North Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, May 13, 2023

[0:00:01] Voice 3: I'll tell you when we're live.

[0:00:03] Voice 3: Excellent, thank you.

[0:00:08] Voice 3: That sounds good.

[0:00:15] Voice 3: Okay, we're live.

[0:00:17] Voice 3: Good afternoon.

[0:00:19] Trustee Maude: Thank you for joining us today for the meeting of the North Banner Global Trust Committee.

[0:00:26] Trustee Maude: I want to begin by acknowledging that we're fortunate to be able to gather today in locations across the condition territory of the Coast Salish people.

[0:00:33] Trustee Maude: people. I'm David Mott. I'm elected on Main Island and I'm the chair of the North Pender Island

[0:00:38] Trustee Maude: Local Trust Committee. I'm joined today by your local Pender Island trustees, Aaron Campbell and

[0:00:43] Trustee Maude: Deb Morris. Together we make up the Pender Island Local Trust Committee. This meeting is being

[0:00:47] Trustee Maude: live-streamed. It is also being recorded and will be available soon on the Islands Trust website.

[0:00:52] Trustee Maude: We have some staff members joining us today. We have, well, we'll introduce our wonderful new

[0:00:58] Trustee Maude: recording secretary um brent moore and then we have uh kim stockton who's um our planet for today

[0:01:06] Trustee Maude: it's going to be hosting sort of the first part of the the session community information meeting um

[0:01:12] Trustee Maude: so i guess we'll begin off by just looking at the agenda and an approval of that if anybody has any

[0:01:18] Trustee Maude: additions or questions of our consent we'll prove that um and then we'll move into the community

[0:01:25] Trustee Maude: information meeting and we'll give it to planner stock to lead the discussion and uh we'll move on

[0:01:32] Trustee Maude: from there perfect

[0:01:33] Voice 9: thank you um i just have a little bit of a blurb to uh go over and and then

[0:01:40] Voice 9: the community information meeting the purpose of that is to ask questions through this process so

[0:01:45] Voice 9: that's an opportunity for you to direct your questions to the ltc and the formal public

[0:01:51] Voice 9: public hearing is when you actually state if you support or don't support the proposed bylaws.

[0:01:56] Voice 9: So the land use bylaw review project was actually initiated in late 2019 with a focus on

[0:02:03] Voice 9: implementing policies in the official community plan by amending the land use bylaw. And through

[0:02:10] Voice 9: the early stages, the LTC and staff identified six of these focus areas, which I believe most

[0:02:16] Voice 9: of you know at this point those six focus areas are, but their residential maximum floor area,

[0:02:21] Voice 9: agricultural regulations, industrial regulations, commercial to zoning, marine and shoreline

[0:02:29] Voice 9: regulations, and technical amendments, which include a new bylaw format. In the early stages

[0:02:36] Voice 9: of the project, a discussion paper was prepared for each of these topics, outlining the current

[0:02:42] Voice 9: regulations and policies found in the land use bylaw and OCP, and then options for the LTC

[0:02:48] Voice 9: to consider. After three community information meetings in late 2020, which were all held

[0:02:53] Voice 9: electronically, the LTC and staff started to draft these bylaws based on the options provided

[0:02:59] Voice 9: in the discussion papers as well as the comments received through the CIM process. In 2021-2022,

[0:03:08] Voice 9: the bylaws have been amended numerous times and further amendments and rescinding of bylaws

[0:03:14] Voice 9: were made to address the concerns raised by the community over the past few years, and also included recommendations by the Agricultural Advisory Planning Commission.

[0:03:26] Voice 9: In the total over the past three years, the LTC has held approximately 12 community information meetings, marking today as the 13th CIM.

[0:03:39] Voice 9: Maybe that's a long number, I'm not sure.

[0:03:43] Voice 3: so

[0:03:44] Voice 9: there are three bylaws associated with this project the first is bylaw number 223

[0:03:50] Voice 9: and that amends the official community plan in order to support and enable some of the

[0:03:57] Voice 9: amendments found in the land use bylaw number 229 bylaw number 224 that's the bigger the thicker one

[0:04:05] Voice 9: It will actually replace land use by-law number 103 if adopted.

[0:04:10] Voice 9: It includes technical amendments and new by-law formatting as well as numerous other by-law amendments with the purpose of supporting policy in the OCP.

[0:04:19] Voice 9: And the last one is by-law number 229.

[0:04:22] Voice 9: These include amendments that will be made to the land use by-law that require the proposed by-law number 223 to be adopted.

[0:04:32] Voice 9: it and by like 229 includes rezoning site-specific properties and also includes the maximum poor air

[0:04:42] Voice 9: regulations for dwellings so i'm going to leave it at that right now and i'll pass it back to you

[0:04:48] Voice 9: chairman i'd be happy

[0:04:49] Voice 9: to answer any questions so

[0:04:51] Trustee Maude: trustees any sort of opening comments or

[0:04:56] Voice 8: um maybe just a quick comment so you know this file has taken a long time to get to this point

[0:05:03] Voice 8: but I think it's resolving a few things that were very persistent for a long time in our community

[0:05:10] Voice 8: and it can't do everything it shouldn't because we you know we should parse things into different

[0:05:15] Voice 8: bins as we work but one of the reasons I think it was really slow is I don't know if you remember

[0:05:20] Voice 8: but we had a pandemic so we really tried to slow it down because there were concerns expressed

[0:05:25] Voice 8: during the pandemic when we were having virtual meetings to actually ensure we could meet in

[0:05:29] Voice 8: in person again to finish this up so i'm really proud of all the conversations that communities

[0:05:35] Voice 8: had to be able to come to different agreements on pieces of this and to get it to the point where it

[0:05:39] Voice 8: is thanks for all the patience i know it's not necessarily perfect but

[0:05:43] Voice 7: i think it's a lot better

[0:05:44] Voice 7: than it was before i

[0:05:48] Voice 13: don't know wasn't involved in the first round of what it is but uh it seems

[0:05:53] Voice 13: It seems like there's been, in the short time period since the election, it's moving ahead at a positive pace, and hopefully it's

[0:06:04] Voice 3: something we can just get done with and move on to other issues.

[0:06:12] Voice 3: So at this time,

[0:06:14] Trustee Maude: if anybody's having any questions or comments, we

[0:06:16] Trustee Maude: invite you to come up to the podium and give

[0:06:19] Voice 3: your name and speak.

[0:06:21] Voice 5: I'm

[0:06:28] Voice 3: Ron Aderhill, I live on Otter Bay Road, Port Washington area,

[0:06:32] Voice 11: and yeah, it's been going on a long time, but I confessed only reading the details recently, and very specifically in 223 and in 229, there seems to be inconsistent.

[0:06:48] Voice 11: consistent. One of them has a planning change. 223, I think, it's two lots that are in Port

[0:06:53] Voice 11: Washington on the water. And it seems to show in 223, the plan is the red line goes all around

[0:07:02] Voice 11: both properties. And it says, you'd like to put it into residential, which I support.

[0:07:08] Voice 11: And then in 229, it shows a red line around each of the properties, which A, isn't consistent,

[0:07:16] Voice 11: it would be I don't support it.

[0:07:18] Voice 11: And the reason,

[0:07:20] Voice 11: this part isn't my reason for your objection,

[0:07:22] Voice 11: it's just to ask for clarification.

[0:07:24] Voice 11: Yeah, so why one consolidated and why two separate?

[0:07:31] Voice 11: Let us talk to them.

[0:07:33] Voice 9: Yes, it is actually simply a mapping error, if you will.

[0:07:39] Voice 9: So they both mean the same thing.

[0:07:43] Voice 9: They just have shown it in a different way.

[0:07:45] Voice 9: So bylaw 223, it's showing that both of these properties are going from an OCP designation of commercial and then changing the OCP designation to rural residential.

[0:07:57] Voice 9: And then for bylaw 229, the map, it shows it around each of the properties.

[0:08:05] Voice 9: Again, it means the same thing that the zoning for both properties is moving from a site-specific commercial to a site-specific rural residential.

[0:08:13] Voice 9: So technically, it's the same, but we should have shown consistency in both maps, I agree.

[0:08:20] Voice 9: So can I ask a clarifying question before you go, Ray?

[0:08:25] Voice 13: I was just, the way I understand it to be, there are two locks there, and they would both be rezoned,

[0:08:33] Voice 13: but the lot that is closest to the water does not actually have enough usable space

[0:08:42] Voice 13: to be a viable lot for anybody to do anything with the second lot

[0:08:47] Voice 13: because of the setbacks and whatnot that are there

[0:08:51] Voice 13: and the way that the existing structure is on the first lot

[0:08:56] Voice 13: lot uh is built over top of the ocean and can't be permitted even for a demolition permit at this

[0:09:05] Voice 13: point so i

[0:09:06] Voice 8: mean yeah and i think one other piece of clarification there's only a small portion of

[0:09:12] Voice 8: the back of the current shed building is actually on the residential lot the building itself sits

[0:09:18] Voice 8: on the water lot not on the residential lot so the question that i had around clarification is

[0:09:25] Voice 8: if those lots are not one lot if they're two lots is there some argument to the future that

[0:09:30] Voice 8: we're going to hear that of course you could build on a lot you can't have a lot that's not

[0:09:34] Voice 8: buildable no

[0:09:36] Voice 3: no okay because

[0:09:38] Voice 8: from my understanding of those two lots there's no way to build on that

[0:09:42] Voice 8: front lot so that's why i

[0:09:43] Voice 9: should also clarify that that new site specific zone only allows

[0:09:48] Voice 9: one dwelling as well that's right there would be no way they would ever be permitted two dwellings

[0:09:52] Voice 9: and that old uh shed there it cannot be used for residential use whatsoever it's zoned in the water

[0:09:58] Voice 9: and as a trustee um campbell said they couldn't get a permit either way for residential use so

[0:10:07] Voice 9: it's

[0:10:07] Voice 8: so yeah how we how we handled it for being two separate lots without merging them was that

[0:10:13] Voice 8: it can only have one dwelling for the both lots well

[0:10:16] Voice 11: just curious why it's not consolidated

[0:10:18] Voice 11: yeah the intention

[0:10:20] Voice 9: is to the property owner plans to consolidate the two so that is their intention

[0:10:26] Voice 9: to consolidate those two um properties into one but that would still even

[0:10:32] Voice 9: going through that

[0:10:32] Voice 9: consolidation it wouldn't allow them to use the shed as a residential use whatsoever it wouldn't

[0:10:38] Voice 9: allow that so

[0:10:40] Trustee Maude: and i guess the clarification is that the consolidation blocks would be done

[0:10:44] Trustee Maude: through ministry of highways because we don't do boundary adjustments so like if this if this was

[0:10:49] Trustee Maude: the municipality of north bender we would just go consolidate the law school the law lines blah blah

[0:10:54] Trustee Maude: blah but let's ask somebody else's jurisdiction to do a lot of consolidation so we're doing the

[0:11:00] Trustee Maude: zoning consolidation

[0:11:01] Voice 8: we're limiting it so you can't build two residences on there okay that'd

[0:11:06] Voice 11: be what you just said crystal clearly because it's not that it can say all those add-on things

[0:11:11] Voice 11: is Richard would be nice to know because I wrote a letter to the judge and they seem to be saying

[0:11:16] Voice 11: so there's clarification yeah

[0:11:19] Voice 7: my understanding is it was written

[0:11:22] Voice 7: because my

[0:11:25] Voice 8: understanding is that if we put it in writing there was only one

[0:11:29] Voice 7: yeah and finally

[0:11:30] Voice 9: so 229 under section 2.4 so for this new rural residential to site specific zone

[0:11:38] Voice 9: or B, it states that there may not be more than one dwelling

[0:11:42] Voice 9: within the RR2B zone.

[0:11:45] Voice 9: So there's only one dwelling permitted in any zone.

[0:11:47] Voice 9: It's not one dwelling permitted per lot.

[0:11:50] Voice 9: Zone

[0:11:50] Voice 7: in the context of multiple lots?

[0:11:52] Voice 7: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[0:11:54] Voice 8: It's a little bit, it's just so difficult

[0:11:56] Voice 8: the way this is laid out when it's a edit of another

[0:11:59] Voice 8: and it's spread across.

[0:12:00] Voice 8: I

[0:12:00] Voice 11: do understand the history of your mess

[0:12:02] Voice 11: because my grandmother ran a

[0:12:04] Voice 11: store from 1920 to 1990.

[0:12:08] Voice 3: Very

[0:12:09] Voice 11: familiar. Yeah,

[0:12:10] Voice 3: it's very long.

[0:12:12] Voice 11: It's a fault in that two owners back, they put an illegal B&B, never did the plumbing electrical, nothing was

[0:12:19] Voice 11: approved, sewage went into the water, just having that experience behind me, not too seen when I see anomalies and changes.

[0:12:27] Voice 11: changes okay we tried to paint

[0:12:29] Voice 11: that out thank

[0:12:30] Voice 13: you thank you thank you for coming yeah pretty

[0:12:33] Voice 13: stuff like that tonight i guess it's a really important part of this process that people in

[0:12:39] Voice 13: the community are willing to come forward and actually speak that out so that we can get a

[0:12:43] Voice 13: clarity for me thank

[0:12:45] Voice 3: you thank you anybody

[0:12:49] Voice 3: else wish to speak at this point mr sketch

[0:12:57] Voice 5: Michael

[0:13:07] Voice 3: Sketch, North Pender. I have a couple

[0:13:12] Voice 12: of questions, and they're quite different

[0:13:13] Voice 12: topics. This is pursuant to the last question, the immediate last question. And does the

[0:13:24] Voice 12: North Pender OCP guide residential development or not at or below the natural boundary? Is

[0:13:32] Voice 12: Is it in the OCP that there shall not be residential development

[0:13:36] Voice 12: below the natural boundary?

[0:13:37] Voice 12: That's just a technical question.

[0:13:40] Voice 9: It would depend on the OCP designation.

[0:13:43] Voice 9: So generally, those areas below the natural boundary of the sea

[0:13:47] Voice 9: are designated as water, and those are primarily for marine uses.

[0:13:52] Voice 9: I haven't got, don't have it in front of me,

[0:13:54] Voice 9: but there may be policies that support some type of residential use

[0:13:57] Voice 9: that's connected to the upland portion of Vermont.

[0:14:00] Voice 12: following on the the controversy and subsequent court case over that particular lot 20 years ago

[0:14:09] Voice 12: 15 years ago uh there was a commercial use for the accessory residential allowed and that was

[0:14:15] Voice 12: made use of and um it as i understand it is feasible although the ccma had every dream of it

[0:14:23] Voice 12: to zone after residential use for the upland 10 feet is in place

[0:14:30] Voice 12: to subsequently zone the water lot for residential use.

[0:14:34] Voice 12: If that were ever to take place, it is technically feasible

[0:14:38] Voice 12: that the ministry would allow residential use pursuant

[0:14:42] Voice 12: to permission from the local government.

[0:14:45] Voice 12: And whether or not that could happen, whether or not that's feasible,

[0:14:50] Voice 12: there is a potential sort of a corporate principle guidance that would suggest that the landowner

[0:15:02] Voice 12: make an application to the LTC having first achieved consolidation of the lots and then

[0:15:07] Voice 12: everybody go to trouble or any everyone's active potential changes should the land be sold and

[0:15:15] Voice 12: And please bear in mind that the owner on title of the Sanford Sliver is a company and the owner of the upland portion are two individuals.

[0:15:27] Voice 12: They are separate owners. So consolidation may not be all that simple, all that straightforward.

[0:15:36] Voice 12: Yes. OK. So my request in the public hearing will be followed from that.

[0:15:41] Voice 8: I'm going to pause for a second. Just comment on that.

[0:15:44] Voice 8: so part of the reason that we've been given that the bottom sliver of land is owned by a company

[0:15:51] Voice 8: and not the individual is liability because of the way the land the building the shed sits on

[0:15:58] Voice 8: the land so that there is attached liability to that property for anything related to the shed

[0:16:03] Voice 8: and yet the owner can't do anything about the shed right now because the province is it's basically a

[0:16:09] Voice 8: a frozen entity at the moment

[0:16:11] Voice 8: like you can't carry them you can't do anything with you can't

[0:16:14] Voice 8: reconstruct it so as a result they're trying to limit their personal liability by putting it out

[0:16:20] Voice 8: under a different entity which i personally think is smart given it's the doctor who owns the

[0:16:24] Voice 8: equivalent like you know it's an issue so that was my understanding why that wasn't trying i don't

[0:16:29] Voice 8: think there's any trying sneaky sneaky behavior going on there um but point noted we also should

[0:16:37] Voice 8: be aware and maybe we recorded in our notes that like the intent of this ltc is to not have that

[0:16:44] Voice 8: residential on that water lot like that's the intent with this so that it's recorded in our

[0:16:49] Voice 8: notes um if we approve that part of the you know the land use bylaws forward so we're clear on what

[0:16:55] Voice 8: our intent is going forward

[0:16:56] Voice 7: that would be you know fair

[0:16:58] Voice 12: game and perhaps part of my public hearing

[0:17:00] Voice 12: on it is that it is feasible to make it even more clear in the land use bylaw or in the writing

[0:17:08] Voice 12: for us that there shall only be one residence allowed on the ultimate portion yeah that's what

[0:17:15] Voice 12: it says but it says it says actually in that zone one residence and what i'm saying is different

[0:17:22] Voice 12: Okay.

[0:17:23] Voice 3: No?

[0:17:24] Voice 12: No.

[0:17:24] Voice 12: And that the one residence alone on the combined loss in that zone, and that only one residence

[0:17:33] Voice 12: permitted on the upland board, and that would clarify it and give some certainty moving

[0:17:38] Voice 12: forward.

[0:17:39] Voice 12: And

[0:17:39] Voice 3: that would be an amendment to the existing bylaw.

[0:17:44] Voice 3: Right.

[0:17:50] Voice 3: And my next point, I think, in order.

[0:17:54] Voice 3: Are

[0:17:55] Voice 12: staff guided by the highest and best use of land, that is, one which corresponds to

[0:18:08] Voice 12: a maximum of property tax revenue, when advising LTC decision-makers, the LTC, on changes in

[0:18:15] Voice 12: land use?

