South Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, July 27, 2023

[0:00:00] Voice 5: We're being live-streamed.

[0:00:01] Voice 1: I

[0:00:02] Voice 5: got it. We're done.

[0:00:03] Voice 5: Okay, thank you very much, everybody.

[0:00:05] Voice 5: Good morning.

[0:00:06] Voice 5: Thank you for joining us today at this meeting of the...

[0:00:09] Voice 5: I've got an appendix here,

[0:00:11] Voice 5: so if I say the wrong words, don't look at me wrong.

[0:00:14] Voice 5: The Saterna Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:16] Voice 5: I wish to begin by acknowledging that we are fortunate

[0:00:19] Voice 5: to be able to gather today in locations

[0:00:21] Voice 5: across a traditional territory for the St. Louis people.

[0:00:24] Voice 5: I'm David Maud,

[0:00:25] Voice 5: the main director of the Saterna Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:29] Voice 5: Committee. I'm joined today by your Saterna trustees, Lee Middleton and Boré Boland.

[0:00:37] Voice 5: Together we make up the Saterna High Local Trust Committee. This meeting is being livestreamed.

[0:00:43] Voice 5: It is also being recorded and will be available soon on the Finance Trust website. Today we

[0:00:49] Voice 5: are fortunate to be joined by Paul Brent, your CRD director. We also have some staff,

[0:00:55] Voice 5: but I'm not sure who's joining today. So we have Brad Smith, our planner. I don't think

[0:01:03] Voice 5: Warren's coming in, as you know. We have Emily Bryant, who is our wonderful technical person

[0:01:09] Voice 5: in the office. We have Pat Todd, who's our recording schedule, or recording secretary.

[0:01:16] Voice 5: She's not on the screen. This meeting of the official board and free local trust committee

[0:01:20] Voice 5: to make decisions about land use matters and discuss the round of business. I want to add

[0:01:25] Voice 5: is to face an employment despite the fact many staff are in their own homes our our staff have

[0:01:30] Voice 5: the right with safety and respect for workplace you've been told already um and i think we'll

[0:01:37] Voice 5: just start off um with the sad nose of pat kearney yesterday and i believe director brent wants to

[0:01:43] Voice 5: say a few words well i guess we all knew pat kearney quite well on saturn island and she was a

[0:01:51] Voice 5: a incredibly powerful and powerful, wonderful, challenging,

[0:01:59] Voice 5: larger-than-life kind of person.

[0:02:02] Voice 5: And so we'll all miss Pat Crane.

[0:02:05] Voice 5: I think that's pretty much the feeling of everyone here.

[0:02:10] Voice 5: We can start telling stories.

[0:02:11] Voice 5: We'll be here all day.

[0:02:12] Voice 5: We'll be back.

[0:02:13] Voice 5: Thank you very much.

[0:02:15] Voice 5: All right, so first off, we have the approval of the agenda.

[0:02:19] Voice 5: agenda. We have it for you, anything, additions, deletions. So by consent, we'll go about the

[0:02:26] Voice 5: agenda. And we start off with the trustee of the board. So who wants to be the first?

[0:02:32] Voice 5: Who wants to entertain us?

[0:02:36] Voice 5: Who wants to?

[0:02:38] Voice 6: It's just then you get to see the interesting things everywhere we go second.

[0:02:45] Voice 6: So I attended the Gabriola Trust Council meeting of Gabriola, which was very interesting

[0:02:52] Voice 6: and long days. We stayed in a place called the Haven, which Lee assured me was like something

[0:03:00] Voice 6: out of the 60s, which it was, but I have to say I recommend it. It was very comfortable,

[0:03:05] Voice 6: it had very good food and it was quite a nice ambience. The Trust Council meeting

[0:03:11] Voice 6: The meeting went well. We had, I can't think really, we must have discussed things of substance, but I can't think of anything I'll drop my hand at to tell you.

[0:03:22] Voice 6: Today, the Regional Planning Committee has a sub group who are working on housing and they're meeting today.

[0:03:36] Voice 6: day I can be there and there's quite a good report being prepared by the planners which is housing

[0:03:42] Voice 6: everything that has ever been thought about in the trust. It's a bit of a litany of not exactly

[0:03:49] Voice 6: in action but wheel spinning but maybe this time there's this possibility of actually coming up

[0:03:56] Voice 6: with some proper practical things that can help. And the last thing I'd like to mention is that we

[0:04:03] Voice 6: We did send a request to the Ministry of Transport to meet with us after last meeting and they

[0:04:11] Voice 6: responded and they are keen to come and we're just figuring out some dates.

[0:04:18] Voice 6: The goal would be to do a walk around on a couple of places on the island that have issues

[0:04:24] Voice 6: and discuss with them how we could put together some kind of work programme to address those

[0:04:30] Voice 6: issues.

[0:04:30] Voice 6: So I think Paul will join us and we'll just see how

[0:04:37] Voice 2: it goes from there.

[0:04:39] Voice 2: Okay, thank you.

[0:04:41] Thank

[0:04:43] Voice 2: you very much.

[0:04:46] Voice 2: My colleague ably represented our interests at the Haven, which I

[0:04:54] Voice 5: feel personally resembles spending time in a poorly renovated 1970s basement.

[0:05:06] Voice 5: the meeting room space, I have to say, is very, very nice and very impressive.

[0:05:14] Voice 5: But so I was unfortunately unable to attend that, but there's just two quick things.

[0:05:20] Voice 5: One, we have the governance report we're continuing to do is before us on Monday.

[0:05:25] Voice 5: So I'm hoping we start to see some progress in terms of the priorities laid out by the

[0:05:31] Voice 5: community.

[0:05:35] Voice 5: And then secondly, you may have seen here, and this isn't directly related per se, sort

[0:05:41] Voice 5: of overlaps with the CRD, but the City West truck roaming around taking GPS coordinates.

[0:05:48] Voice 5: this and i've been asked by uh some trustees well my view is uh cape louis stanton is also a trustee

[0:05:56] Voice 5: that should trust me on gambier and keith's island local trust care which is also a regional director

[0:06:02] Voice 5: like all the same kind of coast regional district and they're now being asked for a lot of support

[0:06:06] Voice 5: so i guess i'll say this in general it's they've received so much government funding it's really

[0:06:14] Voice 5: hard to not try to now get behind them because um you know if they're going to

[0:06:21] Voice 5: poorly serve the community center ourselves the word on the street is they will bring i don't

[0:06:27] Voice 5: know if they'll literally bring fiber to a dual or fiber to the power pole near and start from

[0:06:33] Voice 5: the wall but that's what this this uh this man who's been uh going around recently has been

[0:06:38] Voice 5: doing is getting the gps coordinates of where your linkage from fiber will be

[0:06:45] Voice 5: and so

[0:06:46] Voice 5: he said within two years

[0:06:48] Voice 5: so it's you know

[0:06:50] Voice 5: connectivity is important

[0:06:51] Voice 5: these days so that's why

[0:06:53] Voice 5: I bring it up

[0:06:54] Voice 5: and I think it's definitely

[0:06:57] Voice 5: worthy of note

[0:06:59] Voice 5: I don't know if our original director has any

[0:07:01] Voice 5: for the knowledge because they

[0:07:04] Voice 5: technically are the

[0:07:06] Voice 5: the catalyst for the

[0:07:08] Voice 5: for the initiative on

[0:07:09] Voice 5: but it will be very

[0:07:12] Voice 5: important to us if that's indeed how we get high-speed internet service in the future. So

[0:07:16] Voice 5: I just wanted to put that into my report as we're in the fitness room. Thank you. And I would suggest

[0:07:23] Voice 5: with CityWeather, reach out to David Graham because CityWeather is definitely important

[0:07:28] Voice 5: in London right now. And I understand it's to your door. It's not sure within at least 100

[0:07:35] Voice 5: meters of the road, so the connection is right to your door. So talk to David. He seems to

[0:07:42] Voice 5: to be well-informed about City West.

[0:07:44] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:07:46] Voice 5: From a broader

[0:07:48] Voice 5: executive perspective,

[0:07:50] Voice 5: yes, we are through Trust Council.

[0:07:54] Voice 5: It's always

[0:07:55] Voice 5: entertaining.

[0:07:59] Voice 5: What is

[0:08:00] Voice 5: nice is the cohesiveness

[0:08:02] Voice 5: of the trustees.

[0:08:04] Voice 5: Not everybody agrees all the time,

[0:08:06] Voice 5: but we get to have

[0:08:07] Voice 5: very civilized debate

[0:08:10] Voice 5: and conclusions.

[0:08:13] Voice 5: It's

[0:08:14] Voice 5: it's a great organization right now as far as the trust council goes um governance committee

[0:08:19] Voice 5: is doing excellent work um i i concur we are all chomping at the bit to see some outcomes

[0:08:27] Voice 5: from that and some recommendations it's an exciting time that way um end of october of

[0:08:35] Voice 5: beginning to the end of october we're hoping to have a minister meeting with the minister

[0:08:39] Voice 5: um to basically discuss this request for review by the province so a trust council september is

[0:08:49] Voice 5: coming forward to trust council in anticipation of trust council endorsing the the review process

[0:08:57] Voice 5: we're hoping for a proper meeting with the minister we normally would uh at the end of

[0:09:02] Voice 5: september we have this ubcm conference where we give time on the minister but basically it's like

[0:09:08] Voice 5: five or ten minutes with the minister and you're one of how many jurisdictions and you get you

[0:09:13] Voice 5: tend to get lost in the middle so we elected not to meet with the minister at that venue

[0:09:18] Voice 5: and request a later meeting so that's hopefully we're going to get a couple hours with the

[0:09:24] Voice 5: minister and really get some really wholesome discussion um the other thing coming up slowly

[0:09:29] Voice 5: slowly, very slowly, it's just policy statement. I believe what the next date is, is January

[0:09:37] Voice 5: 2024, when they actually are going to roll out the next draft. It's been a long time,

[0:09:47] Voice 5: especially in the context. When the first go around, we were supposed to do the first

[0:09:52] Voice 5: reading, I believe it was on September 13th, and the timeline was to have it finalized

[0:09:57] Voice 5: been done by september 28th in that year now we're a couple years down the road we're still waiting

[0:10:03] Voice 5: for the draft um it's we're supposed to get the draft in january and by the time the process

[0:10:09] Voice 5: finishes i believe it's the fall and spring and looking at adaptations a much longer much more

[0:10:16] Voice 5: patient timeline i think i believe that so director brown we have you on the agenda for your

[0:10:26] Voice 5: Let's start with the most important thing first. The Haven on Gabriel Island makes a cheap motel look like the Empress.

