South Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, October 19, 2023

[0:00:04] Voice 4: All righty. Good morning,

[0:00:07] Voice 4: everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this regular meeting of the Soterno Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:14] Voice 4: I want to begin the meeting by acknowledging my report, which is being gathered today in locations across the territory of the Coast Salish people.

[0:00:22] Voice 4: I'm David Maud, elected on the main island and chair of the Soterno Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:26] Voice 4: I'm joined today by Central Highland Trustees Marie Boland and Lee Billington.

[0:00:31] Voice 4: Together we make up the Local Trust Committee. This meeting is being live streamed and recorded for those who are unable to attend in person today.

[0:00:38] Voice 4: The recording will be posted to the Highland Trust website for future viewing.

[0:00:42] Voice 4: We have some staff members joining us today. Brad Smith is the Island Planner.

[0:00:48] Voice 4: um who are um carly is our recording today um we i don't think we have any do anybody else joining

[0:00:59] Voice 4: for city

[0:01:00] Voice 5: uh planner belcher planner belcher

[0:01:03] Voice 5: will be joining to speak to that

[0:01:05] Voice 5: excellent um

[0:01:09] Voice 4: so i just wanted to say that this meeting is the official forum where you'll trust

[0:01:14] Voice 4: committee to make decisions about managers planning matters and discuss local relevant

[0:01:18] Voice 4: business i want to add this to place employment despite the fact that staff are in their own

[0:01:24] Voice 4: homes and our staff would write to a safe and respectful workplace so we'll move forward with

[0:01:29] Voice 4: approval of the agenda so we have some additions uh

[0:01:32] Voice 2: yes please um i guess this would be a new

[0:01:36] Voice 2: been so silent um and it would be um what would we call it it's in regard our priorities and

[0:01:46] Voice 2: we could simply call it a bylaw uh enforcement

[0:01:51] Voice 6: uh enforcement update so founders 16.5

[0:02:01] Voice 4: The

[0:02:03] Voice 7: new business agenda is to bring a discussion on the secondary suites water aquifer vulnerability

[0:02:17] Voice 7: work and how that could be refurbished.

[0:02:22] Voice 7: Okay, perfect.

[0:02:25] Voice 6: Anything else?

[0:02:26] Voice 6: Well,

[0:02:27] Voice 7: there was one other thing which was in the same vein, in the same distance, it's

[0:02:32] Voice 7: the hospital update to the MFR conditions when we are in the room.

[0:02:39] Voice 6: This

[0:02:39] Voice 7: is all reported, and with the housing, increasing housing flexibility to those two

[0:02:47] Voice 7: mechanisms.

[0:02:49] Voice 7: They would come under the same category, I'm sorry, I didn't put it in the record.

[0:02:53] Voice 7: Okay, no problem.

[0:02:56] Voice 6: All

[0:02:56] Voice 4: right. So we can approve the agenda as amended by consent.

[0:03:01] Voice 6: Yep.

[0:03:02] Voice 4: All right.

[0:03:03] Voice 4: We have a move to bring to the trustee report.

[0:03:08] Voice 7: So should I get some way of volunteer?

[0:03:11] Voice 7: The only thing, obviously, looking at this role.

[0:03:13] Voice 7: So since the last meeting, we did have a meeting with a motion representative

[0:03:21] Voice 7: and Paul Brent from the CRD

[0:03:23] Voice 7: and Lee and several

[0:03:27] Voice 7: local residents on the subject of the condition

[0:03:32] Voice 7: of the roads in Saterna, in particular the road, Harris Road

[0:03:36] Voice 7: which I think was voted by public

[0:03:40] Voice 7: acclaim in some states to be the worst road in British Columbia

[0:03:44] Voice 7: that has held that title. So it was

[0:03:48] Voice 7: a very good meeting of course they don't go oh yes we have three billion dollars we're going to

[0:03:52] Voice 7: apply immediately but they agreed on page we that they created to make some improvements at least

[0:04:01] Voice 7: and other things going forward so and we hope to actually create an advisory

[0:04:07] Voice 7: advisory panel for with a focus on um traffic for Saturn Island that would sit underneath the

[0:04:20] Voice 7: Saturn LTC and who would act as a kind of a point of contact for Moti to really formalize

[0:04:30] Voice 7: a relationship and um they there is actually a protocol agreement that was in existence which

[0:04:37] Voice 7: we can use and it references the fact that the islands trust as a whole should have task force

[0:04:44] Voice 7: and that may come to uh to their in the future but in the meantime we will go forward with a

[0:04:51] Voice 7: subterranean mini version of saying it's very powerful i think and i think multi-appreciated

[0:04:58] Voice 7: and having a place to go where they can talk about their plans and we can um through that

[0:05:06] Voice 7: that committee act as an information source to people on the island.

[0:05:10] Voice 7: It doesn't fix everything, but at least it sort of builds a relationship

[0:05:15] Voice 7: and maybe we'll get more traction going forward.

[0:05:19] Voice 7: So yesterday we had Financial Planning Committee.

[0:05:23] Voice 7: It was the first meeting and the kick-off of the budget cycle for this year.

[0:05:29] Voice 7: The proposed increase on tax in the budget at the moment is double-digit,

[0:05:36] Voice 7: but it's the first iteration so there were mostly a kind of a run through all business requests

[0:05:44] Voice 7: and business cases. A couple of things of note are that because of provincial regulations we

[0:05:53] Voice 7: are mandated to do a housing needs assessment every five years and the trust for many of the

[0:06:02] Voice 7: islands did it in 2018 so the five-year cycle is up and it's going to cost a hundred thousand dollars

[0:06:10] Voice 7: and many people believe that there's value in doing it that we really need to know

[0:06:16] Voice 7: in detail because it supports people who are applying for funding for housing initiatives

[0:06:23] Voice 7: you know the first thing they're asked is providing detailed information of why you need this

[0:06:29] Voice 7: and um i think there is going to be an attempt to go to the province to say

[0:06:35] Voice 7: first iteration um the honest trust went early the following year the province offered funding

[0:06:42] Voice 7: for the first housing assessment so many places got funding but the honest trust missed out so

[0:06:50] Voice 7: they're they're hopeful that they can go to the province and say we missed out the first cycle

[0:06:56] Voice 7: so please help us with this funding because it's a big chunk of change and I don't think we have

[0:07:03] Voice 7: no choice we have to do it and people are keen to do it properly rather than cut it and do it

[0:07:11] Voice 7: poorly and so there was that I'm trying to think was there anything else that's enormous you know

[0:07:19] Voice 7: i think otherwise it was just kind of standard stuff that was a bit of notion okay thanks i'll

[0:07:28] Voice 7: stop thank you sure

[0:07:30] Voice 2: thank you chair um i would like to express thanks to my colleague for doing

[0:07:37] Voice 2: such an incredible amount of committee work at the trust cycle it's not an easy one the chair

[0:07:43] Voice 2: of modesty the same of course you have no choice you have to attend all these meetings

[0:07:48] Voice 2: um and it's actually very useful i think it's great for the island to kind of get the um

[0:07:54] Voice 2: insight into the trust at large through all the extra committee work that uh

[0:07:59] Voice 2: presby boland does so thanks for that um i am on one committee which is the governance committee

[0:08:06] Voice 2: committee, which is meeting in early November, we had to move the meeting. So I'm not speaking

[0:08:13] Voice 2: anything about that other than to point out the committee brought a piece of work forwards to the

[0:08:18] Voice 2: trust council at the last trust council meeting, which was about several weeks ago on North Tender.

[0:08:26] Voice 2: And that was basically to seek an endorsement of the interpretation that basically the trust,

[0:08:34] Voice 2: if you will, purpose. And the idea being, if we want to kind of reintegrate governance,

[0:08:41] Voice 2: we need to know, and I'll agree as the people, you know, leading the charge, what is the mandate?

[0:08:47] Voice 2: Now, there is a mandate given by the government that's called, you know, the object of the trust,

[0:08:53] Voice 2: the preserve and protect mandate. But specifically, how does that apply given all the various

[0:09:00] Voice 2: various decisions and things that come at the trust from, you know, forestry through to affordable housing.

[0:09:08] Voice 2: And this Section 3 of the Amherst Trust Act basically gives the orders to the trustees and the council of all the trustees of the local trust committees and the broader group.

[0:09:27] Voice 2: and the governance committee did a bunch of work on various legal opinions that have been presented

[0:09:32] Voice 2: or asked for over both by personal and private individuals and also by the trust over the past

[0:09:38] Voice 2: 30 years i think i've been looked at and kind of where i have the benefit that the governance

[0:09:43] Voice 2: committee has a retired judge as our chair and um i won't say be so bold as to say he's retired

[0:09:51] Voice 2: I think he might still be working but a very experienced lawyer and so they actually did

[0:09:56] Voice 2: the analysis of these cases and then we had a discussion and came up with an

[0:10:01] Voice 2: basically some interpretation actually came up with what we what these cases are telling

[0:10:11] Voice 2: as a way of you know basically interpreting in real time what the magnitude of the trust is

[0:10:18] Voice 2: And what I would say is what came out of it, because the trust often gets stuck in a dichotomy

[0:10:24] Voice 2: of preservation of the environment versus supporting people in communities.

[0:10:31] Voice 2: And what this interpretation said is there needs to be a consideration of both.

[0:10:35] Voice 2: That's actually in the legislature.

[0:10:38] Voice 2: That's not up for debate.

[0:10:40] Voice 2: That is in the legislature.

[0:10:41] Voice 2: like and so basically our job is is to always look to balance the needs of the ecology and the needs

[0:10:49] Voice 2: of the human population in our decisions let me say if the balance determines that preservation

[0:10:59] Voice 2: is met is uh is you know the most pragmatic way to go and that's the way the decision could go

[0:11:05] Voice 2: it doesn't mean to say every decision has to be halfway it just means every decision has to look

[0:11:10] Voice 2: at the needs of the community the interests of the province at large um in this area and the ecology

[0:11:17] Voice 2: and the needs of of the environment so i don't know if that's going to change anything per se

[0:11:24] Voice 2: but it says but there was broad i mean i think there was broad agreement right at the trust

[0:11:29] Voice 2: council so that's kind of like it's kind of almost one of those things you report on it and and

[0:11:35] Voice 2: it seems to have significance to us we think it will have significance to our communities

[0:11:41] Voice 2: but just talking about it now it seems like a more minor uh interpretation exercise

[0:11:50] Voice 2: um than we feel it is we actually think it is pretty significant so more more to follow on

[0:11:56] Voice 2: that but just that's kind of a you know basically saying it's not good enough to pitch one

[0:12:02] Voice 2: stakeholder against another stakeholder be that nature or person there has to be a look at all

[0:12:08] Voice 2: interests and then attempt to balance those interests that's what the legislation says

[0:12:13] Voice 2: and that that's as simple as that statement is that's kind of not been agreed to or acknowledged

[0:12:18] Voice 2: um previously so that's

[0:12:22] Voice 6: probably enough from me i would think it's

[0:12:25] Voice 7: sort of like um

[0:12:26] Voice 7: a break into common sense when you know something that seems common sense has to be

[0:12:35] Voice 7: you know buttressed in some way yeah yeah

[0:12:39] Voice 2: yeah it does give guidance to how to make these more

[0:12:42] Voice 2: difficult decisions you know where i think it will be helpful and there's some um i mean the

[0:12:49] Voice 2: statement that will come out and be published is relatively brief but actually the longer analysis

[0:12:56] Voice 2: I don't know if that's going to come out, I would recommend it does, because there's

[0:13:00] Voice 2: no particular

[0:13:01] Voice 2: solicitor on privilege issue with it.