[0:18:17] Voice 12: And then the second part of that question, if yes, if the answer to that is yes, and

[0:18:22] Voice 12: And I have heard it from members of staff over the years.

[0:18:25] Voice 12: Yes, we are guided by the highest and best use of the land.

[0:18:30] Voice 12: And incidentally, the local planning service gets 75% of the budget,

[0:18:36] Voice 12: and almost the entire finance trust budget is property tax.

[0:18:40] Voice 12: So there is an interest in highest and best use of the land.

[0:18:45] Voice 12: However, if the answer is yes, it appears to conflict with Section 4 of the Finance Trust Act,

[0:18:51] Voice 12: Act, which briefly stated is that the LTC is required,

[0:18:56] Voice 12: that's required in law, to carry out the object of trust.

[0:18:59] Voice 12: That's the preserve and protect paragraph.

[0:19:02] Voice 12: And it could be a conflict and should

[0:19:06] Voice 12: be acknowledged and recognized when individual proposals come

[0:19:11] Voice 12: forward.

[0:19:12] Voice 12: So to go back to the question, are staff, is there?

[0:19:16] Voice 12: So I can't find any policy in the trust policy manual

[0:19:19] Voice 12: manual uh that suggests the highest and best use of land is amen but i've heard it verbally

[0:19:27] Voice 12: from more than one staff member over the last 10 years i

[0:19:32] Voice 9: can't answer that question

[0:19:33] Voice 9: and it sounds more like a statement than a real question it sounds like you're trying to make a

[0:19:39] Voice 9: point behind that question i'm gonna

[0:19:42] Voice 8: just step in because i don't want staff to answer that question

[0:19:44] Voice 3: so i

[0:19:45] Voice 8: think it's for you to answer as the executive like and from my perspective it's about um

[0:19:51] Voice 8: the buck stops at trustees so what we decide and our decisions are what we have to live with

[0:19:58] Voice 8: stuff is give us professional advice we take it or we don't we've been known to do both

[0:20:02] Voice 8: okay and so um i think that we have to we have to judge whether we think that

[0:20:09] Voice 7: advice so do you

[0:20:10] Voice 7: of other things well

[0:20:11] Trustee Maude: it's just like highest and best use it's something that has never in all my

[0:20:16] Trustee Maude: years of all when i was trusting there's too many it's never ever been on the radar it's it's like

[0:20:23] Trustee Maude: quite frankly like a lot of times what we hear recommendations are to down some things and sort

[0:20:29] Trustee Maude: of sort of basically if somebody's permitted to have a hotel would say well no that's that's

[0:20:34] Trustee Maude: probably not where you want to go so i hasn't used the best use i've heard that in in terms of

[0:20:42] Trustee Maude: associated with dc assessment but with islands trust it's never ever ever been on any radar

[0:20:48] Trustee Maude: that i've ever seen and that's with 20 25 years of trust so thank you and

[0:20:53] Voice 13: i would

[0:20:55] Voice 13: would think that each of us has for ourselves what is highest and best use. When you think about what

[0:21:06] Voice 13: our community is and getting elected in this role to do what you think that you need to do for

[0:21:14] Voice 13: Pender Island, highest and best use is something that you have to define for yourself, not something

[0:21:20] Voice 13: that would come through a planner being able to say that that is highest and best use for pendrive

[0:21:27] Voice 13: so i

[0:21:31] Voice 12: asked that really because one component of this uh these follow reviews um was written by

[0:21:37] Voice 12: staff not discussed by trustees at all as far as i know in a public meeting and a justification for

[0:21:45] Voice 12: it could indeed be highest and best use but i'll get to that in my submission and my third question

[0:21:52] Voice 12: My question is, our staff and trustee, just a statement, about 13% of North Pender land is in the agricultural land reserve, and the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, takes precedent over local government bylaws.

[0:22:11] Voice 12: It's a higher jurisdiction for the whole province.

[0:22:15] Voice 12: and my question is are staff and trustees aware of the Land Commission Act section 46

[0:22:24] Voice 12: conflict of bylaws and in a nutshell bylaws shall not conflict with ALC orders and that

[0:22:33] Voice 12: would be a conditional approval or their provisions in the Act and in instances where

[0:22:41] Voice 12: where there is a conflict, then the local bylaw has no force or effect.

[0:22:48] Voice 12: However, if we read the beginning of the revised Lattice bylaw for North Pender,

[0:22:56] Voice 12: if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that a bylaw is incorrect,

[0:23:02] Voice 12: then that part is struck out.

[0:23:03] Voice 12: But who on earth is going to take the island's trust of courts over a Lattice bylaw?

[0:23:09] Voice 12: and so a a conflict sits and festers and in 2020 a conflict was established and prolonged in an

[0:23:20] Voice 12: adopted world and namely votes for reduce on alr land and that i will address in my public hearing

[0:23:27] Voice 12: submission uh and a the simplest way to get around this particular one is to withdraw that section

[0:23:35] Voice 12: from the current bylaws and deal with it by application.

[0:23:41] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:23:41] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:23:45] Voice 3: Anybody else?

[0:23:47] Voice 7: There was a question.

[0:23:48] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:23:49] Voice 7: There was a, no, go ahead and sit down.

[0:23:50] Voice 7: Question that I heard was,

[0:23:52] Voice 7: are we aware of the conflict of bylaws?

[0:23:56] Voice 7: Yes, I did ask.

[0:23:57] Voice 3: My

[0:23:57] Voice 7: answer is yes.

[0:23:58] Voice 7: Yep. Okay.

[0:23:59] Voice 3: Absolutely, yes.

[0:24:01] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:24:03] Voice 3: So nobody else?

[0:24:05] Voice 3: Okay. Well, I guess

[0:24:07] Trustee Maude: we'll close that portion of the meeting. Any concluding statements?

[0:24:13] Trustee Maude: Let us talk. I'd

[0:24:17] Trustee Maude: say that if I have four pages in front of me.

[0:24:21] Voice 3: So

[0:24:22] Trustee Maude: we will move on now to the public hearing, which is a formal process.

[0:24:30] Trustee Maude: And as I say, they've given me a whole bunch of pages I have to read.

[0:24:34] Trustee Maude: Sorry,

[0:24:35] Voice 8: before we go into public hearing, I just want one clarification.

[0:24:37] Voice 8: After we go through public hearing, we can't have any more debate on this, right?

[0:24:41] Voice 8: Okay, I'm going to say something.

[0:24:44] Voice 8: I just want to say that there are some pieces to this that I personally am, like, personally

[0:24:53] Voice 8: in terms of, like, as a decision maker for our community, have some nervousness around.

[0:24:57] Voice 8: but i also understand that there are different layers of coverage and support so for example

[0:25:04] Voice 8: in 229 i believe it is there is boat maintenance and i've talked to the folks who are

[0:25:12] Voice 8: about my concerns which is that there's proper catchment for anything coming off boats that

[0:25:18] Voice 8: there's no stuff flowing into the ocean all that the reality is that the laws governing that

[0:25:23] Voice 8: are actually environmental protection laws they're there they're you know in place so if we

[0:25:29] Voice 8: agree to do that um then i feel like those things are there are protections there for us um it's not

[0:25:37] Voice 8: necessarily my comfort level because like as with the concrete plant i kind of like us to have

[0:25:43] Voice 8: like close control of what environmental you know protection looks like but i also think that it's

[0:25:50] Voice 8: reasonable given like what's going on um so and not to you know dispute the issue of bylaws

[0:25:57] Voice 8: conflicting and all that that's a thing in the world that we have to manage because we're waiting

[0:26:01] Voice 8: on a letter from the alar um which seems like our life on tender related to the alar

[0:26:10] Voice 8: so and we've not got it yet so i would like it if we do go ahead and approve these i would like

[0:26:17] Voice 8: it recorded in the meeting notes that and i can send you text for this friend but i would like

[0:26:23] Voice 8: it recorded in the meeting notes that our assumption is that our bylaws conflict until

[0:26:27] Voice 8: we get a letter from the alr so that we are stating clearly that the alr rules apply until

[0:26:34] Voice 8: the letter is in place i don't want to wait necessarily to go back and do the whole thing

[0:26:41] Voice 8: because this is like i don't even know now like a 12-year process of a whole bunch of different

[0:26:44] Voice 8: and stuff but this resolves and i don't want to wait just because the alr has been like i don't

[0:26:49] Voice 8: even know how long you know like it seems like a year more than a year at least of like waiting for

[0:26:54] Voice 8: that letter so i kind of want to you know our boss wait for that letter and if it conflicts

[0:26:59] Voice 8: and we can deal with it we can address it but that's my thinking on that issue and it's not

[0:27:05] Voice 8: perfect it's not wonderful but it's at least going forward in some regard and i

[0:27:09] Voice 13: don't think it's our

[0:27:11] Voice 13: our responsibility to try to define what somebody else's bylaw says and that's I mean from a

[0:27:19] Voice 13: personal standpoint I have been through that process and had another governing body try to

[0:27:27] Voice 13: define someone else's bylaw and tell me whether I was right or wrong and after a long drawn-out

[0:27:35] Voice 13: process been told i was right but it never needed to be that and for us to insert ourselves into a

[0:27:44] Voice 13: process and say this is what the bylaw says this is my opinion of what the bylaw says

[0:27:51] Voice 13: and try to to enact on that is super irresponsible if if there's an issue and we and we allow the

[0:28:03] Voice 13: the other governing body to speak into it,

[0:28:06] Voice 13: then we know where we

[0:28:07] Voice 3: stand at the end of the day.

[0:28:13] Voice 3: That's it.

[0:28:13] Voice 3: Thanks, Mary.

[0:28:14] Voice 3: Yeah, sorry, forgot

[0:28:16] Voice 7: we could talk after that.

[0:28:17] Trustee Maude: Okay, so we will now begin by opening the public hearing.

[0:28:23] Trustee Maude: The public hearing proposed bylaws 223, 224, and 229

[0:28:27] Trustee Maude: is now open.

[0:28:28] Trustee Maude: I would welcome everybody in attendance

[0:28:30] Trustee Maude: and knowledge that we are meeting in territory

[0:28:31] Trustee Maude: of the Coast Salish Nations.

[0:28:33] Trustee Maude: I'll skip past the intros.

[0:28:37] Trustee Maude: So we'll start off by saying this public hearing is being convened pursuant to Senate 465,

[0:28:43] Trustee Maude: the local government act in order to consider the following proposed bylaws.

[0:28:46] Trustee Maude: Proposed bylaw number 223, Senator North Pender Island Community Plan, bylaw number 171, 2007,

[0:28:53] Trustee Maude: amendment number 1221, proposed bylaw number 224, Senator North Pender Island land use

[0:29:01] Trustee Maude: bylaw number 222 224 2022. proposed bylaw number 229 says 259 page bylaw number 224

[0:29:11] Trustee Maude: 2022 and i'm at number one 2022. weird um all persons who believe that their uh their interests

[0:29:23] Trustee Maude: and properties suspected by the proposed bylaws will be given a reasonable opportunity to be

[0:29:27] Trustee Maude: heard or separate submissions respecting matters contained within proposed bylaws those wishing to

[0:29:32] Trustee Maude: speak should commence the presentation by clearly stating their name and address members of the

[0:29:37] Trustee Maude: local trust committee may if they wish ask questions of you following your presentation

[0:29:41] Trustee Maude: however the main function of the local trust committee members is to listen to the views of

[0:29:46] Trustee Maude: the public it is not the function of committee members to debate the merits of proposed bylaws

[0:29:50] Trustee Maude: with individual citizens everyone will be given reasonable opportunity to be heard and

[0:29:55] Trustee Maude: and none of them feel discouraged from presenting their views.

[0:30:02] Trustee Maude: And considering the proposed by-laws, the Local Trust Committee has received documents

[0:30:06] Trustee Maude: which may influence the decision.

[0:30:09] Trustee Maude: These documents are available for public review through industry on our website, and as indicated

[0:30:13] Trustee Maude: in the public hearing notice, they're on the side, in the binders on the side there.

[0:30:17] Trustee Maude: Any person who wishes to present a written submission to the Local Trust Committee may

[0:30:22] Trustee Maude: do so, and all written submissions must be received by the Local Trust Committee before

[0:30:26] Trustee Maude: the post and meeting.

[0:30:27] Trustee Maude: meeting. Your only opportunity to comment on the proposed bylaws is during this hearing.

[0:30:33] Trustee Maude: As a member of the Local Trust Committee, or as members of the Local Trust Committee,

[0:30:37] Trustee Maude: may not receive further submissions after the close of the hearing. After this public

[0:30:41] Trustee Maude: hearing is concluded, the Local Trust Committee may, without further notice, make whatever

[0:30:44] Trustee Maude: decision it deems proper with respect to the bylaws and that are subject to the public

[0:30:48] Trustee Maude: hearing. So Island Planet and Stockdale will now summarize the public hearing notice, key

[0:30:56] Trustee Maude: key points of the biologics and referral agency responses thank

[0:31:00] Voice 9: you chairman um there's more of

[0:31:03] Voice 9: a formal um description i have to state so i'll bear with us a copy of this notice was advertised

[0:31:10] Voice 9: in two consecutive editions of the driftwood on april 26 and may 3 2023 all notification

[0:31:17] Voice 9: requirements under the local government act have been completed it was also inserted in the may

[0:31:23] Voice 9: 2023 issue of the tender codes there's a copy of the complete public hearing binder available

[0:31:29] Voice 9: during the public hearing volume one volume two here um and it's also

[0:31:36] Voice 9: located on the stress

[0:31:38] Voice 9: website the purpose of bylaw 223 24 and 229 if adopted is that bylaw 223 would amend the ocp

[0:31:47] Voice 9: by supporting and enabling the amendments found in the amending bylaw number 229.

[0:31:53] Voice 9: Bylaw number 224, if adopted, will replace the land use bylaw number 103.

[0:31:59] Voice 9: Bylaw number 224 also includes technical amendments and new bylaw formatting

[0:32:05] Voice 9: and numerous other bylaw amendments for the purpose to support policies in the OCP.

[0:32:10] Voice 9: And finally, bylaw number 229 includes amendments to proposed bylaw number 224 to enable policies in the OCP.

[0:32:21] Voice 9: This includes rezoning site-specific properties and includes maximum four area regulations for dwellings.

[0:32:28] Voice 9: Proposed bylaws were referred to a number of agencies and First Nations.

[0:32:32] Voice 9: Those are the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, BC Assessment Authority, the Agricultural Land Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, Crown Lease Branch, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,

[0:32:49] Voice 9: Violent Stress File Enforcement, the Magic Lake Properties Owners Association,

[0:32:54] Voice 9: Resource Society, Razor Point Improvement District,

[0:32:58] Voice 9: Trincomalee Water Improvement District,

[0:33:00] Voice 9: Pender Island Parks and Recreation Commission,

[0:33:03] Voice 9: CRD Building Inspection, CRD Magic Lake Water and Sewer Committee,

[0:33:08] Voice 9: Pender Island Fire Rescue,

[0:33:10] Voice 9: Main to Turner Salt Spring and South Pender LTCs.

[0:33:13] Voice 9: In terms of First Nations, it was sent to the Cowichan Tribes,

[0:33:17] Voice 9: Palauk First Nation, Subaset First Nation, Laiaksin First Nation,

[0:33:23] Voice 9: Malahat First Nation, Wachee First Nation, Penelaket Tribe,

[0:33:28] Voice 9: Seminyamu First Nation, Seneymu First Nation, Sheminis First Nation,

[0:33:34] Voice 9: Sartlet First Nation, Seyo First Nation, Sawasin First Nation,

[0:33:38] Voice 9: Sikim First Nation, and Wasayinich Leadership Council for comment.

[0:33:42] Voice 9: To date, there was three public submissions that were received as of yesterday at 4.30, and the LTC did receive one other submission that I believe you've seen, and I'll circulate that to you.

[0:33:57] Voice 9: Thank you.

[0:33:59] Trustee Maude: Submissions can be made at any time during and until close of the hearing.

[0:34:03] Trustee Maude: If any submissions are received during the meeting, we will pause prior to closing to ensure the LTC has had time to review these submissions.

[0:34:11] Trustee Maude: I invite members of the public who wish to speak to line up.

[0:34:15] Trustee Maude: Please take your name prior to making comments.

[0:34:17] Trustee Maude: After your presentation to the LPC, the trustees may ask you questions, but they're primarily here to listen and not debate issues with you.

[0:34:24] Trustee Maude: I will call three times for speakers before closing the hearing, at which point no further written or oral submissions can be made.

[0:34:31] Trustee Maude: So, if

[0:34:32] Voice 3: anybody wants to come forward and make any submissions, this is your time.

[0:34:47] Voice 2: I want to thank the Trust for listening to us and acting on our concerns, and I encourage

[0:34:57] Voice 2: you to move forward with this bylaw.

[0:35:00] Voice 2: We cannot wait to have these issues addressed.

[0:35:06] Voice 2: You've done a good job, it's not perfect as you say, but it does address the concerns

[0:35:11] Voice 2: that we raised with you, and we really wish to see them enacted.

[0:35:17] Voice 2: So, again, thank you, and thank Kim for all the work.

[0:35:21] Voice 2: I know it's not been easy, and not always been on the same page,

[0:35:26] Voice 2: but we got there.

[0:35:27] Voice 2: So, thank you.

[0:35:29] Voice 2: Thank you.

[0:35:29] Voice 2: You're very welcome.

[0:35:34] Voice 3: So, does anybody else want to make any presentations?

[0:35:37] Voice 3: Mr. Sketch?

[0:35:50] Voice 3: Michael Sketch, North Niagara Island.

[0:35:52] Voice 3: I'll address first the item I most

[0:35:55] Voice 12: recently spoke to.

[0:35:57] Voice 12: I'm referring to a parcel between Reservoir Point Road and Hamilton Road,

[0:36:04] Voice 12: and specifically this south east portion corner.

[0:36:10] Voice 12: It is currently zoned industrial, and the ALC has questioned the industrial zoning,

[0:36:18] Voice 12: and there has been no farm use indicated which would justify the industrial use.

[0:36:26] Voice 12: In terms of the ALC Act Section 46, the industrial zone has no force or effect in law.