[0:10:34] Voice 5: So we're not wasting any money.

[0:10:37] Voice 5: No, it is really sort of one of the armpits of accommodation in the trust area.

[0:10:44] Voice 5: I needed to work there for a period of time. So yeah, so I've got a skinny end of the bus.

[0:10:51] Voice 5: City West, they were here, I talked to them yesterday, and they were down on crew where

[0:10:57] Voice 5: they were taking readings on each driveway. So it sure sounds like they're pretty keen on

[0:11:04] Voice 5: providing fiber everywhere on the system. The feds, I think, have taught something in the order

[0:11:12] Voice 5: of two and a half million dollars to provide fiber to Saturna Island. That is said to cover

[0:11:18] Voice 5: 90% of the costs, and we're going to have to come up with the remaining 10%.

[0:11:24] Voice 5: There will probably be some type of public process that will indicate whether people

[0:11:31] Voice 5: on the island are game to have an increase, effective increase in taxes to fund that,

[0:11:39] Voice 5: although we, the CRU, Southern Belt Islands, are, again, applying to the rural economic

[0:11:47] Voice 5: economic development program for the funding of that.

[0:11:53] Voice 5: And purportedly, City West is saying that we will share

[0:11:59] Voice 5: in some of the profits of the servants of Wolsey about that.

[0:12:08] Voice 5: What have I been doing lately?

[0:12:10] Voice 5: I've been working on housing.

[0:12:12] Voice 5: So I did a conference, an unconference a couple of months ago

[0:12:16] Voice 5: go out to Haven on Gabriel Island, rural economic islands partnership, and it's interesting

[0:12:25] Voice 5: because it's worried about the economic health of rural islands on the coast, and so there's

[0:12:32] Voice 5: lots of factors there, but the number one factor, and almost the only factor that was

[0:12:38] Voice 5: discussed was housing, and so I've been working on housing.

[0:12:43] Voice 5: I mean, I'm hoping a tiny, tiny gain in that the CRD, I believe, is going to be viewing trailers and RVs as non-enforceable as long as they're hooked temporarily to static systems and have other safety things.

[0:13:05] Voice 5: That's going to be discussed in a couple of weeks at the Electoral Area Committee meeting

[0:13:11] Voice 5: and the board.

[0:13:13] Voice 5: I haven't been having such great luck in terms of getting funding for the Southern Gulf Islands

[0:13:20] Voice 5: as part of the billion-dollar growing community funds, which is aimed at improving affordable

[0:13:29] Voice 5: housing across the province, infrastructure supporting it or whatever.

[0:13:34] Voice 5: and the pronouncement said rural areas will get a higher per capita amount of funding because of

[0:13:43] Voice 5: the challenges of rural areas the crd in total received 100 million dollars 88 half million

[0:13:52] Voice 5: dollars went directly to municipalities the remaining 11 and a half million went to we

[0:13:59] Voice 5: we thought maybe rural areas, but it went to the region.

[0:14:05] Voice 5: And on the frequently asked question that said,

[0:14:08] Voice 5: are these funds to be dispersed

[0:14:10] Voice 5: to be rural electoral areas?

[0:14:14] Voice 5: And the answer was no,

[0:14:17] Voice 5: they are to address regional priorities.

[0:14:20] Voice 5: So now we're fighting with various regional priorities

[0:14:26] Voice 5: like widening the Galloping Goose Trail,

[0:14:30] Voice 5: rehabilitating the three transports for 20 to 25 million dollars in heritage

[0:14:36] Voice 5: justice versus getting housing on the seven gun violence site. That's been my

[0:14:43] Voice 5: principal fight for the last three months. That's it for me. Good news from your electoral area.

[0:14:49] Voice 5: Thank you, New Jersey. Could I ask a question in regard to now, or could I ask it later this

[0:14:58] Voice 5: well we're literally going to town hall so let's just call this town hall here welcome

[0:15:04] Voice 5: ask questions and we will include director brent in your assault thank you all

[0:15:10] Voice 2: right

[0:15:11] Voice 5: so town hall everybody put your hands up name for the secretary and away we go

[0:15:18] Voice 5: mr director um what is your sway over the building department i was told by a former director

[0:15:27] Voice 5: that he was, in fact, the boss of the building

[0:15:31] Voice 5: inspector department. Without broadening

[0:15:35] Voice 5: it too much, we have issues currently with

[0:15:38] Voice 5: the local inspector, like serious

[0:15:42] Voice 5: issues. And I wonder what power you have to

[0:15:46] Voice 5: I have moral suasion. I do not

[0:15:51] Voice 5: direct the building inspector, but I can tell you that

[0:15:55] Voice 5: that I, like I said, I've been spending a lot of focus on housing.

[0:15:59] Voice 5: That's sort of my focus, but I've also received a lot of

[0:16:03] Voice 5: input, and I spend probably 50% of my time

[0:16:07] Voice 5: dealing with issues regarding building inspection.

[0:16:11] Voice 5: So you're just going to have to tell me what they are, and I'll see what I can do.

[0:16:15] Voice 5: I've been doing, principally, intervention with respect to

[0:16:19] Voice 5: commercial building inspection, but you'll just have to let me know

[0:16:23] Voice 5: and i'll i'll deal with it but i've known to be a real total pain in the ass um for the building

[0:16:30] Voice 5: i'm

[0:16:30] Voice 2: giving you a little you know i've been

[0:16:43] Voice 5: receiving letters about various commercial

[0:16:46] Voice 5: okay no it's a mail-in trust committee has requested you

[0:16:51] Voice 5: initiate a pilot project yeah

[0:16:53] Voice 2: it's being discussed

[0:16:58] Voice 2: That was a long time ago.

[0:17:00] Voice 2: No, this was, should have been said last week.

[0:17:02] Voice 2: Really?

[0:17:03] Voice 2: Yeah.

[0:17:03] Voice 2: Okay.

[0:17:05] This is a newer.

[0:17:06] A newer.

[0:17:08] Indoors.

[0:17:09] Okay.

[0:17:11] Good.

[0:17:12] Anybody else with any questions for trustee

[0:17:15] Voice 2: Brent or the local trust committee?

[0:17:19] Voice 2: Sir.

[0:17:19] Voice 2: Can we talk about stuff that's on the, on the agenda package?

[0:17:24] Voice 2: I

[0:17:24] Voice 5: don't have a lot of time.

[0:17:25] Voice 5: I want to make sure that.

[0:17:26] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:17:26] Voice 5: Yeah, because basically speaking, this is your time to speak, because going forward, the only people who can speak is the applicant.

[0:17:33] Voice 5: So if you wish to speak your opposition to something, this is your opportunity.

[0:17:38] Voice 5: I do not wish to speak my opposition to it. I wish to speak my support for bottom line number 138.

[0:17:46] Voice 5: I think it's appropriate. I've looked into it.

[0:17:50] Voice 5: but I think if anything, the proponent has been perhaps not as well treated

[0:17:56] Voice 5: as it could have been in terms of how the trust has evolved over the years,

[0:18:00] Voice 5: but, you know, that just happens as a matter of course.

[0:18:03] Voice 5: I'd also like to speak to the application.

[0:18:08] Voice 5: I'm going to get it right, but the application in respect of Payne Road

[0:18:14] Voice 5: and my support in respect of that, whereby they've already gotten identity.

[0:18:19] Voice 5: There's precedent for it. It's going to have no impact other than positive impact.

[0:18:26] Voice 5: And so I just want to support that particular application and that I think is very positive.

[0:18:34] Voice 5: And there is a reason for that.

[0:18:36] Voice 2: Thank you very much.

[0:18:41] Voice 2: Anybody else?

[0:18:42] Voice 2: Yes, I also

[0:18:46] Voice 5: would like to support that. I think that it's not to allow that subdivision

[0:19:03] Voice 5: per se to take place. I understand, of course, that the lot sizes are not adequate. There

[0:19:12] Voice 5: are a few new lots under current bylaw standards, but having said that, we have, in my opinion,

[0:19:19] Voice 5: a significant pool of extra lots due to massive amounts of parklanding and other parts of

[0:19:29] Voice 5: going into reserves of one form or another which frees up many parcels from our initial

[0:19:38] Voice 5: 30 odd year olds planning uh for overall security density so i absolutely support that

[0:19:47] Voice 5: and i'm going to add a little bit because the sort of contract that our ocd was uh developed

[0:19:54] Voice 5: said that Saturna would have a maximum of 800 densities and 2,500 people.

[0:20:01] Voice 5: This will add no densities.

[0:20:03] Voice 5: I believe the former planner, Gary Richardson, did quite a review in 2010 with previous President B. Harvey Jansen

[0:20:12] Voice 5: and said the maximum number of densities available to Saturna would be 720,

[0:20:21] Voice 5: And that didn't include potential covenants that he wasn't aware of.

[0:20:25] Voice 5: So we're nowhere near the threshold of the social contract on our official community plan.

[0:20:31] Voice 5: I do know that the two, when the lot is seven into two, those lots will be 1.8 and around two and a half acres,

[0:20:40] Voice 5: which is substantially larger than many of the lots in that area.

[0:20:47] Voice 2: Dick, Dick,

[0:20:48] Voice 5: Dick, Mr. Hall.

[0:20:50] Voice 5: Well, I'd also like to express my support for bylaw 138.