[0:13:04] Voice 2: But it's a very well worded, very insightful, thorough analysis.

[0:13:10] Voice 2: I think any citizen of the trust area would be very pleased to read it and feel it's of

[0:13:15] Voice 2: value to them in their understanding of what we're all going to do.

[0:13:21] Voice 2: I

[0:13:22] Voice 4: guess, because I can segue into my chair report, because it was more of a clarification

[0:13:29] Voice 4: than an interpretation, because the trust mandate, the key wording that people always

[0:13:38] Voice 4: focus on is preserve and protect, and it says preserve and protect unique amenities and

[0:13:43] Voice 4: the environment and oftentimes people have tried to say the unique amenities are the environment

[0:13:54] Voice 4: but because it's a separate wording within the mandate it is realistic to say if unique

[0:14:01] Voice 4: amenities are the people or the communities or the culture there's there's more depth to that

[0:14:07] Voice 4: And I think it's the originals of the press,

[0:14:12] Voice 4: I think they did a disservice by not defining amenities

[0:14:16] Voice 4: because those words from day one

[0:14:19] Voice 4: have always been subject to interpretation.

[0:14:23] Voice 4: And the recently revealed 1975 trust policy statement

[0:14:28] Voice 4: where it talked about unique amenities

[0:14:30] Voice 4: being mining, logging, fishing.

[0:14:33] Voice 4: and and certainly you know that's sort of it's it's a broad part of where we are today but it's

[0:14:42] Voice 4: uh that is our entities so it's interesting but no trust council um definitely was an interesting

[0:14:51] Voice 4: affair in north canada um the food was good um the uh we went through some exercises

[0:15:01] Voice 4: exercises are somewhat unique to the trust. We did a visioning exercise. It was interesting

[0:15:12] Voice 4: in that when we started it, the expectation, I believe, at the beginning of the exercise

[0:15:18] Voice 4: is that we're just going to do this, and then the next meeting we'll do some more, and the

[0:15:21] Voice 4: next meeting do some more. I don't think there's a lot of expectations of a conclusion, but

[0:15:26] Voice 4: we started at 9 in the morning, and by noon, we actually had a motion on the table that

[0:15:31] Voice 4: went through that gave the islands trust vision statement um it was a lot of happy people a lot of

[0:15:38] Voice 4: very much exceeding expectation situation and then i guess in the way that the islands are

[0:15:43] Voice 4: 22 hours later we resented that so we had a mission statement for the first time in 50 years

[0:15:49] Voice 4: with the islands trust it lasted 22 hours and we're we're back at it again so i don't know

[0:15:54] Voice 4: when it's coming back to the trust council but it it disrupted things a bit um part of that um

[0:16:03] Voice 4: the previous week it was at ubc ms the union of british municipalities in vancouver and that was

[0:16:11] Voice 4: four days of loss of energy um there's so much happening so that set of meetings is it's hard

[0:16:18] Voice 4: to take it all in but what we did do is we had a specific meeting um with our minister and the

[0:16:25] Voice 4: the minister of transportation highways um and both of those meetings sort of we managed to

[0:16:32] Voice 4: prepare our situation but in particular with the highways we got a commitment of this you were

[0:16:39] Voice 4: speaking trustee bald um of basically they're going to set up this what they call a task force

[0:16:46] Voice 4: um where um minister highways will formally meet with with violence trust over the highway's issues

[0:16:53] Voice 4: so that'll be sort of outlining what projects they have we can give sort of our interpretations

[0:16:59] Voice 4: what we'd like to see talking about renewing road standards um one of the difficulties with

[0:17:04] Voice 4: the trust is that we have a protocol with highlands that took away the 66 foot right

[0:17:09] Voice 4: away so everybody knows them and took it down to very very narrow we said we didn't want shoulders

[0:17:15] Voice 4: we didn't want this we didn't want that um at the time that was what the community wishes were if

[0:17:21] Voice 4: they didn't want to see these broad swaths of the community but now in today's lens people want

[0:17:27] Voice 4: walking paths they want bike lanes and such and i always say well as for our program we kept the

[0:17:34] Voice 4: violence so that's all going to be revisited and we're going to hopefully figure out something new

[0:17:41] Voice 4: for the future that works for everybody um i

[0:17:44] Voice 7: would give me if we only need a transverse wide road

[0:17:47] Voice 7: would it should be cheaper to keep the quality of that term or why it's strict in better order but

[0:17:54] Voice 7: we could they're

[0:17:56] Voice 4: not there yet

[0:17:59] Voice 4: but though it is ubsc is an interesting gathering of the climate um certainly politically speaking

[0:18:08] Voice 4: you you want to start the thought of somebody on something i guess somebody's here is the format

[0:18:14] Voice 4: But, you know, it's like with the ministers, I don't know how to cope because all it is is like three days for them of 10 minute meetings with municipal councils.

[0:18:24] Voice 4: And I'm sure by the end of day three, they're already taking anything in. It's just, it's all a blur.

[0:18:32] Voice 4: But, you know, it's nice to see the senior bureaucrats and the ministers actually eye to eye, face to face, have conversations.

[0:18:41] Voice 4: conversations and hopefully it's taken in and received well and yeah I think I'll leave it at

[0:18:46] Voice 4: that because I can battle on forever and um next on the agenda is our electoral area director for

[0:18:54] Voice 4: it I see it's missing so I don't know if that's a this is very I'm sure that for a man who wears

[0:19:04] Voice 4: many many hats I think we can understand that maybe he can miss a meeting here too so I'm

[0:19:09] Voice 7: sure paul isn't someplace to leave peter i'm sure he's i'm

[0:19:13] Voice 4: sure he's not

[0:19:16] Voice 4: okay and so we'll start on to count all the questions um i think we all know the situation

[0:19:22] Voice 4: we're normally two minutes per person but we don't um so if anybody else would like to speak

[0:19:28] Voice 4: in town hall um it's basically hand in the air we acknowledge you to just get your name from

[0:19:33] Voice 4: the recording secretary and we can

[0:19:36] Voice 6: deal with the various issues that you might have

[0:19:41] Voice 6: And we have no hands in the air. This is most disappointing.

[0:19:46] Voice 4: Okay, so then we'll move on to the next thing, which we have a very interesting community information link.

[0:19:53] Voice 4: This is for SA ALR 2023.1, Mr. Hall, which is an ALR land exclusion and inclusion application.

[0:20:04] Voice 4: So, are you set?

[0:20:05] Voice 4: Do you want to have some of it to open the public hearings?

[0:20:10] Voice 4: And why don't I have the public hearing script in front of me?

[0:20:13] Voice 4: Well, we have both.

[0:20:14] Voice 4: We've got the community information meeting.

[0:20:17] Voice 4: Sorry.

[0:20:18] Voice 5: Yeah, yeah.

[0:20:18] Voice 4: So community information meeting.

[0:20:19] Voice 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[0:20:21] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:20:22] Voice 5: Just to present.

[0:20:23] Voice 5: Sorry.

[0:20:23] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:20:25] Voice 5: So the application is for the local trust committee to consider.

[0:20:32] Voice 5: The staff report is there.

[0:20:33] Voice 5: I guess I'm going to just get the application and see what things are up.

[0:20:35] Voice 6: And I will get to the audience.

[0:20:46] Voice 7: So, can we just be clear that these steps that are described, step four, the source

[0:20:53] Voice 7: of those steps, you know, is it what process are we following?

[0:20:57] Voice 7: Well,

[0:20:57] Voice 5: the patent piece in this report is from the actual ALC exclusion code.

[0:21:03] Voice 7: And is that prepared by the province?

[0:21:06] Voice 7: This

[0:21:07] Voice 5: is an exciting document published by the Agricultural Land Commission with respect to the local governments or respondent bodies submitting an application.

[0:21:19] Voice 5: Okay,

[0:21:20] Voice 7: and this is a new

[0:21:21] Voice 5: process?

[0:21:22] Voice 7: uh

[0:21:22] Voice 5: since 2020 the legislation changed where uh previous to that the applicant uh property owner

[0:21:30] Voice 5: could apply directly to the alc for a decision around a land exclusion which is typically a land

[0:21:37] Voice 5: swap with another parcel included just as it is here in 2020 to change the legislation to only

[0:21:45] Voice 5: allow the applicant to request the inclusion directly the exclusion report that needs to

[0:21:51] Voice 5: uh be submitted by a local government or a risk our values as uh okay as determined

[0:21:58] Voice 5: and so those uh yeah i

[0:22:03] Voice 7: don't i don't know if it's possible but it would be helpful to make

[0:22:06] Voice 7: it clear where those process steps the source of those are i think they're probably you probably

[0:22:11] Voice 7: be good because otherwise it could be thought that this is an island's trust process it's pretty

[0:22:23] Voice 6: clear that's a good one yeah thank

[0:22:28] Voice 7: you any

[0:22:32] Voice 6: other questions

[0:22:32] Voice 7: oh i see that here actually at the top

[0:22:34] Voice 7: the page steps one to four yeah so

[0:22:39] Voice 6: any other questions all right thank you thank you very

[0:22:42] Voice 5: much

[0:22:42] Voice 6: so

[0:22:44] Voice 4: now we get into

[0:22:45] Voice 4: the final part yes

[0:22:46] Voice 4: now we get to try to work through all the person issues

[0:22:49] Voice 4: so we move on now to public hearing um which is a more formal process

[0:22:57] Voice 4: which gives me many patients to leave um so we will start off with the public hearing

[0:23:03] Voice 4: of the proposed application essay lr 2023.1 is now open i wish to welcome everybody in

[0:23:09] Voice 4: attendance and acknowledge that we are meeting in the territory of the coast sandwich tourist

[0:23:13] Voice 4: nations my name is david maude i'm the chair of saturn island local trust committee i'd like to

[0:23:19] Voice 4: introduce your local trust committee members trustees mel millington mary wallen i would

[0:23:25] Voice 4: like to introduce island trust planning staff rand smith island planner and meditator and

[0:23:31] Voice 4: or a reporter probably bring my name um okay so the public hearing is being uh convened from

[0:23:38] Voice 4: soon to 6465 and look down the back in order to consider the following proposed application

[0:23:44] Voice 4: proposed application essay alr 2023.1 all all persons who believe they have

[0:23:51] Voice 4: interest in the properties affected by the proposed application will be given a reasonable

[0:23:56] Voice 4: opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the

[0:24:01] Voice 4: proposed application. Those wishing to speak should commence their presentation by clearly stating

[0:24:07] Voice 4: their name and address. Members of the Local Trust Committee may, if they wish, ask questions of you

[0:24:11] Voice 4: following your presentation. However, the main function of the Local Trust Committee members is

[0:24:15] Voice 4: to listen to the needs of the public. It is not the function of the Committee members to debate

[0:24:19] Voice 4: the merits of the proposed application with the individual citizens. Everyone will be given a

[0:24:24] reasonable opportunity to be heard and none should feel discouraged from

[0:24:27] Voice 4: presenting his or her views

[0:24:30] Voice 4: and considering the proposed application local trust committee has received documents which may

[0:24:37] Voice 4: influence his decision those documents are available for review during the hearings on

[0:24:43] Voice 4: the paper on the side there on our website and as

[0:24:46] Voice 6: indicated public hearing notice any person who

[0:24:52] Voice 6: wishes to present uh written submissions the local trust

[0:24:55] Voice 4: committee may do so and all written

[0:24:56] Voice 4: submissions must be received at local trust committee before the closest hearing your only

[0:25:01] Voice 4: opportunity to comment on the proposed application is during this hearing as members of the local

[0:25:05] trust committee may not receive further

[0:25:07] Voice 4: submissions at the closest hearing after the public hearing is

[0:25:11] Voice 4: concluded the local trust committee may hopefully notice that whatever decision is proper with

[0:25:15] Voice 4: respect to the application that that is public hearing so now we will turn it over to planner

[0:25:22] Voice 4: plan. Now, we'll summarize the public hearing notice, key points to the application, and referral agency responses.