[0:36:33] Voice 12: The only way to challenge that is, in fact,

[0:36:36] Voice 12: if one looks at the introduction to the land use bylaw before you,

[0:36:40] Voice 12: is to take the look of the court and question that particular portion,

[0:36:46] Voice 12: them and if the courts decide that the AOC act is in fact superior to the local files then the

[0:36:54] Voice 12: the industrial debt will be removed that's unlikely however since 2002

[0:37:01] Voice 12: that particular incorrect setting was moot for a long time because nothing was done with the lab

[0:37:08] Voice 12: uh but an opportunity to and i quote the applicant's uh submission for application to

[0:37:18] Voice 12: to ask for uh exclusion of that land from the alr the the exclusion application was and i quote

[0:37:26] Voice 12: extraordinarily to correct a mistake in the language by the out of stress 90 file

[0:37:31] Voice 12: um that's in my own terms breathtaking but that's the way it was accepted

[0:37:39] Voice 12: but the fact remains that there's been all this controversy and the owners of land

[0:37:46] Voice 12: you know recently perhaps assumed that if it was zoned for industrial use they could do an

[0:37:52] Voice 12: industrial use on it and there was no correction given by staff which tells me that the staff

[0:37:58] Voice 12: of the day since 2012 were not paying attention to section 46 of the

[0:38:06] Voice 12: the ALC Act at all, and there are numerous missions of fact to back that in the documentation.

[0:38:16] Voice 12: And what do we do about it? We continue and continue to support a non-farm use, which

[0:38:23] Voice 12: hasn't any substance, until the ALC excludes. It's a conditional approval that's been given,

[0:38:31] Voice 12: and there are several impediments to that the ALC removing that land from the ALR more than one

[0:38:38] Voice 12: and to put it in the land use bylaw creates a section of conflict that's utterly unnecessary

[0:38:48] Voice 12: what it does seemingly allow is a request to the local trust committee that bylaw enforcement

[0:38:54] Voice 12: cease because of this you know potential for change in the land use bylaw and are we not just

[0:39:01] Voice 12: trust continuing. I repeat the 2002 error and going on and on and on. It will be fairly

[0:39:07] Voice 12: simple to the local trust committee just to remove that portion for now. And when the

[0:39:12] Voice 12: ALC, if and when the ALC approves or removes the land from the ALC, then the honest trust

[0:39:18] Voice 12: has justification to resign

[0:39:20] Voice 3: or whatever they choose to. That's my request. Yeah. And to

[0:39:29] Voice 3: To follow on that,

[0:39:30] Voice 12: there is a realistic potential precedent

[0:39:34] Voice 12: for other ALR land to be similarly held with for local bylaws

[0:39:39] Voice 12: just to be agreed by an LTC, carry on, and ignore the ALC.

[0:39:43] Voice 12: The ALC doesn't, in fact, have the budget to take local governments

[0:39:47] Voice 12: to court when they don't, but it ends up a legal mess.

[0:39:50] Voice 3: Why perpetuate it?

[0:39:55] Voice 3: My second point

[0:39:59] Voice 12: deals with the parcel at the Port Washington dock and I prepared a long

[0:40:09] Voice 12: submission giving the history to the LCC but the last LCC and I found last night that that

[0:40:15] Voice 12: submission doesn't appear in my package for the new LCC or at least I couldn't find it.

[0:40:20] Voice 12: it may be later than that. And the history was ugly and it was ugly because it was

[0:40:27] Voice 12: an accessory to residential use which was simply made use of and default accepted rather than they

[0:40:33] Voice 12: did it. And yes, there was sewage dump in the ocean, all kinds of problems, but to say that building

[0:40:40] Voice 12: cannot be used for residential because it doesn't meet code, I imagine that, or I'm not a builder,

[0:40:49] Voice 12: but I suspect that it would be cheaper to bring that structure up to code than it would be to

[0:40:57] Voice 12: build a brand new house on the upland portion. The fact is, whatever the rationale, the sliver of

[0:41:06] Voice 12: land, which includes the shed, is owned by a company. And whatever the stated intents and

[0:41:15] Voice 12: the rationale the potential exists once the the frankly the roadblock the resident zoning

[0:41:24] Voice 12: uh is achieved uh the owners could sell that separate the two parts there's nothing to stop

[0:41:31] Voice 12: them um and that resident there's a residence allowed or whatever but also a future ltc could

[0:41:38] Voice 12: have an entirely different disposition to what you your own intentions are it's a question

[0:41:44] Voice 12: perhaps of, you know, is precautionary thinking in one's, the LCC's decision-making.

[0:41:51] Voice 12: It is feasible to remove that section again from this by-law and ask the owners to separate the two lots, the two separate parcels,

[0:42:04] Voice 12: and then apply for, not separate, I'm sorry, to amalgamate them and then apply for residential zoning in that order.

[0:42:14] Voice 12: And that's not unreasonable.

[0:42:16] Voice 12: Most of the public, ordinary public, would have to do that.

[0:42:19] Voice 12: And how is it that in a land use bylaw review,

[0:42:23] Voice 12: this awfully controversial issue which has been in the court for years

[0:42:30] Voice 12: is brought up as an amendment to the land use bylaw?

[0:42:33] Voice 12: How could that happen?

[0:42:34] Voice 12: Joe Soap, the property owner, would have to go through the mill

[0:42:37] Voice 12: of an individual application, technical reports,

[0:42:42] Voice 12: reports and careful examination by the by the planner and all that's just been skipped

[0:42:48] Voice 12: and the presumptions and the intentions of the owner and we're off please be careful with this

[0:42:54] Voice 12: one it can be removed and simply ask the landowner to amalgamate and then you'll

[0:43:01] Voice 3: get the residential

[0:43:01] Voice 3: rezoning um and that speaks to the the question of whether

[0:43:16] Voice 12: there is guidance in the OCP and I

[0:43:18] Voice 12: I don't think there is any on residential development

[0:43:21] Voice 12: below the natural boundary.

[0:43:23] Voice 12: And I think there could be, and it could be part of it.

[0:43:27] Voice 12: There is no guidance.

[0:43:29] Voice 12: And of course, there's a lobby, realistically,

[0:43:33] Voice 12: in any community that thinks that, or that appeals,

[0:43:36] Voice 12: believes that if one owns land, you have the right

[0:43:39] Voice 12: to do with it what you choose.

[0:43:41] Voice 12: And if there's no objection on the OCP, well, go for it.

[0:43:46] Voice 3: And so there should be some guidance there.

[0:43:53] Voice 3: And I asked the question about highest and best use of the land,

[0:44:00] Voice 12: because there is a component

[0:44:03] Voice 12: of the section, which I have a personal interest in and have had for many, many years.

[0:44:13] Voice 12: I own five acres of land.

[0:44:15] Voice 12: I would have liked 25 years ago to put a storage for firewood on that land, and I didn't, because

[0:44:23] Voice 12: the land use by law prohibited. I know of a dozen property owners over the years who have made use

[0:44:31] Voice 12: of land which is zoned residential but does not have a principal use, in other words there's no

[0:44:38] Voice 12: house on it. And most of them, you can't see what's going on in the land and they have got

[0:44:46] Voice 12: on with whatever use they want to use the land for in the meantime before a residence is built.

[0:44:52] Voice 12: and it's some sort of storage or workshop or a garage or whatever and i know that the permission

[0:44:57] Voice 12: to do just that is sitting in the galliano land use bottle and i asked the local trust committee

[0:45:06] Voice 12: members last parent does that create a problem do people abuse it do they wreck a lot simply

[0:45:12] Voice 12: because they can and the answer was no but the real impact on the environment of the land comes

[0:45:23] Voice 12: with residential use far greater than allowing an accessory residential use uh beforehand and

[0:45:29] Voice 12: that might dissuade some landowners from buildings they can't do anything out of the land and then

[0:45:35] Voice 12: we come to the question whether the highest and best use of the land which would be residential

[0:45:40] Voice 12: essential use for sure, should be waited for, or the trust conflict, which on average might

[0:45:47] Voice 12: favor letting people have a less impactful use of the land in the meantime, is favored.

[0:45:54] Voice 12: So there's a potential of that economy, which it is in your specific jurisdiction to think

[0:45:59] Voice 12: about these matters.

[0:46:00] Voice 12: But as I said, so many of these 50, 75 land use bylaw and OCP amendments, whatever, have

[0:46:07] Voice 12: not been deliberated by yourself.

[0:46:09] Voice 12: They were advanced by staff, and they just rolled through.

[0:46:12] Voice 12: This is one of them.

[0:46:14] Voice 12: And I did make an application myself to change the land use by law, supported by a trustee

[0:46:21] Voice 12: or the planner, Justine Stark, just before she left the CRD.

[0:46:27] Voice 12: And she said, yes, that's a good idea, advance the application.

[0:46:30] Voice 12: And it was just laughed at by the planner.

[0:46:33] Voice 12: and it was to allow a limited say on one to three percent of residential land

[0:46:41] Voice 12: and assess reviews prior to the structural principle use with reading as needed and

[0:46:48] Voice 12: I don't think that's unreasonable and it allows the property owner to make some use of the land

[0:46:55] Voice 12: but on a very small portion of it and screening can and should be insisted upon within that

[0:47:02] Voice 12: change in the model. I urge the LTC to think about that and make an amendment to what's on the table

[0:47:11] Voice 12: which is just a flat and it frankly encouraged I know now a dozen properties where that the land

[0:47:19] Voice 12: use there hasn't been a complaint so nobody's well unfortunately over them but it's just

[0:47:27] Voice 12: It's just asking for trouble unnecessarily, and then keep it as restrictive as you like.

[0:47:34] Voice 12: But the 1% or whatever, but allow some reasonable use.

[0:47:38] Voice 12: And by reasonable use, I do not mean 100 square foot building.

[0:47:42] Voice 12: That I don't think is reasonable use of land.

[0:47:45] Voice 12: People pay taxes on it, it's resident, it will be resident, it is residentially sound,

[0:47:49] Voice 12: then let's have an accessory use, limited accessory use.

[0:47:54] Voice 12: And my last point is screening.

[0:47:56] Voice 12: There is a provision for landscape screening.

[0:47:59] Voice 12: It does require that whatever application it is, or the staff, recommend landscape screening

[0:48:06] Voice 12: as opposed to a fence.

[0:48:08] Voice 12: But there are places on Pender where, and my own property is one, where the existing

[0:48:14] Voice 12: trees, which are deciduous, mean that during the summer, the potential for landscape screening

[0:48:22] Voice 12: is removed.

[0:48:22] Voice 12: The trees just don't grow.

[0:48:24] Voice 12: grow. And so there should be a default course to landscape screening, say that except where

[0:48:33] Voice 12: the soil or light or whatever it is, does not make that screening possible. But in which

[0:48:40] Voice 12: case, landscape screening shall be a fence broken up by, here's the fence to the eye,

[0:48:47] Voice 12: a steady fence with exactly the same texture throughout it's like it's boring we'll break it

[0:48:56] Voice 12: up with a tree every 10 foot um and then there's less of a total screen impediment on the on the

[0:49:04] Voice 12: requirement thank

[0:49:07] Voice 3: you for hearing my suggestion thank you sketch anybody else wish to speak

[0:49:15] Voice 3: okay um so we will now proceed

[0:49:17] Trustee Maude: to close the public meeting right here uh please know that

[0:49:21] Trustee Maude: i hope hearing closes the local trust committee will no longer be able to receive public submissions

[0:49:25] Trustee Maude: prior to making a decision so

[0:49:27] Voice 3: i'll ask you once are there any more speakers i'll ask for a second

[0:49:34] Voice 3: time are there any more speakers asking for a third and time for any more speakers this is now

[0:49:44] Trustee Maude: the final opportunity for you to have hand and written submissions to local trust committee once

[0:49:48] Trustee Maude: the hearing is opposed

[0:49:49] Voice 3: no additional submissions will be accepted please be advised that we are

[0:49:56] Voice 3: now

[0:49:56] Trustee Maude: in the post public hearing uh stage of the legislative review post bylaws 223 204 and 229

[0:50:04] Trustee Maude: the north and local trust committee can now no longer receive information pertaining to the

[0:50:08] Trustee Maude: proposed bylaws however you can still submit any outstanding questions and comments directly to the

[0:50:12] Trustee Maude: planet uh the lpc may give further readings to the bylaw or the teeth bylaws or make any minor

[0:50:21] Trustee Maude: amendments that do not affect land use or density without further notice of our hearings and so now

[0:50:27] Trustee Maude: we will reconvene our meeting and we will move on to the land use bylaw review program

[0:50:33] Voice 3: let's

[0:50:34] Voice 3: i do have

[0:50:40] Voice 9: a post public hearing staff report for the ltc's consideration um in this post public

[0:50:48] Voice 9: hearing staff report there is a number of recommendations and those are to give third

[0:50:53] Voice 9: reading to three bylaws also to send the three bylaws to the executive committee for approval

[0:51:00] Voice 9: and then just bylaw number 223 needs to be forwarded to the minister of municipal affairs

[0:51:07] Voice 9: as the minister only needs to approve ocp amending bylaws as mentioned we are now post

[0:51:15] Voice 9: post-public hearing and the LTC has a number of options at this point to give either further

[0:51:22] Voice 9: readings to a bylaw, defeat a bylaw or alter a bylaw within certain parameters which I can speak

[0:51:29] Voice 9: to. Again following the close of the hearing the LTC may not hear any further submissions without

[0:51:36] Voice 9: holding a new hearing. The principle is that if new information is considered by the LTC

[0:51:42] Voice 9: all other parties also need to have the opportunity to consider any relevant new material

[0:51:48] Voice 9: and to make further representations to the LTC. So a bylaw may be altered based on information

[0:51:58] Voice 9: received prior to or heard at to the end of the close of the public hearing provided that the

[0:52:06] Voice 9: amendments do not alter use or increase density and so i did include in my staff report in page

[0:52:14] Voice 9: three of the agenda um different options for the ltc to consider the ltc is considering amending

[0:52:21] Voice 9: any citing or size regulations after the public hearing uh the steps to complete would be the

[0:52:27] Voice 9: bylaw would then must amend the bylaw by putting a motion to board and that's included in the

[0:52:33] Voice 9: alternative section of the staff report the ltc would then give third reading to that bylaw as

[0:52:39] Voice 9: amended and then that bylaw could be sent forward to the ec for approval if the ltc wishes to amend

[0:52:46] Voice 9: a proposed pilot and reduce or density after a public hearing the steps would be that the ltc

[0:52:53] Voice 9: must rescind second reading for the bylaw the bylaw then must be amended the ltc would give

[0:53:00] Voice 9: second reading to the bylaws amended and then the LT must hold a new public hearing for that

[0:53:06] Voice 9: amended bylaw so as I mentioned I do have recommendations to give third reading to the

[0:53:13] Voice 9: bylaws that's included that's included on page two of the staff report but the LTC is considering

[0:53:20] Voice 9: making any amendments you'll see those draft motions in the alternative section

[0:53:25] Voice 9: Thank you.

[0:53:27] Voice 3: I think the only issue that we had deferred to this meeting was the Stair to the Beach issue.

[0:53:37] Voice 3: House size, I think, was... We changed that. We do change that.

[0:53:44] Voice 3: We opted 500 to address the concerns that were...

[0:53:48] Voice 13: But we still haven't been able to determine the effect of legal non-conforming.

[0:53:57] Voice 3: No, we did. We put a clause in them.

[0:53:59] Voice 13: But I don't believe that we necessarily have the ability as a local government to define legal non-conforming and the effect that that will have on people's residences.

[0:54:14] Voice 13: And that's part of the legal opinion that we've asked for also on the dock situation that's in is we're currently waiting for because we have a situation in bylaw right now where we're the bylaw enforcement is enforcing on someone who has a legal non conforming issue with rebuilding something that has been

[0:54:46] Voice 13: been deemed that they have missed their opportunity to rebuild based on legal non-conforming that was

[0:54:56] Voice 7: different

[0:54:57] Voice 8: and if we i don't know what we can talk about or what we can't in this open meeting um

[0:55:02] Voice 8: but that was because of a gap of a year and we can make a decision on that specific law if we need to

[0:55:09] Voice 8: to address that particular issue

[0:55:11] Voice 13: but as far as i can understand when you research

[0:55:16] Voice 13: legal non-conforming there is a specific timeline for how long it takes how long someone is allowed

[0:55:25] Voice 13: to take to rebuild their house or rebuild anything that is considered in legal non-conforming

[0:55:34] Voice 13: because it's a legal definition of what it is and i don't believe that we can change the definition

[0:55:41] Voice 13: definition of legal non-conforming and say that we're going to allow somebody more time or more

[0:55:49] Voice 13: space or because we've decided that we want to use legal non-conforming as a way to control

[0:55:58] Voice 13: house sizing. So if it comes down to something that is you've got six months to rebuild your

[0:56:09] Voice 13: your house because it's burned down and we're trying to determine what 25 of it is then

[0:56:19] Voice 13: it's going to take more than six months for anybody who goes through a house fire to settle

[0:56:26] Voice 13: out what it is that they have to do to be able to rebuild that just is the process and so we're

[0:56:33] Voice 13: forcing anyone who has a legal non-conforming property on bender into a situation where they

[0:56:40] Voice 13: may or may not be allowed to rebuild and that's not something that i would support at all so

[0:56:49] Trustee Maude: so

[0:56:49] Voice 9: there's um two different things i'm hearing um one is legal non-conforming in terms of

[0:56:59] Voice 9: of siting and size regulations, that would be the dock,

[0:57:02] Voice 9: or sorry, the stairs.

[0:57:04] Voice 9: And the second is legal non-conforming

[0:57:06] Voice 9: in terms of a dwelling.

[0:57:11] Voice 9: So to address the stairs,

[0:57:15] Voice 9: legal non-conforming in terms of a local government,

[0:57:18] Voice 9: it separates legal non-conforming use and density

[0:57:22] Voice 9: from legal non-conforming siting and size regulations.

[0:57:26] Voice 9: And you see a lot of that six-month discussion, that's in regards to use and density.

[0:57:32] Voice 9: It's not in regards to citing the science regulations.