[0:20:56] Voice 5: I think it was an error that faces oversight in the Procurement Community Plan that resulted in the existing domain, Procurement Law.

[0:21:05] Voice 5: And I'd also like to express my support for the Baynote Regional Accessibility.

[0:21:10] Voice 2: Thank you. All right. And as I noted, we'll get to it as the applicants can speak to the application when we're actually at

[0:21:20] Voice 5: that point of the agenda.

[0:21:21] Voice 2: this you'll have your time perfect all

[0:21:29] Voice 5: right um so with that we conclude the town hall

[0:21:33] Voice 5: um now we have a community information meeting um anything we need to prep for that

[0:21:39] Voice 5: all right now i get to read a script again because this is important you're public hearing

[0:21:50] Voice 5: the script. Yeah. I can preface what bylaw 138 is. Okay, sure, what will be on there?

[0:21:56] Voice 5: So today there's a community information in public hearing for

[0:22:01] Voice 5: bylaw 138 which is a surveillance

[0:22:04] Voice 5: property rezoning from rural to rural in general to non-dividend for two, one crime law street

[0:22:15] Voice 5: I think everyone was talking about the Christian, so I thought about the future.

[0:22:23] Voice 5: Can

[0:22:23] Voice 4: you speak a little more clearly?

[0:22:29] Voice 2: Pardon me, that again?

[0:22:33] Voice 2: No,

[0:22:33] Voice 3: I got it, but it's quiet.

[0:22:38] Voice 5: I thought it was so simple.

[0:22:41] Voice 5: But quiet.

[0:22:43] Voice 3: Not

[0:22:43] Voice 5: quiet? Well, we're not good with applications. Okay, so we open up the community information meeting.

[0:22:50] Voice 5: Is there any information in particular to be dispensed?

[0:22:53] Voice 5: That was it? Quietly?

[0:22:56] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:23:00] Voice 5: Okay. I can wait.

[0:23:05] Voice 5: You open up the floor to the audience if you have any questions.

[0:23:09] Voice 5: yeah yeah so you said anybody have any

[0:23:12] Voice 2: questions or trustees just one question

[0:23:17] Voice 3: when mr baines initially uh asked

[0:23:22] Voice 4: for and it's been telling me what he had a million and a half

[0:23:25] Voice 4: years ago to um general for his property was it one of that time that what his future plans will

[0:23:37] Voice 4: would be would not qualify under that rule in general in other words was

[0:23:43] Voice 3: there a slight error

[0:23:47] Voice 3: made in how the zoning was done initially as opposed to asking for going through all the

[0:23:53] Voice 3: loops again and asking for a result i

[0:23:56] Voice 5: believe this changes when you lay things out that that is

[0:24:00] Voice 5: my opinion of what happened and i think the problem was not specifically with the new zoning

[0:24:07] Voice 5: but with statements in the OCP that allow for dual zone properties to transfer their density

[0:24:18] Voice 5: from one zone to the other. But in the world of general, in the world of residential,

[0:24:24] Voice 5: that does not happen. I have no idea why, because it's the one most logical,

[0:24:29] Voice 5: So it's a big race is attached to upland that would require that ability and that, for some reason, didn't get into the Bible that way.

[0:24:42] Voice 5: And it's a significantly significant issue.

[0:24:47] Voice 3: Saying that again, I am very much in favor of seeing the Bible see it.

[0:24:54] Voice 2: Thank you very much. Anybody else?

[0:25:01] Voice 2: trustees any understand

[0:25:04] Voice 5: i think you can now close your cim this is no questions

[0:25:08] Voice 5: all right so we will go from a so close the community information meeting and we will move

[0:25:16] Voice 5: into the public hearing um so in opening the public hearing uh i will start with my script

[0:25:24] Voice 5: which is a public hearing for proposed by one on one three eight it's now open i wish to welcome

[0:25:29] Voice 5: everybody in attendance the knowledge that we are meeting in territory of the coach sales first

[0:25:33] Voice 5: nations my name is david mon and the chair of the trust committee i can introduce again let's turn

[0:25:39] Voice 5: out the trust me trustees militant and bold uh i would like to introduce my last trust planning

[0:25:45] Voice 5: staff brad smith um who's not a planner and a meditator every quarter at time um over the

[0:25:52] Voice 5: the large number that this public hearing is being convened

[0:25:58] Voice 5: pursuant to section 465 of the Local Government Act

[0:26:00] Voice 5: in order to consider the following proposed by-law.

[0:26:05] Voice 5: Proposed by-law number 138 cited as eternal

[0:26:07] Voice 5: island land use by-law number 139,

[0:26:10] Voice 5: 2018 amendment number 1, 2023.

[0:26:14] Voice 5: All persons who believe that their interest is affected

[0:26:16] Voice 5: by the proposed by-laws will be given a reasonable opportunity

[0:26:19] Voice 5: to be heard or to be present or to present

[0:26:22] Voice 5: for the submissions respecting matters contained within the proposed by-law.

[0:26:27] Voice 5: Those wishing to speak should commence with a presentation by clearly stating your name and address.

[0:26:32] Voice 5: Members of the Local Trust Committee may, if they wish, ask questions of you following the presentation.

[0:26:37] Voice 5: However, the main function of the Local Trust Committee members is to listen to the views of the public.

[0:26:41] Voice 5: It is not the function of the Committee members to debate the merits of the proposed by-law with individual citizens.

[0:26:46] Voice 5: Everyone will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard,

[0:26:49] Voice 5: and none shall feel discouraged in presenting his or her views.

[0:26:53] Voice 5: And considering the proposed bylaw,

[0:26:55] Voice 5: the Local Trust Committee has received documents

[0:26:57] Voice 5: which may influence this decision.

[0:26:59] Voice 5: These documents are available for review during this hearing

[0:27:02] Voice 5: on our website and as indicated in the public hearing notice

[0:27:04] Voice 5: on the side there.

[0:27:08] Voice 5: Any person who wishes to present a written submission

[0:27:10] Voice 5: to the Local Trust Committee may do so

[0:27:11] Voice 5: and all written submissions must be received

[0:27:14] Voice 5: by the Local Trust Committee before closing this hearing.

[0:27:17] Voice 5: hearing. Your opportunity to comment on the proposed bylaw during this hearing as members

[0:27:22] Voice 5: of local trust committee may not receive further submissions after the closed hearing. After

[0:27:34] Voice 5: this public hearing is concluded, the local trust committee may, without further notice,

[0:27:39] Voice 5: make whatever decision it deems proper with respect to the bylaw that are subject to the

[0:27:44] Voice 5: of the public hearing.

[0:27:46] Voice 5: So we have a plan at Bradstreet.

[0:27:48] Voice 5: We'll now summarize the public hearing notice,

[0:27:50] Voice 5: key points to the bylaw, and referral agency responses.

[0:27:53] Voice 5: Thank you, Chair.

[0:27:54] Voice 5: So I will be reading as well, so bear with me.

[0:27:58] Voice 5: A copy of this notice, or a public notice,

[0:28:02] Voice 5: was advertised in two consecutive editions

[0:28:04] Voice 5: of the Driftwood newspaper on July 12th and July 19th, 2023.

[0:28:08] Voice 5: All notification requirements on the Local Government Act

[0:28:11] Voice 5: have been completed.

[0:28:12] Voice 5: There's a copy of the Complete Public Hearing Binder available during this public hearing.

[0:28:17] Voice 5: It is located on the Islands Trust website and it's also in the binder in the back there

[0:28:22] Voice 5: as the chair has indicated.

[0:28:24] Voice 5: Purpose of proposed bylaw number 138, if adopted, will amend the Saturna Island Land Use Bylaw

[0:28:30] Voice 5: number 119 to 2018 to rezone the waterfront portion of the subject parcel located at 4

[0:28:36] Voice 5: Grove 5 East Point Road from rural residential to rural general to allow for the creation

[0:28:41] Voice 5: of two waterfront rural generals lost through subdivision the proposed bylaw was referred to

[0:28:46] Voice 5: parks canada the capital regional district island of health the main north and south

[0:28:52] Voice 5: pender island local trust committee's comment it was also referred to captain tribes hello first

[0:28:57] Voice 5: nation so you have this uh series of it

[0:29:00] Voice 5: takes the lake couch impersonation that's a new and tricky

[0:29:04] Voice 5: one by accent first nation now half first nation for preaching first nation angelica tribe semi

[0:29:10] Voice 5: Semi-Among First Nation, Senebux First Nation, Senebush First Nation, Sarslet First Nation,

[0:29:16] Voice 5: Seauk First Nation, Sawassin First Nation, Seikom First Nation, and the Wasanik Leadership

[0:29:20] Voice 5: Council for Common.

[0:29:22] Voice 5: In this virtual process, there were no issues or concerns raised.

[0:29:27] Voice 5: And there have been no public submissions received as of today.

[0:29:31] Voice 5: And I pass it back over to you, Chair.

[0:29:34] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:29:35] Voice 5: Submissions can be made anytime during and until close to hearing.

[0:29:39] Voice 5: If any submissions are received during the meeting, we will pause prior to closing to

[0:29:43] Voice 5: ensure the Local Trust Committee has time to review these submissions.

[0:29:48] Voice 5: I invite members of the public who wish to speak to line up.

[0:29:53] Voice 5: Please state your name prior to making comments.

[0:29:56] Voice 5: After presentation to the LTC, the trustees may ask questions.

[0:30:00] Voice 5: but they're primarily here to listen and we'd love to take questions with you.

[0:30:03] Voice 5: I will call three times for speakers to work their way through closing the hearing,

[0:30:06] Voice 5: at which point no further written or formal submissions can be made.

[0:30:11] Voice 5: So, you know, we will ask people if you have any submissions to make, to make.

[0:30:17] Voice 5: Hands up.

[0:30:19] Voice 5: Does that include me?

[0:30:20] Voice 5: Sure, but not me.