[0:25:29] Voice 6: Thank you, Chair. The pronunciation of the racism change first mission.

[0:25:43] Voice 6: All right, so bear with me.

[0:25:49] Voice 5: Notification was advertised in two consecutive editions of the Dirkwood on October 4th and October 11th, 2023.

[0:25:56] Voice 5: All notification requirements under the Local Government Act have been completed.

[0:26:00] Voice 5: There's a copy of the complete public hearing binder available during this public hearing.

[0:26:04] Voice 5: It's in the back of the room there.

[0:26:07] Voice 5: And it is located, and it is also located on the Islands Trust website under the current application page for Saturn Island.

[0:26:14] Voice 5: The purpose of proposed application SAALR 2023.1, if considered by the Saturn Island Local Trust Committee,

[0:26:21] Voice 5: is to consider a request by the property owner to exclude 12 hectares of property on Narves Bay Road

[0:26:27] Voice 5: from the Agricultural Land Reserve with the corresponding ALR inclusion of 12

[0:26:31] Voice 5: hectares of property. The proposed application was referred to

[0:26:35] Voice 5: Parks Canada, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Agricultural

[0:26:39] Voice 5: Land Commission, the CRD Planning and Protective Services and

[0:26:43] Voice 5: Building Inspection Departments, Island Health, the Maine North and South Pender

[0:26:47] Voice 5: Island Local Trust Committees for comment. It was also referred to

[0:26:51] Voice 5: Cowichan Tribes, Halal First Nation, Subicet

[0:26:54] Voice 5: First Nation, which was formerly the Lake Cowichan, Laiakson First Nation, Malhauk First

[0:27:00] Voice 5: Nation, Pekwekshet First Nation, Karelika Tribe, Semiamik First Nation, Semiamik First

[0:27:05] Voice 5: Nation, Stemimus First Nation, Sarthaput First Nation, Seauk First Nation, Sawatpuk First

[0:27:10] Voice 5: Nation, Sekhap First Nation, and the Wausauk Leadership Council.

[0:27:14] Voice 5: There were no public submissions received.

[0:27:17] Voice 5: There were a number of referral responses for First Nations, which you've received in

[0:27:22] Voice 5: in our binder, the public hearing binder.

[0:27:26] Voice 5: We also received three today from our legislative clerk.

[0:27:30] Voice 5: One response from each, a question by Parks Canada

[0:27:33] Voice 5: just inquiring about what will happen

[0:27:35] Voice 5: with the exclusion man portion.

[0:27:38] Voice 5: One referral from the SWAT for recognition

[0:27:41] Voice 5: with no concerns.

[0:27:42] Voice 5: And also a response from RPM Kojima

[0:27:46] Voice 5: to the layoffs in First Nation,

[0:27:47] Voice 5: basically summarizing that staff are recommending

[0:27:52] Voice 6: any site visits to be provided, and that's

[0:28:00] Voice 5: spoken to in the staff report that you will consider following a public hearing.

[0:28:04] Voice 5: And with that, I will pass it back to you, Chair.

[0:28:07] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:28:08] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:28:09] Voice 4: Submissions can be made at any time during, and I'm supposed to hear if any of the submissions

[0:28:16] Voice 4: submissions are received during the meeting we will pause prior closer to ensure the LTC is a

[0:28:20] Voice 4: time driven submissions I invite members of public to wish to speak to line up please state your name

[0:28:29] Voice 4: prior to making comments after your presentation to the LTC the trustees may ask you questions but

[0:28:35] Voice 4: they are primarily here to listen and will not debate issues with it I will call three times

[0:28:40] Voice 4: for speakers before closing the hearing at which point no further written or oral submissions can

[0:28:45] Voice 4: be made um so that's the beginning is that is if anybody wants to speak i won't ask them i might

[0:28:55] Voice 4: not answer for do just fine thank you very much um so does

[0:29:00] Voice 6: anybody have anything so mr hall i may have

[0:29:06] Voice 6: okay um i

[0:29:08] Voice 5: guess i won't be able to speak at the time i'm talking about section 13 here i guess

[0:29:12] Voice 5: to the recommendation, is that right?

[0:29:16] Voice 5: Do I have to do it now?

[0:29:17] Voice 5: No, that's correct.

[0:29:19] Voice 5: Do it now?

[0:29:20] Voice 5: Yeah, that's good.

[0:29:22] Voice 5: Yeah, basically, I was very surprised at the recommendation.

[0:29:25] Voice 5: I did have a copy of the responses to the First Nations.

[0:29:31] Voice 5: I saw a brand on October 5th, two weeks ago today,

[0:29:35] Voice 5: and we discussed the thing.

[0:29:38] Voice 5: We did a segment of the property.

[0:29:40] Voice 5: We had a fairly long discussion about something.

[0:29:43] Voice 5: We included the discussion on First Nations.

[0:29:46] Voice 5: I did not get any indication, even though I had seen

[0:29:49] Voice 5: the LASIKs and LAPs in response,

[0:29:55] Voice 5: there was no indication that they were actually going to propose.

[0:30:00] Voice 5: that there would be a site visit by LAX, and further, I see a recommendation that they're looking for me to pay for it.

[0:30:10] Voice 6: My

[0:30:10] Voice 5: understanding is that the Salt Lake Nation is the primary Greek nation in this local fraternity.

[0:30:17] Voice 5: And so what the trust has done is invited a Greek nation from up north to come visit this fraternity.

[0:30:24] Voice 5: they were clear in the response, they're looking for the future in terms of residential expansion impacting their future places where they can harvest and so on.

[0:30:38] Voice 6: So, it just seems to me that this fallow are going to be

[0:30:44] Voice 5: offended by the trust in waiting.

[0:30:47] Voice 5: who doesn't have first-line here.

[0:30:50] Voice 5: They have a plan, I think, about first-line,

[0:30:53] Voice 6: to come here and be assigned to it,

[0:30:55] Voice 6: and just be expelled out of it.

[0:30:59] Voice 5: Basically, in looking at the recommendations

[0:31:01] Voice 5: and the alternatives, I'm very much in favor

[0:31:04] Voice 5: of alternative one, that is .

[0:31:08] Voice 6: Okay, thank you.

[0:31:09] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:31:11] Voice 6: Is there anything else which you can speak

[0:31:14] Voice 6: from the world, the West, to this?

[0:31:17] Voice 6: i didn't see the email um

[0:31:22] Voice 2: from um mr kojima that was in reply to the

[0:31:29] Voice 2: yeah there's the one i see the one from the boston nation

[0:31:37] Voice 2: i may be a little gm but i just think it's relevant

[0:31:40] Voice 2: them

[0:31:40] Voice 5: afforded them she just really doesn't want that and then it's just one last piece of

[0:32:00] Voice 5: correspondence that mr kojima made to the

[0:32:02] Voice 6: liaise thank you so we'll just

[0:32:09] Voice 4: proceed through the

[0:32:11] Voice 4: formalities just remind everybody who's coming late please submit any comments you might have

[0:32:16] Voice 4: prior to close public hearings

[0:32:18] Voice 2: um

[0:32:20] Voice 4: so now we will proceed to close the public hearing please note

[0:32:26] Voice 4: after public hearing closes but we'll just be no longer able to be able to receive public submissions

[0:32:32] Voice 4: prior to making a decision asking once if there are any more speakers sir i

[0:32:38] Voice 6: just want to comment

[0:32:40] Voice 6: And I support that concern, I'm sure you're aware.

[0:32:45] Voice 6: I think in the issue of birth nations, we're all struggling to come to grips with it.

[0:32:52] Voice 6: And we may tend, in our enthusiasm for reconciliation,

[0:32:59] Voice 6: uh or get some uh some uh or bleed ourselves into some problem i think

[0:33:06] Voice 4: it's something we need to be

[0:33:06] Voice 4: very conscious about thank you very much um so ask me a second time is there any more speakers

[0:33:16] Voice 4: I'm

[0:33:18] Voice 5: going to remain silent, but by the time you've seated, I'd be willing to support.

[0:33:26] Voice 5: My name is Dan Patrick, and we have a service group down the road.

[0:33:32] Voice 5: The issue of the increasing need to reflect on and work out competing institutions.

[0:33:41] Voice 5: And by competing into them, I include all of the other possible aboriginal interests,

[0:33:47] Voice 5: as well as an increasing variety of private interests coming to these islands of design.

[0:33:53] Voice 5: This is going to present many, many problems for us.

[0:33:56] Voice 5: And I think the caution that has been offered, even needed one,

[0:34:02] Voice 5: is that we will otherwise find ourselves having crazy sort of precedents or attitudes towards

[0:34:09] Voice 5: towards this which aren't sufficiently mindful of the needs of people that we don't recognize

[0:34:14] Voice 5: in the right to get to the decision and move things along and this may offend some of the

[0:34:22] Voice 5: interested parties including

[0:34:23] Voice 4: the Aboriginal folks that time needs to be taken so that we can be wise

[0:34:29] Voice 4: in the direction that you've proposed is the correct one.

[0:34:35] Voice 4: And I

[0:34:35] Voice 4: think a lot of small communities like this one

[0:34:40] Voice 4: are moving ahead in a fundamentally wise way

[0:34:45] Voice 4: in the bettering of our communities here and elsewhere.

[0:34:49] Voice 4: Thank

[0:34:50] Voice 6: you, Mr. Stafford.

[0:34:53] Voice 6: I'll be asking once more if anybody else wishes to speak.

[0:34:57] Voice 6: and asking a second time for any more speakers and asking for a third time for any more speakers

[0:35:09] Voice 4: this is now the final opportunity for you to hand in a written submission to the local trust

[0:35:13] Voice 4: committee once the hearing is closed no initial submission is submitted to be accepted so please

[0:35:20] Voice 4: be advised that we are now in the post public hearing stage of legislative review of proposed

[0:35:26] Voice 4: proposed application SA-ALR-2023.1 was turned on out of the trustee and can now no longer

[0:35:35] Voice 4: receive information pertaining to the proposed application, however you can still submit

[0:35:39] Voice 4: any outstanding questions and comments directly to the plan.

[0:35:43] Voice 4: The LTC may now provide further direction as to whether they are willing to make an

[0:35:50] Voice 4: ALR exclusion application on behalf of the property owner.

[0:35:53] Voice 4: all right so we will now read the meeting and go forward so the next on the agenda

[0:36:02] Voice 4: is um the minutes of july 27th for adoption so were there

[0:36:10] Voice 6: anything on these minutes

[0:36:34] Voice 4: We shall adopt the minutes by consent.

[0:36:39] Voice 4: Local trust committee public hearing record dated July 27th for receipt.

[0:36:45] Voice 4: And Section 26 Resolute Web Meeting dated October 23.