[0:57:35] Voice 9: And to kind of go on a bit of a tangent, the six-month scenario is that your legal non-conforming use is protected under the Legal Government Act as long as you've been consecutively using that use.

[0:57:53] Voice 9: but as soon as you stop that use for a period of six months you lose that legal non-conforming

[0:57:59] Voice 9: status so that's in terms of use and density now when we start talking about stairs um in

[0:58:05] Voice 9: land use bylaw we're actually talking about siting and size regulations because we're talking about

[0:58:11] Voice 9: it being sited within the setback to the natural boundary of the sea so right now bylaw 103 it has

[0:58:18] Voice 9: a setback but in that section it says that there are a number of things that are exempt from that

[0:58:25] Voice 9: setback and

[0:58:26] Voice 7: one of the

[0:58:26] Voice 9: things are stairs to access a dock or a foreshore the proposed bylaw number

[0:58:32] Voice 9: 224 says the same thing it has the setback the natural boundary of the sea but the only

[0:58:38] Voice 9: structure or the only stair structures that are permitted within that um setback or stairs are

[0:58:45] Voice 9: are actually going down to a dock so stairs that are going down to access the foreshore um

[0:58:53] Voice 9: they are not permitted within that setback if a property owner wants to build a new set of stairs

[0:59:00] Voice 9: to access the foreshore they would have to go through a variance application so um and that

[0:59:05] Voice 9: would be to vary the the setback from whatever it is down to zero pardon me it's at 15 meters

[0:59:12] Voice 9: um so in terms of legal non-performing so the property owner currently has a set of stairs

[0:59:20] Voice 9: going down to the foreshore if bylaw number 224 is adopted and now stored stairs out of the

[0:59:29] Voice 9: foreshore are not exempt from that setback they are protected under the local government act for

[0:59:36] Voice 9: non-performing in terms of siting and size so if they want to rebuild they can but they have to

[0:59:43] Voice 9: stay within that exact pathway that they're going down if they want to expand the stairs somewhere

[0:59:49] Voice 9: they would they would have to apply for a development variance permit so

[0:59:53] Voice 8: a couple things

[0:59:54] Voice 8: yeah i can add to that so we've had a number of variances related to stairs over the years

[1:00:00] Voice 8: And I do want to stress that just because something is prohibited in the bylaws does

[1:00:03] Voice 8: not mean it doesn't occur, because you get variances for things to occur.

[1:00:08] Voice 8: The reason to put things as prohibited in the bylaw is so that it's just not a wild

[1:00:13] Voice 8: west of anybody being able to do anything anywhere, but you have more control over it.

[1:00:18] Voice 8: And there are reasons for that, because there are examples in our history on this island

[1:00:22] Voice 8: where there are potential problems that having a bylaw in place helps us just to have a little

[1:00:27] Voice 8: bit more control over it.

[1:00:28] Voice 8: It's a dilemma.

[1:00:29] Voice 8: you have to deal with that on your own like conscious about whether you agree with that

[1:00:33] Voice 8: or not because it's a difference probably between you and I right here okay and so um but just to

[1:00:39] Voice 8: be clear that just because something is prohibited quote-unquote in the violent does not mean it

[1:00:44] Voice 8: will never happen it just means you have to follow variants and the reason for doing that is just to

[1:00:49] Voice 8: protect the ecological boundary to the sea by having people just think through more clearly

[1:00:54] Voice 8: not just the stairs around everywhere that's the reason for it okay it's not because we want to

[1:01:00] Voice 8: micromanage everyone it's because we're trying to protect the natural boundaries and see okay

[1:01:04] Voice 8: that's it um so and then the house size thing that was sorry kim but that was almost incomprehensible

[1:01:12] Voice 8: techno planner speak so um i just need a little more clarity because this non-conforming thing

[1:01:20] Voice 8: has been the nemesis of my life for four years it is the number one thing that people were worried

[1:01:25] Voice 8: about and my understanding of the way things are in the biology number six month issue we wrote a

[1:01:30] Voice 8: piece into the bylaw that dealt with that specifically because we people were worried

[1:01:36] Voice 8: about it so we wrote a piece into the bylaw to address that issue and ensure that people would

[1:01:41] Voice 8: not be penalized if their house burnt to the ground and they took a year to rebuild or whatever

[1:01:46] Voice 8: whatever, they would still be able to sit on the same.

[1:01:49] Voice 8: So I need to understand that that's in there.

[1:01:52] Voice 9: That's correct. It

[1:01:52] Voice 8: is in there.

[1:01:53] Voice 8: I

[1:01:53] Voice 9: was just, when I was speaking about legal non-conforming

[1:01:57] Voice 9: in terms of use in the six month period,

[1:01:59] Voice 9: that's been the general statement.

[1:02:01] Voice 9: I wasn't applying that to what's actually in the bylaw.

[1:02:04] Voice 9: But yes, there is an exemption in the bylaw right now,

[1:02:07] Voice 9: in the bylaw 224, that if your house did burn down,

[1:02:11] Voice 9: you'd be able to rebuild it to the floor area

[1:02:14] Voice 9: that you have at that time.

[1:02:15] Voice 9: And what is the

[1:02:16] Voice 8: timeline on that?

[1:02:17] Voice 8: That's perpetual.

[1:02:18] Voice 9: Yes, there was a...

[1:02:20] Voice 8: So that it's around that.

[1:02:21] Voice 9: So we

[1:02:21] Voice 8: purposely got around any language

[1:02:24] Voice 8: that is legal non-conforming like house size,

[1:02:26] Voice 8: specifically by putting that piece in there.

[1:02:29] Voice 13: What is the amount that has to be left of someone's house

[1:02:34] Voice 13: for them to be allowed to rebuild?

[1:02:37] Voice 8: Because originally the legal non-conforming

[1:02:39] Voice 8: is like 75% of a burn.

[1:02:41] Voice 8: we we wrote it so that you could burn to a ground like every blade of grass right down

[1:02:47] Voice 8: the foundation and maybe the foundation too and you still can rebuild their house

[1:02:50] Voice 13: from what i haven't heard anybody be very happy about the house this house cafe and i don't really

[1:03:00] Voice 13: understand what it accomplishes on pender island when we look at the things that we're doing with

[1:03:09] Voice 13: development that are taking away the rural character of what we've got like we're writing

[1:03:18] Voice 13: bylaws for things that aren't a problem yet and we're limiting things that shouldn't be an issue

[1:03:27] Voice 13: as far as as rural character of our islands are and we're slowly making a march towards being

[1:03:34] Voice 13: Tofino or Whistler or somewhere where we've controlled what it is that happens for development

[1:03:41] Voice 13: on our island and it only becomes somebody who has money that can pay for a variance in order

[1:03:48] Voice 13: to do what they want to do because people that don't have money can't afford to be at all

[1:03:54] Voice 13: and we're and we're we're proactively writing bylaws that for fear of somebody doing something

[1:04:05] Voice 13: down the road but the but the march of what we're doing doesn't isn't actually proving out

[1:04:14] Voice 13: to be beneficial to our community and that and so i struggle with the idea that we're going to

[1:04:20] Voice 13: to write bylaws that limit the amount of house sizing or force people into a conversation about

[1:04:26] Voice 13: what they're going to do with their land so that we can have a say over what that is and stop people

[1:04:36] Voice 13: from it will just eliminate a certain amount of people even bothering to do anything here

[1:04:44] Voice 13: but people that have money they don't care they're just going to come in pay the fee build

[1:04:51] Voice 13: their house be done with it and i don't see limiting house sizing limiting the way that we do

[1:04:58] Voice 13: that we do things as a positive at the end of the day it only really irritates a pile of people that

[1:05:08] Voice 13: are already here who have already built houses who have a home and it's not going to affect anybody

[1:05:15] Voice 13: that comes so i don't to me it seems like a redundant issue to have in our bylaws to say

[1:05:22] Voice 13: that we're that we're going to limit house sizing when we don't really know what that effect is

[1:05:28] Voice 13: and that's like

[1:05:30] Voice 3: that's my that's my struggle with these like

[1:05:36] Voice 13: trying to push why it needed

[1:05:38] Voice 13: why i felt like it needed to be moved out of one bylaw into the other because i know like

[1:05:46] Voice 13: we're not going to come to a consensus on on that right there's a certain portion of this

[1:05:53] Voice 13: that needs to move forward and get dealt with and there's another portion of it that i don't know

[1:06:02] Voice 13: how we

[1:06:02] Voice 3: get to that but it's going probably going to take time to come to conclusion so i guess my

[1:06:12] Voice 3: question for you aaron is like

[1:06:15] Voice 8: there's a lot of things that you raised so it doesn't seem like

[1:06:19] Voice 8: your concern is legal non-conforming because there is a legal non-conforming clause in there

[1:06:24] Voice 8: it's so let me finish completely so because i do want to try to address each of the things you

[1:06:29] Voice 8: brought up okay so it seems like basically you just don't want regulation on houses that's what

[1:06:35] Voice 8: i'm hearing from what you're saying and everything that is in this dialogue is put in there for a

[1:06:41] Voice 8: very intentional reason and we've had like three and a half to four years of conversation around

[1:06:46] Voice 8: and so and the house size has there's multiple issues on this island where people have been

[1:06:53] Voice 8: upset by big houses houses that are like massing like that shouldn't be allowed in a particular

[1:06:59] Voice 8: area that are not conducive to a community and context individual property rights are literally

[1:07:06] Voice 8: what land use bylaws are meant to do that is literally what land use planning and land use

[1:07:13] Voice 8: bylaws are supposed to control so we decide on use we decide on you know siting we decide on

[1:07:20] Voice 8: setbacks we decide on house size we have coverage 25 it was the default rule to put into the trust

[1:07:26] Voice 8: originally in this area anyway and so we have a decision if we want to change that or not

[1:07:32] Voice 8: and one of the reasons that it was brought up here on this island was because when we think about the

[1:07:40] Voice 8: 2019 climate change emergency motion that we put into the trust and was unanimously accepted at

[1:07:45] Voice 8: trust council level one of the ways to implement that is to actually think about how do we reduce

[1:07:52] Voice 8: our energy impact reduce our material use reduce our size of buildings and um resources and so and

[1:08:02] Voice 8: people can build bigger houses three thousand square foot house is not a small house and that's

[1:08:08] Voice 8: That's the smallest limit, and it goes up to 4,000, 5,000.

[1:08:15] Voice 8: And if you want to build bigger, then there's a bunch of criteria to be energy efficient, to do those types of things.

[1:08:24] Voice 8: Frankly, if you're going to build a house bigger than 4,000 or 5,000 square feet, you've got money anyway in this environment.

[1:08:29] Voice 8: And so I don't feel that this is limiting anybody financially in any way that just building a house isn't limiting people financially right now.

[1:08:36] Voice 8: and there are lots of there's lots of room in here to do things you know on the land in different

[1:08:43] Voice 8: ways so if the argument is just that you don't want regulation to control house housing at all

[1:08:49] Voice 8: because everybody should be able to decide what they do on their land yeah we're not going to

[1:08:53] Voice 8: come to an agreement and it's going to be up to you about one way or the other and frankly that's

[1:08:57] Voice 8: where we're at we've had 13 public meetings on this this is based on a lot of different

[1:09:02] Voice 8: conversations in the community. Not everyone 100% agrees, but we've done a lot in this battle to

[1:09:08] Voice 8: bring it into somewhere where community is closer in agreement. And so I think I'll leave it at that

[1:09:15] Voice 8: because I don't know where the agreement is,

[1:09:17] Voice 3: so you'll have to wait

[1:09:18] Voice 5: and see.

[1:09:23] Voice 3: Okay, so that's the sizing issue. The

[1:09:29] Trustee Maude: other issue that we inferred was the issue of stairs to the

[1:09:34] Trustee Maude: beach yeah and

[1:09:35] Trustee Maude: so that wasn't that wasn't about conforming non-conforming that was safe whether

[1:09:39] Trustee Maude: not they wouldn't be permitted they would not be permitted yeah

[1:09:42] Voice 8: and from my point of view that was

[1:09:43] Voice 8: just the issue i think i said that out of my head but just the issue of like for me stairs to the

[1:09:50] Voice 8: beach are an issue across the islands trust area to protect that four-story area and it's not that

[1:09:55] Voice 8: we don't have them ever it's that they have to be carefully sited in that room and so by putting

[1:10:00] Voice 8: them in that way we are we're just being more careful where they're situated

[1:10:05] Voice 13: do we not and

[1:10:08] Voice 13: then and this is uh somebody came forward this last week to ask some questions about stairs and

[1:10:15] Voice 13: it was through the discussion that's gone to brad and there are we do already have regulations

[1:10:22] Voice 13: regulations on stairs. Yeah, like to access the portion. So it is already in our bylaws

[1:10:33] Voice 13: to have that. But what is the difference between what we have and what we're trying to write

[1:10:41] Voice 13: in? What is the change?

[1:10:44] Trustee Maude: I think right now there's specifically permitted and in the

[1:10:52] Trustee Maude: the revision they're specifically prohibited yes

[1:10:54] Voice 8: and so in the prohibited move then you have to

[1:10:57] Voice 8: basically show that there is reasonable access to the ocean like that it's reasonable to put

[1:11:03] Voice 8: stairs in your area but

[1:11:04] Voice 13: from what i understand from the from the discussion that i just saw this

[1:11:09] Voice 13: week you have to do that anyhow you

[1:11:13] Voice 8: have to ensure that they're reasonable in how they're built but

[1:11:15] Voice 8: not that they you can still build anything anywhere as far as i understand

[1:11:20] Voice 8: and

[1:11:20] Voice 9: i'm not sure of a scenario that you've been dealing with where they're really beyond the

[1:11:26] Voice 9: natural back asking

[1:11:27] Voice 13: to build from their house to like build an access set of staircase and

[1:11:34] Voice 13: there's two dbas on the property and they have to figure out and brad had given them a whole set of

[1:11:40] Voice 13: guidelines along with the need for a biologist report and like here's the whole process that

[1:11:45] Voice 13: people already have to go through in a permanent being allowed to get stairs down and it's not a

[1:11:55] Voice 13: free-for-all so i don't understand why we prohibit something like put it in as prohibited when we

[1:12:02] Voice 13: already have controls over it we don't need to regulate more because it's going it's already

[1:12:10] Voice 13: going to go through a process in order for them to be able to build their stairs

[1:12:14] Voice 8: so my

[1:12:15] Voice 8: My response to that was that we have seen situations where DPs are in place and you can't decline activity in a DP.

[1:12:23] Voice 8: So, for instance, if somebody was putting stairs through the DP, stairs are allowed universally.

[1:12:28] Voice 8: We can't decline stairs. We can only decline them for reasons in the DP, which I don't know that we can even decline them.

[1:12:34] Voice 8: Because there were things that we were not allowed to say. There's been at least four different permits where we were not allowed to say no to something.

[1:12:40] Voice 8: thing we can only suggest modifications pretend

[1:12:44] Voice 9: they have to as long as they comply with the

[1:12:46] Voice 9: guidelines then you permit whatever's proposed um but not all shoreline properties have development

[1:12:54] Voice 9: permits on that so that's another point so there may be some properties that are located

[1:13:01] Voice 9: next to the water that don't have a dp protecting the foreshore so that's just one thing to keep in

[1:13:07] Voice 9: mind.

[1:13:07] Trustee Maude: And I don't think the contrary argument that I've heard if somebody had stairs to the beach

[1:13:15] Trustee Maude: is that they're not walking through the ecosystem. The stairs are basically keeping people

[1:13:23] Trustee Maude: from scrambling, held their skeleton down to the beach and back, and perhaps pulling out stuff or

[1:13:28] Trustee Maude: stomping on stuff and all that. And so the beaches are actually a mechanism for protecting the

[1:13:34] Trustee Maude: the ecosystem rather than destroying the ecosystem.

[1:13:36] Trustee Maude: So I think that there's a lot of arguments

[1:13:39] Trustee Maude: on both sides of it.

[1:13:41] Trustee Maude: I know like they, on our island,

[1:13:44] Trustee Maude: we've, I think, two bylaw revisions,

[1:13:48] Trustee Maude: land use bylaw revisions to go back.

[1:13:50] Trustee Maude: We actually put stairs in for that reason,

[1:13:51] Trustee Maude: because the argument was that people were scrambling

[1:13:55] Trustee Maude: and destroying, whereas if we permitted stairs,

[1:13:58] Trustee Maude: then it basically, it sort of mitigates the damage.

[1:14:03] Trustee Maude: So, I know there's two arguments there because I heard the other side of the argument.

[1:14:08] Trustee Maude: Yeah,

[1:14:09] Voice 7: I've heard all sides of the argument

[1:14:09] Trustee Maude: here in three and

[1:14:10] Voice 7: a half years.

[1:14:11] Trustee Maude: Yeah, so it seems that we have those two issues.

[1:14:17] Voice 3: And so, I guess the discussion is, do we remove those

[1:14:26] Trustee Maude: two elements from the bylaw for future considerations,

[1:14:28] Trustee Maude: situations or do we go through the process of actually eliminating them or going forward with

[1:14:37] Trustee Maude: them because it just it seems that the it's those are the two i think things that we move forward

[1:14:44] Trustee Maude: hoping to get a consensus but it almost sounds like there's not a consensus so in

[1:14:51] Voice 13: this back and

[1:14:51] Voice 13: and forth, there is a siting for

[1:14:56] Voice 3: stairs

[1:14:59] Voice 3: that has a certain

[1:15:03] Voice 13: amount of guidelines to it

[1:15:04] Voice 13: as to what you're allowed to do.

[1:15:06] Voice 13: Is it bylaw 179?

[1:15:09] Voice 13: Which page are you on?

[1:15:10] Voice 13: This is in the correspondence that's

[1:15:13] Voice 13: been going back and forth between Brad and Homer.

[1:15:17] Voice 13: So it's 3.7 in siting for a parcel that's zoned RR,

[1:15:24] Voice 13: HAB-Jacques Juilland, and wasn't going once so signing stairs needs to consider these present provisions generally the inclusion of a deck because we weren't talking about could they build more than just a set of stairs down.