[0:30:22] Voice 5: I reached out to the bottle owners that are immediately on either side of the proposed

[0:30:32] Voice 5: waterfront parkway that would be rezoned and in both cases they expect to have no problems

[0:30:41] Voice 5: whatever with the rezoning happening and so that is the immediate adjoining thoughts to

[0:30:47] Voice 5: east and west of the water composting.

[0:30:51] Voice 5: thank you mr games anybody else secretary so that's mr gaines john gaines and he's the applicant

[0:31:01] Voice 5: anybody else my

[0:31:04] Voice 4: name is and um i may be out of line in this but i really

[0:31:11] Voice 4: think that what happened here is very sad and this needs to go ahead without a doubt

[0:31:18] Voice 4: they have taken a lot of time to make an opportunity in a way that can satisfy you to the

[0:31:25] Voice 4: president and the planner there's no reason when you look at that

[0:31:31] Voice 2: not to approve them thank you

[0:31:34] Voice 2: very much right so i will call a second time for any comments from the public good time for

[0:31:51] Voice 2: comments from the public and if not we will

[0:31:55] Voice 5: proceed to close the public hearing please

[0:31:57] Voice 5: note that public hearing closes the local trust committee will no longer be able to receive public

[0:32:01] Voice 5: submissions prior to making the decision so we've asked three times for speakers there's no further

[0:32:10] Voice 5: speakers so we will not close the public hearing uh please be advised we are now in the post public

[0:32:18] Voice 5: hearing stage legislative review of the proposed bylaw number 138 this term local trust committee

[0:32:23] Voice 5: can now no longer receive information pertaining to proposed bylaws however you still can submit

[0:32:28] Voice 5: any outstanding questions or comments directly to the planner the ltc may give further reads

[0:32:34] Voice 5: the pilot or defeat the bylaw or make minor amendments that do not affect the user density

[0:32:39] Voice 5: without further notice or hearings right so we will now reconvene

[0:32:44] Voice 2: our meeting and go forward

[0:32:47] Voice 2: Thank you.

[0:32:51] Voice 5: So, next on our agenda is adoption of minutes. We have minutes below the date

[0:32:59] Voice 5: that you needed, May 25th, 2023, for adoption. Any corrections, errors, submissions, if I

[0:33:07] Voice 5: consent, we will adopt those. And we have a Section 26 resolution about the meetings

[0:33:14] Voice 5: report dated july 2023 which i believe is just a gentleman meeting date

[0:33:19] Voice 2: because it's not it's

[0:33:25] Voice 2: there's

[0:33:26] Voice 4: something small

[0:33:27] Voice 6: in the agenda and i can't remember what it was didn't in inaccuracy

[0:33:35] Voice 3: if

[0:33:36] Voice 6: i can't find which

[0:33:36] Voice 2: i can't manage

[0:33:40] Voice 2: So, by consent, we will adopt the resolution

[0:34:00] Voice 5: about meetings report.

[0:34:03] Voice 5: This is rising for the minutes. We have a follow-up action list.

[0:34:09] Voice 2: Everything is followed up there except for those two

[0:34:11] Voice 5: outstanding letters,

[0:34:21] Voice 5: And also, your fees by law, we didn't get back from David. We had a couple of questions

[0:34:29] Voice 5: last time with regards to the Secretary, and that will be on next January, if you go on.

[0:34:39] Voice 3: Did you tell us that you had forwarded a request to the

[0:34:45] Voice 6: Executive Committee about the Ministry of Transport

[0:34:49] Voice 4: agreement?

[0:34:52] Voice 5: So it was, and basically it's deferred that we're going to talk with the Minister about it at UBCM.

[0:35:01] Voice 5: So I think we still have to keep the peak to the fire, because I was hoping for more

[0:35:10] Voice 5: immediate action.

[0:35:11] Voice 4: Well, we'll carry on

[0:35:12] Voice 3: once you turn it

[0:35:13] Voice 4: anyway, and then we'll wait for higher levels of government

[0:35:18] Voice 5: to...

[0:35:20] Voice 2: Yes.

[0:35:25] Voice 5: I think the big thing is this, what do they call the committee, the action committee or

[0:35:36] Voice 5: the task force that's supposed to have been struck a long time ago and never was.

[0:35:41] Voice 5: And so

[0:35:42] Voice 5: I tried to basically say maybe we should do this.

[0:35:45] Voice 5: And the discussion was it's more appropriate to talk to the minister about it.

[0:35:49] Voice 5: have the minister sort of initiate

[0:35:52] Voice 5: the Red Administrator initiate

[0:35:53] Voice 5: on a local level so

[0:35:55] Voice 5: yeah because

[0:35:56] Voice 6: you know after the

[0:36:00] Voice 6: extreme weather

[0:36:01] Voice 6: through the Saterna Island

[0:36:04] Voice 6: Residence there was an informal

[0:36:06] Voice 6: and roads committee

[0:36:08] Voice 6: came together, John was one of

[0:36:10] Voice 6: the people to talk to the Ministry of

[0:36:12] Voice 6: Transport about

[0:36:13] Voice 6: what repairs needed to

[0:36:16] Voice 6: be done and that was quite successful

[0:36:18] Voice 6: But it turns out that actually there is a protocol agreement around how the Trust and

[0:36:33] Voice 6: the Ministry of Transport should be consulting on a regular basis about the roads program

[0:36:40] Voice 6: because there is an agreement that the roads in the Trust will be maintained in a kind

[0:36:47] Voice 6: of rural character so there's a special agreement about the style of the roads in the transit area

[0:36:53] Voice 6: and as a consequence there's a letter which is a an agreement about how the consultation would take

[0:37:00] Voice 6: place and which would include this task force meeting regularly which either happened for a

[0:37:08] Voice 6: bit and then stopped or never happened we're not quite sure but it is an opportunity to

[0:37:15] Voice 6: revitalize that and begin a conversation about roads.

[0:37:21] Voice 6: Thank you. Okay.

[0:37:24] Voice 5: Just one item. It's technically accurate, but it probably should have a tiny bit of background, which is the motion that we passed for reimbursement of the expenses regarding the wetlands

[0:37:42] Voice 5: and Mr. Paul, sorry, the poet who came and spoke, we had to put the request forward to

[0:37:53] Voice 5: the executive committee.

[0:37:55] Voice 5: And by this time, I kind of felt it was getting a little bit ridiculous, well, staff time

[0:37:59] Voice 5: being required to reimburse 400, I guess 850 dollars between former trustee Brent and I.

[0:38:07] Voice 5: so we we um the executive requested a bunch more information and we just politely declined and said

[0:38:15] Voice 5: you know what enough is enough in terms of how much money has been spent on processing this

[0:38:20] Voice 5: and we'll respectfully disagree about how local trust communities can govern their community to

[0:38:30] Voice 5: community relations so the status of completed it's true but it's not completed as exactly

[0:38:36] Voice 5: everyone would normally take that word.

[0:38:39] Voice 5: So when I say that, I'm going to have to talk to my trustee,

[0:38:42] Voice 5: who is now at $425.

[0:38:48] Voice 5: I don't think it worries him, but I think he'd conclude with myself.

[0:38:52] Voice 5: It was that we just entered one of those catch-22 situations

[0:38:55] Voice 5: where it was going around and around and sucking more and more people's time.

[0:38:59] Voice 5: We thought discretion would be a better product of power there.

[0:39:03] Voice 5: and we're happy to have funded that organization ourselves as good private individuals and launching

[0:39:09] Voice 5: the um the wetlands book so i think we should probably for the sake of former country grant

[0:39:16] Voice 5: at least have that noted in the minutes i certainly apologize for that i tried my best to

[0:39:24] Voice 5: go to that one it's one of the things in any organization whether it be a corporation or a

[0:39:32] Voice 5: local government, whatever, there are

[0:39:34] Voice 5: options. And if something

[0:39:35] Voice 5: fits in the box, it's easy. And when

[0:39:38] Voice 5: something doesn't fit into the box

[0:39:39] Voice 5: quite, things become more

[0:39:41] Voice 5: complicated. And I thought

[0:39:43] Voice 5: we had the box figured out,

[0:39:46] Voice 5: but

[0:39:48] Voice 5: one part of the company said yes,

[0:39:50] Voice 5: one said no, one said maybe,

[0:39:52] Voice 5: and so the box didn't quite

[0:39:54] Voice 5: fit. And I think

[0:39:55] Voice 5: if we had persisted,

[0:39:57] Voice 5: and if you say, spend a lot of

[0:40:00] Voice 5: bureaucratic hours trying to make the box fit, we would have made the box fit, but the cost benefit

[0:40:08] Voice 5: overall was really not there. And so we know a road fault. So, Jesse, go.

[0:40:15] Voice 6: I found the mistake in the minutes. Is it too late?

[0:40:18] Voice 5: It's never too late.

[0:40:21] Voice 5: It

[0:40:21] Voice 6: said MOTI removed 12 old trees after a geotechnical report. In fact, there were 50 trees.

[0:40:28] Voice 6: so it's kind of significant

[0:40:31] Voice 6: Okay, so Pat

[0:40:32] Voice 5: have you captured that? Is this the

[0:40:34] Voice 5: correction of the minutes?

[0:40:36] Voice 6: Yeah, it's on page

[0:40:37] Voice 6: well, the agenda

[0:40:38] Voice 6: is page 7

[0:40:40] Voice 6: and it's

[0:40:42] Voice 6: the discussion about moting

[0:40:45] Voice 6: It is

[0:40:47] Voice 6: true 12 trees were initially discussed

[0:40:49] Voice 6: but actually one was

[0:40:50] Voice 6: removed was 50

[0:40:51] Voice 6: So

[0:40:52] Voice 1: trees removed, 50 trees removed?

[0:40:55] Voice 1: Yeah,

[0:40:55] Voice 5: so it says 12

[0:40:56] Voice 1: Yeah,

[0:40:57] Voice 6: big two trees were removed, and there was no geotechnical report.