[0:36:56] Voice 2: So, this is the revolution without meetings law, and what

[0:37:01] Voice 6: was the second item, you just

[0:37:08] Voice 6: mentioned two items, and

[0:37:11] Voice 4: the second way, that's what section 22, 26, resolution of meetings

[0:37:19] Voice 4: report but it's dated october 23rd i don't know if it has a date okay

[0:37:25] Voice 6: so tyler smith page 12.

[0:37:44] Voice 6: no no so basically

[0:37:47] Voice 4: the 9.3 says the report just dated october it doesn't have a date for the for

[0:37:53] Voice 4: for the report so

[0:37:55] Voice 7: the data yes yeah

[0:37:57] Voice 4: it's october 10th this is what's on october 10th okay so

[0:38:01] Voice 4: yeah so

[0:38:04] Voice 7: um yes that letter i did send a draft so we need to go about it

[0:38:11] Voice 7: it's possible you

[0:38:14] Voice 6: sent a draft to me

[0:38:28] Voice 6: All

[0:38:30] Voice 4: right, so moving forward, we have Paul Ashness dated October 2023.

[0:38:35] Voice 4: I couldn't help but note that there's two things that date back to the 14th of February 2020 that seem still to be in progress.

[0:38:45] Voice 4: And

[0:38:46] Voice 6: I just was wondering, are these dead issues now, or are we just slowly raising the matters?

[0:38:58] Voice 2: Well, I can speak to that.

[0:39:01] Voice 2: We were keeping them alive because, of course, the situation changed year by year as the sanctuary zones were introduced.

[0:39:10] Voice 2: You recall the trust, you may not be the chairman, but the Department of Fisheries Notions, Transport Canada, quite a high-level group of individuals came and we actually met here for a public consultation, but there's probably a hundred people in attendance.

[0:39:29] Voice 2: it's quite a significant event um and so the idea is i don't know that the latter is appropriate or

[0:39:39] Voice 2: necessary um but what we want to do is you know note that we support both the um sanctuary zones

[0:39:51] Voice 2: and that we are aware of and sort of monitor the uh regulatory regimes the whale watching boats

[0:39:58] Voice 2: and want to mirror what's being done in one kind of state.

[0:40:03] Voice 6: So this may not now be the appropriate spot

[0:40:07] Voice 6: to note that concern or interest.

[0:40:13] Voice 4: So you don't think any letters at this point?

[0:40:18] Voice 2: No, I think we've demonstrated all the support.

[0:40:22] Voice 2: We've demonstrated all the support actually

[0:40:24] Voice 2: at the local trust committee with the initiative

[0:40:26] Voice 2: and to the federal government, they're well aware.

[0:40:29] Voice 2: I'm just wondering if we could, maybe this should be shifted to a standing resolution

[0:40:38] Voice 6: just to keep it on the record.

[0:40:43] Voice 6: Because right now there's two motions

[0:40:47] Voice 4: in the mail.

[0:40:49] Voice 4: So I will turn the platter, Stephanie, do those motions need to be rescinded?

[0:40:54] Voice 5: I think it would be, I mean, let's take them off the list and move on to the next one.

[0:41:01] Voice 4: so we don't need a motion for that so just by consent

[0:41:04] Voice 4: we could say

[0:41:08] Voice 2: yeah basically what i'd say is convert them to a standing

[0:41:11] Voice 2: a two-part standard resolution so maybe the next meeting

[0:41:18] Voice 2: um i just what happens is we just keep it um it's sort of like a non-line use bylaw

[0:41:26] Voice 2: bylaw quote unquote it's not bylaw you know what i mean yeah it's uh a notation of the local trust

[0:41:32] Voice 2: committee outside of the land use bylaws of our interests much like with secondary or vacation

[0:41:37] Voice 2: rental homes or trailers we have it's not enshrined

[0:41:41] Voice 6: it's

[0:41:42] Voice 2: sort of a temporary directive

[0:41:44] Voice 2: everything

[0:41:44] Voice 5: similarly we've seen out of the previous lgst path resolution in support of

[0:41:50] Voice 5: like alternative water right systems and proof of water in the absence of you having

[0:41:57] Voice 5: having water quantity flowing through.

[0:42:02] Voice 7: No, I understand the process, I just really can't figure the content in my head.

[0:42:07] Voice 7: So it's like CETERN and LTC remains on alert and will monitor the situation?

[0:42:15] Voice 5: I think you could say that the LTC is supportive of interim sanctuary zones being maintained for

[0:42:24] Voice 5: and is in support of the

[0:42:26] Voice 5: regulation of virtual availability

[0:42:28] Voice 5: and have that as a standing

[0:42:30] Voice 5: resolution to point to at any time

[0:42:32] Voice 5: when someone says, well, what is your

[0:42:34] Voice 7: view on

[0:42:36] Voice 5: that as your share?

[0:42:39] Voice 5: So

[0:42:40] Voice 2: you could try to

[0:42:42] Voice 2: craft something and bring it back?

[0:42:44] Voice 2: Sure, because there is a standing resolution

[0:42:46] Voice 2: that supports the voluntary

[0:42:49] Voice 2: vessel traffic slowdown

[0:42:50] Voice 2: and we talked about the word English.

[0:42:52] Voice 2: which maybe

[0:42:53] Voice 5: it's an amendment to have several points

[0:42:59] Voice 2: because the one issue is definitely,

[0:43:02] Voice 2: I guess the advice was we do not have the ability to regulate the use, navigational use of the water

[0:43:10] Voice 2: in the local trust area, which, but in absence of that, in absence of ability to note our interest

[0:43:17] Voice 2: We can do it through a standing resolution and, you know, you said what good is that because it doesn't have any legal effect per se, but I think there's value to us noting our support.

[0:43:33] Voice 2: So in terms of the wording, I don't think this is the status of a minor project, but also I don't want to just assume it's no work at all.

[0:43:43] Voice 2: this there's some drafting required is it something you'd be willing to put an update

[0:43:48] Voice 5: on these two action items uh stop to review current wording on one of them right now right

[0:43:58] Voice 6: Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[0:44:02] Voice 6: The corporate support statements that that companies to the rest of the world.

[0:44:15] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:44:17] Voice 6: Great. Thank you. That's excellent.

[0:44:19] Voice 6: yes and now their next meeting we can get rid of those two because that's okay

[0:44:26] Voice 6: is there anything else in the follow-up report

[0:44:36] Voice 6: right yeah all right

[0:44:38] Voice 4: so we'll move on uh to removal of temporary instrument

[0:44:43] Voice 4: for hydrogen fall research station

[0:44:49] Voice 4: And there is Mr. Elcher, our fine planner of the day. Welcome, Mr. Nyland.

[0:44:57] Voice 4: Thank you.

[0:44:58] Voice 4: We look forward to your report.

[0:45:01] Voice 1: Okay, so I'm speaking to application, the temporary use permit renewal for the hydrophone research station at 198 Cliffside Road.

[0:45:14] Voice 1: There are no changes that have occurred related to the permit on the property since the initial

[0:45:22] Voice 1: permit was issued and the renewal would permit the upland operation to continue.

[0:45:29] Voice 1: So the temporary use permit would also limit any future construction activities or infrastructure

[0:45:35] Voice 1: related to the project.

[0:45:36] Voice 1: The 2020 permit required the applicant to develop an operational management plan and decommissioning plan, which was received within the six month deadline and is attached to the staff report.

[0:45:52] Voice 1: And since the initial temporary use permit was issued, bylaw number 1334 was adopted a year ago on October 20th, 2022, and now permits the use of hydrophone research facilities within the open water zone where the marine portion of this property currently operates.

[0:46:16] Voice 1: rates. So yeah, based on all of that, the recommendation is

[0:46:22] Voice 1: that the Saturna Island Local Trust Committee approve the

[0:46:26] Voice 1: issuance of renewal temporary use permit SATUP 2023.1 for a

[0:46:36] Voice 1: three, for a three year period.

[0:46:38] Voice 4: Thank

[0:46:39] Voice 6: you. Christine, any questions?

[0:46:43] Voice 6: yeah

[0:46:43] Voice 6: go ahead

[0:46:46] Voice 6: I

[0:46:46] Voice 2: don't have a question

[0:46:48] Voice 2: I

[0:46:49] Voice 7: thought it was next

[0:46:49] Voice 2: thank you very much

[0:46:51] Voice 7: okay I have a couple of questions

[0:46:53] Voice 7: I wouldn't say they're

[0:46:55] Voice 7: concerns, but questions

[0:46:56] Voice 7: did you make a site visit

[0:46:59] Voice 7: with respect to this

[0:47:02] Voice 7: request, yeah

[0:47:03] Voice 7: I

[0:47:03] Voice 5: did visit the site two weeks ago

[0:47:05] Voice 5: when I was here in New York City

[0:47:07] Voice 5: and essentially

[0:47:09] Voice 5: Essentially, the site was the same as it was when it was initially with the one small accessory building structure in setback lines and the other building, which is more or less a house, but doesn't have an occupancy permit.

[0:47:27] Voice 5: And my understanding is that they're working towards an occupancy permit, which would actually allow that use as a home occupation in the future.

[0:47:38] Voice 5: And so the upland and the upland portion will be allowed through the whole occupation, as long as you meet the requirements around noise, etc.

[0:47:46] Voice 5: And the water portion, you've already rezoned through your technical amendments to allow for that hydro school facility in the area past the natural sea valley.

[0:48:00] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:48:01] Voice 7: So the change from the accessory building to the single family dwelling, that would have requirements around septic and water?

[0:48:13] Voice 7: Yeah,

[0:48:13] Voice 5: all of those occupancy requirements would need to be met.

[0:48:18] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:48:19] Voice 7: So, I mean, the question I have is that someplace, and I don't remember where I read it, but I believe that the applicant, in the early stages when there were a lot of, let's say, complaints, a lot of resistance to the actual activity that took place to initiate this,

[0:48:42] Voice 7: and there was a discussion around the fact that the area would be landscaped and there would be

[0:48:50] Voice 7: a fence I believe installed and I don't know that they came up in the Tempe East Parliament but those

[0:48:58] Voice 7: things I don't believe have happened. I think the fact that the building premise will

[0:49:03] Voice 7: officially make it a single family dwelling with requirements around that may take care of

[0:49:09] Voice 7: some of the questions raised

[0:49:11] Voice 7: about the actual use of the site

[0:49:13] Voice 7: beyond the

[0:49:15] Voice 7: data processing etc

[0:49:17] Voice 7: but

[0:49:18] Voice 7: I don't really know how to land

[0:49:21] Voice 7: this because the people

[0:49:22] Voice 7: who raised this with me aren't here

[0:49:25] Voice 7: and I don't

[0:49:27] Voice 7: know if there can be

[0:49:28] Voice 7: a recommendation

[0:49:31] Voice 7: or

[0:49:32] Voice 5: say that there's no

[0:49:34] Voice 5: requirement for landscaping

[0:49:36] Voice 5: being in the original temporary permit, which could have been inserted in there,

[0:49:41] Voice 5: and that at the renewal stage, you have no ability to modify the permit in any way.

[0:49:45] Voice 5: You can only approve or deny the permits for any period up to three years.

[0:49:53] Voice 5: And then after that, you can only review once,

[0:49:56] Voice 5: and then if they continue to want to use that lease

[0:50:00] Voice 5: and they don't have it as an occupied residence,

[0:50:04] Voice 5: then they would need to seek a new permit.