[1:15:39] Voice 13: known to the waterfront um for lawn chairs and it's like no because it's written right

[1:15:46] Voice 13: in the bylaw that you it's literally just a set of stairs and they've got we we already have

[1:15:54] Voice 13: a certain amount of of control

[1:15:59] Voice 13: over what people are allowed to do written into our bylaws already

[1:16:03] Voice 13: so i yeah

[1:16:06] Voice 8: so i agree with you aaron that there is there is good guidelines for setting stairs

[1:16:11] Voice 8: Sears. My issue is that not every location on Pandora is appropriate for Sears, period. And

[1:16:16] Voice 8: that's, I think, where we disagree. So to your question, David, I don't know that there is

[1:16:23] Voice 8: consensus because I think there are just some basic different values. And that's a lot of care,

[1:16:27] Voice 8: it's all good. But I think there's just some different values underneath it. So I think that

[1:16:32] Voice 8: you have to decide based on what you think is appropriate in this space. And I'm not going to

[1:16:38] Voice 8: make any motions because i uh i like it the way it is so i would just move to do

[1:16:42] Voice 3: it so if anybody

[1:16:42] Voice 3: wants to change it do it now i would i would know in terms of it so you have to do that so

[1:17:01] Voice 3: kind of stop to

[1:17:02] Trustee Maude: what what would the wording i've

[1:17:04] Voice 9: got it somewhat formulated so what you want is

[1:17:08] Voice 9: you want to add back into or into bylaw 224 that stairways to access the foreshore are exempt

[1:17:17] Voice 9: exempt from the setback to the natural boundary of the sea so that would be what you want so you

[1:17:23] Voice 9: would be on

[1:17:25] Voice 3: page isn't that the opposite because currently in the bylaw you

[1:17:31] Trustee Maude: know there are permitted

[1:17:34] Voice 3: yeah

[1:17:35] Trustee Maude: so so these revisions so if if there's if these are just pulled from the revisions

[1:17:44] Trustee Maude: they're

[1:17:45] Voice 9: not actually being pulled we're actually putting them back in because right

[1:17:48] Voice 9: now it's in

[1:17:49] Voice 9: 103 so you're putting it back into before yeah so the motion would be something along the lines of

[1:17:56] Voice 9: a minute taker it would be one page for the staff report at the very top

[1:18:06] Voice 9: so it'd be that north pender i local press committee proposed by the number to do for

[1:18:11] Voice 9: or cited as Florent Pender, da, da, da, da,

[1:18:14] Voice 9: be amended as follows.

[1:18:17] Voice 9: By amending article

[1:18:21] Voice 3: 33.2a,

[1:18:29] Voice 3: and

[1:18:29] Voice 9: I'll show you this, Aaron, as well,

[1:18:31] Voice 9: so you know what I'm talking about.

[1:18:34] Voice 9: 30, oh, sorry, 3.3.2a, 3.3.2a.

[1:18:39] Voice 3: By adding the words, the words stairs,

[1:18:49] Voice 3: to access the foreshore after the words water safe zones

[1:19:01] Voice 3: so i'm the normal nature of this i'm just coming over to the ltc you can actually see

[1:19:06] Voice 3: what that would look like so this is bylaw

[1:19:10] Voice 9: 224 and these are the sightings uh size regulations

[1:19:16] Voice 9: i'm looking at it backwards so this section here 3.32a this is where it lists the exemptions from

[1:19:22] Voice 9: the natural boundary of the sea so what it would say is walkways stairs or a ramp accessory to a

[1:19:29] Voice 9: permitted private dock in the water one or water thick zone or maybe i shouldn't say and stairs

[1:19:38] Voice 9: to access the foreshore that are less than 1.2 meters and a length less than three meters in

[1:19:46] Voice 9: height does that make sense i'll come

[1:19:49] Voice 8: over to you it's a

[1:19:50] Voice 8: little bit complicated you're saying this

[1:19:53] Voice 7: This

[1:19:53] Voice 8: is not allowed.

[1:19:54] Voice 8: This

[1:19:54] Voice 7: is an example of not being allowed.

[1:19:56] Voice 7: This is a natural fact.

[1:19:58] Voice 7: This is a list of exemptions from the Act 3.

[1:20:01] Voice 7: So we would be adding right now to file it to the court

[1:20:06] Voice 7: if we want any

[1:20:07] Voice 7: exemptions from the Act 3.

[1:20:10] Voice 7: And

[1:20:10] Voice 3: we can do this through

[1:20:12] Voice 7: the list of exemptions that

[1:20:13] Voice 7: quote, and spares, and stares.

[1:20:16] Voice 7: to access the, is that what you were talking about, after, after,

[1:20:24] Voice 6: no, don't be close.

[1:20:26] Voice 3: And

[1:20:27] Voice 6: that would be

[1:20:27] Voice 3: sample six, that's it, or no, yeah, that's the whole thing, it would be that

[1:20:33] Voice 3: is, um,

[1:20:35] Voice 7: if

[1:20:37] Voice 3: you want to check, make sure that after

[1:20:38] Voice 7: zone six,

[1:20:39] Voice 3: water six,

[1:20:41] Voice 7: after water six,

[1:21:16] Voice 7: and stairs to access the floor shorts after the words

[1:21:24] Voice 3: does this change

[1:21:34] Voice 7: it's deciding on size regulations okay um after

[1:21:39] Voice 7: regular in the city waters can change you don't hear you just seriously

[1:21:49] Voice 7: as far as

[1:21:55] Voice 13: the house size no

[1:21:56] Voice 7: no we have to be sorry

[1:22:00] Trustee Maude: so frank do you want to just read that i was so we'll know to make the motion

[1:22:04] Voice 6: okay

[1:22:05] Trustee Maude: so uh

[1:22:07] Voice 6: to be amended as follows by adding

[1:22:11] Voice 6: 3.3 to a by adding the word stairs to access the four shore after the words water six zones

[1:22:24] Voice 6: yeah

[1:22:25] Trustee Maude: so planter talked earlier you're fine with that wording so you're making the motion

[1:22:33] Voice 7: SECONDED? SECONDED FOR DEBATE.

[1:22:34] Trustee Maude: OKAY. SO WE'RE SECONDED FOR

[1:22:37] Trustee Maude: DISCUSSION. OKAY.

[1:22:39] Trustee Maude: SO OPEN THE TORUM FOR THE

[1:22:40] Trustee Maude: DISCUSSION PARTY.

[1:22:42] Voice 7: I DON'T THINK

[1:22:42] Voice 7: IT DETECTS OUR BOARD FOR

[1:22:45] Voice 7: INALLERANCE. AND WE'VE SAID

[1:22:47] Voice 7: EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT'S MY

[1:22:48] Voice 7: CONCERN. I DON'T THINK IT

[1:22:49] Voice 7: DETECTS OUR BOARD FOR

[1:22:50] Voice 7: INALLERANCE. OKAY.

[1:22:52] Voice 3: AND WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

[1:22:54] Voice 3: YOU HAVE SORT

[1:22:56] Voice 13: OF SAID IT.

[1:22:56] Voice 13: AND I JUST, I FEEL THAT IN

[1:22:59] Voice 13: PREVIOUS MEETINGS WE SAID I

[1:23:01] Voice 13: I feel like the ability to build a set of stairs down on the majority of the properties

[1:23:07] Voice 13: that I have seen on Pender makes more sense to me than taking away the ability for people

[1:23:14] Voice 13: to put stairs down and just creating a half a dozen reeds for the beach.

[1:23:21] Voice 13: We've got lots that it just doesn't even make any sense to be able to build a set of

[1:23:27] Voice 13: stairs down because you're never getting to the water.

[1:23:30] Voice 13: and then but where there are places to access people will access so trying to control what

[1:23:38] Voice 13: that access will be and just give it a definition it

[1:23:44] Voice 3: makes sense to me so the discussion so call

[1:23:50] Voice 3: the question i won't be ever opposed custom orders supposed to be recorded

[1:24:04] Voice 3: So

[1:24:04] Voice 13: the other issue is in the house sizing in 224 or is it in 229?

[1:24:13] Voice 9: It's in 229, but the clause is still in 224.

[1:24:18] Voice 9: So we would have to deal with it in two separate ways.

[1:24:22] Voice 9: First, if you're considering removing the maximum floor area regulations, we would deal

[1:24:27] Voice 9: with Chief Unite first.

[1:24:29] Voice 9: So you'd be amending Y-123-9 by removing those certain sections, and if that's something

[1:24:34] Voice 9: you're considering, I can help draft a motion, it'll just take me a couple of minutes, so

[1:24:39] Voice 9: we might want to pause.

[1:24:46] Voice 3: So where do we sit right now with what is proposed?

[1:24:50] Voice 3: proposed. We

[1:24:55] Voice 13: have a lot of coverage the way that it is in the bylaws currently. We're

[1:25:03] Voice 13: proposing three different sizes based on property size. In only rural residential or on all

[1:25:18] Voice 13: logs in vendor on vendors um

[1:25:20] Voice 9: it's the the rural zone so rural residential rural rural comprehensive

[1:25:25] Voice 9: and agriculture and

[1:25:26] Voice 13: do we know what that do we have any idea what the effect on future build out

[1:25:35] Voice 13: on the island is versus already built out yes

[1:25:40] Voice 9: yeah i didn't actually have that number in a previous

[1:25:43] Voice 9: a staff

[1:25:44] Voice 3: report and i can pull that out i'm going to take a couple minutes so i'm not against the

[1:26:11] Voice 3: regulation of the house

[1:26:14] Voice 13: sizes for bender because i do think that there is an element out of this

[1:26:30] Voice 9: So looking back at a staff report from March, just for the record, I just want to make sure

[1:26:38] Voice 9: I say this March 18 2021. On page three of that staff report. So this is based on lot

[1:26:47] Voice 9: So currently zoned rural, residential, and rural, only 17% of those lots are vacant or no-dwelling.

[1:26:56] Voice 9: So potentially this could affect the new maximum floor area regulations would affect up to 17% of rural, residential, and rural lots.

[1:27:10] Voice 8: Yeah, and the concern is that, you know, things are expensive here now, land is expensive here now,

[1:27:16] Voice 8: and that we're attracting people who are building bigger buildings that are skewed with what's here.

[1:27:22] Voice 8: The current numbers that are in this particular set of buildings are very consistent with what's here.

[1:27:30] Voice 8: We're not saying that we're going to have wildly smaller houses going forward.

[1:27:35] Voice 8: That's not what we're saying.

[1:27:38] Voice 13: But to me, the concern, and it does, yes, I hate being told what to do.

[1:27:45] Voice 13: that's

[1:27:45] Voice 3: shocking

[1:27:47] Voice 13: yeah but the legal non-conforming thing to me is an issue to residents on the island

[1:27:56] Voice 13: because that's the most feedback that i've heard in response to the house sizing issue yeah people

[1:28:04] Voice 13: are worried about being able to protect what they already have

[1:28:08] Voice 3: yeah and

[1:28:10] Voice 13: and in the like

[1:28:14] Voice 13: to this point, I haven't been able to understand how we protect people that are here who already

[1:28:22] Voice 13: have their residences to make sure that in the future, they're protected. It doesn't really

[1:28:32] Voice 13: matter to me who isn't here. But when you look at that statistic, that basically 83%

[1:28:45] Voice 13: of those lots potentially could be affected by us making a change so i so that is a lot

[1:28:56] Voice 13: it's a large percentage that we're making a change on yeah

[1:29:02] Voice 8: let me know what you found because i'm

[1:29:04] Voice 8: that was you know

[1:29:05] Voice 7: but that was

[1:29:05] Voice 8: my concerns originally that was the first thing that was

[1:29:10] Voice 8: brought up so can you give me the exact language again kim or where i can find it in here sorry

[1:29:15] Voice 8: For the clause that we put specifically to deal with that.

[1:29:19] Voice 8: Do you have 2, 2, 4 in front of you right now?

[1:29:20] Voice 8: Can you just give me a page number on the front of you now?

[1:29:24] Voice 8: Or give me like a set of text.

[1:29:26] Voice 8: Just read, if you

[1:29:26] Voice 3: read the text, I'll type it in.

[1:29:34] Voice 3: Despite subsection 5.38, even if you put 5.3, it should come up.

[1:29:42] Voice 3: Yeah, that's fine.

[1:29:43] Voice 3: You can spell it fine.

[1:29:48] Voice 3: So, all right.

[1:29:49] Voice 3: So it's subsection, oh, here it is.

[1:29:56] Voice 3: Okay, so despite...

[1:30:00] Voice 8: subsection uh five point no two i need it again i need it exactly apparently

[1:30:08] Voice 8: uh this one here yeah here we go despite subsection 3.8 on a lot that contains a

[1:30:15] Voice 8: legal dwelling constructed prior to the adoption of this bylaw a replacement dwelling may be

[1:30:20] Voice 8: constructed for the existing dwelling reconstructed or altered providing the floor area of the

[1:30:26] Voice 8: replacement reconstructed or altered dwelling does not exceed the floor area of the dwelling of the

[1:30:31] Voice 8: lot of on the lot at the time of the adoption of the bylaw so we specifically named that

[1:30:38] Voice 8: so that because we didn't want people to get into the legal non-conforming gray area

[1:30:44] Voice 8: so we specifically put it in here so it's not about legal non-conforming or not you're not

[1:30:50] Voice 8: even getting into that because that's a very difficult like was i or not or right now and

[1:30:55] Voice 8: And then people are worried about their insurance.

[1:30:57] Voice 8: There's a whole bunch of stuff that comes up.

[1:30:58] Trustee Maude: And that warning is for perpetuity.

[1:31:00] Voice 8: Yeah.

[1:31:00] Voice 8: But

[1:31:01] Voice 13: there's also, as far as I know,

[1:31:06] Voice 13: it would force people to have to go and get a survey

[1:31:12] Voice 13: of what they already have.

[1:31:14] Voice 7: No.

[1:31:15] Voice 13: That's not my understanding.

[1:31:17] Voice 13: So how do you prove what you had?

[1:31:21] Voice 9: How do you prove what you had?

[1:31:23] Voice 3: Yeah.

[1:31:23] Voice 3: and

[1:31:24] Voice 9: generally most property owners have some type of floor plan on because it's for legal dwellings

[1:31:30] Voice 9: so generally you can buy the foreman of some sort from a building permit

[1:31:36] Voice 8: or like and it would really

[1:31:38] Voice 8: come down frankly to the local trust committee if there was ever an issue where it's disputed

[1:31:43] Voice 8: right so like we would decide that we would go ahead or and vary ourselves like we have had to

[1:31:50] Voice 8: do on various things and not very like a variance for them to just but

[1:31:53] Voice 13: that just

[1:31:55] Voice 13: potentially is only for the next three years where two reasons

[1:32:05] Voice 13: and in four years from now we could you know i don't like i don't like the idea of setting

[1:32:14] Voice 13: stuff up that leaves people potentially in limbo every four years right like it's just like so

[1:32:21] Voice 13: i'm

[1:32:22] Voice 8: gonna get super frustrated for a second

[1:32:23] Voice 13: okay okay so

[1:32:25] Voice 8: my frustration is it's there we've done

[1:32:29] Voice 8: everything that we can to resolve the problem that you named okay really like everything we can

[1:32:34] Voice 8: to put it to do it and to do it honestly and authentically in the bible okay because there's

[1:32:40] Voice 8: not an intention to trip somebody up and not allow them to build the house that they currently occupy

[1:32:45] Voice 8: all right and wiping out an entire set of like work inside this bylaw for the like rare possibility

[1:32:58] Voice 8: somewhere i think it's more of a communication problem frankly to make sure that we communicate

[1:33:03] Voice 8: with your bylaws go forward clearly what it means and what it doesn't go freaking take pictures of

[1:33:08] Voice 8: your house like if you're worried about it and document them stick them in your like somewhere

[1:33:12] Voice 8: secure okay so i think there are lots of different ways that people could do this and that doesn't

[1:33:17] Voice 8: need a survey it doesn't need all that kind of stuff because i don't

[1:33:20] Voice 8: think we're ever going to

[1:33:21] Voice 8: get to that point where it's a problem if you're if you're making your decision about the entire

[1:33:27] Voice 8: like um residential size based on like what if what if well i know what it's right now and i

[1:33:33] Voice 8: know that i'm worried about bigger houses being built on this island and this is what's going to

[1:33:37] Voice 8: like help for the next 70 percent the chances of one house you know that something burns down over

[1:33:45] Voice 8: 75 percent okay just to be clear has to be over 75 percent for it to actually hit this place because

[1:33:51] Voice 8: otherwise like everything else which statistically

[1:33:54] Voice 13: on our island

[1:33:55] Voice 8: i understand i understand that okay

[1:33:58] Voice 8: so that's why we put the closet to make sure that that's covered and so i think that there's been a

[1:34:05] Voice 8: lot of work done inside this bylaw and it should have been changed last meeting and we really

[1:34:09] Voice 8: thought that it was not going to go and we should have like duped it out then because now i feel

[1:34:12] Voice 8: like there's

[1:34:13] Voice 3: a lot of

[1:34:13] Voice 8: other things in here we're going to go ahead and vote because i'm going to

[1:34:16] Voice 8: just get super pissy about this and i don't want to do that in a public meeting so but one thing

[1:34:21] Trustee Maude: and then we think for the process we did defer to this meeting yeah so

[1:34:26] Trustee Maude: so that

[1:34:27] Voice 13: was the was the

[1:34:29] Voice 13: the point i understood moving it to 229 was that it allowed us to be able to move forward with 223

[1:34:37] Voice 13: 224 and deal with that through discussion yeah and try to and try to see where we could we could

[1:34:47] Voice 13: work it out but if that's not the way

[1:34:48] Voice 13: that the process goes then yeah we can and that's you're

[1:34:52] Voice 8: right

[1:34:52] Voice 13: keep it or remove it yeah totally fine you're

[1:34:55] Voice 8: right my frustration frankly is because

[1:34:57] Voice 8: i've tried to explain the same thing for like multiple months and i don't i'm not getting

[1:35:02] Voice 8: anywhere and i think it's more just resistance like and i'm crying but it's not even my job

[1:35:07] Voice 8: like to read all this file and understand it for for you i'm trying to explain what i think is in

[1:35:13] Voice 8: the bible but and what i think protections are that we are providing our citizens but i'm not

[1:35:18] Voice 8: sure that i'm doing a good job and i don't know you're

[1:35:21] Voice 13: doing a fine job of presenting

[1:35:23] Voice 13: your opinion of what it is and that and that and i get that yeah right for me it's it i will never

[1:35:32] Voice 13: be affected by this bylaw it's never going to come into play for me ever so i have to sit back

[1:35:40] Voice 13: and look at it objectively as how does it affect 87 percent of the lots that are built out versus

[1:35:50] Voice 13: versus the 17% of lots that are still to be built out

[1:35:54] Voice 13: and the people that are concerned about their homes, right?

