's hard for me to accept complaints

[0:28:41] Voice 1: that these proposed floor areas are too restrictive

[0:28:44] Voice 1: when 80% of existing homes are below 2,500 square feet

[0:28:50] Voice 1: and over 90% are below 3,500 square feet.

[0:28:54] Voice 1: This bylaw will affect new construction

[0:28:56] Voice 1: far more than existing homes,

[0:28:58] Voice 1: just as many residents have requested.

[0:29:01] Voice 1: It seems it is the idea of having a restriction

[0:29:05] Voice 1: rather than it ever applying to them

[0:29:07] Voice 1: that people are opposed to on the other hand those who support the bylaw have spoken to broader

[0:29:13] Voice 1: perspectives including the existential threat of climate change continuing environmental degradation

[0:29:19] Voice 1: and the loss of our rural and natural character these comments speak of the long-term positive

[0:29:27] Voice 1: benefits which may result with the passing of this bylaw in accomplishing any goals and objectives

[0:29:34] Voice 1: perspectives. A diversity of ideas and perspectives are a healthy component of any community.

[0:29:40] Voice 1: But fair play during these discussions must be expected. A commitment to respectful, progressive

[0:29:47] Voice 1: dialogue is important, but unfortunately those attributes have not always been employed in

[0:29:52] Voice 1: many instances. I have offered to discuss any and all options to achieve the goals and

[0:29:57] Voice 1: and objectives of our OCP and

[0:30:00] Voice 1: policy statement with respect to bylaw 122 with anyone but very few have responded this is

[0:30:06] Voice 1: regretful because it results in a division and a breakdown of the public process i want to give

[0:30:13] Voice 1: some attention to the petition that was circulated on island i appreciate the effort it took to

[0:30:19] Voice 1: accomplish this but there are some difficulties i have with accepting its results a petition should

[0:30:25] Voice 1: be conducted by an independent and neutral body this ensures the information about the subject of

[0:30:31] Voice 1: the petition is factual balanced and presented without bias or pressure to answer in any

[0:30:37] Voice 1: particular way any opinion loses its value if it is based upon incorrect information

[0:30:44] Voice 1: there must also be some assurance that the tally of those responses are accurate considering the

[0:30:51] Voice 1: way this petition was conducted i'm not going to reject the findings out of hand but i'm not

[0:30:56] Voice 1: prepared to give the results as much weight as i would have if the petition was done in a more

[0:31:02] Voice 1: reliable fashion i realize excuse me i realize um some are going to be not happy with my decision

[0:31:14] Voice 1: about this but if the situation were versed and i had conducted the survey similar questions and

[0:31:20] Voice 1: criticisms would have been raised it is regretful the trustees were not contacted prior to this

[0:31:26] Voice 1: petition being undertaken so that we could have discussed these concerns beforehand for those who

[0:31:33] Voice 1: insist upon the necessity of having a majority of the community before making a decision

[0:31:38] Voice 1: i respectfully disagree because there are other factors in place such as the trust mandate

[0:31:43] Voice 1: policy statement and our ocp this process isn't a numbers game and to promote this issue as such

[0:31:50] Voice 1: is divisive to our community we do not condone this approach and regret that has been taken

[0:31:54] Voice 1: to such a level.

[0:31:57] Voice 1: Of all the policies that I have mentioned

[0:31:59] Voice 1: provide the rationale and justification

[0:32:01] Voice 1: for Bylaw 122.

[0:32:03] Voice 1: And Bylaw 122

[0:32:06] Voice 1: recognizes the changing world

[0:32:07] Voice 1: in which we live and the increasing

[0:32:10] Voice 1: challenges facing our community,

[0:32:11] Voice 1: a growing population and its associated

[0:32:14] Voice 1: development, climate change,

[0:32:16] Voice 1: the need to protect our rural

[0:32:18] Voice 1: and natural character, and the

[0:32:20] Voice 1: desire to work towards sustainability.

[0:32:22] Voice 1: I understand there may be some

[0:32:24] Voice 1: inconvenience and a need to change our expectations and lifestyle to comply with the provisions in

[0:32:29] Voice 1: this bylaw but i am convinced as are many other persons who support this proposal that achieves

[0:32:35] Voice 1: the goals and objectives of the trust policy statement the ocp of south pender island and

[0:32:41] Voice 1: will be beneficial over the long term thank you

[0:32:55] Voice 8: you're on mute uh chair luckham yeah you're right

[0:33:00] Trustee Luckham: Right. Thank you. I've got a two-year-old downstairs that was being a bit ambitious.

[0:33:06] Trustee Luckham: He wants to be engaged in the public discussion. Anyway, so thank you very much, gentlemen.

[0:33:14] Trustee Luckham: And so how would you like to proceed now? Do you want to go through this report section by section

[0:33:19] Trustee Luckham: to be sure that we've got the potential amendments as you anticipate them to be? And then indeed,

[0:33:28] Trustee Luckham: we'll need to have an opportunity to fix or correct any additional errors and omissions

[0:33:33] Trustee Luckham: that might exist. Shall we just proceed? All right. So, then we're in that Section 1 area.

[0:33:42] Trustee Luckham: I'm going to get my mouse up here somewhere. Where's it gone?

[0:33:49] Trustee Luckham: This multi-screen stuff. I don't know how staff do that. There we go.

[0:33:52] Trustee Luckham: um so the section is uh uh one rebuilding a dwelling clause so this is uh to do with

[0:34:03] Trustee Luckham: a reconstruction of a dwelling in the event of a loss um uh there's two uh three pieces uh

[0:34:11] Trustee Luckham: two pieces highlighted in um yellow there are there any remarks or concerns with respect to that

[0:34:21] Voice 7: Trustee Luckin, you're talking where it says, and for this purposes, the LTC may require an order to submit a certification. That's the section you're talking about?

[0:34:29] Voice 7: Yeah,

[0:34:30] Voice 8: those are the items

[0:34:30] Voice 7: that are new amendments.

[0:34:31] Voice 7: Yeah. I mean, I guess if I could speak to that for a moment. As it's written right now, I guess my concern is that it appears that we are effectively requiring every property owner on the island to submit documentation to the trust as to their size and their setbacks.

[0:34:55] Voice 7: and to me that i don't think that was the intent and i certainly wouldn't want that to be the

[0:35:00] Voice 7: intent uh i mean as we know that we've got provisions in the uh in in the land use in

[0:35:06] Voice 7: the proposed land use bylaw that would provide uh clarity that buildings built before a certain

[0:35:13] Voice 7: before the date that this bylaws to pass that uh buildings in terms of their size or the setback

[0:35:18] Voice 7: would be recognized as legally conforming um but in terms of the belt and suspenders approach and

[0:35:25] Voice 7: recognizing that for some people that that didn't give them you know the additional degree of

[0:35:31] Voice 7: certainty that they were seeking my proposal which i'll raise again now is it is that we would

[0:35:37] Voice 7: provide an option to uh two community members that whereby there would be a schedule to the

[0:35:44] Voice 7: land use bylaw and it would be um we would have i'm thinking 12 months we would provide a 12 month

[0:35:51] Voice 7: period of time for anybody who so felt inclined that they wanted to submit information about their

[0:36:00] Voice 7: property because they felt like they would be otherwise legal on conforming if their house was

[0:36:05] Voice 7: say less than 20 feet from the side yard so they and again i think most of us when we built our

[0:36:10] Voice 7: homes uh we were required at the time of um getting the the building permit to submit a site

[0:36:18] Voice 7: survey, which would normally show your distance from the property line to the side of the building.

[0:36:23] Voice 7: So I think most people would already have that information, but certainly a survey is a pretty

[0:36:27] Voice 7: basic thing to get done. But point being is that we would give people a 12-month window of time

[0:36:32] Voice 7: to voluntarily submit to the trust information about their property. And then at the end of

[0:36:41] Voice 7: that time period, there would have to be a motion by a future LTC to basically take that information

[0:36:48] Voice 7: and embed it into the take that schedule information and add it to the to the

[0:36:54] Voice 7: land use by lot as a schedule in other words you have an empty schedule today

[0:36:58] Voice 7: you know if we pass this you have an empty schedule twelve months later we

[0:37:02] Voice 7: would add all that data to the schedule and that would include the PIDs all the

[0:37:07] Voice 7: particular details about that property and this is a very common process and

[0:37:10] Voice 7: certainly in other cities where I do work where when a land use when it as a

[0:37:14] Voice 7: a property that is different

[0:37:18] Voice 7: from what might otherwise be in the land use bylaw

[0:37:20] Voice 7: is codified in the schedule

[0:37:22] Voice 7: so that it is legally part of the land use bylaw.

[0:37:26] Voice 7: And again, we talked about this

[0:37:28] Voice 7: for probably well over a year with the community.

[0:37:30] Voice 7: I do think that's the way to go

[0:37:31] Voice 7: rather than just having something at the beginning

[0:37:33] Voice 7: saying that we're requiring everybody

[0:37:36] Voice 7: to submit information to the trust,

[0:37:38] Voice 7: which I don't think is what we really want.

[0:37:43] Trustee Luckham: So maybe before we move along on that,

[0:37:46] Trustee Luckham: it seems incredibly unwieldy to me but um and i'm not sure whether or not be supported in the

[0:37:52] Trustee Luckham: legislation with respect to the way our bylaw format is set up and uh particularly surrounding

[0:38:00] Trustee Luckham: the timeline and you've suggested a future ltc needs to do that that certainly doesn't add any

[0:38:06] Trustee Luckham: certainty to the process kim do you have any thoughts about how this that concept would fit

[0:38:15] Trustee Luckham: into the construct of the existing by-law regime that we have?

[0:38:21] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:38:22] Trustee Luckham: I've never seen that.

[0:38:23] Trustee Luckham: It might happen in other jurisdictions,

[0:38:25] Trustee Luckham: but I've never seen it in the Alliance Trust.

[0:38:27] Voice 9: I haven't dealt with it myself, but I think it could be done.

[0:38:31] Voice 9: You know, the LTC could amend the land use by-law right now

[0:38:35] Voice 9: through land use by-law number or amendment by-law number 122

[0:38:39] Voice 9: to add a blank schedule.

[0:38:41] Voice 9: But the big point is it'd be up to the next LTC.

[0:38:46] Voice 9: to follow that through and what happens if the ltc next ltc says nope we have no interest in

[0:38:52] Voice 9: doing this uh we're not going to follow through now the land use bylaw has an empty schedule

[0:38:58] Voice 9: attached to it and

[0:39:02] Voice 1: my my sense is that that we're we're kind of arguing to achieve the same purpose

[0:39:07] Voice 1: here first off i want to i want to point out that the the amendment uh says may so there is no

[0:39:13] Voice 1: requirement that's right um or or or or demand that um property owners submit it it just says

[0:39:21] Voice 1: that if the ltc requires it then we may ask them for it um whether it is um presented at the time

[0:39:30] Voice 1: of the request or whether it is uh placed uh in advance in a schedule i'm not really sure i'm

[0:39:37] Voice 1: uh i i care about that but i certainly uh have some questions about fettering the discretion of

[0:39:43] Voice 1: the future trust committee so if it's at this late point of of the bylaw where we can't do it

[0:39:49] Voice 1: practically then um i i i would suggest that we just simply proceed with motion a and um

[0:39:58] Voice 1: and uh and carry on and i i i understand what cameron is saying and i support the essence of

[0:40:05] Voice 1: what he's saying. I just I think we're a little late in bringing it to the table and as I said

[0:40:10] Voice 1: I'm not concerned about just forcing anybody to do it. It simply requires them that we may or tells

[0:40:18] Voice 1: them that we may require it so I'm okay with it.

[0:40:22] Trustee Luckham: Sure so I just have a question and indeed thanks

[0:40:26] Trustee Luckham: for highlighting Steve that it does say may and so it's certainly not required and my presumption

[0:40:33] Trustee Luckham: here is that this the LTC may require this at the time that a property owner applies for some

[0:40:41] Trustee Luckham: sort of permitting to do a reconstruction and so we would simply just say okay well that's fine

[0:40:49] Trustee Luckham: we need to know what that was prior to the adoption of this bylaw so I it's a tool to

[0:41:00] Trustee Luckham: enable staff to ensure that the correct information comes to us in order to support a building permit

[0:41:07] Trustee Luckham: process is that correct kim that's

[0:41:09] Voice 9: exactly correct chair luckham right

[0:41:12] Trustee Luckham: so you know conceptually i'm

[0:41:14] Trustee Luckham: okay with that particular amendment appreciate the uh cameron what you want to achieve it would

[0:41:21] Trustee Luckham: certainly abs add certainty but um as we know some people don't get around to it and then they

[0:41:30] Trustee Luckham: they would feel disenfranchised and then others will of course suggest that others have advantage

[0:41:36] Trustee Luckham: over those that didn't take advantage of the opportunity yeah i mean i mean okay i mean

[0:41:42] Voice 7: obviously i obviously my i understand the comments from the two of you and and so we'll abide by that

[0:41:48] Voice 7: um i do i do think that in the fullness of time i guess there was more time in this in this term

[0:41:53] Voice 7: i would i would think and again i heard this from from people that that are members of our community

[0:41:59] Voice 7: It felt like if you want an absolute airtight certainty that that would be the way to go.

[0:42:05] Voice 7: Again, I think that the provisions that we've already got in the bylaw about recognizing the legality of structures is great.

[0:42:13] Voice 7: It's solid. This is just another layer. So fair enough. Let's not belabor the point.

[0:42:18] Trustee Luckham: Yeah. And I would just say a suggestion to it, which is a known practice, a suggestion from a present LTC sitting members to a future LTC.

[0:42:28] Trustee Luckham: You might suggest that a schedule would provide a level of certainty because, you know, I sort of feel that this conversation isn't going to be over after you guys got the bylaw.

[0:42:39] Trustee Luckham: So we'll just see how that goes.

[0:42:41] Trustee Luckham: But certainly, recommendations to a future incoming LTC might be helpful in that respect.

[0:42:47] Trustee Luckham: Fair enough.

[0:42:48] Trustee Luckham: Yeah.

[0:42:49] Trustee Luckham: All right, then.

[0:42:50] Voice 1: So in that case, could I move that the South Bender Island Open Trust Committee proposed

[0:42:54] Voice 1: bylaw 122 cited as South Bender Island land use bylaw number 114, 2016 amendment number

[0:43:02] Voice 1: 2, 2021 be amended by adding the following to the clause regarding maximum floria and

[0:43:10] Voice 1: setback regulations, quote, and for this purpose, the local trust committee may require an owner

[0:43:17] Voice 1: to submit a certification from an appropriately qualified person as to the floor area of the

[0:43:23] Voice 1: dwelling at the time of the adoption of this bylaw and quote

[0:43:26] Trustee Luckham: right so move to have a seconder

[0:43:30] Trustee Luckham: Cameron thank you um any just any further discussion no

[0:43:34] Voice 7: the only thing I would add

[0:43:35] Voice 7: to just as an aside to this is that and as you as Steve pointed out the word is may and it's it

[0:43:40] Voice 7: it would be requested may be requested a future time if somebody wants to do something different

[0:43:45] Voice 7: as you say chair luckham to their property but the information itself is not shouldn't be owners

[0:43:51] Voice 7: to provide and and i and i go again i think back to uh when people get home insurance a lot of times

[0:43:58] Voice 7: insurance companies are going to ask for very much of the same information about particulars

[0:44:02] Voice 7: of the size of their dwelling uh so to me it's it's it's it's not asking for something

[0:44:09] Voice 7: that's impossible to provide so that

[0:44:11] Trustee Luckham: would be my only comment no i i agree like that certainly my

[0:44:14] Trustee Luckham: My insurance agent wants to know every little detail about my house.

[0:44:21] Trustee Luckham: So that's great. So if there's no further discussion, then I'll call for the vote.

[0:44:24] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor. And that carries unanimously. So thank you very much.

[0:44:29] Trustee Luckham: So the second amendment is similar in nature. Is there any discussion on this one?

[0:44:35] Trustee Luckham: Could we just so this maybe we can just elaborate. This

[0:44:37] Voice 7: is adding a clause, just like we've done for the residential rural sections that provide that security of.