[0:50:06] Voice 5: And then at that time, you could require any range of conditions you want.

[0:50:13] Voice 7: Is there any, do they give any indication of the time when this activity may run out?

[0:50:24] Voice 7: Is there kind of an end?

[0:50:26] Voice 7: The initial

[0:50:27] Voice 5: contract is six or five or six years, I think.

[0:50:30] Voice 7: Okay, so one more chamber use permit could see the end of it.

[0:50:35] Voice 5: Potentially.

[0:50:35] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:50:37] Voice 5: It could be a terminated activity, and it can carry on, and with him presumably having

[0:50:50] Voice 5: an occupancy in the next three years, he would have outright use, like an outright permission

[0:50:59] Voice 5: to run his own occupation in his residence which is the server is in all the way

[0:51:06] Voice 5: with no visit code and then the station on the property outside

[0:51:11] Voice 5: uh and the zoning allows the hydrophone that's going to be there okay so and

[0:51:19] Voice 7: for sure the use

[0:51:20] Voice 7: of the portion for the cable and all that stuff yeah that's

[0:51:23] Voice 7: all taken care of uh

[0:51:25] Voice 5: in terms of what

[0:51:26] Voice 5: it looks like yeah i

[0:51:27] Voice 5: mean i just drilled holes in

[0:51:28] Voice 7: there just any chance of the use yeah oh yeah so

[0:51:32] Voice 5: beyond stealing all of bruce's thunder here i don't mean to do that bruce um but uh beyond the

[0:51:40] Voice 5: foreshore then the water starts and the water zoning has been amended to allow okay so

[0:51:48] Voice 7: so in

[0:51:49] Voice 7: So in summary, if they get a building permit to change the use from accessory building to single-family, they won't need a temporary use permit in three years' time?

[0:52:01] Voice 7: Correct.

[0:52:04] Voice 5: It's also important to understand that it's actually a federally regulated activity, so technically your by-laws don't apply to any of it if it went out.

[0:52:13] Voice 5: So really, this is like the, it's a bit of a, because it is a federal contract for federal activity, in a court, they would deem that to be a milestone action.

[0:52:24] Voice 5: So in a sense, the temporary use permit was issued as a goodwill gesture by the property owner to, you know, he's done all this, you know, he was very diligent in providing this plan as that were required.

[0:52:44] Voice 5: Yeah,

[0:52:44] Voice 7: I think it was just an unfortunate kick-off to the project because it

[0:52:49] Voice 5: just started really fast.

[0:52:52] Voice 7: Yeah, so I mean I don't see any reason to object to this other than that it would be helpful if neighbors could work things out between themselves.

[0:53:04] Voice 7: lots and a bit of everything is put into building fences or taking down fences literally and

[0:53:12] Voice 7: metaphorically polar fences yeah yeah so um yeah thank you thank

[0:53:18] Voice 5: you i'm sorry

[0:53:19] Voice 5: this report but i've got all the context because i'm involved yeah thanks um

[0:53:28] Voice 6: um

[0:53:29] Voice 2: yeah no comment beyond um i think as uh as uh mr belger points out that all the conditions of

[0:53:38] Voice 2: the original um temporary use program were met in a timely fashion and the site the continued

[0:53:44] Voice 2: use of the site is entirely peaceful and has absolutely zero impact on the neighborhood now

[0:53:50] Voice 2: it wasn't the case when the uh but as you say that was just an unfortunate um occurrence

[0:53:58] Voice 2: that's now behind us and so um yeah i i'm willing to make a motion if you would entertain it chair

[0:54:04] Voice 2: okay absolutely okay i recommend uh that move that the stern island local trust committee

[0:54:09] Voice 2: approved the issuance of renewal temporary use permit s-a-t-u-p 2023.1 for a three-year career

[0:54:17] Voice 2: A second question.

[0:54:20] Voice 6: Any further discussion?

[0:54:22] Voice 6: Call or question?

[0:54:23] Voice 6: If that carries.

[0:54:26] Voice 6: Alright, thank you very much.

[0:54:28] Voice 7: In general, coming back to the

[0:54:31] Voice 7: way of watching etc, it's a

[0:54:32] Voice 7: part of that

[0:54:34] Voice 7: effort to manage

[0:54:36] Voice 7: poor traffic.

[0:54:39] Voice 7: And so in that way

[0:54:41] Voice 7: it's kind of a good thing.

[0:54:43] Voice 7: It's just a bit unfortunate the way it began.

[0:54:46] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:54:46] Voice 5: I went out, I haven't heard any concerns or complaints since the issuance of the permit.

[0:54:52] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:54:53] Voice 5: Other than we might think to do your proctoring along the long line.

[0:54:57] Voice 7: Sure.

[0:54:58] Voice 7: I think the application for a building permit, will we be alerted to, can we confirm when that's issued?

[0:55:07] Voice 7: Or will that be available?

[0:55:09] Voice 7: We can see that building permit in the COD.

[0:55:11] Voice 7: I mean, I would say we would have

[0:55:12] Voice 5: already had the old permits for the structure.

[0:55:19] Voice 5: My assumption is that Mr. King would be quick to let us know that there's occupancy in that.

[0:55:25] Voice 5: Sure,

[0:55:25] Voice 7: that might be a helpful thing in terms of...

[0:55:28] Voice 5: But I

[0:55:28] Voice 6: don't think that's how it happens.

[0:55:31] Voice 7: Yeah, it would be helpful because we kind of regularize it in a way that's making that...

[0:55:37] Voice 7: So

[0:55:38] Voice 6: what I would say is now is three years to complete the task.

[0:55:43] Voice 6: you could

[0:55:45] Voice 6: plan

[0:55:46] Voice 5: or

[0:55:47] Voice 5: trip it out to the monitoring

[0:55:48] Voice 5: that would clarify

[0:55:51] Voice 5: in a year or so

[0:55:52] Voice 5: would that be

[0:55:56] Voice 7: possible?

[0:55:56] Voice 7: I don't want to

[0:55:57] Voice 7: just remember it

[0:55:59] Voice 7: I think

[0:56:00] Voice 5: that would be helpful

[0:56:06] Voice 7: because I think that

[0:56:08] Voice 7: regularization

[0:56:09] Voice 7: because some of the complaint

[0:56:12] Voice 7: land is about the use as a you know the occupancy of it but it's not actually you know so i'll just

[0:56:20] Voice 6: thank you

[0:56:25] Voice 3: all right

[0:56:27] Voice 6: thank you thank you yeah thanks all

[0:56:31] Voice 4: right so next up um we have um essay

[0:56:36] Voice 4: RZ 2023 to Mr. Felchak, which is a 101 main road new zoning application.

[0:56:48] Voice 4: Over to you, Planner Smith.

[0:56:50] Voice 6: Thank you, Chair. So, bringing

[0:56:52] Voice 5: back the application to RZ 2023.2 today for consideration of first reading by the Procurement Committee.

[0:57:00] Voice 5: And so at your last meeting, you directed staff to report or draft the amendment bylaws for the

[0:57:10] Voice 5: properties at 101 and 101 Gaines Road. Staff have now done that and included

[0:57:18] Voice 6: the draft bylaws

[0:57:19] Voice 6: in the path test. They also include,

[0:57:25] Voice 5: the attachments also include the Island Trust policy statement checklist

[0:57:29] Voice 5: us which uh suggesting is not contrary to our variants to the uh trust policies which is

[0:57:38] Voice 5: typically recommended at the first stage the amendments change their density and the subject

[0:57:49] Voice 5: lots to allow for subdivision to

[0:57:53] Voice 5: occur this ocp amendment as we talked about the options last time

[0:58:00] Voice 5: There's an OCP amendment that reduces the minimum area of lot for subdivision for that particular lot to allow them to subdivide along the lot line.

[0:58:11] Voice 5: That has had a benefit of it. I've confirmed that the ALR, because it's along the border of the ALR, the ALC does not make a decision on the subdivision, they just need to be notified.

[0:58:25] Voice 5: file so that was good i've also built into the bylaw based on the letter that's provided

[0:58:32] Voice 5: from the street miners is a provision to reduce the density in their property for three to the

[0:58:39] Voice 5: counter and then we'll uh look to get that some further recognition might be wrapped around that

[0:58:44] Voice 5: that piece to that is what I would say to that.

[0:58:53] Voice 5: If you're not there, well,

[0:58:56] Voice 5: I'll bring it up and it's just a good point to get there.

[0:58:58] Voice 5: And then the only other piece I recommend well,

[0:59:03] Voice 5: yeah, I think the next step then would be to say

[0:59:06] Voice 5: to the finalists, send them up to RIPROs.

[0:59:08] Voice 5: There's a list of RIPRO agencies,

[0:59:09] Voice 5: there's a list

[0:59:11] Voice 6: of First Nations

[0:59:13] Voice 5: that we are required to consult with

[0:59:17] Voice 5: in respect of where the parcels are located.

[0:59:20] Voice 5: And I'll pass it back to you, Chair,

[0:59:22] Voice 5: to have any questions.

[0:59:24] Voice 5: And we do have representatives

[0:59:26] Voice 5: of the applicants in the audience here, I guess.

[0:59:28] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:59:29] Voice 5: Thank you, Rustin.

[0:59:30] Voice 5: Do you have any questions?

[0:59:32] Voice 2: So, yeah, I can give the...

[0:59:34] Voice 2: Just following on...

[0:59:39] Voice 2: on our Prime Minister's report,

[0:59:41] Voice 2: which I thank you for doing that work.

[0:59:44] Voice 2: I know it's quite detailed and involved

[0:59:45] Voice 2: and requires a steady hand,

[0:59:48] Voice 2: and I think we've been well served

[0:59:49] Voice 2: by your drafting of these bylaws, so thank you.

[0:59:54] Voice 2: This is in regard, this comment is in regard

[0:59:56] Voice 2: to densities that are due to the buyer's profit.

[1:00:01] Voice 2: which is a property that is the source for a density that permits the aquitans to proceed with the Payne Road portion of this project.

[1:00:13] Voice 2: We had one question of, I'm going to say the Nature Trust of BC,

[1:00:21] Voice 2: because there are people who are going to be receiving Tony Meyer's property as an ecological gift, the donation,

[1:00:26] Voice 2: is does the removal of densities from that property affect the valuation or the appraised

[1:00:34] Voice 2: the likely appraised value of the land for purposes of the gift and i think you were being

[1:00:40] Voice 2: you know alerting cotton there to say that if we have any doubt that that's not in any case that

[1:00:47] Voice 2: we might not want to necessarily proceed with um with the putting those densities into the

[1:00:53] Voice 2: counter and that's fair point if not to put words in your mouth but i think that's what you would

[1:00:58] Voice 2: just suggest um we hadn't heard back we got the contact information from the appraiser

[1:01:04] Voice 2: that nature trusted bc used and just today actually they responded with a very detailed

[1:01:09] Voice 2: response well it's not a guarantee as in the appraisal has not been done basically saying

[1:01:19] Voice 2: the topography of the situation means that those densities could meaningfully never be

[1:01:24] Voice 2: developed to with any you know and receive any value from subdivision of the land that

[1:01:29] Voice 2: this is too steep and so i would say that's a green light now it does there's a noting

[1:01:35] Voice 2: doctrine i mean obviously what i think that just you know say or maybe you could tell me

[1:01:40] Voice 2: if i'm correct about this if at some point over the next few months it seems that um

[1:01:46] Voice 2: the density is going into the catter is putting Ms. Myers into a difficult situation

[1:01:53] Voice 2: for whatever reason in terms of the gift that we can revisit that aspect and the one density

[1:01:59] Voice 2: that has been privately transacted is in essence independent the catter is pipeline not the

[1:02:04] Voice 2: repository in this case so we would have options down the road okay

[1:02:09] Voice 5: you could amend your bylaw at

[1:02:11] Voice 5: any time to remove those provisions and adjust the average or take it right out of there okay

[1:02:15] Voice 5: and if they need it so if there's a further change or confirmation uh that they want more than one

[1:02:23] Voice 5: right density going into there then well zero i mean really what's being proposed now is zero

[1:02:30] Voice 5: right yeah it

[1:02:30] Voice 5: could be like here in your watershed that's right that's zero density

[1:02:37] Voice 5: My understanding is that there's still questions around the road, and that's probably the biggest limiting factor to her relatively easier way.