[0:41:01] Voice 1: Okay, no geotechnical.

[0:41:02] Voice 1: Big two

[0:41:02] Voice 6: trees were removed, full stop.

[0:41:04] Voice 1: Okay, so you want the 12 removed?

[0:41:10] Voice 2: So

[0:41:11] Voice 1: change the 12 to 50, okay.

[0:41:13] Voice 1: Okay, and I've got that correction, so I'll do that as amended.

[0:41:18] Voice 1: And if I could go back to Trustee Middleton,

[0:41:21] Voice 1: I didn't quite catch what the resolution for the payment of the book,

[0:41:26] Voice 1: or the book launch I know it was 425 dollars and then you were talking about

[0:41:31] Voice 1: the

[0:41:33] Voice 3: audio

[0:41:34] Voice 1: was was cutting out so but I just didn't get what the end solution was sure maybe

[0:41:42] Voice 5: to make it clear we could say that the uh Saturna Island Local Trust Committee

[0:41:48] Voice 5: in support of overall fiscal discipline

[0:41:54] Voice 5: at the Islands Trust

[0:41:55] Voice 5: agrees to withdraw its request

[0:41:58] Voice 5: for reimbursement of this expense.

[0:42:01] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:42:03] Voice 5: What do you think of that?

[0:42:05] Voice 5: Perfect.

[0:42:06] Voice 5: And it was paid personally by Trustee Middleton

[0:42:10] Voice 5: and former Trustee Brent

[0:42:12] Voice 5: were personally paid that bill.

[0:42:17] Voice 6: $850 in token.

[0:42:19] Voice 6: Yes.

[0:42:21] Voice 5: So we're forever indebted to the two of you.

[0:42:24] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:42:26] Voice 5: All right.

[0:42:28] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:42:29] Voice 5: Moving forward with correspondence,

[0:42:33] Voice 5: we have nothing before us.

[0:42:35] Voice 5: Now we have applications and referrals.

[0:42:38] Voice 5: We have SA RZ 20.3.1,

[0:42:43] Voice 5: Mr. Gaines proposed bylaw number 138,

[0:42:46] Voice 5: post public

[0:42:47] Voice 2: hearing and staff report, which is attached.

[0:42:56] Voice 2: Thank you, Chair. So we just had a public hearing in CRM for this application.

[0:43:06] Voice 5: So just had a public hearing for bylaw 138 regarding strong support for the application from your community. Staff report hearing from you may now post public hearing

[0:43:21] Voice 5: with recommendations that the local trust committee consider giving bylaw 138 second

[0:43:28] Voice 5: and third reading and directing staff to send it to the executive committee for approval

[0:43:33] Voice 5: if that direction is provided then staff will provide that the next ec meeting is on august

[0:43:40] Voice 5: 23rd so it will be likely on the august 23rd agenda i know you're not you're processing there

[0:43:47] Voice 5: but the agenda deadline is today and i think i'll just uh leave it there and uh send it back to you

[0:43:58] Voice 5: and share it for consideration of his medical vision thank you um just to thank uh for his

[0:44:07] Voice 5: work on this and um i think it's clear and the way forward is clear for me um unless there's

[0:44:17] Voice 5: any further comment and prepared to make a motion absolutely i was

[0:44:22] Voice 6: going to say and i'd like to thank

[0:44:23] Voice 6: mr gaines too for the work that he put into adhering to everything that needed to be done

[0:44:31] Voice 6: despite the history that led to the situation so we work very cooperatively with brand and

[0:44:38] Voice 6: we appreciate all the work that both of you did thank

[0:44:41] Voice 3: you all

[0:44:44] Voice 5: right well i'll move that

[0:44:46] Voice 5: the Stern Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 138, cited as the Caterina Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 119,

[0:44:52] Voice 5: comment 2018, amendment number 1, 2023, be read as secondary.

[0:44:59] Voice 5: Secondary?

[0:45:00] Voice 3: Yes.

[0:45:00] Voice 5: Secondary.

[0:45:01] Voice 5: Any discussion?

[0:45:02] Voice 5: If not, call the question on the paper.

[0:45:04] Voice 5: That carries.

[0:45:07] Voice 6: I move, go ahead, Senator.

[0:45:10] Voice 6: The Caterina Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 138, cited as Caterina Island

[0:45:16] Voice 6: Land Use Bylaw number 119212018, amendment number 1, 2023, be read a third time.

[0:45:25] Voice 5: I second that discussion.

[0:45:28] Voice 5: All in favor?

[0:45:29] Voice 5: I carry.

[0:45:31] Voice 5: And finally, that the Caterina Island Local Trust Committee post bylaw number 138 be forwarded

[0:45:36] Voice 5: to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee approval.

[0:45:39] Voice 5: approval. Seconded?

[0:45:41] Voice 6: Yes, seconded. Seconded.

[0:45:42] Voice 5: That's a good move.

[0:45:43] Voice 2: Any discussion? If not, call the question. All in favor? Carried. A happy customer.

[0:45:53] Voice 2: So

[0:45:54] Voice 5: executive committee approval would be the final step of this application as there's no ACPA

[0:45:58] Voice 5: plan. So following August 23rd, assuming executive committee approves the bylaw,

[0:46:06] Voice 5: amending bylaw, then we can figure out how to bring it back to the trust committee.

[0:46:10] Voice 5: in either your next meeting or you could approve it by argument let's

[0:46:15] Voice 3: do our next meetings until

[0:46:17] Voice 3: october this morning okay

[0:46:19] Voice 5: sure do we need a resolution because that's the resolution

[0:46:22] Voice 5: direction stop to initiate our rwm should by law 138 be approved by executive committee you can do

[0:46:29] Voice 5: that yeah okay okay okay motion starting yes um i like the resolution that the adoption of bylaw

[0:46:39] Voice 5: 1.38 be conducted. Actually, we have to direct, sorry, let me take a step back. Move that we

[0:46:47] Voice 5: direct staff to prepare a resolution without meeting for adoption of By-law 1.38 should

[0:46:55] Voice 5: be approved by the Executive Committee at

[0:46:59] Voice 2: their next meeting. You've got that, Pat?

[0:47:06] Voice 1: Direct staff to prepare a resolution without meeting for adoption by Caterina Local Trust

[0:47:17] Voice 5: Bylaw 138, should it be approved by the executive committee?

[0:47:22] Voice 1: Oh, for

[0:47:23] Voice 1: adoption of bylaw 138 upon adoption or should it be adopted by executive committee?

[0:47:35] Voice 1: Approved

[0:47:36] Voice 5: or not?

[0:47:38] Voice 1: Approved.

[0:47:39] Voice 5: You were doing the adoption.

[0:47:42] Voice 5: Excellent.

[0:47:43] Voice 1: Thank you.

[0:47:43] Voice 5: Thank you. Seconder?

[0:47:45] Voice 5: Yes, I second.

[0:47:47] Voice 5: Discussion? Call or question? All in favor?

[0:47:49] Voice 5: That carries.

[0:47:52] Voice 5: We have a roll forward.

[0:47:55] Voice 5: No, thank you.

[0:47:57] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:47:57] Voice 3: Aren't you on the 24th?

[0:47:59] Voice 3: I said

[0:48:01] Voice 5: can we move?

[0:48:02] Voice 5: I'm going to change the page.

[0:48:06] Voice 5: Next up,

[0:48:07] Voice 5: we have essay

[0:48:08] Voice 5: 2020.3.2

[0:48:11] Voice 5: Under the Butcherless

[0:48:13] Voice 5: I got close.

[0:48:16] Voice 5: The staff report is attached.

[0:48:19] Voice 4: I

[0:48:19] Voice 5: got closer than I would have thought.

[0:48:23] Voice 5: I would have said touch up.

[0:48:27] Voice 5: I'm sure you hear most of it.

[0:48:29] Voice 5: Anyways, staff report here in front of you for a rezoning application for the property

[0:48:35] Voice 5: of 101 on Main Road with the applicant seeking to rezone the property to allow an additional

[0:48:43] Voice 5: density which they are purchasing from Judy Meyers as that would be then a site-specific

[0:48:51] Voice 5: zoning amendment to reduce her density on the property by one and so just walking through the

[0:48:59] Voice 5: application here. So the parcel, there's photos here for two houses on the property on either side of the book block on Payne Road.

[0:49:10] Voice 5: Currently, the density of the property allows for one house or one private residence and one accessory cottage.

[0:49:19] Voice 5: In this case, one of the houses meets the definition of a cottage.

[0:49:22] Voice 5: and the floor size is small enough,

[0:49:26] Voice 5: though technically, legally,

[0:49:29] Voice 5: the Dixie-Witt house and the cottage on the property

[0:49:33] Voice 5: is completely legal.

[0:49:35] Voice 5: What they're seeking to do is to rezone the property

[0:49:38] Voice 5: to allow for the eventual subdivision of that lot

[0:49:42] Voice 5: where they would create a single lot

[0:49:46] Voice 5: for each of those houses.

[0:49:49] Voice 5: key points here with respect to the OCP policies around rural general lots, D1-D5, the minimum

[0:50:03] Voice 5: lot area for subdivisions shall not be less than 0.81 hectares. This current lot is 1.69

[0:50:10] Voice 5: hectares, so they don't have the actual lot

[0:50:12] Voice 1: size to

[0:50:13] Voice 5: create two minimum lots of that size.

[0:50:16] Voice 5: There's a diagram on page 5 of the staff report that shows the ground portion to be 0.73 hectares and the 100 pane road to be 0.96.

[0:50:34] Voice 5: So if the Local Trust Committee decides to move forward, there are two options for you to make amendments.