[0:44:45] Voice 7: of the ability to rebuild in the event something happened.

[0:44:48] Voice 7: That's correct.

[0:44:49] Voice 9: Because at the May 6th meeting,

[0:44:50] Voice 9: you added those new maximum floor areas

[0:44:53] Voice 9: to those three zones,

[0:44:54] Voice 9: but at that time we forgot to add the clause in.

[0:44:56] Voice 9: So this is just adding the clause.

[0:44:59] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:45:00] Voice 7: Well, I will move that the,

[0:45:03] Voice 7: unless somebody else wants to speak to that,

[0:45:05] Voice 7: that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee

[0:45:09] Voice 7: proposed bylaw 122,

[0:45:10] Voice 7: cited the South Pender Island land use bylaw

[0:45:12] Voice 7: on number one 14 2016 amendment number two 2021 be amended by adding a clause of the agricultural

[0:45:19] Voice 7: forest and natural resources zones to allow for a replacement dwelling that would not exceed the

[0:45:24] Voice 7: floria at the time of the bylaw adoption i'll

[0:45:29] Voice 8: second that yeah

[0:45:34] Trustee Luckham: i i just wonder about the word

[0:45:36] Trustee Luckham: at the as floria at the time of bylaw adoption um i'm presuming that that it legally makes uh

[0:45:46] Trustee Luckham: sense and that it's referring to this bylaw correct Kim yes

[0:45:53] Voice 9: okay

[0:45:54] Trustee Luckham: so then that's fine so

[0:45:55] Trustee Luckham: that's moved and I think I heard Steve second that motion so I'll just ask if there's any

[0:46:01] Trustee Luckham: further discussion all those in favor none opposed that carries so then the next section

[0:46:08] Trustee Luckham: now is section two definition of the floor area so do you want to make any

[0:46:17] Trustee Luckham: remarks there camera would just go straight to trustees might

[0:46:20] Voice 9: as well just

[0:46:20] Voice 9: go straight to trustees okay

[0:46:22] Trustee Luckham: thank you trustees I

[0:46:24] Voice 7: just quite a question there

[0:46:26] Voice 7: could we the definition of floor area is what I've been on page 16 and perhaps so

[0:46:37] Voice 7: this is okay so i'm just going to read it out just so people can hear it floor area means the

[0:46:44] Voice 7: sum of the horizontal areas of all stories in a building measured to the outer inner surface

[0:46:51] Voice 7: of the exterior walls exclusive of any floor area occupied by a cistern for the storage of

[0:47:01] Voice 7: water for domestic or fire protection and exclusive of all areas of a story having a floor

[0:47:09] Voice 7: and a ceiling less than 1.5 meters apart uh okay and then i think was there something else here

[0:47:19] Voice 7: right again you know thinking back to to cordy duncan had mentioned a number of times about

[0:47:24] Voice 7: clarity around you know a garage not being included in lower area is that um is that i

[0:47:34] Voice 7: guess that's where we could add the amendment to include uh an exclusive a story that is not fully

[0:47:39] Voice 7: enclosed by a floor ceilings and four walls or glass is that that's right got it i i think that

[0:47:45] Voice 7: we i would i would want to see that there just because i think there has been uh some uh you

[0:47:51] Voice 7: know some concern by some that that they're the area of uh of a garage for example which has a

[0:47:58] Voice 7: roof it's got a floor you know it's attached to in the case of gory's example attached to the

[0:48:03] Voice 7: to the body of the house but it's it's not fully enclosed and it's not capital space or you know i

[0:48:10] Voice 7: I think in our minds, it was pretty clear that that was not included in FAR, or FLIR, I should say.

[0:48:17] Voice 7: But I think adding that additional wording would make me feel better.

[0:48:25] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[0:48:26] Trustee Luckham: Kim, do we have a recommended motion that includes that, or can we just add that to the end of the motion that's there?

[0:48:35] Trustee Luckham: The motion is there that would address that, I believe.

[0:48:38] Trustee Luckham: Oh,

[0:48:38] Voice 1: motion C, top of page 17.

[0:48:42] Trustee Luckham: Oh, I see.

[0:48:43] Trustee Luckham: I've got it.

[0:48:43] Trustee Luckham: yep all right it's perfect so that's motion c yeah you highlighted it in yellow otherwise

[0:48:49] Trustee Luckham: god that's right um steve do you have any remarks on this one motion c well

[0:48:55] Voice 1: i think this certainly

[0:48:56] Voice 1: answers uh concerns about um uh carports quite clearly which is the the big question and maybe

[0:49:04] Voice 1: a covered deck quite quite uh well but there's always a a thing called sunrooms that people do

[0:49:13] Voice 1: put glass over the top and enclose it to keep out the weather and it is sort of an outdoor space but

[0:49:19] Voice 1: it's not actual living space although I have noticed that that some people do move out there

[0:49:27] Voice 1: so I just want to make sure that people are aware that this would include a sunroom in terms of this

[0:49:35] Voice 1: this definition so but other than that I'm prepared to go ahead with the motion

[0:49:41] Voice 1: motion. So I want to seek clarity

[0:49:46] Trustee Luckham: on that. Is that true that a sunroom would not would not be included in floor would be included would be included

[0:49:57] Voice 9: fully. Yeah. And actually I noticed that motion see, although I added on page 16 I said, a floor ceiling and four

[0:50:08] Voice 9: four walls or glass, I miss adding the or glass to motion C. So motion C should actually read

[0:50:16] Voice 9: the exclusion of a story that is not fully enclosed by a floor ceiling and four walls or

[0:50:22] Voice 9: glass. So yes, if you have a sun deck, three walls, it's covered by glass on the top, that would be

[0:50:30] Voice 9: it's fully enclosed, that would be considered floor area. So if the LTC wants to move forward

[0:50:37] Voice 9: with motion c you just have to add or glass to the very end of that okay

[0:50:43] Voice 8: thank you uh

[0:50:47] Voice 7: well i i

[0:50:48] Voice 7: support that um i will um if there's no more uh uh i guess discussion i will go back and

[0:50:59] Voice 7: go back to reading a long part of the top of page 17 yes thank you um okay did the south pender

[0:51:14] Voice 7: under Island Local Trust Committee Proposed By-law 122

[0:51:17] Voice 7: cited as a South Pender Island Land Use By-law

[0:51:20] Voice 7: number 114, 2016,

[0:51:24] Voice 7: amendment number Q, 2021 be amended

[0:51:28] Voice 7: by adding the following to the definition of floor area.

[0:51:37] Voice 7: Exclusion, exclusive of a story,

[0:51:41] Voice 7: exclusive, I think it's,

[0:51:43] Voice 7: well the definition under page 16 says exclusive uh uh so the definition of flora could be

[0:51:50] Voice 7: imagined to the point to the end of the definition oh sorry uh the south pinner land use by law

[0:51:56] Voice 7: amendment be amended by adding the following to the definition of flora exclusion of a floor

[0:52:00] Voice 7: of a story that is not fully enclosed by a floor ceilings and four walls or glass i'll second

[0:52:12] Voice 7: I'm sorry that that was a bit of a

[0:52:13] Trustee Luckham: yeah um okay so that's moved and seconded I'm I'm I'm gonna

[0:52:19] Trustee Luckham: have to reread that because um that and so what we're looking at is um the original content in

[0:52:30] Trustee Luckham: uh quotations no the original content in subset in the first paragraph on the last paragraph page

[0:52:38] Trustee Luckham: 16 with the added item that the definition of floria could be amended to include the following

[0:52:44] Trustee Luckham: to the end of the definition an exclusive of a story that is not fully enclosed but by a floor

[0:52:52] Trustee Luckham: ceiling and four walls or glass is that what you said because though you said inclusive or

[0:52:58] Trustee Luckham: exclusion can i

[0:52:59] Trustee Luckham: can i read it all and

[0:53:00] Voice 7: maybe read it just once trying to bring together

[0:53:04] Voice 7: the whole definition it

[0:53:06] Voice 9: is it should be exclusive yeah there was an error in the draft draft motion

[0:53:10] Voice 9: see you're right okay

[0:53:11] Voice 7: so let me try this so it would read floor area means the sum of the

[0:53:15] Voice 7: horizontal areas of all stories in a building measured to the outer inner surface of the

[0:53:20] Voice 7: exterior walls exclusive of any floor area occupied by a cistern for the storage of water

[0:53:27] Voice 7: for domestic use or fire protection uh and exclusive of all areas of the story having a

[0:53:34] Voice 7: floor and ceiling less than 125 meters apart and exclusive of a story that is not fully enclosed

[0:53:43] Voice 7: by a floor ceiling and four walls or glass that's

[0:53:48] Voice 8: correct so

[0:53:49] Voice 7: i read it

[0:53:50] Trustee Luckham: okay that that's that's good

[0:53:54] Trustee Luckham: it's funny because it's two affirmatives and and a negative that makes it an interesting piece of

[0:54:01] Trustee Luckham: language but it is correct so that's great um com comfortable with that so um any further discussion

[0:54:09] Trustee Luckham: all those in favor that carries unanimously all right so let us move along then to basements i

[0:54:19] Trustee Luckham: think is where we're going to be at here and um i'll i'll just continue to follow the same pattern

[0:54:26] Trustee Luckham: and just go straight to these if that's all right sure

[0:54:30] Voice 7: um steve i don't know if you want to speak

[0:54:31] Voice 7: on this uh i certainly want to speak to it at the appropriate time yeah

[0:54:36] Voice 1: i think that um this has

[0:54:39] Voice 1: been uh brought up uh a number of times um and there's going to be a difference of opinion but

[0:54:46] Voice 1: um to start the conversation i will move that the south pender island uh local trust committee

[0:54:51] Voice 1: proposed bylaw 122 cited as open or island land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number 221

[0:54:58] Voice 1: be amended by including a definition for basement floor area period

[0:55:06] Voice 8: okay

[0:55:09] Voice 7: um so i um you know i have

[0:55:13] Voice 7: as i said in my earlier comments i've tried to listen to uh you know all of the people in the

[0:55:19] Voice 7: in the community and and the different perspectives i've heard um trying to balance that out um you

[0:55:26] Voice 7: I believe in the merits of excluded spaces where it provides benefits and hopefully mitigates any negatives.

[0:55:36] Voice 7: And so in my mind, there's merit for exclusion of basement areas, particularly as it's written in the stock report for a floor area that is located 1.5 meters or more below the natural grade.

[0:55:55] Voice 7: And my view on that is, excuse me, that I think there is a couple things here.

[0:56:04] Voice 7: When you live in a rural area, I think you inevitably have a greater consideration for the need for storage than maybe if you live in the city.

[0:56:16] Voice 7: Just because we are in a rural place, we set up for the fact that you just can't go to a store at the drop of a hat.

[0:56:23] Voice 7: I do think a rural property, by definition, just needs probably more equipment to, whether that's state tools or whether that's mechanical equipment, I think we need to recognize that.

[0:56:38] Voice 7: The other thing, too, is I think that I believe that the definition as proposed would give people extra space and yet wouldn't present in an impactful way on the landscape and the neighbors around them.

[0:56:58] Voice 7: So if we had a maximum house size of, say, 2,750 feet in the zone for one acre or less, but somebody had the ability to add more space below grade, then that would be to their benefit.

[0:57:19] Voice 7: And I don't think it would really negatively impact anybody else.

[0:57:21] Voice 7: So I think for that reason that I would want to see the amendment made that basement floor area needs any portion of a store unit dwelling with a lower floor that is located 1.5 meters or more below the natural grade, and that that area would be excluded from the definition of floor area.

[0:57:46] Voice 1: Well, I'm going to speak against that because I think he speaks about the requirement of having a lot of gear and in urban areas you don't have so much, but in urban areas you don't have the ability to build accessory buildings either.

[0:58:03] Voice 1: either. And we have a number of opportunities, most of the stuff that I've been building on

[0:58:09] Voice 1: this island for over 40 years, and most people have all their water supplies and all their

[0:58:15] Voice 1: pump facilities and their storage and accessory buildings. And I suppose I could go along with

[0:58:24] Voice 1: excluding a basement if we were talking about a singular perspective, and that was one of

[0:58:30] Voice 1: of rural character and massing,

[0:58:31] Voice 1: so that you build below ground and you don't notice it.

[0:58:34] Voice 1: But we have other concerns here.

[0:58:36] Voice 1: We're trying to address climate change.

[0:58:38] Voice 1: We're trying to address the degradation to the environment

[0:58:41] Voice 1: and the disruption of the ecology.

[0:58:43] Voice 1: And to build a basement and to dig a basement

[0:58:46] Voice 1: does not meet those requirements, it's impactful.

[0:58:50] Voice 1: And if we're gonna try and make the point that we have,

[0:58:56] Voice 1: we recognize the need to reduce floor area,

[0:58:59] Voice 1: i simply can't follow the logic of them start excluding all these extra areas in order to add

[0:59:06] Voice 1: floor area i think if we're going to have a principle based on on a number of items um i

[0:59:12] Voice 1: think we should stick to it and um i think the floor area or crawl space is excluded and um i

[0:59:19] Voice 1: think that is sufficient i don't think by any stretch of the imagination uh consider a 3000

[0:59:25] Voice 1: thousand or thirty five hundred uh square foot house as a small home and i think that uh people

[0:59:31] Voice 1: should be able to find space for whatever they require within that floor area and if they require

[0:59:37] Voice 1: extra then they can build an accessory building so i i do not support the inclusion of a full

[0:59:44] Voice 1: basement that's uh can

[0:59:47] Voice 8: be converted to living space thanks okay um i

[0:59:55] Trustee Luckham: just want to make sure

[0:59:56] Trustee Luckham: sure we're clear. So you've

[1:00:00] Trustee Luckham: move the motion that's in motion d and ending it at a definition for basement of floor area

[1:00:07] Trustee Luckham: obviously at some point we need to have a motion to include some language for a definition if i'm

[1:00:11] Trustee Luckham: not mistaken um but what you're saying is you don't want to exclude the basement floor area

[1:00:19] Trustee Luckham: because of the possibility that it might be converted to contrary to cameron's thought

[1:00:26] Trustee Luckham: that it might be converted to living space as opposed

[1:00:29] Trustee Luckham: to storage of equipment and things.

[1:00:31] Trustee Luckham: And that's fair enough. Cool tables are quite common in basements.

[1:00:35] Trustee Luckham: I know that. So, Cameron, do you have anything further to say there with respect to that?

[1:00:42] Trustee Luckham: Sure. And to be clear, I

[1:00:44] Voice 7: actually don't have an objection if that's habitable space.

[1:00:49] Voice 7: There is lots of times in other municipalities where it is the same thing, whether it's Whistler or Vancouver or out at UBC where there are provisions for basements to be excluded from floor area, but it doesn't say that it can't be habitable.

[1:01:07] Voice 7: You can still habitate it. It's just that it's excluded from floor area because, again, it gives people the latitude of having additional space and doesn't, to me, doesn't speak against the primary objective of mine, which is the OCP's emphasis on preservation of rural character and neighborliness and freedom from disturbance and visually attractive settings.

[1:01:31] Voice 7: I think putting it in, putting it, allowing for a basement provides people that flexibility while still being respectful of our OCP.

[1:01:40] Voice 7: So I'm really what I'm trying to do is try to find things that will go to some of the concerns that I've heard from some people that had objections about some of the changes to Florida.

[1:01:56] Voice 7: And one of them was just that they wouldn't provide them for as much space as they needed for, as you say, whether it's a pool table or equipment or mechanical space.

[1:02:05] Voice 7: And so I think this is a reasonable way of trying to recognize those concerns.

[1:02:11] Voice 7: And so I do continue to stand by it.

[1:02:15] Voice 1: Do you have any idea of the number of concerns that you've heard from, Cameron?

[1:02:18] Voice 1: This is just a couple of people.

[1:02:22] Voice 7: I've heard it from a handful of people.

[1:02:25] Voice 7: I mean, I didn't take a poll on it, but I heard it from a number of people.