[1:02:54] Voice 5: And she's also questions around section 99, and I think she sees it as just like the freeway, but it's still like a bony.

[1:03:05] Voice 5: there's still a decision in there just circumvents a whole bunch of processes

[1:03:10] Voice 5: that needs to be provided to the briefing officer but there's there's still a substantial decision

[1:03:16] Voice 5: that's made so the issue is yeah i mean that's not really well from the bylaw perspective that's

[1:03:25] Voice 5: not very much no

[1:03:26] Voice 2: but to your point is well taken that if something does throw a wrench in the works

[1:03:31] Voice 2: is from the then we may need to now yeah and so but that wouldn't affect i think she's entirely

[1:03:37] Voice 2: comfortable with the one density and that would be through a private arrangement that yeah the

[1:03:42] Voice 2: applicants here that made with her she does she had um a quick note but unfortunately modi just

[1:03:49] Voice 2: misplaced not displaced but misplaced the application over the summer and so they've

[1:03:55] Voice 2: now gotten to them she sent a quick note this morning which may require us to be a little more

[1:04:01] Voice 2: activist on her bit but they're looking mostly you're going to require geotechnical survey to

[1:04:07] Voice 2: the cottage an engineer's analysis of feasibility road construction on the easement and water well

[1:04:15] Voice 2: water test which is you know presumably um the wells connect for 23 years or between you know

[1:04:22] Voice 2: that's not and then uh and then drainage potential for it so but basically the standards like the

[1:04:28] Voice 2: perc test uh the water the engineering feasibility may be an issue well it's a huge issue

[1:04:39] Voice 2: so this may be where we need to be we kind of deserve our being activated that we say until

[1:04:47] Voice 2: until we had some initial response from moldy so we may that would be a separate consideration but

[1:04:53] Voice 2: i think i guess in summation yes there are some concerns that might mean we need to revisit the

[1:04:59] Voice 2: bylaw for the additional densities transferred into the counter but currently i would say for

[1:05:05] Voice 2: myself is enough of a green light that we proceed with your violence interactive but

[1:05:10] Voice 5: it is true

[1:05:10] Voice 5: or she can't circumvent what standards for a lot that's going to stay in a residential zone yeah

[1:05:18] Voice 5: or something so just like this one ounces on the other hand similarly we're giving this a new

[1:05:24] Voice 5: sense so that hurts the both sections yeah still needs to have proof of water yeah

[1:05:33] Voice 2: i suspect that's

[1:05:35] Voice 2: probably okay i'm sure she can meet that requirement and it looks like they've extended

[1:05:39] Voice 2: that all the branch and that they're looking for geotechnical survey at the existing road to the

[1:05:44] Voice 2: cottage which was not a road but so anyway they'll stay informed on that

[1:05:49] Voice 5: they probably wouldn't

[1:05:58] Voice 2: that's true in parts parks have said they would be creative and cooperative but there's no way

[1:06:04] Voice 2: they would commit upgrade to highway standards of that access

[1:06:06] Voice 5: so like you know this

[1:06:08] Voice 2: is in here now

[1:06:09] Voice 5: yeah and it's built in at any time i would say you could pull back from that until you adopted it um

[1:06:17] Voice 5: and then uh if that would be longer to play out it could be brought forward

[1:06:23] Voice 5: separately with a reimbursement through executive committee where she applied herself but

[1:06:28] Voice 5: I think, you know, ideally, it would be right after this.

[1:06:31] Voice 5: Yeah.

[1:06:32] Voice 5: Because she's getting anxious.

[1:06:34] Voice 5: And then so,

[1:06:35] Voice 5: before I just, my understanding,

[1:06:37] Voice 5: like, with Nature Trust,

[1:06:38] Voice 5: with Ilio's property, is that Nature Trust took the reins on the subdivision portion.

[1:06:47] Voice 5: But Ilio is probably more savvy about it already than she would be.

[1:06:51] Voice 5: But that was my understanding, because that's how Section 99 works.

[1:06:54] Voice 5: typically like the receiving agency once that's like part of their business to actually acquire

[1:07:02] Voice 5: the land and uh they are like that assigned body was yeah

[1:07:07] Voice 2: i i think that's exactly i think we're

[1:07:09] Voice 2: in position now that we kind of made our move here we can actually go to the nature trust and say

[1:07:14] Voice 2: okay time to well you know my

[1:07:16] Voice 5: point there is i think that judy's trying to go too fast on

[1:07:20] Voice 5: subdivision right when she should really clarify how the receiving agency takes on the section

[1:07:29] Voice 5: i think

[1:07:30] Voice 2: this response from the team was a response to an application or before we got it yeah it's

[1:07:39] Voice 2: what my understanding what they do is they get their surveyor who has uh who's well-known you've

[1:07:45] Voice 2: you've seen his head name, Jordan, he don't remember

[1:07:47] Voice 2: his last name.

[1:07:48] Voice 2: And he kind of floats the trial balloon to the ministry

[1:07:51] Voice 2: in some kind of, I don't know if it's a formal application

[1:07:54] Voice 2: or it's a notice of intent, and waits to see what the guidance is.

[1:07:59] Voice 2: And that's now happening.

[1:08:00] Voice 2: They do an initial scope, instead of

[1:08:02] Voice 2: getting to the PRC.

[1:08:03] Voice 2: Exactly.

[1:08:03] Voice 2: So now it is the name of the trust that would proceed with, as you said.

[1:08:07] Voice 5: Okay, so that's the one.

[1:08:08] Voice 5: So I think Judy needs to, like, well, I guess we could do

[1:08:13] Voice 5: further hallucinations yeah i

[1:08:16] Voice 2: think so so just for public benefit and then my understanding from the

[1:08:22] Voice 2: entry trust is they were you know i don't know what they will say now in response to modius

[1:08:26] Voice 2: which this is brand new information but they will then seek a formal appraisal and they've engaged

[1:08:33] Voice 2: the appraiser which we communicated with so now now that we've got formal response we can bring

[1:08:37] Voice 2: you for their conversation and we can order and so so they wanted to be in a position where they had

[1:08:44] Voice 2: a number um and what complicates i guess is the funding for this comes from the ecological gifts

[1:08:51] Voice 2: program of climate change in canada which has some restrictions right on how the property is

[1:08:57] Voice 2: financed and what you know how it all comes to play um and so there was hoping to get board

[1:09:05] Voice 2: approval in the december board meeting and i really for judy's sake hope we can keep to that

[1:09:11] Voice 2: track that she's that she comes up and at this for now almost five years and as she said he's

[1:09:16] Voice 2: not getting any younger the clock is taking pictures um you know this is a nature transport

[1:09:23] Voice 2: in nature yeah so i mean we've done what we need to do just and this is just by way of education

[1:09:28] Voice 2: for everyone because i've been kind of working away at this behind the scenes for probably

[1:09:33] Voice 2: pushing two years now and so um yeah so i mean i i for my intent that or for my

[1:09:42] Voice 2: um analysis shall we say is these bylaws do exactly what is intended and put us in the position

[1:09:51] Voice 2: um to to do what judy wants to do with this property in regard to the donation to nature

[1:09:55] Voice 2: to trust with BC. And so I'm fully in support of them.

[1:10:06] Voice 7: Yeah, I am. I'm in support of it. Generally, this comment is

[1:10:11] Voice 7: that the subsequent to the meeting, the three additional

[1:10:16] Voice 7: densities, is that that's not an entirely separate thing, process

[1:10:22] Voice 7: test that's going on slightly is it in any way what like why is it in here it's my question

[1:10:31] Voice 5: so uh mr or miss myers is involved in the application because she's agreed to sell a

[1:10:37] Voice 5: density so then the opportunity to use this application is also the springboard to receive

[1:10:45] Voice 5: those additional densities into your cutter instead of waiting perhaps until they go to

[1:10:52] Voice 5: the nature trust and uh no longer being owned by miss myers and even my understanding of nature

[1:11:00] Voice 5: trust being not willing

[1:11:01] Voice 1: like okay we have this

[1:11:02] Voice 5: but we like when parks

[1:11:04] Voice 5: canada received all the

[1:11:06] Voice 5: properties on saturn they just eat up the density and so they could decide to do the same thing and

[1:11:15] Voice 5: so what miss myers agreed that there's no future density potential on the property

[1:11:22] uh

[1:11:22] Voice 5: you can

[1:11:24] Voice 5: receive those three densities and use them okay so to start quite

[1:11:30] Voice 5: yeah

[1:11:30] Voice 2: there is that's right i mean that just to to from the discussion there is uh there is

[1:11:39] Voice 2: a project by the community so far i understand it's received positive response from the crd

[1:11:47] Voice 2: to acquire from the landowner um of the wetland interior to east point um that wetland in

[1:11:56] Voice 2: consideration for additional density on that property because all the densities were previously

[1:12:02] Voice 2: sold by uh the previous owner um so that that's a private negotiation of course between the

[1:12:09] Voice 2: community group presumably the crd and the property owners the trust and play a facilitated

[1:12:15] Voice 2: will but it is an opportunity to use densities for the purposes of conservation which is what

[1:12:21] Voice 2: ms myers has said a few months uh that's her interest and um and i would further note that

[1:12:28] Voice 2: the appraiser said it's critically important that the densities be removed before any

[1:12:34] Voice 2: involvement of the nature trust and we've seen that with the property there is additional i

[1:12:39] Voice 2: think five correct me if i'm wrong five or six maybe densities there they're effectively trapped

[1:12:44] Voice 2: i don't see the name of the nature trust very very yeah they're very paranoid to be seen of having

[1:12:52] Voice 2: gaining any financial benefit from a property that they required through donations and federal

[1:13:00] Voice 2: funding even though they'd be giving the densities i just i mean i shouldn't say never but i just

[1:13:06] Voice 2: don't see them getting to the place where they have comfort doing that so

[1:13:11] Voice 6: the

[1:13:12] Voice 2: density still exists

[1:13:13] Voice 2: they've not been distinguished there's been no formal application to do so but i think they're

[1:13:17] Voice 2: effectively trapped and so what the appraiser is saying is don't don't don't risk the same thing

[1:13:23] Voice 2: with the meyers property because you have the densities out before any kind of financial

[1:13:28] Voice 2: transaction or otherwise takes place between the nature trust and and the donor so and i think

[1:13:34] Voice 2: that's sensible advice and that's what these biohazards.

[1:13:37] Voice 7: So that answers my question it was

[1:13:40] Voice 7: sort of like everything is very clear and then there's you know this additional thing that's

[1:13:45] Voice 7: fine absolutely

[1:13:45] Voice 6: fine thank you. Is the applicant here? Yes we are.