[1:36:00] Voice 13: So that's the discussion at the end of the day, right?

[1:36:04] Voice 13: And if it isn't something that can be discussed,

[1:36:08] Voice 13: then yeah, you just have to vote on it

[1:36:10] Voice 13: and then decide which way it goes.

[1:36:12] Voice 13: And we're literally sitting on opposite sides of the fence then

[1:36:14] Voice 13: as far as the vote is concerned

[1:36:17] Voice 13: and there isn't a work towards consensus.

[1:36:21] Voice 13: on something yeah

[1:36:22] Voice 3: and just that's fine like I

[1:36:24] Voice 13: literally it doesn't I will never be offended by

[1:36:28] Voice 13: a decision like that but that's that's where it puts us yeah so

[1:36:32] Voice 13: if you know like we can figure

[1:36:35] Voice 13: out what the wording of that is and we can put it to a vote and like that's fine yeah

[1:36:41] Voice 8: and I guess

[1:36:42] Voice 8: the my frustration this is not with you specifically it's with like the years of work to try to get

[1:36:46] Voice 8: into this and where we started and all the conversation we've had in community around this

[1:36:50] Voice 8: And just to be clear, 87% of build-out is not over 3,000 square feet.

[1:36:55] Voice 8: So we're not even talking about 87% of houses.

[1:36:59] Voice 8: Do we even have the statistics on how many people are affected if they're not inside the current bylaws?

[1:37:04] Voice 8: No.

[1:37:05] Voice 7: So it's only

[1:37:06] Voice 8: houses, to be clear, over the maximums that would be impacted by this bylaw.

[1:37:13] Voice 8: So it's only houses over 3,000 square feet on the, just I want the numbers because I want to be clear that we're not talking about a lot of houses.

[1:37:23] Voice 8: Just one second. I want it really clear.

[1:37:26] Voice 8: So we're talking about houses that are over 3,000 square feet on less than 0.4 hectare, that are over 3,500 square feet on 1 to 3 hectares, and over 4,000 square feet on 3 acres or greater.

[1:37:51] Voice 8: sorry switched 1.2 hectares and so what we're talking about is not the 87 of current build out

[1:37:58] Voice 8: it's the small percentage of the current build out it's very large houses those houses are almost

[1:38:03] Voice 8: certainly going to have building permits and having documentation so that the clause that we

[1:38:08] Voice 8: put in there is good so i just don't see that but when

[1:38:11] Voice 13: we talked about it previous in previous

[1:38:13] Voice 13: these meetings we didn't know what the affected percentage was of the 87 83 percent of people

[1:38:22] Voice 13: and the statistics that we have of building permits that are being applied for that are over

[1:38:29] Voice 13: 3,500 square feet is super minimal compared to houses that already fit into into it so

[1:38:38] Voice 13: to write a bylaw based on something that is maybe going to stop a couple of percent of people in the

[1:38:47] Voice 13: build-up of their of their residence and and but still give them the opportunity to pay to build

[1:38:58] Voice 13: pay and go through a variance and build a bigger house

[1:39:02] Voice 13: we

[1:39:03] Voice 3: haven't really written anything at the end of the day do

[1:39:10] Voice 7: you want are you okay i don't know

[1:39:11] Voice 7: exactly when you finish so i

[1:39:13] Voice 8: don't want to interrupt you so we have done that because we

[1:39:16] Voice 8: said if they build over this then they have another set of criteria kick in they have to

[1:39:22] Voice 8: be energy efficient they have to they have to meet another set of guidelines to bring it in line

[1:39:26] Voice 8: and that those criteria were thought out carefully to have lower the communal impact on the island

[1:39:34] Voice 8: more water storage more um you know energy efficiency so there were things that were

[1:39:40] Voice 8: thought out specifically to bring it in line with building standards so there is a difference

[1:39:46] Voice 8: between building uh inside those guidelines and building outside those guidelines and so if you

[1:39:52] Voice 8: build outside those guidelines you can still ask for a variance to build a bigger house

[1:39:55] Voice 8: but then your house has to meet these other criteria but shouldn't we

[1:40:02] Voice 13: require those guidelines regardless of house size if you want to build on gulf islands this is the

[1:40:10] Voice 13: standard that we would like to see people build to on the gulf islands period whether you want

[1:40:16] Voice 13: to build a thousand square foot home or a or a ten thousand square foot home that i feel like

[1:40:23] Voice 13: if we've got if we've got something that we're trying to accomplish by someone building a bigger

[1:40:29] Voice 13: home that is more environmentally sound has more because you're saying that if somebody wants to

[1:40:38] Voice 13: build a house that is larger than the house sizing there's another set of criteria that they have to

[1:40:46] Voice 13: meet shouldn't we be asking people to meet that criteria regardless of the size of the house that

[1:40:53] Voice 13: they build okay

[1:40:55] Voice 8: so our we're not the building code so we're generally like the the bc building code

[1:41:02] Voice 8: keeps everybody energy efficient overall like if

[1:41:05] Voice 8: you're going to build a really big house

[1:41:07] Voice 8: then assumably you actually have some resources and you can show things that potentially other

[1:41:12] Voice 8: homeowners will adopt you can be leaders in the community about new technologies and energy

[1:41:18] Voice 8: efficiencies so events we see that we already have people in the community who are doing that

[1:41:22] Voice 8: right and

[1:41:23] Voice 8: so what we're saying in these bylaws is that if you're going to build over a certain

[1:41:28] Voice 8: amount you have to show those technologies not only because they're great just to show like as

[1:41:34] Voice 8: part of the you know you know effort in the community but because if you are going to take up

[1:41:40] Voice 8: like a larger chunk of land that's reducing vegetation that's reducing um water infiltration

[1:41:47] Voice 8: that are all those things then you have to show that you're going to offset that with other types

[1:41:52] Voice 3: of water or energy efficiency i would love

[1:42:03] Voice 8: that in general but i don't think that's really i don't

[1:42:05] Voice 8: think our community is ready for that on every building because the cost would be prohibited

[1:42:09] Voice 8: for the average citizen so from my

[1:42:12] Voice 3: perspective building houses so the average

[1:42:15] Voice 8: and i'm not i know

[1:42:17] Voice 8: and i'm not arguing about that that's a cost to build a house but i

[1:42:20] Voice 13: just i feel like if our goal

[1:42:22] Voice 3: Our goal is to be better stewards of the land that

[1:42:38] Voice 13: we have, and that people coming to Pender build

[1:42:44] Voice 3: more responsibly, and that's what we want to have happen.

[1:42:50] Voice 3: then i feel like we'd be better served

[1:42:54] Voice 13: to write a bylaw that can that control the environmental

[1:43:00] Voice 13: impact of builds on our island versus what the actual floor sizing was because regardless

[1:43:06] Voice 13: of the floor sizing we would end up with an environmentally responsible house

[1:43:12] Voice 3: at the end of the day so

[1:43:18] Voice 8: i'm not sure how to do that you know in the land use bylaw completely

[1:43:21] Voice 8: because that's also overlaps on the CRD land.

[1:43:24] Voice 8: So I just, this is where we've got to

[1:43:31] Voice 8: with like three and a half or whatever years of work.

[1:43:34] Voice 8: And this is like the place

[1:43:37] Voice 8: that our community has iterated a lot on.

[1:43:40] Voice 8: I'm not going to back off the house size

[1:43:42] Voice 8: because it's not just me saying it.

[1:43:45] Voice 8: And I really need to say that

[1:43:47] Voice 8: because it's not my opinion alone

[1:43:49] Voice 8: that I'm stating here.

[1:43:51] Voice 8: It's a community conversation that's gone on, that we've gone back and forth on different things.

[1:43:55] Voice 8: When we started this, there was a large portion of the community that wanted 2,000 square feet or less.

[1:44:02] Voice 8: And so we are at 3,000 square feet for the minimum because that's a compromise in our community, not because that is like my personal opinion.

[1:44:13] Voice 8: in. And so I feel that it's respectful at this point to have this where it is and that we open

[1:44:23] Voice 8: a housing conversation more broadly in our next project to think about the things that you're

[1:44:28] Voice 8: talking about around not only, you know, what is housing in our community, but is there like

[1:44:34] Voice 8: some more ecological, I don't know, like, you know, sound work that we could do that we could

[1:44:39] Voice 8: suggest into the crd if it overlaps into their area or not or whatever because i i would love

[1:44:46] Voice 8: to see deeper controls on you know ecological building practices here some of the things that

[1:44:52] Voice 8: we put in here we're in conversation with builders on this island about square foot on the interior

[1:44:57] Voice 8: versus exterior so that we can do cob housing you're not penalized square footage doing different

[1:45:02] Voice 8: different kind of components like that and so I'm unwilling to let go of this work just because

[1:45:09] Voice 8: there's a lot of community voice in this and so that's kind of where I'm at so you're there you're

[1:45:18] Voice 3: there yeah

[1:45:18] Voice 8: if

[1:45:20] Voice 3: there is to be a greater housing discussion is it worthwhile to defer this

[1:45:28] Voice 3: component of that bigger discussion.

[1:45:31] Voice 8: I disagree. I disagree

[1:45:33] Voice 8: because I think that we can do finish

[1:45:36] Voice 8: this right now, pull it into that discussion. I don't think we have to defer this to that

[1:45:42] Voice 8: discussion. It creates some, like, just, I think that creates some issues. So I think if we finish

[1:45:49] Voice 8: this piece, we pull it into the discussion. There's nothing saying we can't change it

[1:45:53] Voice 8: inside the housing conversation so that you can hear more fully the full range of conversation.

[1:45:58] Voice 8: but what who's not here in the room today who hasn't responded in the last six months

[1:46:03] Voice 8: are all the people that were happy that we got anything in here okay and so I don't feel like

[1:46:08] Voice 8: it's it's the right move to just throw this out or to defer it for another year or two

[1:46:13] Voice 8: I think that we put it in it's a precautionary move right now so that there's no like big builds

[1:46:20] Voice 8: going on without it in and then we decide like maybe we instigate a full-on housing thing that

[1:46:26] Voice 8: looks at all different forms of housing because two or three things came up in here that i don't

[1:46:31] Voice 8: feel like we dealt with very well frankly that i think are part of our housing conversation

[1:46:36] Voice 8: can we split density right and i think that's something to have conversation because i know

[1:46:41] Voice 8: the magic lake homeowners association potentially is thinking about that this whole land use bylaw

[1:46:46] Voice 8: allows us to create the different zoning to do some things that then that conversation can go

[1:46:51] Voice 8: go forward so do we split um how size if we do that if we allow that maybe we shift the sizing

[1:46:58] Voice 8: related to that like if you split it then you can do that but it helps us to have some base to start

[1:47:04] Voice 8: from to have that conversation um and then the other thing is like okay maybe there are some

[1:47:10] Voice 8: places where we're or maybe there's some like pieces like you're saying that we have in the

[1:47:15] Voice 8: over we now would have to be able as a reference to be able to say here's the criteria that we'd

[1:47:21] Voice 8: like for ecological housing you know some components we're going to take those now and

[1:47:25] Voice 8: think about would we apply those to all would that shift how we think about house size if every house

[1:47:29] Voice 8: had this applied there's nothing to say that we couldn't take this and revise it in the next two

[1:47:34] Voice 8: or three years but it gives us a base of conversation to have that from and I am totally

[1:47:41] Voice 8: open to that. I am really, really disheartened if the conversation that's gone on in this

[1:47:48] Voice 8: community for this many years is not listened to. And I know that there are voices right

[1:47:53] Voice 8: now that are not that happy with house size. There have been for four years. It's not like

[1:47:57] Voice 8: we haven't heard enough.

[1:47:58] Voice 3: So, Erin, if we pass

[1:48:02] Trustee Maude: this today with basically a great deal sticking on it, that it's all

[1:48:07] Trustee Maude: wrapping up on the housing review

[1:48:09] Trustee Maude: so this is this is not this is not a done deal

[1:48:13] Trustee Maude: this is like

[1:48:14] Trustee Maude: an interim measure and then we commit to bringing it back to the discussion in the housing thing so

[1:48:22] Trustee Maude: we can rescind it we can amend it we can do anything with it in the where is it on the

[1:48:29] Trustee Maude: on the planning agenda yeah

[1:48:33] Voice 9: well certainly we're doing well

[1:48:38] Voice 9: you haven't established that yet that's

[1:48:40] Voice 9: still in but

[1:48:40] Trustee Maude: it's probably so it probably is within the year to be on the table yes

[1:48:47] Trustee Maude: so you

[1:48:48] Trustee Maude: know if we pass it today and then everybody gets whacked over the head in the next six months

[1:48:57] Trustee Maude: there is it's a weird but it is a part of the lpc that it's still on the table so

[1:49:02] Voice 13: it's

[1:49:03] Voice 13: maybe my fault or a misunderstanding um on my part for this was this was one of the issues

[1:49:15] Voice 13: this was an

[1:49:16] Voice 13: election issue with people that have been an issue from day one

[1:49:22] Voice 13: and so what i thought we accomplished at the last

[1:49:27] Voice 13: meeting when we addressed this was that we were going to move these couple of things out

[1:49:34] Voice 13: move forward with what we had that we could agree on and wrap up that part of it with the ability to

[1:49:42] Voice 13: defer it to a later date where we would be able to discuss and work on it and figure out how we

[1:49:50] Voice 13: could come to some sort of a consensus based on where we think we're going with housing and with

[1:49:57] Voice 13: and you know because it's come out of the idea of requiring people to put in a secondary suite

[1:50:03] Voice 13: if they want to build over a certain size has been floated there's been

[1:50:07] Voice 13: you know splitting

[1:50:08] Voice 13: density has been a thing accessory buildings has been a thing like there's been this discussion

[1:50:13] Voice 13: about what we can do with housing that is a far broader discussion than what this element

[1:50:23] Voice 13: environment. So that was my understanding of why we would defer what it was for a later date and

[1:50:32] Voice 13: that it wouldn't bog down everything else that needed to be done to wrap up the majority of the

[1:50:38] Voice 13: work that people have put a ton of time and effort into. And we ended up with a small couple of

[1:50:44] Voice 13: points that, yeah, we're going to have to work on over the next couple of years. That's something

[1:50:49] Voice 13: something that is likely going to go from our germ into it the next term whether it's us or

[1:50:56] Voice 13: other people like it's just like housing and what happens on our island and what the build

[1:51:02] Voice 13: out of what pender island ends up looking like is probably never going to be a dead topic

[1:51:09] Voice 13: so to make the decision on it right now i'm not okay with that and not because i don't

[1:51:19] Voice 13: like the what the house sizing is i just want to actually talk that through all the way to the end

[1:51:26] Voice 13: and see is house sizing the responsible thing for us to do it doesn't even make sense at the

[1:51:32] Voice 13: end of the day for it to be house sizing maybe maybe we do have the ability to write into it

[1:51:37] Voice 13: that you need to have x number of gallons of of water catchment you need to have this style of

[1:51:45] Voice 13: of septic or or sewer system you need to have a certain percentage of solar panel

[1:51:53] Voice 13: wattage on the roof of your house that you're going to build in a community like this like

[1:51:57] Voice 13: requiring people to build responsibly regardless of what the size of their house is and it only

[1:52:04] Voice 13: to become more incremental if they decide they want to build a bigger house more money more

[1:52:10] Voice 13: environmentally sound right like like pushing those elements into it which is written in there

[1:52:19] Voice 13: on the high end right but i but i question the need to make a rule about about the house sizing

[1:52:29] Voice 13: that affects houses that are already built and i with the league with the legal non-conforming

[1:52:36] Voice 13: issue and why we can't not worry about that and just put it for the environmentally sound

[1:52:46] Voice 13: building practices moving forward if that's the idea of what we're trying to do with the bylaw

[1:52:53] Voice 13: so so you know i i wouldn't i we can we can vote on it right we're on completely opposite sides of

[1:53:01] Voice 13: what we feel like that bylaw accomplishes i don't think that we're as far apart based on what we'd

[1:53:11] Voice 13: like to see the future be for build out on pender and the way that and the way that people build out

[1:53:18] Voice 13: on pender but the house sizing issue is has become one of these issues for people that

[1:53:28] Voice 13: i think we have to find like for myself i want to find a way around it so i

[1:53:35] Voice 8: think i have a couple

[1:53:35] Voice 8: questions and i'm trying to understand you but i don't so do you want people to build more

[1:53:43] Voice 8: ecologically soundly on the side in

[1:53:48] Voice 13: general like top to bottom yes okay

[1:53:50] Voice 8: is your biggest concern

[1:53:53] Voice 8: about it or is one of your concerns about this right now that there's a difference in if it's

[1:53:59] Voice 8: the rules are

[1:54:01] Voice 3: different for if it's a big house versus a small house you know oh i thought that's

[1:54:07] Voice 3: what you just

[1:54:08] Voice 8: said so like oh sorry like

[1:54:10] Voice 8: if it's over 3 000 feet and you have different rules than

[1:54:13] Voice 8: if it are 3 000 square feet versus if it's over that you have different rules like

[1:54:18] Voice 13: yeah to me

[1:54:19] Voice 13: that doesn't make any sense right because i feel like i

[1:54:22] Voice 7: just want to clarify this because i do want

[1:54:24] Voice 7: want to respond to you okay

[1:54:26] Voice 8: so that's good so i understand that so for me from where we started

[1:54:32] Voice 8: which was 20 and where we currently are to be clear we are currently at 25 coverage of lot

[1:54:39] Voice 8: let's take a 10 acre lot and think about what 25 coverage on a 10 acre lot is okay if somebody

[1:54:46] Voice 8: wanted to do that there's nothing we could do to stop them right now from building 25 coverage of

[1:54:53] Voice 8: law so this stops them from doing that right now without a variance it's not necessarily what we

[1:55:02] Voice 8: all want to see because it's not like full you know ecological integration all of that

[1:55:08] Voice 8: it is a step in any direction that we tend to want to go okay but what it is stopping

[1:55:15] Voice 8: is it is stopping somebody in the next three years while we have a deeper conversation around that

[1:55:22] Voice 8: from going in and building 25% coverage.