[1:02:29] Voice 7: and i and again i reflected upon my own knowledge of what is uh undertaken in other municipalities

[1:02:36] Voice 7: and again with some of the same objectives about neighborliness and uh and yeah a lot

[1:02:42] Voice 7: of people met flexibility and so um you know that was the basis for my for for

[1:02:47] Voice 8: my support for this

[1:02:49] Voice 8: yeah i just you know just don't get it anyway yeah

[1:02:58] Trustee Luckham: i wonder if i maybe misunderstand a little

[1:03:04] Trustee Luckham: bit because the notion of a basement um being a function of the square foot of the home whether

[1:03:15] Trustee Luckham: for whatever purpose it's used for i'm just thinking that you know there are certainly

[1:03:20] Trustee Luckham: lots of homes that I've seen that have basements on a sloped property that would meet the more

[1:03:31] Trustee Luckham: than 50% below one and a half meters or whatever that is, I read somewhere, that actually have

[1:03:37] Trustee Luckham: two car garage doors that lead into the basement. And those basement areas don't always just hold

[1:03:44] Trustee Luckham: hold cars they uh serve other purposes as well and so just wondering whether that notion of a

[1:03:51] Trustee Luckham: a garage in a basement of a house would be i'm interested in a plan of stockdale's point of view

[1:03:59] Trustee Luckham: and is that the same thing or does that need to be covered in a definition somehow or um or is

[1:04:06] Trustee Luckham: that different that would not be considered part of a basement floor area if it's a garage right

[1:04:12] Voice 9: Right. So you're talking about the use really of the space.

[1:04:15] Voice 9: Yeah.

[1:04:16] Trustee Luckham: Like

[1:04:16] Voice 9: storage use. And we don't really get into that in these definitions.

[1:04:20] Voice 9: Use isn't, because use can change from property owner to property owner.

[1:04:26] Voice 8: No, exactly.

[1:04:27] Voice 9: And so that's the issue. That's what we're trying to avoid here.

[1:04:30] Voice 9: It's using any type of terms around use or if it's habitable space,

[1:04:34] Voice 9: because that could change over time,

[1:04:36] Voice 9: depending on the property owner or whatever their needs are.

[1:04:40] Voice 8: Sure.

[1:04:40] Voice 8: And I guess

[1:04:41] Voice 7: I would also say, Chair, look, on page 17 of the report, there are alternative definitions for how you would define basements.

[1:04:54] Voice 7: Yeah, I'm looking at that.

[1:04:56] Trustee Luckham: And obviously, I

[1:04:58] Trustee Luckham: was looking at

[1:04:58] Voice 7: definition B is where I was looking at.

[1:05:03] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, exactly.

[1:05:04] Trustee Luckham: Exactly. So I'm content to move ahead with this motion that Steve has put forward. Is there any

[1:05:13] Trustee Luckham: further discussion? Well, I

[1:05:15] Voice 8: guess I guess

[1:05:17] Voice 7: the question here and Steve is that and let's have

[1:05:21] Voice 7: a vote on this and make sure we're voting. So Steve's motion would would I think I think Steve

[1:05:28] Voice 7: Steve agrees with the definition of floor area, which is, to read it one more time, basement floor area means any portion of a storated dwelling with a lower floor that is located 1.5 meters or more below natural grade.

[1:05:41] Voice 7: I think Steve and I both agree with that as a definition.

[1:05:45] Voice 7: where the departure point is, is that I believe that a basement that meets that definition

[1:05:51] Voice 7: should be excluded from the calculation of floor area, whereas Steve does not believe

[1:05:57] Voice 7: it should be calculated from the definition, where Steve does believe it should be included

[1:06:01] Voice 7: in the calculation of floor area.

[1:06:03] Voice 7: So I guess that's, I just want to be really clear so we understand where there's similarities

[1:06:08] Voice 7: and where there's a departure here.

[1:06:10] Voice 8: That's correct.

[1:06:14] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, I think that's my understanding of that.

[1:06:19] Trustee Luckham: So, do you have any proposed amendments to the motion that's on the floor, or shall I

[1:06:25] Trustee Luckham: call for the vote on the motion.

[1:06:26] Voice 1: I think the motion is clear can be, it can be approved or defeated.

[1:06:33] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:06:33] Voice 7: So do you want to say, Steve, just, you know, it's your motion, but right now it says by

[1:06:39] Voice 7: adding the following definition of by adding a definition for floor area and amend the

[1:06:46] Voice 7: definition of fluoride to exclude basement fluorides do you do you in your motion want to

[1:06:52] Voice 7: define what the definition of a basement is regardless of whether you believe it should

[1:06:57] Voice 7: be excluded or not excluded uh

[1:07:00] Voice 1: yes i i think the definition b um i think we both agree on

[1:07:05] Voice 1: on definition b should be included uh in the definition yeah

[1:07:10] Trustee Luckham: so this motion if it passes

[1:07:12] Trustee Luckham: needs to be followed up with another motion which specifies the definition that's correct

[1:07:17] Trustee Luckham: Okay, sure.

[1:07:19] Trustee Luckham: All right, so I'll call the vote then?

[1:07:21] Trustee Luckham: Yep.

[1:07:22] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[1:07:24] Trustee Luckham: Any opposed?

[1:07:27] Trustee Luckham: One opposed?

[1:07:28] Trustee Luckham: And that carries.

[1:07:30] Trustee Luckham: All right, so I look forward to a motion on the definition.

[1:07:36] Trustee Luckham: Robin, do you have a question?

[1:07:38] Trustee Luckham: I'm getting clarity.

[1:07:42] Voice 2: So that the South Pender Local Trust Committee

[1:07:46] Voice 2: proposed bylaw 122 cited as South Pender Island

[1:07:49] Voice 2: land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment 2 2 21 by adding a definition for basement floor area period that's

[1:07:57] Voice 2: right

[1:07:57] Trustee Luckham: that's correct okay thank you for that robin appreciate that a lot um okay so trustee

[1:08:06] Trustee Luckham: wright or thorne do you want to make a motion with respect to the definition

[1:08:12] Voice 1: i'll move that the south pender island local trust committee proposed bylaw 122 cited south

[1:08:16] Voice 1: silt bender island land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number 2 2021 be amended by adding

[1:08:23] Voice 1: a definition for basement floor area as a bay as um uh that means any portion of a story in a

[1:08:33] Voice 1: dwelling with a lower floor area that is located 1.5 meters or more below natural grade okay and

[1:08:44] Trustee Luckham: And I'll just turn to Kim, that sounds like what's there

[1:08:48] Trustee Luckham: and that's suitable for the motion to include that.

[1:08:52] Trustee Luckham: All right, thank you.

[1:08:53] Trustee Luckham: And did you capture that Robin?

[1:08:55] Trustee Luckham: Yes.

[1:08:55] Voice 2: That's definition B, right?

[1:08:57] Trustee Luckham: Yes. Yes.

[1:08:58] Trustee Luckham: Correct. Thank you.

[1:09:00] Trustee Luckham: So do I have a seconder for that motion?

[1:09:03] Trustee Luckham: Cameron Thorne, thank you.

[1:09:05] Trustee Luckham: Do you wish to speak to the motion?

[1:09:08] Trustee Luckham: No.

[1:09:09] Trustee Luckham: Any other discussion?

[1:09:10] Trustee Luckham: No. Okay.

[1:09:11] Trustee Luckham: I'll call the vote, all those in favor?

[1:09:13] Trustee Luckham: waiver so that two carries thank you gentlemen um so now we're going to move on to if we're done

[1:09:21] Trustee Luckham: with that yes just pause okay let's go to increasing maximum floor area for dwelling

[1:09:28] Trustee Luckham: units and again i'll turn that to whichever one of you wants to take the lead on that conversation

[1:09:34] Trustee Luckham: and there's two motions there potentially chair

[1:09:37] Voice 9: luckham if i could just ask the question

[1:09:39] Voice 9: and i'm sorry if i completely missed this but um there's also the point of embedding the definition

[1:09:46] Voice 9: of floor area to exclude basement floor areas was that a consideration or no not moving forward with

[1:09:53] Voice 9: that okay

[1:09:53] Trustee Luckham: thank you great

[1:09:54] Voice 9: all

[1:09:56] Trustee Luckham: right so items section four then increasing maximum floor air

[1:10:00] Trustee Luckham: for dwellings who

[1:10:01] Trustee Luckham: wishes to address that

[1:10:02] Voice 7: uh you're touching clause f chair luckham e and e and

[1:10:09] Voice 7: f e and

[1:10:10] Voice 7: Yeah, sure. Okay. Well, I will, maybe I'll speak for a moment before I make the proposal is, you know, we've, again, this is a point of conversation that's had, where there have been changes over the course of this discussion and the areas have moved.

[1:10:35] Voice 7: moved uh and uh again i think that's very clearly a result of the ongoing discussion and trying to

[1:10:42] Voice 7: hear everybody's viewpoints and and um and so what i would want to uh also know is that regardless

[1:10:53] Voice 7: of where they stand right now the areas uh stand at uh uh 2500 for less than one acre 33 000 for

[1:11:03] Voice 7: for one to two acres, 35 for two to four,

[1:11:06] Voice 7: and anything above four acres is at 3,500.

[1:11:12] Voice 7: My view, and again, I think I've said this for years,

[1:11:15] Voice 7: even before I was a trustee,

[1:11:16] Voice 7: is that there shouldn't be a one-size-fits

[1:11:19] Voice 6: -all approach

[1:11:20] Voice 6: to house size, and I do believe that large properties

[1:11:23] Voice 6: can accommodate large, and so my proposal would be that

[1:11:31] Voice 7: For properties of 4 to 10 acres, that we would increase that to 3,750, so that would be an increase of 250 feet, and that for properties of 10 acres or greater, that we would move it to 4,000 square feet from 3,500 square feet.

[1:11:51] Voice 7: And again, I think there is the ability for those properties to accommodate a greater house size in a tasteful way, just by virtue of the size of the property.

[1:12:02] Voice 7: And so that would be my comments on how we would approach house size.

[1:12:16] Voice 1: Okay, I'm assuming that you're speaking to motion F.

[1:12:21] Voice 1: And we are not going to proceed on motion E.

[1:12:28] Voice 1: because

[1:12:28] Voice 8: Motion E would

[1:12:29] Voice 1: leave things as they are,

[1:12:31] Voice 1: which means a rejection of by-law.

[1:12:33] Voice 1: Correct.

[1:12:33] Voice 7: Yeah, I'm sorry, Steve.

[1:12:35] Voice 7: I do not support Motion E.

[1:12:37] Voice 7: I

[1:12:38] Voice 8: support

[1:12:39] Voice 7: the revisions that are before,

[1:12:44] Voice 7: as was presented at the public hearing,

[1:12:47] Voice 7: with the amendments, as I just noted,

[1:12:49] Voice 7: to the last two categories of dwelling size.

[1:12:54] Voice 1: Okay. Well, we were asked to provide data for why we came up with these numbers, and we were accused of arbitrary figures, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:13:08] Voice 1: So we went to the BC assessment to gather the data, and the data indicated that all these houses, in fact, as I said earlier, 80% are below 2,500 and over 90%, almost 95% is below 3,500, were much smaller in reality on this island.

[1:13:31] Voice 1: And so I was in favor of reducing those numbers closer to the data that we established.

[1:13:41] Voice 1: Those sizes, initial sizes, were increased due to a number of concerns in the community.

[1:13:48] Voice 1: And we ended up with the figures that are now in the current table.

[1:13:53] Voice 1: and in fact in more in march um the south bender island local trust committee made a motion to that

[1:14:03] Voice 1: effect so i'm not sure now um when it struck me the opposition was primarily about against any

[1:14:11] Voice 1: restriction not necessarily the numbers that we provided i'm not sure why we want to go

[1:14:16] Voice 1: backwards in into this discussion and revisit all the numbers we do have the variance which allows

[1:14:22] Voice 1: house for anybody who requires a larger house for whatever reason, whether it be intergenerational

[1:14:29] Voice 1: or looking after elder housing, et cetera, needs. And it does provide an opportunity that does not

[1:14:37] Voice 1: exist right now in giving adjacent property owners some notification and some ability and

[1:14:44] Voice 1: opportunity to comment on it. So I think if, again, if we're talking about a singular perspective of

[1:14:50] Voice 1: character that's fine but i find it hard um particularly in lieu of trustee thorn's comments

[1:14:58] Voice 1: about um lead numbers and that larger houses do create more that we uh impact to greenhouse gases

[1:15:07] Voice 1: and greenhouse gases and carbon etc etc are now suggesting that we increase these sizes even more

[1:15:14] Voice 1: um so i i don't follow the logic i don't agree with uh enlarging the numbers that we have with

[1:15:20] Voice 1: because we do have, as I said, an opportunity for a variance.

[1:15:24] Voice 1: I think the community has settled,

[1:15:27] Voice 1: particularly those people who support the bylaw,

[1:15:30] Voice 1: agree with these numbers,

[1:15:32] Voice 1: and I see no reason to change them at this late point of the game.

[1:15:38] Voice 1: So I will not move.

[1:15:39] Voice 7: I will not support second reading.

[1:15:42] Voice 7: So, Chair Luck, maybe what we, you know,

[1:15:45] Voice 7: obviously you're going to want to speak to this yourself, I suspect,

[1:15:47] Voice 7: but given that, you know, under clause F,

[1:15:51] Voice 7: there is a number of categories of house size, a number of house sizes by lot. I would recommend

[1:15:58] Voice 7: that we perhaps vote on each one of those five categories separately, just so that we're clear

[1:16:07] Voice 7: on things.

[1:16:10] Trustee Luckham: Well, that's fair enough. It's a fairly painful process, but that's fair enough. It's a

[1:16:15] Trustee Luckham: reason we want to do the right thing. So I just want to be clear here, because this is a pivotal

[1:16:21] Trustee Luckham: moment in this bylaw. It is. And motion E, right, says we're going to put them back to what they

[1:16:32] Trustee Luckham: presently are in 114, which means the sizes that were determined by the previous LTC. Is that

[1:16:40] Trustee Luckham: correct, Kim? I don't hear you. That's

[1:16:44] Voice 8: correct. Yeah.

[1:16:46] Trustee Luckham: Just want to be sure. So that's the, you

[1:16:49] Trustee Luckham: you know, certainly there's other great amendments here, right? And this is an opportunity to not

[1:16:53] Trustee Luckham: change the house size, which has been the singularly most controversial piece of this whole

[1:16:57] Trustee Luckham: conversation, other than the clarity piece. And you've made a lot of effort in that. And I

[1:17:02] Trustee Luckham: applaud you for that. So motion F is the opportunity to change each of those house

[1:17:09] Trustee Luckham: designations according to lot size. And obviously that could go up or down according to your

[1:17:15] Trustee Luckham: inclinations. So if indeed you want to change those, then I think what we need to be sure of

[1:17:26] Trustee Luckham: for clarity is what they presently are in bylaw 115 compared to what you're proposing in, let's

[1:17:34] Trustee Luckham: say, some motion F that is either one, two, three, four, five different motions or is one motion.

[1:17:43] Trustee Luckham: Of course, the easy thing to do, just from a process perspective for me, is provide motion F to say less than four, include all five things.

[1:17:54] Trustee Luckham: And then, of course, one of you or myself could chime in with an amendment to say that I want to amend lots of an area of 0.8 hectares, for instance, to make it XYZ size, rather than necessarily having to have five different motions.

[1:18:10] Trustee Luckham: so that would be a process thing for you to consider and uh so i'll leave it to you to decide

[1:18:17] Trustee Luckham: what uh whether motion e motion f or a variation or motion f is what you want to do um thank you

[1:18:24] Trustee Luckham: chair um could i

[1:18:25] Voice 7: i think i mean i already i already indicated a moment ago that i don't support

[1:18:31] Voice 7: e could for the and i do i do want to see some amendments to the current house size the current

[1:18:38] Voice 7: house size is just for for everybody's clarity under the bylaw as it exists today under so we've

[1:18:45] Voice 7: maintained five categories we've maintained the lot size within each of those five categories so

[1:18:52] Voice 7: that those have not changed so currently right now for properties less than one acre a dwelling can

[1:18:58] Voice 7: be built up to 3800 square feet the proposed bylaw would be to 2500 square feet for properties from

[1:19:06] Voice 7: From one to two acres, the current by-law is 4,500 square feet.