[0:50:42] Voice 5: currently right now they've only applied for a land use bylaw amendment, they could continue to proceed or LTC could continue to proceed, which is what staff would recommend with only the land use bylaw amendment and leave it to the applicant to figure out, at time of subdivision,

[0:51:01] Voice 5: how a whole lot configuration

[0:51:02] Voice 5: can bring some fourth of the

[0:51:05] Voice 5: 100p road on the

[0:51:06] Voice 5: one side to make up that 0.81

[0:51:09] Voice 5: could occur

[0:51:10] Voice 5: the other option would be for you

[0:51:13] Voice 5: to amend your

[0:51:15] Voice 5: OCP to remove

[0:51:17] Voice 5: the language around

[0:51:18] Voice 5: or to amend the language around

[0:51:20] Voice 5: that minimum lot size

[0:51:22] Voice 5: you could either do a site specific

[0:51:24] Voice 5: OCP amendment

[0:51:27] Voice 5: only to this property or you

[0:51:29] Voice 5: could do a broader amendment that considers either a smaller total or a smaller minimum average in

[0:51:35] Voice 5: your OCP. From the staff perspective, typically those types of OCP amendments are cut in a broader

[0:51:43] Voice 5: consultation. You could have significant precedent set by allowing this smaller property than what

[0:51:50] Voice 5: the OCP assumes to allow an additional capacity for. So I think there is risk to making an OCP

[0:52:00] Voice 5: amendment and there would also be additional processes plus assigned to the applicants and

[0:52:06] Voice 5: it would also require minister's approval which takes months and months. So I would also point

[0:52:15] Voice 5: me tell you about the 100 p.m. outside is completely within the ALR. So they would not

[0:52:21] Voice 5: only need minister of transportation approval for subdivision, but they would also need

[0:52:25] Voice 5: agricultural land commission approvals for subdivision. So staff recommend that they

[0:52:30] Voice 5: have some initial conversations with the ALC as to what they would be willing to consider

[0:52:37] Voice 5: with respect to subdivision approval, or they would be willing to subdivide it all as

[0:52:42] Voice 5: understanding that they're pretty strict when we're talking about subdivision to increase

[0:52:48] Voice 5: density in lots, that would be alarming. So I think that's all I will speak to here.

[0:52:56] Voice 5: A number of recommendations around referrals, if you should get there. And I will pass it

[0:53:06] Voice 5: back to you, Chair, for discussion, any questions. And the applicants in the audience here as

[0:53:12] Voice 5: well just stick to that thank you trustees any questions for the planet

[0:53:16] Voice 5: yeah

[0:53:17] Voice 2: so it's

[0:53:25] Voice 6: only one portion of the subdivision that's in the error so it's not really increasing

[0:53:31] Voice 6: the density per se arguably it's reducing the density in a bizarre sort of way well it would

[0:53:39] Voice 5: be increasing the density by one because currently the density on the property is for the one residence

[0:53:44] Voice 5: and so this would then have a residence on each lot and so that's why they need to purchase that

[0:53:52] Voice 5: density from Miss Myers. But

[0:53:54] Voice 6: the other the part that would be on the other side of the road isn't

[0:53:57] Voice 6: in the aileron?

[0:53:58] Voice 5: That's correct. So if

[0:54:00] Voice 5: you

[0:54:01] Voice 6: kind of draw a line around the aileron portion it isn't

[0:54:03] Voice 6: decreasing the density in the lot that's on the

[0:54:07] Voice 5: airlock portion.

[0:54:08] Voice 5: I'm not completely familiar with the ALC processes and their guidelines, but what I do know is that they are very strict in terms of

[0:54:17] Voice 5: some of the vision where airlock lands are.

[0:54:20] Voice 5: So that's all I can speak to.

[0:54:24] Voice 6: Okay. How would the first option work in terms of the boot lot?

[0:54:32] Voice 6: The

[0:54:33] Voice 5: first option they would create one lot on the 100 pane road is that's based on my

[0:54:43] Voice 5: rough calculations 0.96 hectares, the other lot is 0.73 so they would need to take a 0.81

[0:54:50] Voice 5: at least 0.808 portion of this and hook it onto this lot so this lot

[0:54:56] Voice 5: would own a little

[0:54:57] Voice 5: little tiny portion of the other side of the road to make that a minimum lot size.

[0:55:05] Voice 5: So they would both be over the point A1?

[0:55:08] Voice 5: So that they would both get over that point A1 and then be tied.

[0:55:13] Voice 5: It's consistent with your land use by-law provision, which is tied to your OCP provision,

[0:55:20] Voice 5: which is very clear that you can't have a lot smaller than point A1 in both.

[0:55:26] Voice 5: Yeah,

[0:55:27] Voice 6: so I suppose I should say I'm in favour of it and it's just a question of figuring

[0:55:34] Voice 6: out the best way to do it and I think it's, you know, in a way we're looking at housing

[0:55:48] Voice 6: and allowing this and perhaps other situations similarly, you are creating smaller lots with smaller footprints, which maybe are better choices.

[0:56:09] Voice 6: But one question would be, so the minimum floor size, this is just a question of like,

[0:56:15] Voice 6: I have no idea, so there's no hidden agenda, the minimum floor size for a cottage is designated.

[0:56:26] Voice 6: So how, I'm just thinking, if you turn it into a second plot which has the specification

[0:56:32] Voice 6: of 0.81, does it then allow that to become a...

[0:56:39] Voice 6: larger property and time.

[0:56:44] Voice 5: I'm not sure.

[0:56:46] Voice 5: I don't know.

[0:56:47] Voice 5: Well, when,

[0:56:49] Voice 3: when it was, oh, okay.

[0:56:52] Voice 6: If,

[0:56:54] Voice 3: if, as you say,

[0:56:55] Voice 3: our quality at this point is under 1,000, so we didn't get much.

[0:57:00] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:57:01] Voice 3: Should we divide the properties?

[0:57:05] Voice 3: I can say for us,

[0:57:06] Voice 3: we have no intention of making it any bigger.

[0:57:08] Voice 3: If in, you know, whoever ends up with it, how can we do, we should do that because it's

[0:57:17] Voice 3: an individual law.

[0:57:18] Voice 3: I don't see that they have a problem in addressing a larger footprint than us.

[0:57:26] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:57:28] Voice 3: But that's, that's my opinion.

[0:57:30] Voice 3: I think I must remain conscious.

[0:57:34] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:57:35] Voice 5: So I would, in my view, there would be no limit to them creating a feeder cottage because it is now a dwelling.

[0:57:44] Voice 5: It is now the primary residence. The only rub would be around lot coverage, where they shall not exceed 20%.

[0:57:52] Voice 5: But lot coverage never really comes into play except for a tiny lot.

[0:57:56] Voice 5: So to clarify another point that might be in your minds right now, you have a dwelling on the one side and the accessory cottage on the other side.

[0:58:05] Voice 5: you're purchasing the density from Judy's property to then

[0:58:08] Voice 5: create that into a residence. The lot size right now is point

[0:58:15] Voice 5: 1.69. And so residential site density on a lot 1.21 to 4.05

[0:58:22] Voice 5: allows for the residential cottage, but loss less than 1.21

[0:58:28] Voice 5: hectares, which is what ultimately those two lots would

[0:58:30] Voice 5: be would not have uh accessory cottages right and so in the future in a sense you're sort of losing

[0:58:39] Voice 5: a cottage right sort of you you couldn't build a cottage on either side of the future

[0:58:49] Voice 6: no no i understand but then yeah you could build an origin house if you want you could

[0:58:55] Voice 5: expand because it's now it's not the cottage it's now the primary

[0:58:59] Voice 5: residents using that density okay i'm done thank you um yeah i guess the only

[0:59:09] Voice 5: i'd say option one as well to not go to the ocp uh review process the only issue of course is

[0:59:16] Voice 5: you would be moving the line of subdivision into the alr proper whereas right now it could be

[0:59:22] Voice 5: argued that the line of subdivision would take place at the edge of the portion of that block

[0:59:27] Voice 5: which is the road frontage and that may or may not complicate again this really is not

[0:59:34] Voice 5: maybe what I would say to the applicant is if we choose as a first meet to recommend option one

[0:59:42] Voice 5: and you stumble down the road with the ALC in terms of subdivision approval

[0:59:47] Voice 5: then we can perhaps look at how we might be able to facilitate

[0:59:52] Voice 5: take a positive response from the ALC and then failing that it might have to be the

[1:00:00] Voice 5: look in order to um permit these sort of uh legacy laws to be uh divided for for uh for the future um

[1:00:13] Voice 5: for them to be done in sort of a rational way with clear guidelines that are in the ocp

[1:00:18] Voice 5: because we're still talking with the density cap we're not talking at some kind of rampant

[1:00:24] Voice 5: out of control process because there are only so many densities that are going to ever be available

[1:00:30] Voice 5: And even when freely available, as we found with the recent Berta Landing sale, they tend

[1:00:39] Voice 5: to, unless we're really for cycle, they tend to get themselves walked off, as has happened

[1:00:44] Voice 5: there.

[1:00:45] Voice 5: The remaining densities, I don't foresee ever coming out of the Nature Trust of BC to be

[1:00:51] Voice 5: broken down.

[1:00:51] Voice 5: That's my opinion.

[1:00:53] Voice 5: Legally, they can.

[1:00:54] Voice 5: And so we're not really talking that this division of loss

[1:01:01] Voice 5: by purchase of densities is going

[1:01:04] Voice 5: to be capped by the limited number of densities

[1:01:07] Voice 5: that are going to be available.

[1:01:08] Voice 5: So even if we do have to go to the OCP

[1:01:11] Voice 5: to make some more general provision,

[1:01:13] Voice 5: that I'm not 100% against that.

[1:01:16] Voice 5: But I would say in this case, my view

[1:01:18] Voice 5: is the alliance with that of the advice from staff

[1:01:21] Voice 5: is that we recommend um the option one first so just simply require revision to the language

[1:01:28] Voice 5: pilot but not provision to the ocp acknowledging you might be drawing a subdivision line that could

[1:01:35] Voice 5: complicate the request to the local alignment division but it's for them to comment on that

[1:01:40] Voice 5: I think not us.

[1:01:43] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:01:44] Voice 5: So, anything to add?