[1:55:25] Voice 8: And if you think that that's not possible,

[1:55:27] Voice 8: there are actually,

[1:55:29] Voice 8: there are fairly big buildings on this island

[1:55:34] Voice 8: that wouldn't necessarily be allowed on this.

[1:55:37] Voice 8: And it's not that they wouldn't be allowed, right?

[1:55:39] Voice 8: They would be allowed.

[1:55:40] Voice 8: They could apply for a variance under this

[1:55:42] Voice 8: and still go ahead and build.

[1:55:43] Voice 8: They would just have to meet some other criteria.

[1:55:46] Voice 8: So if we're going to have a big building at this point,

[1:55:48] Voice 8: they have to meet the criteria.

[1:55:49] Voice 8: We didn't want to put that criteria on every house because our community isn't there yet.

[1:55:54] Voice 8: They're not with us yet. We're fully understanding the implications of climate change.

[1:55:59] Voice 8: We only put the climate change motion in 2019, and that's when we started having this conversation.

[1:56:05] Voice 8: People just weren't there. We're way closer now than we were then, right?

[1:56:10] Voice 8: But if we don't pass these house regulations, we still have house regulations.

[1:56:16] Voice 8: regulations they are 25% lot coverage and that to me is wildly unacceptable so if you want to

[1:56:23] Voice 8: change the size or shape or anything of these right now I'm all for it like let's talk about

[1:56:28] Voice 8: them if you want to change the rules and apply those rules to the density let's talk about them

[1:56:32] Voice 8: okay but to totally say we're going to defer these fully into another project that will take three

[1:56:39] Voice 8: years means that we are currently operating under the 25% coverage guideline and that scares the

[1:56:44] Voice 8: crap on them so i don't want to operate under that i am authentically telling you that if we

[1:56:52] Voice 8: pass these and we pull that idea of like let's think this through more deeply with housing

[1:56:57] Voice 8: project yeah let's think about changing them this is bylaws are always a living thing we always have

[1:57:03] Voice 8: to think about what's the next step and how to change and grow and be okay and yes this was a

[1:57:09] Voice 8: an election issue and i am elected again so it's not clear that it's one way or the other

[1:57:13] Voice 8: 100 percent

[1:57:15] Voice 13: yeah and i'm not saying that the only words that i've heard from people are one way

[1:57:19] Voice 13: oh

[1:57:20] Voice 6: for sure right

[1:57:20] Voice 13: like i'm yeah like in filtering through it and trying to weigh it out right it's

[1:57:26] Voice 13: like which yeah you

[1:57:29] Voice 13: know which way do you go yeah and i don't like making rules just for the sake

[1:57:38] Voice 13: of making a rule to to do something i would way rather us have the deeper conversation to figure

[1:57:43] Voice 13: out what can be done and so that you know like you didn't you said earlier

[1:57:51] Voice 13: there is a communication element of what it is that we're trying to do that

[1:57:57] Voice 13: doesn't get done properly and people don't understand the ramifications of

[1:58:03] Voice 13: the decisions that are being made they don't understand where we're headed or

[1:58:07] Voice 13: what the thought process is behind it because there isn't a consistent

[1:58:13] Voice 13: consistent community conversation that's constantly going on between ourselves in front of the

[1:58:21] Voice 13: community and individually with people in the community to to try to like we're in a position

[1:58:28] Voice 13: where we can't really work on something until there's a meeting right we sit down and we sit

[1:58:34] Voice 13: down in a meeting and we're presented with a problem and it's like hey like how are we going

[1:58:39] Voice 13: going to work through this where do we where do we meet you know where are we far apart how do we

[1:58:46] Voice 13: deal with this and then the pressure is that by the end of the

[1:58:49] Voice 13: meeting you need to have come up

[1:58:50] Voice 13: with some sort of a decision and you're going to write a bylaw you're going to vote on it and

[1:58:54] Voice 13: it may or may not you know you may or may not agree at the end of the day and and i appreciate

[1:59:01] Voice 13: that other people have weighed in on it for four years now or 12 years depending on some of these

[1:59:08] Voice 13: these times but I don't see the process as being a positive as positive for our community when it

[1:59:17] Voice 13: comes down to here here's here's something we don't agree we probably do agree on quite a few

[1:59:24] Voice 13: of the elements of what it could be but we have to make a vote yeah

[1:59:30] Voice 8: and just to be clear like I

[1:59:32] Voice 8: understand that that's a dilemma for you it's not such a dilemma for me not because I think that

[1:59:37] Voice 8: that these are perfect, that I think that I understood this like four years ago, right?

[1:59:41] Voice 8: Like I've been in this for four years thinking about it.

[1:59:44] Voice 8: So it's a different space that you and I are at.

[1:59:46] Voice 8: And not because we understand or don't understand the things in front of us,

[1:59:50] Voice 8: but literally because I have had a lot of conversations with community.

[1:59:54] Voice 8: And it may not be in a public meeting,

[1:59:56] Voice 8: but it's been a lot of conversations with different folks, letters.

[2:00:00] Voice 8: conversations around the concerns realizing you know blah blah blah so i think my point about

[2:00:07] Voice 8: communication related to the the legal non-conforming thing is actually because we addressed it and i

[2:00:13] Voice 8: don't think that people are clear that we addressed it like we're still hearing the same thing but we

[2:00:18] Voice 8: literally addressed it so we need a very very clear communication coming out of this

[2:00:23] Voice 8: to show how we address that specifically because that is an issue that folks are concerned about

[2:00:29] Voice 8: kind

[2:00:29] Trustee Maude: of stopped but just a quick question is it would state that if you want to adjust

[2:00:37] Trustee Maude: um the numbers if we did that does that set everything back so we can take it with the

[2:00:44] Trustee Maude: numbers yeah without a problem yeah

[2:00:46] Voice 9: okay

[2:00:47] Trustee Maude: go ahead okay

[2:00:49] Voice 9: well i just wanted to bring you a step back

[2:00:51] Voice 9: to it and uh emphasize the whole point of this project was to implement ocp policies where we

[2:00:57] Voice 9: could and the residential section the objective one of the objectives is to encourage a housing

[2:01:02] Voice 9: pattern that is appropriate to the rural character of the island and that was the big discussion you

[2:01:08] Voice 9: know what does will character mean and then one of the policies policies is that maximum site coverage

[2:01:14] Voice 9: setback and height limitations shall be regulated and maximum poor area regulations may be established

[2:01:21] Voice 9: to preserve rural character and minimize resource and energy demand on the island.

[2:01:27] Voice 9: So that's where the maximum four area all started.

[2:01:30] Voice 9: Now going to the very end, what I'm hearing is in terms of options for the LTC to consider,

[2:01:37] Voice 9: you could fully take the maximum four area regulations out of By-law 229.

[2:01:43] Voice 9: If you do that, you remove all those out.

[2:01:45] Voice 9: I would also recommend amending bylaw 224 to remove that clause because you don't need it in there anymore.

[2:01:53] Voice 9: The second option is to keep it exactly as is, and by that you'd just be giving further readings.

[2:02:00] Voice 9: Third option is tweaking the numbers here, potentially increasing it.

[2:02:05] Voice 9: Fourth option is to just establish one maximum floor area.

[2:02:10] Voice 9: It doesn't matter what size of property you have.

[2:02:12] Voice 9: You could have, say, a maximum floor area for all dwelling units.

[2:02:16] Voice 9: in that zone of 4 000 square feet so that's the fourth option so i just wanted to lay that out

[2:02:21] Voice 9: there and

[2:02:22] Voice 8: i just i'm not radically opposed to the fourth option because there's been

[2:02:26] Voice 8: so many conversations about adjusting that for different contexts on the island and those sizes

[2:02:31] Voice 8: of property are

[2:02:32] Voice 7: related to the different places on the island so that

[2:02:36] Voice 3: would basically make move

[2:02:38] Voice 3: move all of the work that was in there yeah it's all on your plate right now

[2:02:50] Voice 13: so

[2:02:51] Voice 8: you have to make an amendment at

[2:02:52] Voice 13: this at this point like we're we're not gonna see

[2:02:56] Voice 13: well those

[2:02:58] Voice 8: are the those are the three or four options so if you want to take any of those

[2:03:01] Voice 8: options you need to take one otherwise we i will start putting motions on the table

[2:03:07] Voice 8: meetings yes i yeah

[2:03:10] Voice 3: i would like to take it out i do want to have a deeper housing conversation

[2:03:21] Voice 13: and and look at what we can establish for our islands that way and i don't see this i don't

[2:03:30] Voice 13: actually see this as being really that positive in the move forward with what we can do so the

[2:03:39] Trustee Maude: The only thing is, is this a.

[2:03:41] Trustee Maude: Can we get emotional?

[2:03:42] Trustee Maude: But just to finish off, we don't get to speak very much.

[2:03:46] Voice 3: Sorry.

[2:03:47] Trustee Maude: It is if we do adopt it as is, then you're going to get the phenomenal community feedback, positive or negative.

[2:03:57] Voice 7: That's right.

[2:03:58] Trustee Maude: And if if we're committed to reducing during the housing as the next project and we commit as an LTC,

[2:04:06] Trustee Maude: see that this is this is the beginning not the end then in that housing review we can either say

[2:04:14] Trustee Maude: go on rescind it yeah adjust

[2:04:16] Trustee Maude: the numbers yeah

[2:04:17] Voice 3: we

[2:04:18] Trustee Maude: can fine-tune it at that point yeah then

[2:04:21] Trustee Maude: that's a road forward it's like starting wildfire it is but

[2:04:24] Voice 8: it's good wildfires sometimes are the

[2:04:26] Voice 8: reasons

[2:04:27] Trustee Maude: oh i know that so it's good because

[2:04:30] Trustee Maude: they get the control what what what i don't

[2:04:32] Trustee Maude: For me personally, what I want to do, I want to vote for something. I don't want to vote against something. And I'm much happier when three people are voting the same way. Then I'm the monkey in the middle, going, I'm picking a side.

[2:04:44] Trustee Maude: I get it.

[2:04:47] Voice 13: I appreciate that.

[2:04:48] Trustee Maude: yeah

[2:04:48] Voice 8: and that's actually you know David to that point we there were times when it looked like our

[2:04:53] Voice 8: like last last week and we were critiqued for it but like the reason why sometimes we went back

[2:04:59] Voice 8: and forth over the like four years of the project was literally that reason because Ben and I did

[2:05:05] Voice 8: not agree on things and if we voted one way then it basically pushed people to comment right in a

[2:05:14] Voice 8: a way that allowed us to get a really clear statement of different things going on in

[2:05:18] Voice 8: community and so you know good or bad that's the way that we had we've gone back and forth on some

[2:05:26] Voice 8: of the edits because if we voted quieter put it that way put it voted quieter and then

[2:05:34] Voice 8: tried to up something later then you get people stirred up when it's

[2:05:38] Voice 8: higher and pros and cons

[2:05:40] Voice 8: on that i mean we have had a lot of stir because this was one of the four things that was core

[2:05:45] Voice 8: on the land use balance so we have had plenty of stir on this for the last four years

[2:05:50] Voice 3: um

[2:05:50] Voice 8: and it's a lot wider than it used to be like in terms of ability because you know originally

[2:05:56] Voice 8: i think i can't remember i

[2:05:57] Voice 7: think it was 1800 at one point i think but certainly

[2:06:02] Trustee Maude: there's not a

[2:06:04] Trustee Maude: consensus for the community because the last you know region that we had and i think the

[2:06:09] Trustee Maude: vast majority of people spoke against the the square footage restrictions so i i know that

[2:06:14] Trustee Maude: there's two very vulnerable sides yeah yeah

[2:06:16] Trustee Maude: and so then that that makes the right process like

[2:06:20] Trustee Maude: he's saying there's a new trustee but he's been here yeah i'm new to the island yeah and so it's

[2:06:25] Trustee Maude: so you know it's really hard for me to pick a side or have an opinion because you know i don't have

[2:06:29] Trustee Maude: the the depth that either one of you two have in the community yeah and

[2:06:33] Trustee Maude: so it it makes it hard for

[2:06:35] Trustee Maude: for me to go, okay, I'm going

[2:06:37] Trustee Maude: one way or the other because it becomes personal.

[2:06:40] Trustee Maude: Instead of being a community

[2:06:41] Trustee Maude: decision, it becomes a personal decision.

[2:06:43] Voice 3: And that's why

[2:06:45] Voice 3: I'm kind of

[2:06:50] Voice 3: more comfortable voting

[2:06:52] Voice 3: for the

[2:06:53] Trustee Maude: if everybody's in agreement

[2:06:56] Trustee Maude: with as is

[2:06:58] Trustee Maude: if it's part of the housing

[2:07:00] Trustee Maude: and, you know,

[2:07:01] Trustee Maude: this is not a done deal.

[2:07:04] Trustee Maude: We're basically, we're

[2:07:06] Trustee Maude: advancing a process

[2:07:08] Trustee Maude: maybe in an effort as you say to start the fire to see what the community feedback is so when we get

[2:07:14] Trustee Maude: into the housing review where we maybe are a more solid foundation to go yes or maybe so this is

[2:07:22] Trustee Maude: more of an inherent thing

[2:07:23] Voice 3: so

[2:07:25] Trustee Maude: because i just if three people can read it to go forward that's

[2:07:29] Trustee Maude: great um however if if the moment has to be sent well then i get one in the middle so yeah i do

[2:07:37] Voice 8: I do appreciate that there are a lot of really good ideas that I've heard and that the housing

[2:07:45] Voice 8: conversation around square footage have brought up around like splitting the density, secondary

[2:07:50] Voice 8: space. And I really have appreciated how people have dug into that thinking. And then in different

[2:07:57] Voice 8: places on the island, it could be different depending. And even the cottage size, like

[2:08:00] Voice 8: shifting the cottage size to bigger so that right now it's actually constrained. So that's in here

[2:08:05] Voice 8: or two and i think all of those things are part of our housing conversation so i do think that

[2:08:12] Voice 8: they're really helpful

[2:08:12] Voice 13: and that was why i

[2:08:15] Voice 13: thought that we were yeah that

[2:08:17] Voice 13: we were moving this i was

[2:08:18] Voice 13: like we know that we have to have a housing conversation and that is likely what yeah our

[2:08:23] Voice 13: project is right like that's it's been identified in our community that is that housing is probably

[2:08:29] Voice 13: the number one topic that people are the most concerned about so my understanding of it was

[2:08:36] Voice 13: in being able to defer it out of where it was it allowed us to move forward we we could move this

[2:08:45] Voice 13: into the housing conversation and continue on and so that's the way that i would like to go with it

[2:08:52] Voice 13: yeah right

[2:08:53] Voice 13: and and not but yeah

[2:08:57] Voice 8: and the reason that i don't want to so my understanding what

[2:09:01] Voice 8: we did last meeting was deferred it to this meeting to figure out if we were doing that or

[2:09:04] Voice 8: not and i was not of an agreement to move it fully into the housing project in terms of deferring the

[2:09:11] Voice 8: decision on this for four years i do think it is important to bring all of this component into the

[2:09:18] Voice 8: the housing project too right i just don't want to live for three years or four years while we

[2:09:24] Voice 8: deal with the housing project with a 25 coverage rule i don't want to live with that so there has

[2:09:30] Voice 8: to be some interim so if you want to do changes in here like let's talk about that but exist with

[2:09:37] Voice 8: the 25 coverage on some of the averages we have i just feel like it's not responsible

[2:09:43] Voice 8: That's correct, I think I just changed the averages.

[2:09:46] Voice 7: So are there numbers

[2:09:50] Trustee Maude: that you'd be more comfortable with

[2:09:52] Voice 13: for the answer?

[2:09:52] Voice 13: It's not really about the numbers though, that's the thing, it's more about the effect

[2:09:59] Voice 13: that the numbers have in what they are and what are we really trying to accomplish and

[2:10:06] Voice 13: are we just writing a by-law for the sake of writing a by-law, like that, but no, that's

[2:10:11] Voice 13: that it's really seems like in a lot of things that you dig into and you start to look at

[2:10:16] Voice 13: like that we've made rules just for the sake of making a rule because we hope that to

[2:10:25] Voice 13: stop something from happening down the road it's like like proactive stopping the sky from falling

[2:10:32] Voice 13: in

[2:10:32] Voice 3: in a sense like you you i don't like i don't i don't understand writing

[2:10:43] Voice 13: something with the hope

[2:10:44] Voice 13: that we will stop somebody from doing something giving them the opportunity to be able to do it

[2:10:52] Voice 13: i don't really think that you're that we're saying anything to people you can here's the rule but if

[2:10:59] Voice 13: you pay enough money and you jump through these hoops you can do it anyhow so at the end of the

[2:11:07] Voice 13: day like it's like mom telling you no and then you you're going to figure out how to do it anyhow so

[2:11:13] Voice 13: So why do it disparate when it's right here?

[2:11:18] Voice 7: So I don't know how to argue with that.

[2:11:20] Voice 8: I think I've said what I have to say.

[2:11:21] Voice 7: No, yeah.

[2:11:22] Voice 7: That's not my

[2:11:22] Voice 8: understanding of variances

[2:11:23] Voice 8: or how variances are done,

[2:11:26] Voice 8: that variances can be denied.

[2:11:28] Voice 8: And so I don't know how to argue with that.

[2:11:32] Voice 8: So I'll pause on my thinking.

[2:11:35] Voice 8: I think my biggest concern with not doing this

[2:11:38] Voice 8: and bringing it just to bring it fully

[2:11:39] Voice 8: into the housing conversation

[2:11:41] Voice 8: is that we are going to have another three years

[2:11:44] Voice 8: with 25% coverage as the rule.