[1:19:11] Voice 7: The proposal is 3,000 square feet.

[1:19:15] Voice 7: For two to four acres, it's 5,600 square feet.

[1:19:21] Voice 7: The proposal is for 3,500 square feet.

[1:19:24] Voice 7: for four to 10 acres as currently in the in the proposed draft that went forward to public hearing

[1:19:31] Voice 7: it goes from 5,845 to 3,500 square feet and then for properties 10 acres or greater

[1:19:41] Voice 7: it goes from 6,030 square feet to 3,500 square feet so that's that's that's just

[1:19:49] Voice 7: outlining the sort of the baseline and um so what i would i guess i'll take a crack at this

[1:19:57] Voice 7: and i'll take your advice chair luckman and make a motion and then i guess people can amend it as

[1:20:01] Voice 7: they want is i will say that the south pender island local trust committee proposed bylaw one

[1:20:09] Voice 7: number one two two cited the south pender island land use bylaw number 114 2016 amendment number

[1:20:15] Voice 7: to 2021 be amended by revising the floor areas

[1:20:26] Voice 7: for dwellings as follows.

[1:20:30] Voice 7: For lots less than one acre,

[1:20:32] Voice 7: the house size should be 2,500 square feet.

[1:20:39] Voice 7: For lots with an area of 0.4 hectares,

[1:20:42] Voice 7: which is to less than 0.8 hectares,

[1:20:46] Voice 7: which is one to two acres,

[1:20:48] Voice 7: the house size i move the house size be 3 000 square feet for lots with an area of 0.8 hectares

[1:20:58] Voice 7: to to less than 1.6 hectares i propose that the uh house size be 3 500 square feet for lots with

[1:21:08] Voice 7: an area of 1.6 hectares which is four acres to less than four hectares which is 10 acres

[1:21:15] Voice 7: I propose that the house size be 3,750 square feet.

[1:21:20] Voice 7: And for lots greater than four hectares or 10 acres,

[1:21:24] Voice 7: I propose that the house size be 4,000 square feet.

[1:21:33] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so let's let Robin get that compiled.

[1:21:38] Trustee Luckham: And I would like to see that on the screen.

[1:21:42] Voice 9: So Chair Luckham, the first three,

[1:21:46] Voice 9: we actually, the bylaw already reads

[1:21:50] Voice 9: It's $2,500, $3,000, $3,500.

[1:21:54] Voice 9: So the only amendments that Trustee Thorne is actually putting forward is for those last two categories.

[1:22:01] Voice 9: For properties going from 1.6 to 4 hectares, the number he's proposing is $3,750,

[1:22:08] Voice 9: and those properties that are greater than 4 hectares would be $4,000.

[1:22:12] Voice 9: So really, we just need to focus on those two amendments.

[1:22:15] Voice 9: We don't need to include the first three because the proposed bylaw already states that.

[1:22:20] Voice 7: but do we not need to vote uh at some point uh on on on those numbers though i mean that's that's

[1:22:27] Voice 7: in the proposed draft by level we still need to call a vote on it during the

[1:22:30] Voice 7: amendment well you've

[1:22:33] Voice 9: already voted on those numbers that's why they're in the proposed bylaw you don't need to re-vote

[1:22:38] Voice 9: for the numbers you're only voting on the numbers that you want to change okay

[1:22:46] Trustee Luckham: yeah um i guess the

[1:22:49] Trustee Luckham: you know that's fine it doesn't hurt to reaffirm those numbers um and and it provides a easy

[1:22:58] Trustee Luckham: opportunity for a member to change it unless of course there's no interest in which case

[1:23:04] Trustee Luckham: um i was actually just looking for that email that somebody sent us in response to um steve's

[1:23:13] Trustee Luckham: request for what this floor area was i couldn't find that response i thought it came from you kim

[1:23:19] Trustee Luckham: him but that doesn't seem to be the case you're

[1:23:23] Voice 2: welcome yes

[1:23:25] Trustee Luckham: so

[1:23:26] Voice 2: um so that i've got this um the

[1:23:29] Voice 2: bio the um the motion should be uh are there two motions with with the changes

[1:23:37] Trustee Luckham: that can one

[1:23:38] Trustee Luckham: one motion okay

[1:23:40] Voice 2: um

[1:23:41] Trustee Luckham: now so i think that was moved i don't believe it's been seconded yet okay um so

[1:23:48] Trustee Luckham: So for clarity, then the suggestion from staff is that the motion only needs to include the

[1:23:57] Trustee Luckham: amendments, which would be the last two items.

[1:23:59] Trustee Luckham: It certainly makes the motion simpler if we're in agreement with whatever the first three

[1:24:05] Trustee Luckham: are.

[1:24:10] Trustee Luckham: And so that's up to the mover and the second, the mover anyway.

[1:24:14] Trustee Luckham: Okay.

[1:24:16] Trustee Luckham: What would you like to do, Cameron?

[1:24:19] Voice 7: Well, I kind of like your suggestion, Chair Leckham, of, I mean, it's been a long conversation.

[1:24:26] Voice 7: We've heard lots of views on this topic.

[1:24:28] Voice 7: I think it's important to be clear on where we stand on each of these.

[1:24:33] Voice 7: And I'm sorry it's a little messy, but I would, given that there's some possible disagreement on these,

[1:24:39] Voice 7: I would say that it might be helpful to call the vote on each one of these so we have affirming where we are.

[1:24:47] Trustee Luckham: on the as a group though not individual motions sure okay sure they're

[1:24:52] Voice 7: all stated in the same

[1:24:54] Voice 7: motion that's

[1:24:55] Trustee Luckham: right so it's

[1:24:55] Voice 7: my motion and and so my motion included the the um i guess the

[1:25:01] Voice 7: affirmation in my mind of the of the first three house sites categories as well no

[1:25:07] Trustee Luckham: and i i do agree

[1:25:08] Trustee Luckham: with that because they're you know the one of the criticisms we've heard is there's been so many

[1:25:13] Trustee Luckham: amendments and where are we at and this will confirm this is where we're at and so um i'm

[1:25:21] Trustee Luckham: content with that i don't think it causes any harm so uh robin do you have the ability to get

[1:25:28] Trustee Luckham: that motion up on the screen for us so that we can be 100 clear on what it is that we're trying to

[1:25:35] Trustee Luckham: do okay just give

[1:25:37] Voice 2: me a little bit here i'll get it typed up

[1:25:39] Trustee Luckham: and while you're doing that i'm going to

[1:25:40] Trustee Luckham: to ask kim again uh steve asked for the motion where those uh the detail for the motion where

[1:25:48] Trustee Luckham: that came from from the minutes and somebody fired back an answer to steve and i was just

[1:25:54] Trustee Luckham: looking for that for uh for my own reference here um who did send that and when was that sent

[1:26:01] Trustee Luckham: i

[1:26:01] Voice 1: sent that it was from the meeting of uh 22 uh 6 uh june 24th meeting yeah

[1:26:08] Trustee Luckham: i don't want to go

[1:26:09] Trustee Luckham: back to the minutes there was an email that captured it that uh yeah i'm

[1:26:15] Voice 9: lost sorry what

[1:26:16] Voice 9: what what did this email confirm uh

[1:26:19] Trustee Luckham: steve was asking about what the what the motion was where

[1:26:22] Trustee Luckham: the house where the floors where the area was uh uh indicated from a motion and somebody had

[1:26:29] Trustee Luckham: responded with a quotation from that uh a motion back in whenever it was june or something

[1:26:36] Voice 1: south

[1:26:37] Voice 1: South Pender 2022-031.

[1:26:41] Voice 1: It was moved and seconded to bylaw 122B amendment as discussed to read 2.9 floor area table changes.

[1:26:50] Voice 1: Is

[1:26:50] Trustee Luckham: that okay, Steve?

[1:26:51] Trustee Luckham: I don't need it read.

[1:26:52] Trustee Luckham: I want

[1:26:53] Voice 1: to see it on the screen.

[1:26:54] Voice 1: I'm a visual guy.

[1:26:54] Voice 1: All right. Fair enough.

[1:26:55] Trustee Luckham: Yeah.

[1:26:57] Trustee Luckham: And I'm looking for that email that came.

[1:27:00] Trustee Luckham: So what day did that arrive to you, Steve?

[1:27:03] Trustee Luckham: You've obviously got it in front of you.

[1:27:16] Trustee Luckham: Yeah.

[1:27:16] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, I don't know.

[1:27:17] Trustee Luckham: Is it my fault that I don't have any audio or is it?

[1:27:20] Trustee Luckham: We hear you.

[1:27:22] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, okay.

[1:27:23] Trustee Luckham: So I don't hear Steve.

[1:27:34] Trustee Luckham: August the 7th.

[1:27:37] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[1:27:37] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so I'll go back to

[1:27:39] Voice 8: August the 7th, August the 7th.

[1:27:48] Voice 8: It

[1:27:48] Voice 7: was on page two.

[1:27:51] Voice 7: But either way, is it not what the numbers are

[1:27:53] Voice 7: that I've just spoken?

[1:27:55] Trustee Luckham: No, exactly, they're not the same.

[1:27:57] Trustee Luckham: I just wanna see where we're at

[1:27:59] Trustee Luckham: compared to where we're going to found motion found it there we go okay thank

[1:28:05] Trustee Luckham: you chair

[1:28:09] Voice 2: look okay

[1:28:10] Trustee Luckham: go ahead yes Robin so

[1:28:13] Voice 2: in the motion am I putting the

[1:28:15] Voice 2: numbers that the last two that that chair Thorne or sorry trustee Thorne

[1:28:23] Voice 2: suggested 3750 and 4000 yes okay

[1:28:27] Voice 2: and am I including the first the first three as

[1:28:31] Voice 2: well in the motion just

[1:28:33] Trustee Luckham: for clarity yes just

[1:28:34] Voice 2: for clarity okay and uh kim has um meters squared

[1:28:39] Voice 2: in the motion the suggested motion and i just don't have those numbers is that okay for now

[1:28:45] Trustee Luckham: so we're doing we're doing square footage and so

[1:28:48] Voice 2: that's what i thought yeah

[1:28:49] Trustee Luckham: that's that's fine um

[1:28:51] Trustee Luckham: that'll get converted do

[1:28:54] Voice 2: you want me to share my screen yes

[1:28:56] Trustee Luckham: please okay that's

[1:29:12] Voice 8: beautiful thank you

[1:29:13] Voice 8: you

[1:29:14] Voice 2: can see you can see the motion yes

[1:29:16] Trustee Luckham: okay did

[1:29:22] Voice 2: I get them all

[1:29:23] Trustee Luckham: Steve is that

[1:29:25] Trustee Luckham: the motion that you intended you mean me

[1:29:28] Trustee Luckham: one acre

[1:29:33] Voice 7: is yes one two yes two to four yes four to ten yes and and lots of

[1:29:48] Voice 7: greater than 10 is is correct as well and

[1:29:52] Voice 9: this was my error in the first part

[1:29:55] Voice 9: it says be amended by increasing I think that we should just

[1:30:00] Voice 9: we should delete um just

[1:30:02] Voice 7: remove them and just remove whether it's an end whether it's increase

[1:30:05] Voice 7: or decrease just remove that is the man the

[1:30:10] Voice 2: amended maximum floor area so take out by

[1:30:12] Voice 7: increasing yeah as follows the amended by

[1:30:16] Voice 7: amending by amending the maximum floor area

[1:30:20] Voice 2: okay um just one sec so the amend could you just repeat that cam i

[1:30:27] Voice 7: think if it sounds right that

[1:30:28] Voice 7: the self-managed local trust committee bylaw number one one two

[1:30:31] Voice 7: say it's something correct

[1:30:32] Voice 7: by

[1:30:33] Trustee Luckham: amending

[1:30:46] Voice 1: the increasing maximum floor area

[1:30:49] Voice 1: ending i

[1:30:50] Voice 9: yeah i just say by amending the maximum floor area for dwellings

[1:30:54] Trustee Luckham: perfect yeah okay thank you and

[1:30:58] Voice 9: leave those sections and b should be by after 2021 oh right

[1:31:05] Voice 9: yeah great yeah that's perfect and

[1:31:08] Voice 2: leave those sections in to me okay

[1:31:11] Trustee Luckham: okay um perfect is that

[1:31:17] Trustee Luckham: what you and that is what you intended you've confirmed that and the motion now is what you

[1:31:21] Trustee Luckham: want to say as well as the content and so just uh for clarity then um so um in the bylaw 114

[1:31:31] Trustee Luckham: for the first section it's 5 000 square feet or no it's 5 000 square feet it's proposed at 2500

[1:31:38] Trustee Luckham: and you're confirming 2500 um one to two acres in one one four is six thousand and it's proposed to

[1:31:45] Trustee Luckham: be 3 000 and you are confirming that 3 000 and again it's 8 114 proposed to be 3 500 you're

[1:31:53] Trustee Luckham: confirming that 3 500 in four to ten acres it's 9 000 square feet proposed to be 3 500 you're

[1:32:01] Trustee Luckham: increasing that to 37 50 and 10 acres or more is 15 000 square feet proposed to be 3 500 and you've

[1:32:09] Trustee Luckham: you're proposing for 4 000 square feet is that correct no chair chair luck and there's a little

[1:32:15] Voice 7: little difference there so we we the numbers that you just cited the five the six the eight the nine

[1:32:21] Voice 7: and the 15 those numbers do not change those are numbers of the total floor area so you're building

[1:32:27] Voice 7: chicken coops wood sheds uh accessory buildings that grows through numbers yeah those are the

[1:32:33] Voice 7: numbers we're not touching those we're touching oh i

[1:32:36] Voice 7: gotcha welling area only okay

[1:32:39] Trustee Luckham: so this is the

[1:32:40] Trustee Luckham: I got it. So I'm confusing it even more. So basically then all of those numbers are

[1:32:47] Trustee Luckham: staying the same for including total floor area on the lot coverage, total lot coverage

[1:32:52] Trustee Luckham: compared to floor area, which is now being increased from 3,500 in four to 10 acres and

[1:33:00] Trustee Luckham: 10 acres above to 3,750 in 4,000. Correct.

[1:33:04] Trustee Luckham: Right. So hopefully that's as clear as it can possibly

[1:33:07] Trustee Luckham: be. So that's moved by Cameron Thorne. Are you prepared to second that motion, Trustee Wright?

[1:33:14] Trustee Luckham: No. Okay. Well, I will second the motion in order to facilitate a discussion, and certainly

[1:33:21] Trustee Luckham: amendments can be made to that motion. And let us move along. So then that's moved and seconded.

[1:33:31] Trustee Luckham: Do you wish to speak to your motion further, Trustee Thorne?

[1:33:34] Trustee Luckham: Sure.

[1:33:35] Voice 7: So, again, just briefly, lots and lots of back and forth with the community on this topic. As I said at the outset, you know, this is, to me, there's a number of variables at play here, which for me was trying to define common ground, trying to look at the diversity of views, and also trying to look at what I think is good public policy, good planning policy.

[1:34:01] Voice 7: And so, you know, when I combine those two together, I think from a good planning policy perspective, larger properties, they have more space that they can tastefully accommodate, more house size, you know, less impacts on the neighbors.

[1:34:20] Voice 7: I think it is a way of trying to find some common ground and genuinely on my part, trying to listen to the diversity of views that I heard on this.

[1:34:31] Voice 7: And so that's why I'm proposing a modest increase of 250 feet for the lot, 4 to 10 acres, and above the proposed 3,500,

[1:34:43] Voice 7: and then increasing by a modest 500 square feet for homes that are in lots 10 acres or greater.

[1:34:55] Trustee Luckham: Okay, thank you, Cameron. So, Trustee Wright, what are your remarks on this?

[1:35:03] Voice 1: Well, I'm not sure if we can turn around and say that a larger piece of property can take more detrimental effects than a smaller piece of property.