[1:13:55] Voice 7: So

[1:13:56] Voice 4: do you have any questions? Yeah

[1:13:58] Voice 3: I do so can we still get the property from Dray or is it not

[1:14:06] Voice 5: not secure yeah

[1:14:08] Voice 3: only

[1:14:09] Voice 5: the additional densities that would go um so miss myers has the five

[1:14:15] Voice 5: densities in my property uh she needs to keep one for her cabin she's agreed to sell one to you

[1:14:26] Voice 5: she's also agreed to give three away to the community essentially so that they can use

[1:14:32] Voice 5: them in trade in their density

[1:14:34] Voice 1: reserve to secure

[1:14:35] Voice 5: some other you know your ocps policies around

[1:14:39] Voice 5: what those densities can be used for essentially to preserve land which i get important properties

[1:14:46] Voice 5: if something in the neck as your bylaws are going through the process if something changes where

[1:14:53] Voice 5: she shouldn't give those three densities away right now then they can still disappear but you

[1:14:59] Voice 5: you are still moving forward.

[1:15:01] Voice 5: And hey, we just removed,

[1:15:02] Voice 5: I hope you weren't stressing me out.

[1:15:05] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:15:06] Voice 5: I don't think that had a change last week.

[1:15:14] Voice 7: I think it's wise to, in the summary,

[1:15:19] Voice 7: make this discussion really clear

[1:15:21] Voice 7: because I think it's,

[1:15:24] Voice 7: if you're in the midst of this,

[1:15:25] Voice 7: you guys have been,

[1:15:27] Voice 7: you're on the field of thought,

[1:15:28] Voice 7: oh yeah, this makes complete sense.

[1:15:30] Voice 7: and I couldn't really understand why those other three densities were suddenly appearing in this.

[1:15:37] Voice 7: So there's an opportunity to sort of do multiple things at the same time and if the second

[1:15:45] Voice 7: item goes sideways for any reason you can just remove it and the first item will go ahead

[1:15:52] Voice 7: out regardless okay yes and

[1:15:55] Voice 2: then when the violence yeah exactly exactly it is complete you've got a

[1:16:02] Voice 2: concept of density which is confusing to be young and it has a very specific meaning on certain

[1:16:07] Voice 2: island and then you have this thing called the community amenity density which is again unique

[1:16:13] Voice 2: to our ocp and gabriel has one i think but there is restricts the use of it to um housing projects

[1:16:21] Voice 2: It's never been used, ours has never been used, ours has been used as a pipeline, but

[1:16:26] Voice 2: the concept of holding densities is a particularly tricky one to get because it doesn't, there's

[1:16:33] Voice 2: no real

[1:16:34] Voice 6: logical

[1:16:35] Voice 2: basis in the world around us and it is just how our social community

[1:16:39] Voice 2: plan has been built and treats densities and as the planners have pointed out, the policy

[1:16:45] Voice 2: of Parks Canada when they acquire land is not to displace density, but to basically

[1:16:49] Voice 2: be destroyed. That's a critical policy at Park Scatter. Nature Trust doesn't have that policy,

[1:16:54] Voice 2: so we have the ability to work with them, in this case prior to transfer to better community

[1:17:03] Voice 2: benefit, I would say.

[1:17:06] Voice 7: Yeah, I think a definition of the CAGR, a little explanation, you know,

[1:17:10] Voice 7: maybe in the middle of this, if it's not there already.

[1:17:15] Voice 2: It says in the OCP, but it could be

[1:17:17] Voice 2: pulled out and just made explicit for the next you know go around i

[1:17:21] Voice 5: guess the original staff

[1:17:22] Voice 5: report explained in more detail as well so you don't really reiterate it that's

[1:17:27] Voice 7: fine no problem

[1:17:28] Voice 7: it's just what i'm trying to avoid is other people entering into that zone of panic and confusion

[1:17:35] Voice 2: yeah yeah no i mean it's we can patiently walk people through each time too i mean that's okay

[1:17:41] Voice 2: to kind of give a history and a background as this goes through the public process does it

[1:17:47] Voice 2: make sense now yes

[1:17:48] Voice 3: what i understand is that you have a vanity amenity density reserve yeah and so

[1:17:56] Voice 3: some of judy's densities would park there three of them really up to three she would have hers

[1:18:02] Voice 3: and we would get ours and that's the five and then as we've done before we just trust you

[1:18:07] Voice 5: yes excellent and if and if and if hers for whatever reason didn't go through you would

[1:18:16] Voice 5: you could that would nothing about her transfer of the land and all those discussions have any

[1:18:23] Voice 5: impact on your deal with her to buy one okay

[1:18:26] Voice 3: so i have to deal with this i don't go through

[1:18:29] Voice 4: going to start paying attention gold star for paying attention

[1:18:35] Voice 4: kids in the back room paying attention to what's going on so

[1:18:40] Voice 4: thank you very much so are we prepared to yes

[1:18:43] Voice 7: yeah yes so do we have to read all of these one

[1:18:48] Voice 7: by one or can we bundle them as a recommendation uh

[1:18:53] Voice 2: one by one everyone wants to stay there yeah

[1:18:55] Voice 7: okay you

[1:18:56] Voice 3: go first okay

[1:18:56] Voice 2: uh and we've got the stern island local

[1:19:02] Voice 2: that's good um and move that the stern island local trust committee bylaw number 140 cited as

[1:19:08] Voice 2: saturn island official community plan bylaw number 72 000 amendment number one 2023 be read the first

[1:19:16] Voice 2: time thank you for the discussion call question one paper yeah thank you

[1:19:22] Voice 6: i

[1:19:24] Voice 7: move that the saturn

[1:19:25] Voice 7: island local trust committee bylaw number 141 cited as saturn island land use bylaw number 119

[1:19:36] Voice 7: and then at number two 2023 would be about the first time

[1:19:40] Voice 4: second that discussion well

[1:19:42] Voice 4: first of all there that

[1:19:44] Voice 6: character that's the denial of trust for me as we've viewed actually

[1:19:51] Voice 6: this is a motion or yeah i don't think so we don't need to name that number three number

[1:20:13] Voice 2: it's really brand new

[1:20:15] it

[1:20:15] Voice 2: says the director's only checklist has been yeah

[1:20:19] Voice 5: so you need to confirm stuff where staff

[1:20:24] Voice 5: have reviewed it but it's ultimately up to the ltc to decide if your uh application before you

[1:20:32] Voice 5: or your your bylaws okay so

[1:20:36] Voice 2: i know that the saturn island local trust committee has reviewed the arms

[1:20:41] Voice 2: trust policy statement director's only checklist and determined that bylaw number 140 said that

[1:20:46] Voice 2: this uh official committee plan bylaw number 72 000 member number 1.23 is not contrary to

[1:20:52] Voice 2: or at variance with the elms trust policy statement second

[1:20:56] Voice 6: discussion question thank you

[1:21:02] Voice 7: And I move that the Saturna Island Local Trust Committee has reviewed the Island's Trust Policy Statement Directive's founding checklist

[1:21:10] Voice 7: and determined that the By-law 141 cited as Saturna Island Land Use By-law No. 119-2018 Amendment No. 2-2023

[1:21:22] Voice 7: is not contrary to or invariance with the Island's Trust Policy Statement.

[1:21:28] Voice 6: Second that discussion.

[1:21:30] Voice 6: discussion or a question on the paper, that carries.

[1:21:34] Voice 5: So the next

[1:21:35] Voice 7: step, then, is the referrals, if I understand.

[1:21:37] Voice 7: Correct.

[1:21:38] Voice 5: So we'll set it up to referrals that are minimum 60 days.

[1:21:41] Voice 5: We send it to third nations and agencies.

[1:21:45] Voice 5: And some will come back to your meeting, presumably,

[1:21:49] Voice 5: with an update on the referral responses.

[1:21:55] Voice 5: And then at that time, you could decide

[1:21:58] Voice 5: you are prepared to move forward with uh consideration of second and third

[1:22:04] Voice 5: reading and directing towards the public so

[1:22:06] Voice 7: what's our timeline i'm just i'm always curious

[1:22:09] Voice 7: to look ahead like we have a meeting in december and then it's not going to make that so it's not

[1:22:15] Voice 5: december the next meeting would be in uh we have a calendar and you're telling me

[1:22:19] Voice 5: Yes, sure. Oh, I think it's January. So

[1:22:25] Voice 7: potentially, January would be outside that 60-day

[1:22:29] Voice 7: period. So ideally, we would... Correct.

[1:22:35] Voice 3: I guess something

[1:22:36] Voice 6: is following with your speaking point.

[1:22:38] Voice 6: Could I get a further, just a process question then? So

[1:22:46] Voice 2: bylaws are drafted,

[1:22:49] Voice 2: it and go up and referral, referral response, and then is it community information to think

[1:22:56] Voice 2: about?

[1:22:57] Voice 2: It would be

[1:22:57] Voice 5: done as you can typically, well, in this case, I think staff will recommend.

[1:23:02] Voice 5: So your next meeting is February 15th is what is proposed on the meeting agenda.

[1:23:09] Voice 5: So by that time, we have the referrals completed and we receive that feedback.

[1:23:20] Voice 2: Yeah, I'm just basically trying to, I always think I know the process, but I just want

[1:23:25] Voice 2: to be all clear that I don't need to understand and stuff like that.

[1:23:28] Voice 5: You would consider those reports, sometimes there's other information, a lot of reports

[1:23:33] Voice 5: around the things that you're considering at this time as well, and then in February

[1:23:39] Voice 5: where we could get a second or third reason

[1:23:43] Voice 5: and correct stuff to schedule a CIM, a public hearing.

[1:23:48] Voice 5: Sometimes they're on a different day

[1:23:49] Voice 5: from when they're on the same day.

[1:23:51] Voice 5: This application, I would say, concurrently

[1:23:54] Voice 5: for you, just as we did today with Mr. Hall,

[1:23:56] Voice 5: we did a CIM prior to the public hearing.

[1:23:59] Voice 5: Right.

[1:23:59] Voice 2: And so just taking the example of Mr. Hall's by us,

[1:24:03] Voice 2: we could not say.

[1:24:04] Voice 2: Well,

[1:24:05] Voice 5: Mr. Hall was in a body line, so it's different.

[1:24:07] Voice 5: Right, different, gotcha.

[1:24:09] Voice 2: So basically, community information meeting, public hearing, response to public hearing

[1:24:16] Voice 2: may need to go out and go back and redraft bylaws potentially, or maybe to confirm that

[1:24:21] Voice 2: they're acceptable.

[1:24:23] Voice 2: Specifically bylaws and public hearing.

[1:24:25] Voice 2: They're all good to go.

[1:24:27] Voice 2: And you give second and third reading, and

[1:24:28] Voice 5: then that's all.

[1:24:29] Voice 5: Third reading, if you've given a second reading, you give second and first, like second reading

[1:24:35] Voice 5: is kind of your choice.

[1:24:37] Voice 5: Right.

[1:24:38] Voice 5: there's no real there's no um there's no difference in technical process you can go

[1:24:44] Voice 5: to public hearing anytime between first and third so

[1:24:47] Voice 2: but you would still have to have noted

[1:24:49] Voice 2: in minutes that second reading was given to them

[1:24:52] Voice 5: no you've given the first reading so you

[1:24:54] Voice 5: go to public hearing before and give a second or third reading both at the same time

[1:25:00] Voice 5: The second reading is often like in a more complex application, the signal is okay, we're

[1:25:10] Voice 5: getting to the first reading, there's a byline, we're supportive of it, we're putting it on

[1:25:17] Voice 5: the community and talking about it, by the time you get to the second reading, it's like

[1:25:21] Voice 5: we're pretty firm with this byline, but in your case, it's a simple byline.