[2:11:47] Voice 8: And if we decided in this effort

[2:11:50] Voice 8: and with a lot of conversation

[2:11:52] Voice 8: not to go for the coverage route,

[2:11:53] Voice 8: that was an option at the beginning of the housing debate.

[2:11:56] Voice 8: And instead to go without sizes

[2:11:58] Voice 8: and to think that through,

[2:11:59] Voice 8: and this is where we went.

[2:12:00] Voice 8: So I'm happy to bring this into the housing conversation

[2:12:04] Voice 8: and to talk about it and be flexible about it in there.

[2:12:06] Voice 8: I'm just reluctant to leave it as a status quo

[2:12:10] Voice 8: because the status quo isn't active decision

[2:12:12] Voice 8: and it's not what our community has like gone back and forth on on this it's not that we're

[2:12:18] Voice 8: in consensus and community i don't agree that we're in consensus and community right now for

[2:12:22] Voice 8: sure so but this is a good step toward getting conversation to the next step of where we need

[2:12:28] Voice 8: to be i'm not sure that we'll ever fully be in consensus on this one but we can potentially get

[2:12:33] Voice 7: get there.

[2:12:34] Trustee Maude: I have a question for Planner Stockdale.

[2:12:38] Trustee Maude: Although it's not on your

[2:12:39] Trustee Maude: plate anymore.

[2:12:41] Trustee Maude: We have the fees bylaw

[2:12:43] Trustee Maude: before us next week

[2:12:45] Trustee Maude: or the week after.

[2:12:48] Trustee Maude: If the fees

[2:12:49] Trustee Maude: were basically zero

[2:12:51] Trustee Maude: to apply for a variant

[2:12:53] Trustee Maude: for

[2:12:56] Trustee Maude: this

[2:12:58] Trustee Maude: part of the bylaw, does that

[2:13:00] Trustee Maude: help? So it basically

[2:13:02] Trustee Maude: doesn't become punitive.

[2:13:04] Trustee Maude: it basically just becomes a review process again again in this idea this is a stopgap measure

[2:13:11] Trustee Maude: so you know somebody comes in and says i want to do a variance and well this is going to come

[2:13:16] Trustee Maude: before us but it's not going to cost

[2:13:17] Voice 3: them anything does that help i didn't tell you

[2:13:23] Voice 3: what the thought of this is interesting right but in the discussion about the fee by law

[2:13:30] Voice 3: there's some

[2:13:32] Voice 13: issues with the way that that has been structured based on what sort of the trust

[2:13:42] Voice 13: council level directives have been on that and so there there is a whole other discussion to be had

[2:13:50] Voice 13: on what those fee bylaws are because it would doing that would not accomplish what council

[2:13:58] Voice 13: council had set out for a full um

[2:14:02] Voice 3: basically

[2:14:04] Voice 13: charging full fees for what it costs to give

[2:14:07] Voice 13: something so we would literally be going against what your concern was in the model t by law

[2:14:15] Voice 13: sorry

[2:14:16] Voice 7: i don't know if your question is answered i've been taught for that but it seems to be

[2:14:19] Voice 7: slightly different well

[2:14:20] Voice 13: no you're asking me if i would be uncomfortable with that but in the

[2:14:25] Voice 13: discussion i already know that that's something that we've identified that wouldn't be comfortable

[2:14:30] Voice 13: for

[2:14:30] Voice 7: me yes oh

[2:14:32] Voice 7: no that's not true so no no so

[2:14:35] Voice 8: it's a little bit of a convoluted argument we can it's

[2:14:39] Voice 8: a little bit tangential but i'm happy to have it so i've been on so there's a trust council policy

[2:14:45] Voice 8: that says we have to have cost recovery for our permits it's an internal administrative policy

[2:14:49] Voice 8: we don't have to have it we have so when when i originally saw the budget uh like in my first

[2:14:56] Voice 8: term and I the first year I got actively engaged in the budget cycle so after you know anyway I

[2:15:03] Voice 8: looked at it and our cost recovery at the time I think was 120 or 130 thousand dollars on something

[2:15:08] Voice 8: that was costing somewhere in the order of three to five million dollars so I was like well we're

[2:15:14] Voice 8: not consistent with our own policy right so we either change our policy or we change what our

[2:15:19] Voice 8: fee structures are the whole issue got referred to the regional planning committee because they

[2:15:24] Voice 8: they were the ones who were doing the model devise right and so but part of the whole problem in that

[2:15:30] Voice 8: situation was that nobody actually knew what cost recovery was because nobody was collecting the

[2:15:34] Voice 8: data and so I'd asked multiple times and then had to make motions in council to get that data

[2:15:40] Voice 8: collected and then it eventually got collected there was a pilot in a pilot way I was never

[2:15:45] Voice 8: extremely happy with how the data was collected but it was collected and there was a new field

[2:15:50] Voice 8: bylaw based on that that regional planning committee did i was not happy with how regional

[2:15:56] Voice 8: planning committee came to that decision so i looked at the decision of what they did and i

[2:16:01] Voice 8: basically don't feel like they properly applied any of the actual data to the fees bylaw and when

[2:16:07] Voice 8: they when you look at the fees bylaw it was essentially just an inflationary adjustment

[2:16:12] Voice 8: like i was very disappointed with what came out of that which is one of the reasons we pushed and

[2:16:17] Voice 8: And then that can't be a rational reason why those fees are appropriate for what we're trying to accomplish in our own community around work.

[2:16:27] Voice 8: I don't care if press council, like if whatever it is, there's 13 LTCs, I think 11 of them adopted it.

[2:16:36] Voice 8: I don't care what other people did. I don't think it was beneficial for our community the way that those were for our goals in our community.

[2:16:43] Voice 8: so basically i want to have a deeper conversation about those bylaws what they how they meet our

[2:16:48] Voice 8: goals because i don't think that any of those bylaws in any of the islands accomplish our

[2:16:53] Voice 8: policy yet so we might as well just forget about it nobody's going to like deal with that we'll

[2:16:57] Voice 8: change the policy at trust council because frankly if we're not meeting our policy why do we have it

[2:17:02] Voice 13: well knowing that and that that was what we had that conversation right so

[2:17:07] Voice 8: yeah so we didn't get

[2:17:07] Voice 13: do we do this or don't yeah so right that

[2:17:12] Voice 13: that's where i was like okay for us to for us to make a

[2:17:15] Voice 13: decision to go in the opposite direction we should have

[2:17:19] Voice 13: that right like that's yeah it's a whole

[2:17:21] Voice 13: other yeah whole other issue right yeah do we know

[2:17:26] Voice 3: we

[2:17:30] Voice 13: know how many houses we have in do we have

[2:17:37] Voice 13: have access to the what that existing house sizing is the existing

[2:17:43] Voice 9: house size yeah no it's really

[2:17:46] Voice 9: difficult yeah it

[2:17:47] Voice 9: would be a matter of going through previous building permits right which

[2:17:51] Voice 1: i

[2:17:51] Voice 9: did go to you i actually did the beginning of this project and went back for a few years just

[2:17:55] Voice 9: to see what the average house size was it was actually lower than you think it would but no

[2:18:01] Voice 9: we don't have that type of information on hand i don't know if the cmd was no

[2:18:06] Voice 8: we actually on

[2:18:07] Voice 8: On South Pender, they manually, because there's so fewer houses, when they were contemplating their house size, they manually went through and vetted off the CRT database.

[2:18:16] Voice 8: And their numbers were indicated that the housing sizes that they proposed, which were relatively consistent with the 2,000 square foot, not the 3,000 square, or the 2,500 maybe, square foot marker where we were at, were actually really consistent with what was already on the landscape.

[2:18:37] Voice 8: So the fact that we would have gone up another 500 square meters to be 3,000 as our minimum, that's for the small size.

[2:18:44] Voice 8: I

[2:18:44] Voice 13: was looking at what the sizes are and trying to think if there is a

[2:18:53] Voice 3: number that we

[2:18:57] Voice 13: can do, you know, like 35 or 45, right?

[2:19:02] Voice 13: right that that makes it work in the existing housing that we've got lower lowers the percentage

[2:19:11] Voice 13: of affected people right yeah

[2:19:14] Voice 7: so that's a good question okay

[2:19:16] Voice 13: so that question

[2:19:16] Voice 7: i can work with

[2:19:19] Voice 13: it's like literally 80 degrees like yes

[2:19:21] Voice 7: well

[2:19:22] Voice 13: that's what i'm trying that's what i sort of was trying to understand is what difference does

[2:19:31] Voice 13: that is there a way to quantify what that effect that has no

[2:19:35] Voice 8: basically the answer like for all of

[2:19:37] Voice 8: the data that we looked at my take on that we know kim can cover an answer but like we bumped those

[2:19:44] Voice 8: up 300 or 500 last meeting or the meeting before that um because they were 2500 originally and i

[2:19:53] Voice 8: bought them not specifically to try and get more of a buffer concern that you'd already named so

[2:19:57] Voice 13: So I'm just thinking in the moving it forward

[2:20:02] Voice 13: into the future discussion, you move it, we increase it,

[2:20:09] Voice 3: but we adopt it, being able to work with that.

[2:20:16] Voice 3: Because we're hoping that this is something that's

[2:20:23] Voice 3: And I'm not averse to bumping it up another 500.

[2:20:31] Voice 3: under and they're like um

[2:20:33] Voice 5: my

[2:20:37] Voice 3: house is under this long um

[2:20:39] Voice 13: yeah

[2:20:41] Voice 3: and

[2:20:42] Voice 13: i would love to be able to build

[2:20:44] Voice 13: 25 or so right so

[2:20:48] Voice 8: but i'm guessing that i i don't i do agree that these are really high right now

[2:20:54] Voice 8: from my perspective but i'm i'm okay to even if it means that we have them as a ceiling for now

[2:21:00] Voice 8: Now, although I haven't have a Does anybody

[2:21:02] Voice 3: want to make a motion here?

[2:21:04] Voice 3: Okay,

[2:21:06] Voice 3: Yeah,

[2:21:27] Voice 7: So you'd be putting all these forward and then it'd be

[2:21:32] Voice 7: amended as follows.

[2:21:36] Voice 3: It's okay, it's not that scary, it's all yours.

[2:21:40] Voice 3: numbers. So you can say by amending sections to point those

[2:21:49] Voice 3: are sections reason that we're

[2:23:10] Voice 3: is because that's ALR or

[2:23:12] Voice 7: QMLN consistent with the ALR, what the ALR rules are.

[2:23:19] Voice 3: Yeah, on like historical level to vote against

[2:23:27] Voice 8: this, because I, for the, you know, a unified

[2:23:30] Voice 8: move into housing and conversation, I will vote for this. Okay. But that's with the idea that we

[2:23:35] Voice 8: will have a deeper conversation about what that looks like and really dig

[2:23:39] Voice 13: into it absolutely

[2:23:40] Voice 13: all

[2:23:41] Trustee Maude: right

[2:23:51] Voice 3: um

[2:23:58] Trustee Maude: so now we now we have the master motions

[2:24:01] Trustee Maude: Oh, so

[2:24:02] Trustee Maude: they all have to

[2:24:04] Voice 3: be as amended except for the first one, 223 was not.

[2:24:13] Voice 3: Okay, so there's some.

[2:24:17] Voice 3: We're on page two.

[2:24:20] Voice 3: Here we go.

[2:24:29] Voice 11: We've

[2:24:30] Voice 13: made the changes that we need to make.

[2:24:32] Voice 13: yeah

[2:24:32] Trustee Maude: so basically there's number one is as per the next four

[2:24:45] Voice 3: this is the

[2:24:50] Voice 10: one you just yeah and then that's also and that's what it is

[2:24:55] Voice 10: The first one is not, it

[2:24:58] Voice 9: made no amendments final change for you so

[2:25:04] Voice 13: that the North Bender Island Local Trust Committee proposed bylaw number 223 cited as North Bender Island Community Plan bylaw number 171, 2007 amendment number 1, 2021 be read a third time.

[2:25:18] Voice 13: Seconder? Any discussion?

[2:25:20] Voice 3: Call the question all in favor?

[2:25:27] Voice 8: Okay, that's the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed bylaw number 224

[2:25:31] Voice 8: cited as the North Pender Island land use bylaw number 224-2022 be read a third time

[2:25:38] Voice 8: or sorry where does the as

[2:25:40] Voice 8: amended go? It could be at the very end. Okay so you read a third time

[2:25:44] Voice 8: as amended.

[2:25:46] Trustee Maude: Seconded. Seconded. Well question all

[2:25:47] Voice 13: in favor? Carries.

[2:25:49] Voice 13: The North Fender Island Local Trust Committee proposed bylaw number 229, cited as North Fender Island

[2:25:55] Voice 13: bylaw number 224, 2022, amendment number 1, 2022 be read a third time as amended.

[2:26:03] Voice 13: Secondary call. Question of all in favor? Carriers?

[2:26:07] Voice 8: That the North Fender Island Local Trust Committee proposed bylaw number 223, 224, and 229 as amended.

[2:26:17] Voice 8: You don't have to put as amended in there.

[2:26:18] Voice 8: Be forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee approval.

[2:26:22] Trustee Maude: Seconder, discussion. All in favor? Carries.

[2:26:29] Voice 13: Trust Committee proposed bylaw number 223 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval as amended.

[2:26:37] Trustee Maude: No, that one doesn't need to be amended? No.

[2:26:38] Trustee Maude: Okay, seconder. All in favor? Carries.

[2:26:42] Trustee Maude: Round of applause.

[2:26:53] Voice 3: Okay, so let's go adjournment.

[2:27:02] Voice 3: Thank you.

North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting 
May 13, 2023 ADOPTED Page 1 of 4 
 
North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
May 13, 2023 
St. Peter’s Anglican Church Hall 
4703 Canal Road, RR 1, North Pender Island BC 
 
Members Present: David Maude, Chair 
 Deb Morrison, Local Trustee 
 Aaron Campbell, Local Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Kim Stockdill, Island Planner 
 Fran Munro, Recorder 
  
Others Present: Approximately 12 members of the public were present. 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Maude called the Public Hearing to order at 1:02 p.m. He acknowledged that the meeting 
was held on the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. 
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent, the agenda was approved as presented. 
 
3. COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING 
3.1 Land Use Bylaw Review Project – Proposed Bylaws 223, 224, and 229 
 Planner Stockdill advised that this is the 13
th
 meeting relating to these Bylaws 
 These Bylaws cover Residential, Agricultural, Industrial, Commercial and Marine 
Zoning 
 The first speaker supported changing the area back to residential and asked for 
clarification on why the two lots have not been consolidated 
 Planner Stockdale clarified that the landowner intends to apply to have the lots 
consolidated, and that the owner would only be permitted to have one residential 
building on the lot regardless of whether the lots are consolidated  
 Planner Stockdale advised that the shed on the property cannot be used for 
residential use and nothing can be done with it at this time 
 Michael Sketch asked whether the North Pender Official Community Plan (OCP) 
guides residential development at or below the natural boundary 
 Planner Stockdale replied that it depends on the situation, but generally those areas 
are designated primarily for marine use 
A D O P T E D 

  
North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting 
May 13, 2023 ADOPTED Page 2 of 4 
 Trustee Morrison wanted it noted in the recording that the intention of the LTC is to 
not have residential zoning on the water lot 
 Trustee Morrison advised that we are only approving the LUB with the 
understanding that the zoning we are doing on ALR land is not in force until the ALR 
itself allows for the change in use as the ALR rules supersede the Islands Trust 
regulations  
 Michael Sketch of North Pender Island had numerous questions regarding 
residential development, the Island Trust Map and ALC. IP Stockdill, Trustee 
Morrison, Trustee Campbell and Chair Maude responded as well 
 Trustee Morrison added some of her concerns here regarding the ALR. Not perfect 
but needs to go forward. Trustee Campbell added his views as well 
 IP Planner Stockdill explained the Bylaws and amendments related to them. 
There were 3 public submissions to date. 
 
4. PUBLIC HEARING 
4.1 Land Use Bylaw Review Project – Proposed Bylaws 223, 224, and 229 
4.1.1 Recess for Public Hearing 
North Pender Local Trust Committee meeting closed at 1:30 p.m. 
4.1.2 Recall to Order 
North Pender Local Trust Committee meeting recalled at 1:52 p.m. 
Public Hearing Record under separate cover. 
Chair Maude explained that it is post public hearing regarding proposed bylaws 223, 224, and 
229 and therefore there will be no more discussion on these bylaws. 
 
5. BUSINESS ITEMS 
5.1 Land Use Bylaw Review Project – Proposed Bylaws 223, 224, and 229 – Post Public 
Hearing Staff Report (Attached) 
 
LTC advised no further hearings.  
NP-2023-061 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 224, cited as 
“North Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 224, 2022” be amended by amending 
Article 3.3(2)(a) by adding the words, “and stairs to access the foreshore” after 
the words “Water 6 Zones”. 
CARRIED 
  

  
North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting 
May 13, 2023 ADOPTED Page 3 of 4 
NP-2023-062 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 229, 
cited as “North Pender Island Land Use Bylaw No. 224, 2022, Amendment No. 1, 
2022” be amended by amending 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 by increasing the 
maximum floor area by 500ft. 
CARRIED 
NP-2023-063 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 223, 
cited as “North Pender Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 171, 2007, 
Amendment No. 1, 2021” be read a third time. 
CARRIED 
NP-2023-064 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 224, 
cited as “North Pender Island Use Bylaw No. 224, 2022” be read a third time as 
amended. 
CARRIED 
NP-2023-065 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 229, 
cited as “North Pender Island Use Bylaw No. 224, 2022, Amendment No. 1, 
2022” be read a third time as amended. 
CARRIED 
NP-2023-066 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw Nos. 223, 
224, and 229 be forwarded to the Secretary of the Island Trust for Executive 
Committee Approval. 
CARRIED 
NP-2023-067 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
That the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee proposed Bylaw No. 223 be 
forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval. 
CARRIED 
  

  
North Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Special Meeting 
May 13, 2023 ADOPTED Page 4 of 4 
6. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
David Maude, Chair 
 
 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
 
 
_________________________ 
Fran Munro, Recorder