[1:35:18] Voice 1: That logic seems to escape me at the moment.

[1:35:22] Voice 1: This doesn't seem like good planning policy.

[1:35:25] Voice 1: It strikes me more as politics.

[1:35:28] Voice 1: And I suppose if we want to appease people, then we wouldn't have started this process to begin with.

[1:35:35] Voice 1: I just don't understand how we get to this at this late stage of the game after all the

[1:35:41] Voice 1: justification explanation that we now want to creep up and continually add to floor space

[1:35:48] Voice 1: whether it be basements or whether it be on the main floors when we've already established the

[1:35:54] Voice 1: principles under which we are reducing these numbers for because larger homes have more

[1:36:01] Voice 1: more impact. Cameron's agreed with that. Everybody else in the scientific community agrees with that.

[1:36:07] Voice 1: So I'm not sure why we're suddenly taking that logic and tossing it out the door and saying,

[1:36:12] Voice 1: yeah, but in this case, we don't care. It strikes me as we've gone through a lot of discussion.

[1:36:19] Voice 1: We've gone through a lot of compromise. We are not going to get 100% agreement from anyone in

[1:36:25] Voice 1: this community. And so I think there just comes a point we have to make a decision based on the

[1:36:30] Voice 1: principles uh that we are trying to achieve and that is not just rural character it includes

[1:36:36] Voice 1: uh carbon production greenhouse gases sustainability the the protection of ecosystems

[1:36:42] Voice 1: and flora and i think once again we're assuming that 3500 is a small house and it simply isn't

[1:36:51] Voice 1: i mean it is you don't go around and find too many 3500 square homes particularly for people

[1:36:58] Voice 1: that are coming to south pender island that are largely uh couples um and and anyone that has

[1:37:04] Voice 1: has a young family can't afford to build a 3 500 square foot house anyway so um i'm perfectly happy

[1:37:12] Voice 1: with uh with with the numbers that that are in the current uh bylaw proposal and uh i think there's

[1:37:20] Voice 1: uh enough people in this community that supports that position so i'm not prepared to change my

[1:37:24] Voice 1: mind on thank

[1:37:25] Voice 8: you okay thank you um

[1:37:32] Trustee Luckham: i guess i'm gonna make my own remarks here now um

[1:37:44] Trustee Luckham: i i guess you know trying to characterize what i'm gonna say but i'll just say actually i do

[1:37:50] Trustee Luckham: support the changes however i'm not sure that it goes far enough in some areas

[1:37:58] Trustee Luckham: is based upon what we heard at the public hearing.

[1:38:04] Trustee Luckham: A couple of interesting factors that came into play here

[1:38:08] Trustee Luckham: was trying to embrace what are new,

[1:38:17] Trustee Luckham: considered to be, and currently anyway,

[1:38:20] Trustee Luckham: maybe not even new, but new living environments

[1:38:25] Trustee Luckham: um environments that embrace uh intentional families um and

[1:38:34] Trustee Luckham: simply more people in a given home that globally actually ends up reducing the carbon footprint it

[1:38:42] Trustee Luckham: may not do much for um at the particular location where they're at but i think the climate change

[1:38:48] Trustee Luckham: and carbon footprint is a global issue of which local communities can make a small impact but if

[1:38:54] Trustee Luckham: If we support a method or a trend of moving to a more conscious way of consuming and living,

[1:39:03] Trustee Luckham: that if we exclude those opportunities, and granted, you can get a development permit.

[1:39:09] Trustee Luckham: I totally realize that.

[1:39:13] Trustee Luckham: Anyway, I will support the motion, but I'm not so sure at this juncture that I'm prepared

[1:39:20] Trustee Luckham: to go to advance the bylaw because I'm also cognizant of, which is why I've made a bit of

[1:39:28] Trustee Luckham: an effort to ensure that we're completely clear on what we're doing so the public can be completely

[1:39:32] Trustee Luckham: clear on what the attentions are. There's been a lot of back and forth. This may meet some people's

[1:39:40] Trustee Luckham: needs and maybe move the dial a bit to get a broader consensus on that this is the right

[1:39:46] Trustee Luckham: thing to do because um and i'll talk to that further later but um i'm just looking at the

[1:39:52] Trustee Luckham: numbers here we're going from in bylaw 114 just quickly 3800 4500 5600 5800 and 6000 for each of

[1:40:02] Trustee Luckham: those categories and indeed almost all of those are big houses um and 2500 square feet is in my

[1:40:09] Trustee Luckham: mind still a big house my house is 1500 square feet including the loft which actually according

[1:40:15] Trustee Luckham: according to the building inspector, half of it doesn't actually qualify because it's less than

[1:40:19] Trustee Luckham: seven feet, which is that whole one and a half meter thing. But at this point, we're no longer

[1:40:25] Trustee Luckham: a four-person family. We're just my wife and I when the grandkids come over. And that seems

[1:40:30] Trustee Luckham: adequate to us. But I have accessory buildings as well. So I think I'm still needing convincing

[1:40:38] Trustee Luckham: that we need to be doing this in this way. But I think that this is a step in the right direction.

[1:40:44] Trustee Luckham: and so i'm going to support cameron for that so is there any further discussion on this motion

[1:40:51] Trustee Luckham: uh it's been moved and seconded any further discussion i

[1:40:56] Voice 7: guess the only thing i would add

[1:40:57] Voice 7: at an end and i know you're you're you know listen to your comments or chair luckham about

[1:41:02] Voice 7: about intergenerational families and and and uh you know bigger families um you know again all

[1:41:11] Voice 7: All fair points. I mean, you briefly touched on the fact that there is a very readily available mechanism for people to come forward and say, I'd like it to be bigger.

[1:41:24] Voice 7: I mean, that's one of the beauties of our land use bylaw that's different in, certainly on South Pender, I think on probably many other Gulf Islands, is different than what we see in municipalities, whereas the issue of density is not the size of the dwelling, it's the number of dwellings.

[1:41:45] Voice 7: So the beauty of it is that it's a much, it's a fairly straightforward process.

[1:41:51] Voice 7: If somebody comes forward, and again, I think Steve's right about his comments about the benefits of being able to engage with the neighbors.

[1:41:58] Voice 7: You know, these numbers are not absolute numbers.

[1:42:00] Voice 7: These are absolute numbers where you can say, I don't give a damn about anybody else around me.

[1:42:07] Voice 7: I'm going to do what I want.

[1:42:08] Voice 7: These are people that don't want to engage with anybody else.

[1:42:11] Voice 7: And so, you know, there has to be some hard number for people that just say, tell me what the bylaw is, and that's all I care about.

[1:42:20] Voice 7: Again, I don't want to engage with anybody else.

[1:42:22] Voice 7: So that's what these numbers are.

[1:42:23] Voice 7: But when people come forward and they say, I want to work with the community, and I've heard a lot of people, you know, some people that have been detractors,

[1:42:33] Voice 7: and not so much being detractors with the concept of a house size, but that, and I guess I lament the same thing,

[1:42:40] Voice 7: that our land use bylaw is not set up so that um that there's a requirement for engagement with

[1:42:47] Voice 7: your neighbors i mean some people would like that and i guess some people wouldn't some people just

[1:42:50] Voice 7: say again i don't care what anybody else says i want to do what i want to do in a more perfect

[1:42:55] Voice 7: world and we're not going to solve this problem today there would be um there would be more

[1:43:00] Voice 7: engagement with people around us as we're looking to uh situate our house and uh and and the

[1:43:09] Voice 7: flexibility would be there for for taking into account the views of the neighbors but again

[1:43:13] Voice 7: that's what the dvp does um so these numbers are i think are very supportable for the reasons that

[1:43:18] Voice 7: i i've discussed and uh again people can build bigger than that subject to taking into account

[1:43:23] Voice 7: neighbor neighbors concerned and and um and good design so that's that's my comments okay great

[1:43:32] Trustee Luckham: i appreciate that thank you cameron so uh i'm going to call the vote on this motion unless

[1:43:38] Trustee Luckham: unless there's any further discussion, all those in favor, those opposed, right? So one opposed

[1:43:47] Trustee Luckham: and that does carry. So we now have an amendment associated with the maximum floor area. So I'm

[1:43:57] Trustee Luckham: going to continue and certainly we'll get to a place where we're ultimately going to look for

[1:44:03] Trustee Luckham: additional readings. But let's go to section five, if we're finished here. And this is the

[1:44:09] Trustee Luckham: setbacks from the natural boundary of the sea i always like to see these things spelt out

[1:44:15] Trustee Luckham: because it even causes me to pause for a moment and new what's is that new brunswick anyway

[1:44:21] Trustee Luckham: natural boundary of the sea uh we have a proposed uh motion there um trustees what would you like to

[1:44:28] Trustee Luckham: uh do here uh

[1:44:31] Voice 1: i'll move that the south pender island local trust committee proposed by the

[1:44:35] Voice 1: 122 site of the south bender island land use by law 114 2016 amendment number 2 2021 be amended

[1:44:42] Voice 1: by adding a clause to the natural boundary of the sea setback to allow the reconstruction of

[1:44:47] Voice 1: a dwelling within the same location as long as the dwelling is not closer to the natural boundary of

[1:44:53] Voice 1: the sea and this this uh is simply in in uh to um to include the same uh notwithstanding

[1:45:02] Voice 1: clause if i can use that term uh so that um anybody any existing houses will retain its

[1:45:09] Voice 1: legal status could something happen to it and be destroyed by fire or something okay

[1:45:16] Trustee Luckham: so do i have

[1:45:17] Trustee Luckham: a second well hang on before we go to a second i just want to seek some clarity here um i you know

[1:45:24] Trustee Luckham: i perceive there's an interest in doing additional readings of these bylaws uh today and what this

[1:45:32] Trustee Luckham: motion says is to add a clause doesn't spell spell out the specifics of that clause um and

[1:45:39] Trustee Luckham: i wanted to ask planner stockdale um how should we handle that element of it right

[1:45:46] Voice 9: so my intention

[1:45:47] Voice 9: was this would just replicate the clause for the floor area and setback so we could state that

[1:45:54] Voice 9: in this motion by adding um the clause as stated in floor but this

[1:46:09] Trustee Luckham: isn't floor area this is the

[1:46:10] Trustee Luckham: setback from the sea yeah

[1:46:12] Voice 9: i know i understand but i'm using that same clause but then rewording it

[1:46:16] Voice 9: so then it references the natural boundary of the sea i didn't give the specific clause um

[1:46:23] Trustee Luckham: Well, but you see that if we're going to advance the bylaw, we should have that.

[1:46:27] Voice 9: Yeah.

[1:46:28] Trustee Luckham: Yeah.

[1:46:30] Trustee Luckham: I can

[1:46:30] Voice 9: quickly draft it and

[1:46:31] Trustee Luckham: we can come

[1:46:32] Voice 9: back to it.

[1:46:33] Voice 9: Okay.

[1:46:33] Trustee Luckham: Let's pause that one then and we'll move on to height and let's get a clause specific

[1:46:40] Trustee Luckham: that we can do.

[1:46:41] Trustee Luckham: So what I'm going to assume at this point is that that motion has not been seconded.

[1:46:47] Trustee Luckham: Is that correct?

[1:46:48] Trustee Luckham: That's correct.

[1:46:48] Trustee Luckham: And so then I'll just let that drop and make a new motion to advance that section.

[1:46:55] Trustee Luckham: OK, so let's go to height then. And hopefully you can multitask here, Kim, listening and writing at the same time.

[1:47:05] Trustee Luckham: And we'll be we'll try to be respectful of asking a question if there's one that comes up.

[1:47:12] Trustee Luckham: But who would like to speak to this one first height?

[1:47:14] Trustee Luckham: height

[1:47:15] Voice 1: height well I'll move that the South Pender Island local uh trust committee uh proposed bylaw

[1:47:21] Voice 1: 122 cited as the South Pender Island land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number two 2021 be amended by

[1:47:30] Voice 1: adding a height restriction that at no point may a dwelling exceed 9.2 meters in height

[1:47:38] Voice 1: this is 30 feet which is in the current

[1:47:40] Voice 8: bylaw and we do not want to increase it

[1:47:51] Voice 8: okay and um it says is

[1:47:56] Voice 7: that okay with you cam

[1:47:57] Voice 7: yeah and sorry i just had to step up for

[1:48:00] Voice 7: 30 seconds um did we already deal with the setbacks to the scene no we're coming

[1:48:06] Voice 1: back to it

[1:48:06] Voice 7: we're coming back

[1:48:07] Voice 7: yeah yeah sorry about that okay so height restrictions i agree that we want to

[1:48:12] Voice 7: maintain it at 9.2 meters um and again there is uh through our um there's always the ability to

[1:48:19] Voice 7: taller when when design uh justifies that

[1:48:25] Trustee Luckham: okay then so based upon my previous comments there

[1:48:30] Trustee Luckham: kim i'm sorry to be a stickler here um but it says be amended by adding a height restriction

[1:48:35] Trustee Luckham: that no point may a dwelling exceed 12 meters in height so presumably um that's a simple uh

[1:48:44] Trustee Luckham: it would just be a height restriction that i'm not sure how the language would sit in a

[1:48:50] Trustee Luckham: a bylaw that we potentially might be advancing.

[1:48:52] Trustee Luckham: It's the same kind of a dilemma.

[1:48:55] Voice 9: Right.

[1:48:58] Trustee Luckham: It should be section 4.9A should read

[1:49:02] Trustee Luckham: a height restriction no more than 12 meters.

[1:49:06] Voice 7: Can I ask a question on this?

[1:49:07] Voice 7: Like right now under our existing land use bylaws,

[1:49:11] Voice 7: section 3.4 has a number of sections, subsections,

[1:49:17] Voice 7: one of them being section one that says

[1:49:19] Voice 7: a dwelling or cottage should not exceed 9.2 meters 30 feet in height and section 2 says a building or

[1:49:24] Voice 7: accessory structure to a dwelling shall not exceed 7.6 or 25 feet in height like if we're not if

[1:49:32] Voice 7: it sounds like we want to keep it at 9.2 then do we even need can we strike this out if we're not

[1:49:38] Voice 7: actually proposing any changes to what's currently in the land use bylaw because section 3.4 of the

[1:49:50] Voice 7: land use pilot currently already has height yeah and

[1:49:54] Voice 7: i think we want to keep them the same as they

[1:49:55] Voice 7: are now

[1:49:56] Voice 1: yeah well i think i think the height is we're trying to stay the same what what the idea

[1:50:01] Voice 1: was to remove uh the calculated by averaging the distance we're having right because we're

[1:50:09] Voice 1: we're having problems where building um plans are being approved the building inspector is not

[1:50:16] Voice 1: going out there and checking heights unless it's clearly obvious and nobody is is following up by

[1:50:23] Voice 1: doing the calculation so we simply want to make this the process simpler and be a little more

[1:50:29] Voice 1: enforceable um by simply stating that no point of the building should be more than

[1:50:35] Voice 1: the original nine practice right so do we do yeah we'd

[1:50:40] Voice 8: have to make

[1:50:40] Voice 1: we'd have yeah we'd have we'll

[1:50:42] Voice 1: have to make a motion and changing the definition of height is that correct and that's that's what

[1:50:47] Voice 1: this motion should be about well

[1:50:49] Voice 9: what we can what we would actually be amending is subsection 3.4.1

[1:50:55] Voice 9: of the bylaw 114 that's height regulations that's where it states a dwelling or cottage shall not

[1:51:03] Voice 9: exceed 9.2 meters in height and then we should add and at no point may a building or may a dwelling

[1:51:14] Voice 9: exceed 12 meters in height but

[1:51:18] Voice 1: but why 22 meters in height sorry 9.2 meters in height oh you want

[1:51:24] Voice 9: it to 9.2 okay yeah yeah sorry

[1:51:26] Voice 7: we don't want it what 37 feet or that's close to a four-story

[1:51:30] Voice 7: condo nine points so

[1:51:32] Trustee Luckham: i'm going to suggest we've asked staff here now to make two uh create two

[1:51:39] Trustee Luckham: pieces of uh wording for us why don't we just recess for 10 minutes and give staff the chance