[1:01:47] Voice 5: I'm sorry, my hearing is poor, so I can't hear everything that you're saying.

[1:01:52] Voice 5: So, it doesn't appear that my name is Dan Zachert.

[1:01:55] Voice 5: I live on this day.

[1:02:00] Voice 2: What

[1:02:01] Voice 5: I'm curious to know is, I'll put it this way, it seems to me that the most straightforward

[1:02:09] Voice 5: before we resolve is to do a site specific, then the OCP, and

[1:02:16] Voice 5: then the particular provisions with respect to the point 10 and

[1:02:23] Voice 5: three hectares. We don't have the necessity of from Sweden,

[1:02:29] Voice 5: and they hooked a lot of gather the money on location for a

[1:02:33] Voice 5: a lot of power property, which is an enlarger portion,

[1:02:39] Voice 5: and attaching it to the 173.

[1:02:42] Voice 5: That just seemed to be straightforward and visible and clear.

[1:02:47] Voice 5: And it appears to me, from the support that we've had

[1:02:50] Voice 5: for the community, that it is less likely

[1:02:56] Voice 5: that approaching it in that manner

[1:02:58] Voice 5: will raise large concerns within the community.

[1:03:02] Voice 5: We're not, as one of the trustees had pointed out,

[1:03:07] Voice 5: we're not going to be the president that

[1:03:10] Voice 5: is going to be backed on and manipulated or used

[1:03:14] Voice 5: by other folks who want to approach the land

[1:03:17] Voice 5: differently, the buildings on the side.

[1:03:19] Voice 5: So what we have remains the same.

[1:03:23] Voice 5: It will look the same.

[1:03:24] Voice 5: It will operate the same way.

[1:03:26] Voice 5: And we're free to carry on with our lives as fast as we can.

[1:03:30] Voice 5: And that's certainly the case.

[1:03:33] Voice 5: That's my feeling, and I urge you, so wouldn't we be, we're going to not receive an OCP amendment, site-specific, without the requirement of a welcome.

[1:03:46] Voice 5: What does that add to the process, or to the livability of what we're seeking to do, either today or tomorrow?

[1:03:55] Voice 5: I understand.

[1:03:57] The motion is

[1:03:59] Voice 5: rather generic in nature.

[1:04:02] Voice 5: so can the applicant work with you to as to which path well stop any direction as to what job

[1:04:10] Voice 5: bylaws were preparing so if the ltc chooses to consider an ocp amendment or what you would need

[1:04:19] Voice 5: to amend in your ocp is uh as article d1 g5 which states the minimum lot area for subdivision in the

[1:04:27] Voice 5: rural general shall not be less than 0.81 hectares you could do a blanket amendment you could create

[1:04:36] Voice 5: that as a minimum average that would work for them or you could create a surface seeking a site

[1:04:43] Voice 5: specific amendment that says despite d1g5 for property xyz 100 main road uh the minimum average

[1:04:55] Voice 5: lot size is 0.73. Or the minimum average is 0.81.

[1:05:02] Voice 5: Because the way the motion is worded right now is compared to odd drop by-laws. It doesn't.

[1:05:09] Voice 5: It seems rather open the way the motion is worded.

[1:05:14] Voice 5: It should say to prepare odd drop by-laws, and that's a cutting-edge point.

[1:05:18] Voice 5: but you're right

[1:05:20] Voice 2: um if i think if the ltd is

[1:05:27] Voice 5: comfortable pursuing that kind of site-specific

[1:05:30] Voice 5: amendment uh the direction that would be best served to be presented today to staff i can go

[1:05:37] Voice 5: ahead and draft those amendments and we can also receive the additional eleven hundred dollars from

[1:05:43] Voice 5: the applicant uh which is the difference between only needing a land use file

[1:05:51] Voice 3: And would it not be worth checking in

[1:05:55] Voice 6: with the ANR before we proceed, only on the basis

[1:06:00] Voice 6: that, you know, at an extreme they may say no under no circumstances, but it seems unlikely

[1:06:08] Voice 6: that you could, at least there would be more information to inform your choice.

[1:06:12] Voice 5: A hook law is definitely going to complicate the ALR decision, because we are now seeking to create a donut in the

[1:06:24] Voice 5: ALR, so there's no doubt about it.

[1:06:29] Voice 5: So if I'm interpreting correctly, the applicant is interested in an OCP amendment?

[1:06:35] Voice 3: Yes.

[1:06:35] Voice 3: As

[1:06:36] Voice 5: trustees or as an OCP amendment?

[1:06:38] Voice 5: Well, I don't know what I'm asking.

[1:06:41] Voice 5: Okay, let's talk this out.

[1:06:43] Voice 5: I think in general, staff would always recommend that you consider OCP amendments in a broader process,

[1:06:52] Voice 5: especially where you're talking about allowing an increased density by changing minimum lot size.

[1:07:00] Voice 5: However, in this case, I think it's reasonable to consider a site-specific amendment.

[1:07:11] Voice 5: You're not talking about, you know, a magnet, you're talking about 0.8 of a, like if you

[1:07:17] Voice 5: created that, except for in this particular lot, we would allow minimum loss of 0.73.

[1:07:25] Voice 5: It's not like you're going, you know, you're not cutting a lot of half or allow some, you

[1:07:31] Voice 5: know, there's good reason for it.

[1:07:33] Voice 5: and so it might be reasonable for the local trust committee to direct staff to

[1:07:40] Voice 5: create a site-specific amendment. I would suggest looking at a lot of signs of 173 rather than

[1:07:48] Voice 5: starting to talk about minimum averages because then other people start talking about minimum

[1:07:53] Voice 5: averages and I guess in the future and what other applications came forward it would just be

[1:07:59] Voice 5: consider what's on there yeah

[1:08:02] Voice 4: it's gene word speaking um thank you for that reader

[1:08:06] Voice 4: one of these issues i think with the hook law i mean i don't want to say amr but where is it

[1:08:14] Voice 4: going to go and how did it affect our sound and along the roadway we have our water our

[1:08:22] Voice 4: hydro when we have our access road we need to retain ownership of that and we don't have

[1:08:29] Voice 4: of control, as I understand from Brad, over what the highways may or why are they safe,

[1:08:36] Voice 4: how you cut it off. If it's cooked, it has to be cooked with the lower lot. So you've

[1:08:43] Voice 4: got government as well. And then I don't know really where we would cook it, except maybe

[1:08:52] Voice 4: on the rock pile that was up beside us. And my understanding is that the local trust committee

[1:09:00] Voice 4: the most trustees want to avoid loss, they're difficult.

[1:09:10] Voice 4: In this one, we have 8,600 melons per feet that were short,

[1:09:18] Voice 4: which is very minimal.

[1:09:21] Voice 4: It's almost like the roadway.

[1:09:25] Voice 4: So for us, we are all in agreement, I think,

[1:09:28] Voice 4: with the OCP.

[1:09:30] Voice 3: We're just looking at grads to get them

[1:09:40] Voice 4: for option one and option two.

[1:09:41] Voice 4: Definitely an example of option two with the site-specific amendment.

[1:09:45] Voice 3: We looked carefully at option one, and in order to provide the 8,000 square meters of

[1:09:56] Voice 3: It would be a strip

[1:09:57] Voice 4: approximately 11 feet wide on the right-hand side of the property,

[1:10:03] Voice 4: by the way, from the roadway to the

[1:10:07] Voice 3: end, which seems to me very foolish.

[1:10:14] Voice 3: And I think it is, oh, sorry, go ahead.

[1:10:19] Voice 4: If, though we have to get into the AOR, we have to get permission from NLT,

[1:10:25] Voice 4: because we would have a different frontage from one on one, we would now have frontage on the other side of the road.

[1:10:33] Voice 3: Leaving it in your hands would probably be much simpler for all concerned.

[1:10:39] Voice 2: And for us, what is the need?

[1:10:44] Voice 2: Thank you. Dr. North?

[1:10:49] Voice 2: Yes, I can see

[1:10:52] Voice 5: that it would run straight into the freight train of the ALC doing the subdivision line.

[1:10:59] Voice 5: line, you know, because you're not, you're asking that one for two commissions and not

[1:11:04] Voice 5: one commission really. And so, given the perspective of wanting this to be a, you know,

[1:11:12] Voice 5: a change that leads to a successful outcome, I am swayed that obviously the OCP, I guess

[1:11:21] Voice 5: what I would add to the question, we've got two choices with the OCP. One, we could make

[1:11:24] Voice 5: a more general pronouncement that permits a lot averaging 2.73 actors is that right uh

[1:11:32] Voice 5: well your your current provision is not a lot average it's a minimum lot

[1:11:37] Voice 5: area for

[1:11:37] Voice 5: subdivisions so if there was a lot average uh it could work for them you could

[1:11:42] Voice 5: create that statement but i don't think the ocp is intending to allow a bunch of small lots uh

[1:11:48] Voice 5: uh subsidized by a very big law and that's kind of the potential versus in a case like this where

[1:11:54] Voice 5: we're in just reaching with a little bit of area to make in this obvious case

[1:12:04] Voice 5: no thank you so so sorry but so then why i'm suggesting that instead of a minimum average

[1:12:11] Voice 5: you would create in spite of d1 g5 the minimum lot area for 100 paint road is zero point

[1:12:17] Voice 5: or for 101 cane road whatever the property of the description is is 0.73 could you put that

[1:12:24] Voice 5: terms and phrase in there due to legacy in 1947 zoning or something like that

[1:12:30] Voice 2: it

[1:12:30] Voice 5: stands on its own

[1:12:35] Voice 5: but but so basically we have a we have a generic recommendation uh yeah for

[1:12:42] Voice 5: promotion

[1:12:43] Voice 5: motion. Yeah, so

[1:12:44] Voice 5: we stick to the draft bylaws, so it would be like a draft LUB and OCP bylaws, and you could

[1:12:51] Voice 1: take it and move forward.