[1:51:45] Trustee Luckham: to get caught up to us and then we'll come back and that should be sufficient time for you kim to

[1:51:50] Trustee Luckham: absolutely

[1:51:51] Voice 9: to

[1:51:51] Trustee Luckham: thoughtfully go through that process rather than working under pressure which i

[1:51:55] Trustee Luckham: i feel that we're asking you to do at the moment and so let's recess for 10 minutes and come back

[1:52:00] Trustee Luckham: is that all right gentlemen okay how are we doing kim not

[1:52:09] Voice 9: bad i i did my best i sent it to robin

[1:52:12] Voice 9: do you have the email do you want to bring it up

[1:52:16] Voice 9: yeah

[1:52:39] Voice 4: can you

[1:52:46] Voice 2: see it so

[1:52:47] Voice 7: this is the wording on distance from the sea sorry is there an error

[1:53:01] Voice 7: no no i wasn't sure can you hear me kim yep okay yeah no i don't think i'm just reading it right

[1:53:07] Voice 7: now i'm just i know when peter asked for the break it was to look at the issue of height

[1:53:11] Voice 7: which would which is fine um oh i see there's two seconds can we just read this for a moment

[1:53:18] Trustee Luckham: yeah there's two different sections the one that we bypassed you missed that cameron

[1:53:22] Trustee Luckham: where we asked for specific insertion into the bylaw for the natural boundary of the sea and

[1:53:29] Trustee Luckham: thank you kim for that and then the second one would be adding the height over the natural grade

[1:53:35] Trustee Luckham: so the first one um was the first thing we asked for and now that's the second one below it

[1:53:41] Trustee Luckham: so indeed let's read it through so

[1:53:48] Voice 8: kim this is this

[1:53:49] Voice 1: is where on page 23 at the bottom

[1:53:54] Voice 1: 2.5 of the proposed bylaw yes

[1:53:58] Voice 9: that

[1:53:59] Voice 1: that says despite subsection

[1:54:02] Voice 1: 3.33 and then it goes on to say shall not be cited within 7.6 or 25 feet and is that in error

[1:54:11] Voice 1: shouldn't that be no

[1:54:13] Voice 9: because this was when you you wanted the property or lots that have dwellings

[1:54:18] Voice 9: currently to retain that 7.6 meter setback and the new setback only applies to new buildings

[1:54:28] Voice 9: we can bring up the black line version which may help as well yeah

[1:54:35] Voice 1: just doesn't this this amendment

[1:54:38] Voice 1: do what 2.5 is doing

[1:54:42] Voice 1: yeah this simply replaced 2.5 yes

[1:54:45] Voice 9: actually that would make sense okay

[1:54:47] Voice 1: the

[1:54:49] Voice 9: only issue is that 2.5 addresses all buildings and structures right fences or

[1:54:57] Voice 9: are all buildings and structures um whereas this new section only

[1:55:04] Voice 1: addresses but those structures

[1:55:06] Voice 1: are exempted well

[1:55:08] Voice 9: what about an accessory building well

[1:55:13] Voice 8: we removed accessory buildings

[1:55:14] Voice 8: or utility ships

[1:55:19] Voice 8: well we want to

[1:55:20] Voice 1: okay so we want to i mean i think existing existing struct uh

[1:55:25] Voice 1: homes and accessory buildings are permitted and

[1:55:31] Voice 8: should be exempted if they were constructed

[1:55:37] Voice 8: during this time before the new

[1:55:41] Voice 1: bylaw is implemented or adopted all the other structures

[1:55:47] Voice 1: are excluded in any case right

[1:55:50] Voice 7: well then well then i think what we would want to say then

[1:55:52] Voice 7: then,

[1:55:53] Voice 1: is

[1:55:55] Voice 8: despite Section 333, it contains a legal dwelling construction.

[1:56:02] Voice 8: Or a cottage.

[1:56:03] Voice 7: Well, a cottage is a legal dwelling.

[1:56:06] Voice 7: I mean, I guess the point is

[1:56:07] Voice 7: that we want to be really careful that if somebody built

[1:56:14] Voice 7: an accessory building that's not a cottage, not a house, but if they built an accessory

[1:56:19] Voice 7: building closer than 50 feet from the ocean that we would want to make sure

[1:56:27] Voice 7: that that is protected as well the

[1:56:31] Voice 1: illegal dwelling or accessory building

[1:56:34] Voice 1: constructed prior to the adoption of this bylaw I think so yes

[1:56:38] Voice 9: so we would

[1:56:39] Voice 9: have to amend that first draft motion so it states can on a lot that contains

[1:56:46] Voice 9: contains a legal dwelling constructed prior to the

[1:56:49] Voice 9: adoption of the by-law, a replacement

[1:56:50] Voice 9: dwelling or cottage or accessory building,

[1:56:53] Voice 7: or

[1:56:54] Voice 9: replacement dwelling, cottage or accessory

[1:56:57] Voice 9: building.

[1:56:58] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:56:59] Voice 7: I think you kind of want to change the two spots, Kim, because you want to say on a lot

[1:57:02] Voice 7: that contains a legal dwelling or accessory building constructed prior to the adoption

[1:57:06] Voice 7: of this by-law, a replacement dwelling or cottage or accessory structure may be constructed

[1:57:12] Voice 7: or the existing dwelling or cottage.

[1:57:15] Voice 7: or accessory building altered provided the distance.

[1:57:19] Voice 7: So you want to use that word accessory building,

[1:57:21] Voice 7: I think in three occasions here.

[1:57:23] Voice 2: Right.

[1:57:25] Voice 2: Kim, are you going to add that or do you want me to?

[1:57:29] Voice 2: I

[1:57:29] Voice 9: don't have access to your Word document.

[1:57:31] Trustee Luckham: Well, I don't know that it's necessary.

[1:57:33] Trustee Luckham: As long as the trustees know what the motion is

[1:57:36] Trustee Luckham: they want to make,

[1:57:37] Trustee Luckham: then they can make it based on the template,

[1:57:40] Trustee Luckham: which is now I'm back at Section 5, Page 18, Motion G.

[1:57:46] Trustee Luckham: you can amend that to say accessory dwelling

[1:57:50] Trustee Luckham: or accessory building,

[1:57:51] Trustee Luckham: and then that motion can be voted on.

[1:57:54] Trustee Luckham: And then we need to, as a second motion,

[1:57:56] Trustee Luckham: make this addition to the bylaw that covers that.

[1:58:02] Trustee Luckham: This is the clause.

[1:58:03] Trustee Luckham: And actually, I think that that clause,

[1:58:05] Trustee Luckham: as long as you say accessory building,

[1:58:07] Trustee Luckham: although it's duplicating what other language is used

[1:58:10] Trustee Luckham: in the bylaw, it helps make it clear.

[1:58:14] Trustee Luckham: um it's not changing the intent of any of the other subsections if i'm not mistaken it's just

[1:58:20] Trustee Luckham: duplication so um who made the original motion on um the setback of the natural boundary of the sea

[1:58:29] Trustee Luckham: do you want to re redo that because it was not seconded so it didn't advance and so now we're

[1:58:36] Trustee Luckham: ready and let's have that motion the first time all

[1:58:40] Voice 1: right so uh you're suggesting motion q or g

[1:58:43] Voice 1: needs to be made and then we make an amendment to yeah okay so uh i know that the south

[1:58:49] Voice 1: to the microphone steve oh um yeah it shows me i'm okay yeah as soon as you turn your head away

[1:59:02] Voice 1: it oh okay and

[1:59:04] Trustee Luckham: camera audio quality it's very poor the

[1:59:09] Voice 1: south bender island local trust committee

[1:59:11] Voice 1: proposed bylaw 122 cited as the south bender island land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number 2

[1:59:18] Voice 1: 2021 be amended by adding a clause to the natural boundary of the sea setback to allow the

[1:59:24] Voice 1: reconstruction of a dwelling and accessory building within the same location as long as the dwelling

[1:59:32] Voice 1: and accessory building and or accessory building is not closer to the natural boundary of the sea

[1:59:42] Voice 8: Okay, so moved. Do I have a seconder? Cameron, thank you.

[1:59:46] Trustee Luckham: Any further discussion on that? All those in favor? So that carries unanimously. Thank you. So then we have the clause here now which we need to add.

[2:00:00] Voice 2: Chair Lucknow. So what Kim has up on the screen, is that what Steve just did a motion for? Or is it different? I'm sorry, I'm just a little bit trying to keep up.

[2:00:13] Voice 5: From

[2:00:13] Trustee Luckham: the agenda package on page 18 is the motion that's in motion G, which is on section five.

[2:00:25] Trustee Luckham: You've got it. That is verbatim.

[2:00:27] Trustee Luckham: Oh, no,

[2:00:28] Trustee Luckham: he added accessory

[2:00:32] Voice 1: building after the word dwelling and accessory building twice.

[2:00:41] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, so a dwelling building or a dwelling or accessory building within the same location,

[2:00:47] Trustee Luckham: as long as the dwelling or accessory building is not closer to the natural boundary of the sea.

[2:00:52] Trustee Luckham: Is that correct, Cameron?

[2:00:53] Voice 7: Okay.

[2:00:53] Voice 7: Yeah,

[2:00:54] Trustee Luckham: I mean, I think

[2:00:54] Voice 7: we're trying to say, you know, obviously the screen is different than a moment ago,

[2:00:57] Voice 7: but i think we want to stay on a lot that contains a legal legally constructed dwelling or a legally

[2:01:02] Voice 7: constructed accessory building that's the first occasion then the second one is that it may

[2:01:08] Voice 7: uh be replaced and then also reconstructed repaired etc so yeah that i think that's it

[2:01:14] Voice 9: and robin i sent you a new version of the draft motion so you may want to perfect

[2:01:18] Voice 9: on the screen

[2:01:19] Voice 7: okay just

[2:01:22] Voice 2: let me find it here yeah

[2:01:23] Trustee Luckham: that's good okay so

[2:01:33] Voice 2: the first part kim yeah

[2:01:37] Trustee Luckham: Oh, so this is this is the next motion, right? First motion, then I'm going to call the vote on

[2:01:43] Trustee Luckham: that. All those in favor? I think it did. That

[2:01:47] Trustee Luckham: carries. Okay, you're right. So now we're on

[2:01:51] Trustee Luckham: the second motion to add the clause. And who wants to read that one? And so I mean,

[2:01:58] Voice 8: I mean, yeah,

[2:01:59] Trustee Luckham: despite Section 333, so the Appendix Committee as follows.

[2:02:10] Voice 7: OK, and then despite Section 333 on a lot that contains a legal dwelling, cottage or accessory building constructed prior to the adoption of this bylaw,

[2:02:19] Voice 7: a replacement dwelling, cottage or accessory building may be constructed or the existing dwelling, cottage or accessory building reconstructed or altered,

[2:02:28] Voice 7: or provided the distance from the natural boundary

[2:02:30] Voice 7: of the seat to the replacement reconstructed

[2:02:32] Voice 7: or altered dwelling, cottage or accessory building

[2:02:36] Voice 7: is not less than the distance from the natural boundary

[2:02:38] Voice 7: of the seat to the dwelling, cottage or accessory building

[2:02:41] Voice 7: on the lot at the time of the adoption of this bylaw.

[2:02:44] Voice 7: And for this purpose, the local trust committee

[2:02:46] Voice 7: may require an owner to submit certification

[2:02:48] Voice 7: from an appropriately qualified person

[2:02:50] Voice 7: as to the site of the dwelling, cottage or accessory building

[2:02:53] Voice 7: at the time of the adoption of the bylaw.

[2:02:56] Voice 7: Sure, yeah.

[2:02:58] Voice 7: second okay

[2:02:59] Trustee Luckham: moved and seconded any further discussion all those in favor so that carries

[2:03:06] Trustee Luckham: unanimously thank you and now um we'll unless there's anything further we'll move on to the

[2:03:12] Trustee Luckham: height and thank you kim for preparing us with um a motion to um set that according to these desires

[2:03:24] Trustee Luckham: so if you're if gentlemen you're satisfied with that motion that you see be happy if one of you

[2:03:28] Trustee Luckham: read it out from the top that

[2:03:32] Voice 1: the south pender island local trust committee proposed bylaw 122

[2:03:35] Voice 1: cited the south pender island land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number 2 2021

[2:03:40] Voice 1: be amended by adding the following new section by adding the words and at no point may a dwelling

[2:03:48] Voice 1: exceed 9.2 meters 30 feet in height at the end of subsection 3.4.1 so it reads a dwelling or

[2:03:58] Voice 1: a cottage shall not exceed 9.2 meters 30 feet in height and at no point may dwelling exceed 9.2

[2:04:06] Voice 1: meters 30 feet in height okay

[2:04:11] Voice 8: moved do i have a second there i do but let me just speak to that

[2:04:16] Voice 8: for a second if i could um

[2:04:18] Voice 7: but right now a cottage is yes i'm sorry i'm i was mistaken yes it's fine

[2:04:27] Voice 7: yeah um you do have a seconder and i don't need to speak to it

[2:04:30] Trustee Luckham: okay great so then i'll call the

[2:04:32] Trustee Luckham: vote all those in favor and that carries unanimously and

[2:04:38] Voice 7: so the one thing is just it's a

[2:04:40] Voice 7: it's a small point right now it says a dwelling or a cottage shall not exceed 30 feet in height

[2:04:45] Voice 7: at no point may a dwelling exceed uh 30 feet in height should it say a dwelling or a cottage i

[2:04:51] Voice 7: mean a cottage is a dwelling so just maybe just the language should says that it says that says

[2:04:59] Voice 7: a dwelling or a cottage should not exceed 9.2 30 meters in height at no point may a dwelling

[2:05:05] Voice 7: oh you see 9.2 or 30 meters a night so i just if we're trying to make them

[2:05:10] Voice 7: synchronized see my point i see what you're

[2:05:16] Trustee Luckham: saying yeah so um let's include that omission

[2:05:21] Trustee Luckham: in the motion and assume that i'm looking to trustees that you agree with that uh yes i'm

[2:05:27] Trustee Luckham: good with that right okay so let's add that word as an omission yeah then

[2:05:32] Trustee Luckham: having to redo it all

[2:05:33] Trustee Luckham: again good i can okay robin you're going to type that in there just so it's on the screen

[2:05:41] Trustee Luckham: so

[2:05:42] Voice 2: i just have to add the word cottage or a cottage

[2:05:44] Trustee Luckham: dwelling or cottage yeah perfect so

[2:05:50] Trustee Luckham: that's the motion this is all for the public's benefit who viewed this later right um that that's

[2:05:55] Trustee Luckham: what the motion was that was moved seconded and carried okay let's keep going um we are now at

[2:06:04] Trustee Luckham: But section seven, which was errors in the bylaw, and the first one that's been indicated

[2:06:09] Trustee Luckham: was agricultural cottage size.

[2:06:11] Trustee Luckham: I think, Trustee Thorne, you indicated there was another error that might need to be corrected.

[2:06:16] Trustee Luckham: So let's pick that up after.

[2:06:19] Voice 7: I think that was, yeah, sorry.

[2:06:21] Voice 7: We've dealt with that now.

[2:06:22] Voice 7: That was the one about the natural boundary of the sea.

[2:06:24] Trustee Luckham: Okay, perfect.

[2:06:25] Trustee Luckham: So then error in the bylaw, which is the agricultural cottage size.

[2:06:30] Trustee Luckham: There's a motion there.

[2:06:31] Trustee Luckham: Does anybody wish to speak to it or just read out the motion?

[2:06:36] Voice 1: Yeah, I'll note that the South Penner Island Local Trust Committee

[2:06:39] Voice 1: proposed bylaw 122, South Penner Island Local Bylaw 114, 2016,

[2:06:43] Voice 1: amendment number 2021, be amended to increase the maximum floor area

[2:06:47] Voice 1: of a cottage in the agricultural zone to 90 square meters.

[2:06:53] Voice 1: Okay,

[2:06:53] Trustee Luckham: moved, seconded, seconded.

[2:06:56] Trustee Luckham: Any discussion?

[2:06:58] Trustee Luckham: No, all those in favor?