[1:12:53] Voice 5: What I would say is you could tweak that motion a little bit to say OCP and LUB bylaws, and you could also pass another motion directing the applicant to submit the additional fee of $1,100 per OCP.

[1:13:11] Voice 5: So we don't need to be specific on the OCP. You understand the conversation.

[1:13:17] Voice 5: Yeah. So we don't have to be that specific.

[1:13:21] Voice 5: No, no. Yeah, I think if you just started to proceed with drafting a whole LUB and OCP amendments,

[1:13:27] Voice 5: and then if you pass a resolution directing the applicant to provide that additional fee,

[1:13:32] Voice 5: those two things would then cover. Then I would go, and the amendments are very simple.

[1:13:38] Voice 5: They're just a site specific amendment in the land use file to increase the density by one

[1:13:44] Voice 5: on the subject property and the site specific amendments on Ms. Meyer's property to reduce

[1:13:50] Voice 5: that density by one, just as we did with Mr. Cooks and Bertha Lemme. And then your OCP

[1:13:56] Voice 5: amendment, what I would suggest is the language of that. Just a minimum lot size

[1:14:03] Voice 5: of 0.73 for

[1:14:04] Voice 5: that one was was there a requirement that the change of density necessitated an ocp amendment

[1:14:12] Voice 5: anyway uh no because there's no change in uh there's no change in the designation whereas uh

[1:14:26] Voice 5: with ILEO because of Barry's property was selling forestry, the OCP language didn't allow for that transfer to occur because there's no sign of a transfer with that.

[1:14:41] Voice 5: In this case, there would be no change in the designation, so it's just a tweak to the

[1:14:57] Voice 5: But I'm satisfied that's the only realistic way forward then.

[1:15:04] Voice 3: Yeah, I think it's the

[1:15:08] Voice 6: commonsensical one, which if somebody looks at it in the future,

[1:15:12] Voice 6: it they'll go oh it was obvious if we do anything else you have to write three paragraphs to explain

[1:15:18] Voice 6: the madness of it all so you know whereas this one would look like okay it was a common sense

[1:15:27] Voice 6: so

[1:15:28] Voice 5: we should tune back in and i'll make it so that my test do the difficult work i'll move

[1:15:34] Voice 5: that the stern idol of the trust making their staff to proceed with application g l rs at 20.3.2

[1:15:43] Voice 5: they checked into preparing draft by law

[1:15:48] Voice 5: right that would be an ocp violence

[1:15:52] Voice 5: do you want to say that on this one or then directly i think you could say that in this

[1:15:57] Voice 5: one and then you're at the opportunity to prepare the draft so then it would be to prepare draft

[1:16:02] Voice 5: draft LUB and OCP by-laws.

[1:16:06] Voice 2: You've got that, Pat?

[1:16:10] Voice 1: Okay, direct staff to proceed with,

[1:16:14] Voice 1: and there was the application, excuse me,

[1:16:16] Voice 1: to prepare a draft by-law amending the LUB and the OCP?

[1:16:21] Voice 5: Yes, sure.

[1:16:23] Voice 5: Collective trustee, go on.

[1:16:26] Voice 1: Seconded.

[1:16:26] Voice 5: Any discussion?

[1:16:28] Voice 5: Call back, okay, carried.

[1:16:31] Voice 5: And now from the expenses part.

[1:16:33] Voice 5: That's right.

[1:16:34] Voice 5: Okay, so second motion, maybe kind of

[1:16:38] Voice 5: will iterate that the local trust or maybe directs the applicant to submit an additional $1,100 for an OCP amendment for application as they are said the 2023 point to.

[1:16:56] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:16:57] Voice 5: Did you get that motion.

[1:17:00] Voice 1: direct staff to direct applicant to submit payment of $1,100 for a and then I kind of missed after

[1:17:10] Voice 1: that for a for an

[1:17:13] Voice 5: OCP amendment for

[1:17:15] Voice 1: an OCP amendment okay for application

[1:17:18] Voice 5: SAR okay yeah

[1:17:21] Voice 5: yeah perfectly second yeah i'm second that discussion um no um you're a public sponsor

[1:17:29] Voice 5: i think um

[1:17:31] Voice 5: do you i'm i'm taking that you haven't made that motion

[1:17:37] Voice 5: yeah um so just one clarification for the previous motion i i realized i read it as a gl

[1:17:47] Voice 5: L. And it should be s a. The the application. Okay. First

[1:17:56] Voice 5: motion. Yes. Is it says GL? Yes,

[1:18:03] Voice 1: it shouldn't say GL. It should

[1:18:05] Voice 1: see SA.

[1:18:06] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:18:07] Voice 1: Yeah, I made that adjustment. Thank you.

[1:18:09] Voice 1: Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:18:12] Voice 5: Can we go down to that second motion?

[1:18:14] Voice 5: Yeah.

[1:18:15] Voice 5: We did?

[1:18:15] Voice 5: We have one more.

[1:18:16] Voice 5: In the second we were discussing, we're done.

[1:18:18] Voice 5: So we'll call the question.

[1:18:19] Voice 5: All in favor?

[1:18:21] Voice 5: Carries.

[1:18:21] Voice 5: Yes.

[1:18:22] Voice 5: Yeah.

[1:18:23] Voice 5: No, we just had a brief typo in the staff report.

[1:18:26] Voice 5: Fortunately, somebody caught it.

[1:18:30] Voice 5: Perfect.

[1:18:31] Voice 5: All right.

[1:18:31] Voice 5: So you kids are happy?

[1:18:34] Voice 4: This is the best that we could ask for.

[1:18:37] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:18:37] Voice 5: What more can we ask for?

[1:18:43] Voice 4: Well,

[1:18:47] Voice 6: I think, you know, Brad and you guys worked hard, as with John, to put something

[1:18:53] Voice 6: together that covered all the bases and explained it to

[1:18:57] Voice 5: us, and we love them, so, yeah, terrific.

[1:19:01] Voice 5: Thank you for that, Carlo.

[1:19:03] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:19:03] Voice 5: There's only one way to improve the world, and that's to legislate common sense.

[1:19:10] Voice 3: I

[1:19:11] Voice 5: believe that's the next motion report.

[1:19:12] Voice 5: I

[1:19:13] Voice 3: suppose

[1:19:14] Voice 5: no restrictors.

[1:19:15] Voice 3: That's the next report, actually.

[1:19:17] Voice 3: Okay,

[1:19:17] Voice 5: thank you very much.

[1:19:20] Voice 3: All right.

[1:19:21] Voice 5: So next up, local trust meeting projects.

[1:19:25] Voice 5: What I would update is that in discussion with Robert and seeing as you don't have a project,

[1:19:32] Voice 5: that we have made the whole project to serve as your final project, just so that my time

[1:19:40] Voice 5: can be accounted to some.

[1:19:42] Voice 2: Thank you.

[1:19:44] Voice 2: You

[1:19:44] Voice 5: have a question?

[1:19:46] Voice 5: I have a question.

[1:19:47] Voice 5: And it's proceeding.

[1:19:49] Voice 6: It's no matter.

[1:19:50] Voice 6: I'm pressed to call since.

[1:19:52] Voice 5: There you go.

[1:19:53] Voice 5: And with that, I'll put this in practice.

[1:19:55] Voice 5: Referral, we're ongoing.

[1:19:57] Voice 5: The referral period for Thursday is close to 7%.

[1:19:59] Voice 5: So after that, we'll figure it out next time.

[1:20:02] Voice 5: Thank

[1:20:02] Voice 2: you very much.

[1:20:03] Voice 5: to share the public here okay um now we have reports um

[1:20:08] Voice 3: we have a report

[1:20:15] Voice 5: is there anything specific you need to cover but i don't think so any questions at all

[1:20:25] Voice 3: no that

[1:20:26] Voice 5: seems pretty straightforward um applications report that's page 41-43

[1:20:32] Voice 5: I think that's fairly straightforward um trustee a little uh local expense report seems to

[1:20:41] Voice 5: be economic policies we know local just being left page we're aware of um may not have a

[1:20:51] Voice 5: conservative report there is not um new business we have none we're just sitting through here

[1:20:59] Voice 5: You're smiling. So we move to upcoming meetings. The next regular scheduled meeting

[1:21:05] Voice 5: is October 19th, a long, long way away. And we have to tell all of anybody

[1:21:14] Voice 5: who wishes to offer congratulations. Otherwise, we'll move for adjournment. Mr. Gaines again.

[1:21:21] Voice 5: It's kudos all around, I'm sure, but I do have a comment and a request of the trust committee, and that is, in the recent notification of my company's resuming,

[1:21:38] Voice 5: I noticed on the map that was provided by the Arborist Trust that there is a mistake in the boundary of the rural general zone.

[1:21:50] Voice 5: is not concurrent with the property lines. It appears to have been drawn on an old quarter

[1:21:56] Voice 5: section line for whatever reason. I have no idea. It's just a mistake in drafting. I would

[1:22:02] Voice 5: like to see that corrected because downstream on my next sub-officium application, should

[1:22:08] Voice 5: I go wrong or not, this problem could be affected and put me in a whole mess again. It's about

[1:22:17] Voice 5: About three acres, I would say, by my eyeball estimation, I'm looking at the map, which is outside the rural general zone.

[1:22:25] Voice 5: It appears to be that piece of acreage.

[1:22:27] Voice 5: I can show you where, trapped without a zone, a man without a zone.

[1:22:34] Voice 5: Well, you can communicate with the planter.

[1:22:35] Voice 5: The best thing for you to do would be to send an email to summarize that, and even a clip or a very specific pointing to the parcel, and I can look at it.

[1:22:44] Voice 5: I can I can show you that yeah well we're there now so if there's no other business

[1:22:52] Voice 5: yeah we

[1:22:53] Voice 5: will adjourn I'd

[1:22:55] Voice 4: like to say thank you very much

[1:22:56] Voice 4: thank you

[1:23:06] Voice 5: okay I'm in favor of that

[1:23:09] Voice 5: okay thank you