[2:07:01] Trustee Luckham: So that two carries.

[2:07:02] Trustee Luckham: that's brilliant thank you so let's go to eight uh in-stream building permit application and bylaw

[2:07:08] Trustee Luckham: adoption uh this

[2:07:11] Voice 9: is just for information no

[2:07:12] Trustee Luckham: good i'm glad glad that that that's all that is for

[2:07:15] Trustee Luckham: um so are there any questions about that information let's just

[2:07:20] Voice 8: let's just be clear on

[2:07:21] Voice 8: this um it's like if somebody's got

[2:07:31] Voice 7: a building permit that's being issued like right now i guess

[2:07:34] Voice 7: guess what I'm a little confused about. It said, if no work is commenced, the new, more restrictive

[2:07:38] Voice 7: regulations would apply even for building permitted being issued. I find that problematic.

[2:07:45] Voice 7: You know, if somebody has gone to the point of getting a building permit issued,

[2:07:52] Voice 7: and it's a valid permit, it has not expired, then I think it's wrong to unwind that permit

[2:08:04] Voice 7: and all the time and money that people would have spent

[2:08:07] Voice 7: having achieved that in the first place

[2:08:09] Voice 7: just because we made a change to the land use bylaw.

[2:08:12] Voice 7: So I really do believe we need to honor valid permits

[2:08:14] Voice 7: that have been issued.

[2:08:16] Trustee Luckham: Yeah.

[2:08:17] Trustee Luckham: Robin, can we get that section up on the screen

[2:08:19] Trustee Luckham: for the benefit of the public that are viewing the stream

[2:08:21] Trustee Luckham: so that they know what we're talking about?

[2:08:23] Trustee Luckham: And that's on page 20, section eight,

[2:08:25] Trustee Luckham: in-stream building permit.

[2:08:29] Trustee Luckham: And maybe I'll just go to a planner Stockdale.

[2:08:33] Trustee Luckham: Yes.

[2:08:33] Trustee Luckham: It seems to be that Cameron is correct in a number of respects and that that may not be what is anticipated in this.

[2:08:42] Trustee Luckham: No,

[2:08:43] Voice 9: it's not anticipated, but based on previous legal opinions from other processes, this is the advice that we've had if this would be legally challenged.

[2:08:55] Voice 9: challenged but that being said we don't want to see anybody you know that has an active building

[2:09:01] Voice 9: permit to have that taken away so as i mentioned in the staff report there has to be some initiated

[2:09:07] Voice 9: work so that means clearing a little bit of land kind of you know flagging off the area for the

[2:09:13] Voice 9: foundation it doesn't have to be that much but there has to be something on the land that's

[2:09:18] Voice 9: showing that there is an intent for that that dwelling or that use so

[2:09:24] Voice 1: the property owner

[2:09:26] Voice 1: wouldn't have

[2:09:26] Voice 9: to do much i

[2:09:27] Voice 1: think the crd sort of regulates that on itself if you do not if you you

[2:09:33] Voice 1: receive your building permit and you do not commence work to a point of an inspection within

[2:09:39] Voice 1: two years that building permit ceases it expires so i i think it's already covered by the regional

[2:09:47] Voice 1: district i don't think we need to have or if it expires then of course the new zoning regulations

[2:09:53] Voice 1: would would have to apply yeah

[2:09:59] Trustee Luckham: it is rare but it does happen that the building permits or even

[2:10:02] Trustee Luckham: development permits do expire and i think the key there is whether or not you've commenced work

[2:10:07] Trustee Luckham: because i have seen properties change hands and people assume that they have a building

[2:10:12] Trustee Luckham: permit and they don't yeah

[2:10:13] Voice 1: it has to commence work and it has to be registered by the building

[2:10:17] Voice 1: inspector so you know cameron

[2:10:20] Voice 1: what do you

[2:10:20] Voice 7: think well it's an interesting thing again i really want

[2:10:23] Voice 7: to be as fair-minded as we can here i mean i think the probability of you know for a small

[2:10:29] Voice 7: community is not like it's a ton of permits i think it's so that being said i just think we

[2:10:35] Voice 7: want to be as uh honorable as we can i certainly i know from my own experience in with other

[2:10:44] Voice 7: municipalities that if a the that if a building permit application has uh is well there's there's

[2:10:54] Voice 7: a number of different things in some cases if a building permit is issuable um by a certain time

[2:11:01] Voice 7: you're not going to be uh paying a higher development cost charge for example so

[2:11:04] Voice 7: you know if you if if like that's all i'm saying is that that that if something if a

[2:11:12] Voice 7: building permit is issued I don't think we can change or it's not fair to change by law or to

[2:11:18] Voice 7: force somebody to go to the to the new bylaw provisions the second thing is and I guess I

[2:11:23] Voice 7: wrestle with this one is if somebody has submitted a building permit application before the adopter

[2:11:32] Voice 7: of this bylaw and it's in review by because it goes between obviously the island's trust staff

[2:11:38] Voice 7: review for compliance with the land use bylaw and uh and then the crd ultimately issued it

[2:11:43] Voice 7: afterwards but if somebody has submitted a bona fide you know a proper building permit application

[2:11:52] Voice 7: but it hasn't yet been issued because of the just the processing times that strikes me as a as a

[2:12:00] Voice 7: as something that that i wouldn't be happy about if i was a property owner somebody's initiated

[2:12:05] Voice 7: had to work and and submitted the thing so i i throw that out yeah i

[2:12:09] Voice 9: understand that current

[2:12:10] Voice 9: concern but this is based on case law as well so although it um and that's why we mentioned

[2:12:16] Voice 9: that we have we know which building permits are open and we can contact those applicants

[2:12:22] Voice 9: to let them know this is what's potentially coming and we just want to see if they've

[2:12:28] Voice 9: actually convinced any work if they haven't if there's that one or two scenarios where they

[2:12:32] Voice 9: haven't then we'll let them know that they should commence some work so they

[2:12:37] Voice 9: can retain those regular regulations but

[2:12:40] Voice 7: if somebody submitted a building permit

[2:12:42] Voice 7: I mean so we end up giving this additional readings today and somebody

[2:12:46] Voice 7: ended up submitting a building permit this week would we say well sorry you're

[2:12:53] Voice 7: too late I mean we haven't it's not adopted yet if it was to be adopted I

[2:12:58] Voice 9: mean it depends how fast their building permit is processed and if it's issued

[2:13:01] Voice 9: and if they've commenced the work before adoption of the bylaw.

[2:13:05] Voice 1: I think we're covering situations

[2:13:10] Trustee Luckham: that aren't going to occur.

[2:13:13] Trustee Luckham: Comments are probably the thing to consider is that this actually is not a regulation.

[2:13:19] Trustee Luckham: It's not something that we're doing.

[2:13:21] Trustee Luckham: It's something that exists.

[2:13:22] Trustee Luckham: It's out there that is actually in the purview of the CRD.

[2:13:28] Trustee Luckham: So it's an information note for us to be conscious of that

[2:13:31] Trustee Luckham: because it may be a decision that comes before the LTC where somebody's going to say hey I had that

[2:13:37] Trustee Luckham: in and my check bounced or something you know but I think if an application is in I would anticipate

[2:13:42] Trustee Luckham: that um yeah it's nothing to do with us yeah okay so let's move on that's a good idea

[2:13:54] Trustee Luckham: we're uh we're a half an hour over what was anticipated I said

[2:13:58] Voice 1: less than that yeah so I

[2:14:01] Trustee Luckham: I thought two hours was rather short,

[2:14:05] Trustee Luckham: but nonetheless, we've got amendments now.

[2:14:11] Trustee Luckham: So we have the discretion to amend the bylaw

[2:14:14] Trustee Luckham: before after public hearing, blah, blah.

[2:14:16] Trustee Luckham: And so here we are, we've made some amendments.

[2:14:18] Trustee Luckham: Is there, at this point, we make amendments.

[2:14:25] Trustee Luckham: I think we wanna consider whether or not

[2:14:28] Trustee Luckham: we're gonna give additional readings to this now.

[2:14:31] Voice 8: Now, maybe from

[2:14:39] Voice 8: what

[2:14:40] Voice 1: I've from what I've heard, I prepared to move that the South Pender Island

[2:14:45] Voice 1: Local Trust Committee proposed bylaw 122 cited a South Pender Island land use bylaw 114 2016

[2:14:51] Voice 1: amendment number to 2021. As amended, be read a second time.

[2:15:00] Trustee Luckham: Let me just have a look here now. Is

[2:15:03] Voice 7: there a second 20 probably 21 of the staff report,

[2:15:06] Voice 7: Right.

[2:15:07] Trustee Luckham: It's on page 21. Okay, very good then. So that on page 21 is the motion. So do I have a seconder? So moved and seconded by Cameron

[2:15:17] Voice 8: Thorn. Any discussion?

[2:15:21] Voice 8: No.

[2:15:21] Voice 8: don't know um

[2:15:23] Trustee Luckham: so i'm presuming that the trustees are in favor of this um i am not going to support

[2:15:32] Trustee Luckham: it um because i am concerned about the process um i don't disagree with the elements of the bylaw

[2:15:40] Trustee Luckham: but i just see so much confusion out there and that at this juncture we we've not been able to

[2:15:48] Trustee Luckham: and I'm saying we as the LTC, not been able to bring the community along with us on understanding

[2:15:55] Trustee Luckham: the why of this. I certainly understand many of the elements of it, but we haven't been able to

[2:16:02] Trustee Luckham: do that. But I don't believe that my vote in this particular case will affect the outcome.

[2:16:08] Trustee Luckham: So if there's no further discussion, I'll call the vote. All those in favor? That's two in favor.

[2:16:16] Trustee Luckham: those opposed and i'm opposed um but that said you know i will support the work of the ltd at

[2:16:23] Trustee Luckham: the executive committee that's my responsibility as the chair of the ltc because that's there's

[2:16:28] Trustee Luckham: now a decision of the ltc and i respect that so uh do you wish to give third reading i moved that

[2:16:35] Voice 1: the south bender island local trust committee proposed bylaw 122 cited the south bender island

[2:16:40] Voice 1: land use bylaw 114 2016 amendment number 2 2021 as amended be read a third time um

[2:16:49] Trustee Luckham: so moved and

[2:16:50] Trustee Luckham: seconded cameron thorne thank you um any discussion no

[2:16:55] Voice 7: i guess all i will say and again peter i

[2:16:57] Voice 7: appreciate you know you're we all have to sort of uh take into account what we've heard and and um

[2:17:03] Voice 7: and and you know you have a voice in this as well uh you know i i guess i would say that um

[2:17:11] Voice 7: that I think with respect, when I look back to the many, many meetings we've had, I do believe

[2:17:16] Voice 7: that we've provided a lot of rationale and clarity for why we have advanced this bylaw to the extent

[2:17:24] Voice 7: that we have. And I do think, you know, you cite the people that have not been supportive,

[2:17:32] Voice 7: and that's fair, but I think it's also a disrespect, and I'm not suggesting you're

[2:17:36] Voice 7: your meanness, but I think it would also be disrespectful to not also cite the many, many

[2:17:43] Voice 7: people

[2:17:43] Voice 6: that have written very

[2:17:45] Voice 7: thoughtful letters and spoken eloquently about this bylaw too. So I

[2:17:49] Voice 7: think, you know, we need to make sure that we're not looking at these things in isolation. And I

[2:17:53] Voice 7: think there is a great deal of support for this, not just within South Pender, but also as you know

[2:17:59] Voice 7: from the public hearing, people in our neighboring community also see the virtues of this and may

[2:18:04] Voice 7: may well very very well be seen something similar on their own island in due course so uh so i feel

[2:18:11] Voice 7: like we're we're on the i think we're we're on the progressive side of things here and i think

[2:18:16] Voice 7: over time people will recognize that um it's a balanced outcome so i do support going to third

[2:18:22] Voice 7: reading yep

[2:18:24] Trustee Luckham: no um i thank you for that and uh it was i did not intend to omit um those that have

[2:18:30] Trustee Luckham: have spoken in favor of it and appreciate and indeed i'm not speaking against the amendments

[2:18:36] Trustee Luckham: that you're that you are proposing um and indeed the public those members of the public that

[2:18:41] Trustee Luckham: support those amendments that you're proposing are good um i'm just concerned about the process

[2:18:46] Trustee Luckham: and that we haven't because even here today we've made a number of amendments that um that's one of

[2:18:53] Trustee Luckham: the concerns i've heard and so like i said i'll be supporting this at the executive committee as

[2:18:56] Trustee Luckham: the chair of the ltc um but uh just want to speak on behalf of those voices that

[2:19:03] Trustee Luckham: might be joining you if we had somehow managed to bring them a little closer to the line

[2:19:08] Trustee Luckham: so i'm going to call for all those in favor for third reading and opposed one opposed but that

[2:19:16] Trustee Luckham: carries and um so this is good work of the ltc so now you want to send that to the executive

[2:19:22] Trustee Luckham: Committee for approval.

[2:19:24] Voice 1: I move that the South Pender Island

[2:19:26] Voice 1: Local Trust Committee proposed by the 1-2-2

[2:19:28] Voice 1: be forwarded to the Secretary of the Islanders Trust

[2:19:30] Voice 1: as amended

[2:19:33] Voice 1: be forwarded to

[2:19:34] Voice 1: the Secretary of the Islanders Trust for

[2:19:36] Voice 1: Executive Committee approval.

[2:19:38] Trustee Luckham: Do I have a seconder?

[2:19:41] Trustee Luckham: Right. I'll just simply call the vote for that.

[2:19:43] Trustee Luckham: All those in favour?

[2:19:45] Trustee Luckham: And that carries unanimously.

[2:19:49] Trustee Luckham: So that concludes

[2:19:51] Trustee Luckham: by Law 122.

[2:19:53] Trustee Luckham: The LTC may receive the report for information, proceed no further.

[2:19:58] Trustee Luckham: We're not doing that.

[2:19:58] Trustee Luckham: So I think that concludes bylaw 122, if I'm not mistaken, Kim.

[2:20:01] Trustee Luckham: So congratulations, everybody.

[2:20:04] Trustee Luckham: This was a lot of work.

[2:20:05] Trustee Luckham: And indeed, there was a lot of significant public engagement.

[2:20:08] Trustee Luckham: And we heard a lot of things.

[2:20:11] Trustee Luckham: We'll see how it all plays out in the future.

[2:20:14] Trustee Luckham: So, I'm going to go now to By-law 123, which is on page 29 of the agenda, and I'm going to go to Planner Stockdale to ask us to summarize the application or the OCP for us, and then we'll go through this as we need to.

[2:20:45] Trustee Luckham: Over to you, Kim.

[2:20:47] Voice 9: Thank you very much. Bylaw 123 is the minor OCP amendments project, and it includes two different topics. The first is an acknowledgement statement, First Nation acknowledgement statement, which is strictly just a statement at the beginning of the OCP.

[2:21:07] Voice 9: it doesn't consider or it doesn't include any specific OCP policies and the other item

[2:21:15] Voice 9: are the building design and citing guidelines there has been some questions or concerns raised

[2:21:22] Voice 9: at the public hearing and the CIM so what do these guidelines mean how are they triggered

[2:21:28] Voice 9: and again these are just guidelines so this is a document that will help guide decision making in

[2:21:36] Voice 9: terms of development variance permits uh for maximum floor area um so those will be um if

[2:21:43] Voice 9: this bylaw goes through it will be attached to the official community plan and there is another

[2:21:50] Voice 9: aspect um it's it's draft bylaw number one two six and this draft bylaw includes the um the rights of

[2:21:58] Voice 9: nature wording it was sent out for early referral to first nations we did receive a response back

[2:22:04] Voice 9: from LIACCIN which is attached but based on kind of the lack of any other comments the vacancy of

[2:22:12] Voice 9: our senior intergovernmental policy advisor position and really the timing of this bylaw in

[2:22:18] Voice 9: terms of the fall election coming up staff have provided a draft motion that the LTC may want to

[2:22:28] Voice 9: part of me it says give first reading which oh sorry the recommendation is to put bylaw 126 on

[2:22:37] Voice 9: hold until next term but I did also add a an alternative for the LTC to consider if you

[2:22:44] Voice 9: wanted to give it first reading now going back to bylaw 123 there are options the LTC can make

[2:22:50] Voice 9: in terms of amending the bylaw.

[2:22:52] Voice 9: But if the LTC feels as though

[2:22:55] Voice 9: no further amendments are required,

[2:22:57] Voice 9: there are recommendations to give second and third reading

[2:23:00] Voice 9: for it to be sent to EC.

[2:23:02] Voice 9: And since it's an OCP bylaw,

[2:23:04] Voice 9: it needs approval from the minister.

[2:23:06] Voice 9: So that is recommendation number four.

[2:23:08] Voice 9: And I'll leave it at that.

[2:23:13] Trustee Luckham: Okay, thank you very much.

[2:23:16] Trustee Luckham: So trustees, how would you like to proceed?

[2:23:19] Trustee Luckham: Do you have any questions?

[2:23:21] Voice 1: Well, I've got to admit that I'm surprised at the negative response we've heard about

[2:23:25] Voice 1: By-law 123, because the two proposals are strictly informational in nature, and the

[2:23:30] Voice 1: assumption that they are enforceable in any way is completely false, and I think it's

[2:23:34] Voice 1: misleading to suggest otherwise.

[2:23:36] Voice 1: The recognition of First Nations on South Bender is an acknowledgement of the traditional

[2:23:41] Voice 1: cultural history of the Sanchothan-speaking people by our community.

[2:23:45] Voice 1: It was authored primarily by the trust's intergovernmental advisor, a First Nations woman who has spent her entire career negotiating with and on behalf of First Nations throughout the province.

[2:23:57] Voice 1: I'm in no way offended or feel threatened by anything written in this document, nor do I feel any of the First Nations that we referred this document to or comment had any significant concerns.

[2:24:09] Voice 1: Otherwise, I'm certain we would have heard from them.

[2:24:12] Voice 1: receiving no response does not necessarily translate into non-approval of the content

[2:24:18] Voice 1: however since this ocp amendment must be approved by the minister of municipal affairs

[2:24:23] Voice 1: there's still time should any first nations feel compelled to write but not moving ahead with uh

[2:24:30] Voice 1: after this referral it may be viewed by those nations as our community rejecting our commitment

[2:24:36] Voice 1: to reconciliation. And I'm simply not prepared to take that risk. The building design and siding

[2:24:43] Voice 1: guidelines are simply just that, they're guidelines. And again, any suggestion as they're

[2:24:48] Voice 1: being enforceable is again, completely mistaken. There's nothing I find offensive in this document

[2:24:53] Voice 1: and any builder who disagrees with its suggestions can ignore the content. There are several

[2:24:58] Voice 1: publications with informational guidelines on different aspects of property development

[2:25:03] Voice 1: development throughout the trust area and I have yet to hear any complaint over those guidelines

[2:25:07] Voice 1: having these placed in the schedule of our OCP will simply make them easy easily accessible

[2:25:13] Voice 1: for everyone so I have no problem with moving ahead with the second and third reading of bylaw

[2:25:18] Voice 1: one two three and referring it to the minister perfectly all

[2:25:22] Trustee Luckham: right thank you um so um do you

[2:25:29] Trustee Luckham: want to make the motions here for one two three and Cameron do you

[2:25:34] Trustee Luckham: have anything that you want

[2:25:35] Trustee Luckham: TO ADD BEFORE THOSE MOTIONS NO I THINK I THINK

[2:25:38] Voice 7: YOU KNOW AGAIN A LONG CONVERSATION UM I AGREE

[2:25:40] Voice 7: WITH STEVE'S COMMENTS UM AND UH YOU KNOW THE ONLY THING I'LL I'LL MENTION ABOUT THE DESIGN

[2:25:47] Voice 7: GUIDELINES AGAIN THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY ARE OF NO FORCE TO AFFECT ANYBODY THAT'S BUILDING

[2:25:52] Voice 7: WITHIN THE UH WITH IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE BYLAW IF SOMEBODY IS SEEKING TO DO SOMETHING

[2:25:58] Voice 7: WHERE THEY'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE THAT IS THE TIME WHEN THEY BECOME UM A REFERENCE POINT

[2:26:05] Voice 7: for people to consider when you would make an application

[2:26:12] Voice 7: to the LPC to make an amendment or to seek a variance,

[2:26:16] Voice 7: that's when it would be helpful for people

[2:26:19] Voice 7: to look at the design guidelines.

[2:26:21] Voice 7: Otherwise, they're simply there as information,

[2:26:23] Voice 7: as Steve said, so I've got no problem with that.

[2:26:27] Trustee Luckham: Perfect, so how about a motion?

[2:26:29] Voice 1: I move that the South Penner Island

[2:26:31] Voice 1: Local Trust Committee Proposed By-law 123

[2:26:33] Voice 1: cited the South Penner Island

[2:26:34] Voice 1: and official community plan review number 107 2011 amendment number one 2021 be read the second time

[2:26:42] Trustee Luckham: moved seconded cameron thorne any discussion i'll call for the vote then all those in favor

[2:26:49] Trustee Luckham: and that carries unanimously let's get a second motion i

[2:26:53] Voice 1: moved that the south pender island local

[2:26:54] Voice 1: trust committee proposed by law one two three cited the south pender island official community

[2:26:58] Voice 1: plan number 107 2011 amendment number one 2021 be read a third time moved and seconded

[2:27:06] Trustee Luckham: Cameron Thorne thank you any discussion all those in favor or you want to speak to it

[2:27:12] Trustee Luckham: no all those in favor so that carries unanimously thank you the next one uh

[2:27:17] Voice 1: moved that the south

[2:27:18] Voice 1: pender island local trust committee proposed by the one two three be forwarded to the secretary

[2:27:22] Voice 1: of the island's trust for executive community committee approval

[2:27:26] Trustee Luckham: um moved and seconded by

[2:27:29] Trustee Luckham: by Cameron Thorne, all those in favor?

[2:27:33] Trustee Luckham: That carries unanimously.

[2:27:35] Trustee Luckham: And we have a further one.

[2:27:37] Voice 1: Yeah.

[2:27:38] Voice 1: I move that the South Mentor Island Local Trust Committee

[2:27:40] Voice 1: proposed by-law one, two, three before

[2:27:42] Voice 1: to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval.

[2:27:45] Trustee Luckham: So moved, seconded by Cameron Thorne.

[2:27:47] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[2:27:49] Trustee Luckham: That carries unanimously.

[2:27:51] Trustee Luckham: Excellent.

[2:27:52] Trustee Luckham: So I'll just make a remark.

[2:27:53] Trustee Luckham: I think this is good work.

[2:27:54] Trustee Luckham: I agree with the comments that they are only guidelines

[2:27:57] Trustee Luckham: guidelines and that indeed we need to move the dial on our First Nations and reconciliation work

[2:28:03] Trustee Luckham: and this can always be improved and we will I expect be always open to further improvements

[2:28:10] Trustee Luckham: but let's move the dial a bit and hope for forgiveness if we've got some parts of it wrong

[2:28:16] Trustee Luckham: but we're absolutely trying to do the best we can and there's no offense intended to anybody

[2:28:22] Trustee Luckham: body as a result of that um so i think there's some good advice here on the next motion um

[2:28:29] Trustee Luckham: because i think we should pause on that one but um trustees what would you like to do

[2:28:34] Voice 1: uh well we could certainly move it up to our next regular meeting in september and we can

[2:28:38] Voice 1: discuss it then and then we can uh we can move on today sure okay that'd be fine okay

[2:28:45] Trustee Luckham: cameron okay so

[2:28:46] Voice 1: a motion

[2:28:47] Trustee Luckham: to that effect then just for the record okay

[2:28:50] Voice 1: i moved that the south

[2:28:51] Voice 1: and our local trust committee placed draft bylaw 126 on the September regular meeting agenda.

[2:28:58] Trustee Luckham: Okay, moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? So that carries unanimously.

[2:29:05] Trustee Luckham: Gentlemen, that concludes our work. Only a wee bit over time. And that's good. And

[2:29:12] Trustee Luckham: thank you, Kim. Is there anything further we need to do today? I think as Steve mentioned,

[2:29:17] Trustee Luckham: I mentioned our next formal meeting is September.

[2:29:20] Trustee Luckham: I don't have the date in front of me,

[2:29:21] Trustee Luckham: but it's no doubt on the calendar and on the website.

[2:29:25] Trustee Luckham: So thank you, everybody.

[2:29:26] Trustee Luckham: Thank you, Kim, for coming in when you're not well,

[2:29:28] Trustee Luckham: and thank you, Robin, for supporting us.

[2:29:31] Trustee Luckham: I agree.

[2:29:32] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[2:29:32] Voice 7: I echo the points as well.

[2:29:36] Trustee Luckham: So I'll call for adjournment.

[2:29:37] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[2:29:39] Trustee Luckham: And that carries.

[2:29:40] Trustee Luckham: Perfect.

[2:29:41] Trustee Luckham: Thanks, everybody.

[2:29:42] Voice 4: Have a great day.

[2:29:43] Trustee Luckham: You too.

[2:29:44] Trustee Luckham: Thanks, Kim.

[2:29:45] Trustee Luckham: Thanks, Robin.

South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 1 of 6 
 
 
South Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
August 12, 2022 
Electronic Meeting 
 
Members Present: Peter Luckham, Chair 
 Steve Wright, Trustee 
 Cameron Thorn, Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Kim Stockdill, Island Planner 
 Robin Ellchuk, Recorder 
  
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Luckham called the meeting to order at 8:35am.  He acknowledged that the meeting was 
being held in traditional territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. 
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent the agenda was approved as presented. 
3. MINUTES 
3.1 Local Trust Committee Minutes Dated July 23, 2022  
 By general consent the minutes were adopted as presented. 
3.2 Local Trust Committee Public Hearing Record for Bylaw No. 122 Dated July 23, 2022 (for 
Information) 
 The minutes were received. 
3.3 Local Trust Committee Public Hearing Record for Bylaw No. 123 Dated July 23, 2022 (for 
Information) 
 The minutes were received. 
4. BUSINESS ITEMS 
4.1 Land Use Bylaw Amendments Project – Staff Report (Proposed bylaw no. 122) 
Planner Stockdill summarized the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) Amendments Review Project.  This bylaw 
is post public hearing and the LTC cannot make any amendments regarding density and use.   
A D O P T E D 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 2 of 6 
 
Trustee Thorn gave remarks on the reasoning for the proposed bylaws and addressed concerns that 
arose. 
Trustee Wright commented on the reasons for support for both Bylaw Nos. 122 and No 123 and 
addressed the communities concerns. 
Trustee Thorn addressed concerns regarding required documentation from property owners; a schedule 
added to the LUB and a time period of possibly 12 months to submit a site. 
Discussion regarding the submission of a certification of floor area. 
SP-2022-038 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding the following to the clause regarding maximum floor area and 
setback regulations: 
“and for this purpose the Local Trust Committee may require an owner to submit a 
certification from an appropriately qualified person as to the floor area of the dwelling at 
the time of the adoption of this bylaw.” 
          CARRIED 
 
SP-2022-039 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding a clause to the Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resource zones to 
allow for a replacement dwelling that would not exceed the floor area at the time of 
bylaw adoption. 
          CARRIED 
Discussion regarding the definition of floor area continued. 
 
 
SP-2022-040 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding the following to the definition of ‘floor area’: “exclusive of a storey 
that is not fully enclosed by a floor, ceiling, and four walls or glass.” 
          CARRIED 
 
 
  
  

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 3 of 6 
 
Discussion regarding definition of basement floor area. 
 
SP-2022-041 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding a definition for ‘basement floor area.  
          CARRIED 
 
SP-2022-042 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding a definition for ‘basement floor area’ that means any portion of a 
storey in a dwelling with a lower floor that is located 1.5 metres or more below natural 
grade.” 
          CARRIED 
Discussion regarding maximum floor area. 
 
 
SP-2022-043 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by amending maximum floor area for dwellings in Sections 2.8, 2.16, 2.21, and 
2.23 for as follows: 
  i. Lots less than 0.4 ha (1 acre) to 232 m² (2500 ft²), 
ii. Lots with an area of 0.4 ha (1 acre) to less than 0.8 ha (2 acres) to 279 m² 
(3000 ft²), 
iii. Lots with an area of 0.8 ha (2 acres) to less than 1.6 ha (4 acres) to 325 m² 
(3500ft²), 
iv. Lots with an area of 1.6 ha (4 acres) to less than 4 ha (10 acres) to 348 m² 
(3750 ft²), and, 
v. Lots greater than 4 ha (10 acres) to 372 m² (4000 ft²). 
           CARRIED 
          Trustee Wright opposed 
 
 
Discussion continued regarding the community input and good public policy and trying to find a common 
ground after listening to the community members concerns about maximum dwelling size in the 
proposed bylaw.  
  

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 4 of 6 
 
SP-2022-044 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding a clause to the setback from the natural boundary of the sea to allow 
the reconstruction of a dwelling and/or accessory building within the same location as 
long as the dwelling and/or accessory building is not closer to the natural boundary of 
the sea. 
CARRIED 
 
 
 SP-2022-045 
 It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be adding 
the following new Section: 
Despite Subsection 3.3.3, on a lot that contains a legal dwelling, cottage, or accessory 
building constructed prior to the adoption of this bylaw, a replacement dwelling, cottage, 
or accessory building may be constructed, or the existing dwelling, cottage, or accessory 
building re-constructed or altered, provided the distance from the natural boundary of 
the sea to the replacement, re-constructed or altered dwelling, cottage, or accessory 
building is not less than the distance from the natural boundary of the sea to the 
dwelling, cottage, or accessory building on the lot at the time of the adoption of this 
bylaw and for this purpose the Local Trust Committee may require an owner to submit a 
certification from an appropriately qualified person as to the siting of the dwelling, 
cottage, or accessory building at the time of the adoption of this bylaw. 
CARRIED 
SP-2022-046 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended by adding the following new Section:  
“By adding the words “and at no point may a dwelling exceed 9.2 metres (30 feet) in 
height” at the end of Subsection 3.4.1 so it reads: “A dwelling or cottage shall not exceed 
9.2 metres (30 feet) in height and at no point may a dwelling or cottage exceed 9.2 
metres (30 feet) in height.”. 
 
CARRIED 
  

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 5 of 6 
 
SP-2022-047 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be 
amended to increase the maximum floor area of a cottage in the Agriculture zone to 90 
m². 
CARRIED 
 
Discussion regarding new bylaw regulations affecting current BP applications.     
 
  
SP-2022-48 
 It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” as 
amended be read a second time. 
 
CARRIED 
1 opposed 
 
SP-2022-49 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122, cited as 
“South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 114, 2016, Amendment No. 2, 2021” be read a 
third time. 
 
CARRIED 
1 opposed 
SP-2022-50 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 122 be 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee Approval. 
 
CARRIED 
 
4.2 Minor Official Community Plan Amendments Project – Staff Report (Proposed bylaw no. 123) 
Planner Stockdill summarized proposed Bylaw No. 123.  Proposed Bylaw No. 123 includes a First Nations 
acknowledgment statement and the building design and siting guidelines.  
SP-2022-051 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 123, cited as 
“South Pender Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 107, 2011, Amendment No. 1, 
2021” be read a second time. 
CARRIED 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
August 12, 2022 ADOPTED Page 6 of 6 
 
SP-2022-052 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 123, cited as 
“South Pender Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 107, 2011, Amendment No. 1, 
2021” be read a third time. 
CARRIED 
 
SP-2022-053 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 123 be 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee Approval. 
 
CARRIED 
 
SP-2022-054 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 123 be 
forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval. 
 CARRIED 
 
SP-2022-055 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee place draft Bylaw No. 126 on the 
next South Pender Island Local Trust Committee meeting on September 9 agenda. 
CARRIED 
 
5. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 am. 
 
 
_________________________ 
Peter Luckham, Chair 
 
_______________________ 
Certified Correct: 
Robin Ellchuk, Recorder