[1:25:24] Voice 5: I'm sorry, could

[1:25:28] Voice 6: we

[1:25:29] Voice 7: schedule, am I hearing this correctly, could we schedule, we would

[1:25:34] Voice 7: assume that at the next meeting, February 15th, we go to second reading, so could we

[1:25:42] Voice 7: now today schedule the community information and public hearing at that meeting?

[1:25:50] Voice 5: My advice

[1:25:51] Voice 5: is to slow down a little and complete your referrals before you decide, just like with Mr. Hall, perhaps if we had a discussion in the inaugural public hearing today.

[1:26:05] Voice 5: Because technically

[1:26:06] Voice 5: you can't receive any information on the public hearing.

[1:26:09] Voice 5: So you don't want to be in a situation where you're receiving referral information that might trigger you to go for a little more information, just like sort of what's happened with Mr. Hall.

[1:26:20] Voice 5: and having completed your public hearing

[1:26:22] Voice 5: so that you're actually in a place

[1:26:25] Voice 5: where you're post-public hearing

[1:26:26] Voice 5: and to receive new information,

[1:26:28] Voice 5: you would technically have to hold another public hearing.

[1:26:31] Voice 5: My

[1:26:31] Voice 7: head is starting to blow up.

[1:26:33] Voice 7: So what I'm hearing is,

[1:26:36] Voice 7: if we go out and say we have three months,

[1:26:39] Voice 7: we need 60 days for the referral responses.

[1:26:44] Voice 7: When they come in

[1:26:46] Voice 7: and we're preparing the agenda

[1:26:48] Voice 7: agenda for the meeting in February yeah we could consider scheduling a community information and

[1:26:56] Voice 7: public hearing at that meeting like if nothing there's

[1:26:59] Voice 5: nothing to say probably the recommendations

[1:27:01] Voice 5: probably to give second reading if the referrals come back with nothing significant yeah to give

[1:27:09] Voice 5: second reading and to direct staff to schedule a CIM and a public hearing at your next meeting

[1:27:14] Voice 5: and then or you could do it as a supplemental meeting if you want to but we do need the time

[1:27:20] Voice 5: to do the notifications so probably three weeks or more minimal staff need to do the

[1:27:26] Voice 5: status quo requirements and then most public hearing you can then give third reading and

[1:27:32] Voice 5: direct that to send it to the executive committee and then to the ocp amendments of the ministry

[1:27:38] Voice 5: to the for the minister to review so the

[1:27:42] Voice 2: timeline is probably a little tight for february but

[1:27:44] Voice 2: assuming nothing of any great or shaking import comes back from referrals we could probably

[1:27:54] Voice 2: then direct that the the cim the public hearing will be scheduled for that february meeting and

[1:27:59] Voice 2: and um uh

[1:28:01] Voice 5: yeah i guess i mean potentially potentially

[1:28:03] Voice 2: so okay no that's good that's

[1:28:06] Voice 2: good to notice that i know the duty will be and that's and i think we're saying that it's important

[1:28:11] Voice 2: to follow the process to not get blocked into a corner um i'm just um for her timeline because

[1:28:18] Voice 2: of course once title changes this is probably not possible but that i don't see there's any

[1:28:24] Voice 2: any way the time is going to

[1:28:25] Voice 5: change before this is going to be like so nothing that's what that

[1:28:29] Voice 5: especially the water right bigger on the road so

[1:28:33] Voice 7: so there's a glimmer of an opportunity but

[1:28:37] Voice 7: don't count on it as a 100 guarantee but we'll see what happens yeah

[1:28:43] Voice 5: i guess we're going to

[1:28:44] Voice 5: come back into the january there might be like a week another notice fairly yes sure yeah what's

[1:28:50] Voice 5: the

[1:28:50] Voice 7: next period it's two because

[1:28:51] Voice 5: it's interesting uh that takes probably three and a half weeks

[1:28:55] Voice 5: Okay, thank you for all that information, that's great.

[1:29:04] Voice 5: We also clarify what the notification timelines would be for getting to photo-clearing on that, and then we could go like Argo in the region.

[1:29:17] Voice 7: I'm sorry, I always have a lead time mentality.

[1:29:23] Voice 7: I can work back let's see what's possible yeah

[1:29:28] Voice 5: I'm always just uh trying to draw you back a little

[1:29:31] Voice 5: bit because in places where the process fails and then you're in a place where you

[1:29:40] Voice 5: miss some statutory requirement or you're

[1:29:42] Voice 7: receiving information

[1:29:47] Voice 2: Yeah, that's that's great. Thank you.

[1:29:51] Voice 7: Well, actually, I understand the requirement to follow process I just tried to optimize.

[1:30:00] Voice 4: sure okay

[1:30:01] Voice 6: so

[1:30:02] Voice 4: next we have essay alar 2003.1 mr paul alar land exclusion inclusion application

[1:30:10] Voice 4: post public hearing staff report yes

[1:30:14] Voice 5: so this application in front of you here uh for

[1:30:20] Voice 5: consideration of whether to send it to the alc to uh review in terms of determining the exclusion of

[1:30:30] Voice 5: the proposed flow actors is granted um so since the last meeting staff have completed a number

[1:30:40] Voice 5: of steps that are required in the in the ALC exclusion guide in their mandated process

[1:30:48] Voice 5: so you have the application itself attached that was submitted by the applicant at some point

[1:30:54] Voice 5: if you direct staff to proceed staff will take over that application and move it through the

[1:30:59] Voice 5: ALC's web portal process. Signed and posted by the applicants, the notice of the training was sent out

[1:31:07] Voice 5: and the notice was sent to potential First Nations and agencies and the Recurral

[1:31:14] Voice 5: Response Bureau included in the support. The link was sent this morning,

[1:31:19] Voice 5: earlier, if people have a chance to look at those. And so mostly the First Nations comments are

[1:31:29] Voice 5: no concerns staff did provide some feedback to a couple of the nations i've had questions

[1:31:34] Voice 5: and of course the life of the liacs indicated that they request the site visit

[1:31:41] Voice 5: uh after much back and forth internally on how to frame this uh staff report whether it be a

[1:31:50] Voice 5: staff memo bringing this information forward to you as for you to decide what to do or

[1:31:55] Voice 5: were framed as a recommendation.

[1:31:58] Voice 5: We emerged actually a lot of time off last week.

[1:32:01] Voice 5: So RPM Kojima is actually the final author of this report.

[1:32:05] Voice 5: With that recommendation,

[1:32:07] Voice 5: that recommendation emerged from conversations

[1:32:11] Voice 5: with our senior indigenous advisor, Robin Keke,

[1:32:16] Voice 5: and her views, and obviously they hold a lot of weight

[1:32:19] Voice 5: when it comes to our efforts to reconcile

[1:32:23] Voice 5: style with First Nations and all of the other commitments that the trust would have made at the

[1:32:29] Voice 5: council level, at the local trust level, as well as at the kind of more senior government levels

[1:32:36] Voice 5: with the UNDRIP legislation and all of that. And so I think there was a question or a statement

[1:32:49] Voice 5: whether the alliance is the most ideal First Nation to consider, meaning with respect to how

[1:32:59] Voice 5: the province consults with First Nations and ultimately the trust, as we are ultimately

[1:33:06] Voice 5: unarmed with the provincial government, we are required to send referrals to all of the nations

[1:33:14] Voice 5: that are drilled down within the provincial

[1:33:16] Voice 5: constitutive industry at least

[1:33:18] Voice 5: so there's layers of First Nation

[1:33:20] Voice 5: overlapping territory

[1:33:22] Voice 5: and wherever that goes down

[1:33:23] Voice 6: that is something we can solve with

[1:33:30] Voice 6: to be able to

[1:33:32] Voice 6: well to express

[1:33:34] Voice 5: to a First Nation that their

[1:33:35] Voice 5: claim is less significant

[1:33:38] Voice 5: than another nation, it's a very slippery

[1:33:40] Voice 5: slope and so we try

[1:33:42] Voice 5: not to avoid that so

[1:33:43] Voice 5: you have feedback from our First Nation

[1:33:46] Voice 5: would identify interest in that land that you need to consider today.

[1:33:53] Voice 5: You are correct that the stay-out and the stay-come probably have a stronger claim in terms of actual historical ongoing land use,

[1:34:04] Voice 5: and staff would recommend that.

[1:34:07] Voice 5: If you take staff's recommendation that we extend that invitation to the Southern Nation as well to be included in that site visit,

[1:34:15] Voice 5: so that they can all receive the same information if they're interested.

[1:34:20] Voice 5: The policies laid out, and these aren't my policies, they're your policies ultimately,

[1:34:26] Voice 5: the policies laid out in the staff report around trust policy with respect to extraordinary

[1:34:37] Voice 5: services and cost recovery method is pretty well described and so that's what staff were

[1:34:43] Voice 5: working through. I would say that this is my first experience where there are clear

[1:34:50] Voice 5: recommendations that have been made by staff to require a site visit and I think that's probably

[1:34:56] Voice 5: a recommendation that is going to emerge more and more often as nations ask for them

[1:35:03] Voice 5: because that is what our mandate around reconciliation is with First Nations.

[1:35:10] Voice 5: And I would also say, having visited the site, there are, in your staff report, there were

[1:35:17] Voice 5: archaeological sites identified immediately adjacent to, those are known registered sites

[1:35:23] Voice 5: with the federal database, so they're not, and there's also, there's another layer which

[1:35:32] Voice 5: we don't share, that we see, that identifies potential on properties, and there's potential

[1:35:38] Voice 5: river all through uh that lot having visited that uh meadow it is a really spectacular area

[1:35:45] Voice 5: it would be really viable for it for for alr activities i think far

[1:35:50] Voice 1: more viable than the

[1:35:51] Voice 1: exclusion land area

[1:35:52] Voice 5: uh but communities it's also going to be seen as a really rich area for

[1:35:58] Voice 5: historical use by uh birth nations in the north of that's a bit of a bit it was an active spring

[1:36:04] Voice 5: So it's still an active wet area when this, you know, before the fall pressures really set in.

[1:36:12] Voice 5: So all that said, that's kind of a summary of how staff arrived at this recommendation.

[1:36:24] Voice 5: It's not a recommendation made by me, it's a collective recommendation made by myself,

[1:36:29] Voice 5: So, you know, our PM Kojima, the senior advisor, and Claire Freider, the director of, we're all, and Mr. Marder, we're all involved in that conversation internally around where to end SEP and the other, so all of us, right?

[1:36:51] Voice 5: so i do see a bit of a potential shift in our policy because now we're going to have to point

[1:36:57] Voice 5: to this if you do i would also say that it's a really unique application in front of us here

[1:37:02] Voice 5: and that it's the first one we've dealt with since or at least the first one in the south

[1:37:07] Voice 5: areas um and we don't own the

[1:37:10] Voice 5: application right and we don't own you don't own a decision on the

[1:37:15] Voice 5: application you

[1:37:16] Voice 1: only own a decision

[1:37:17] Voice 5: on whether or not so on the other hand you could put all

[1:37:20] Voice 5: this forward to the ALC and let them decide what they want to do that would meet your statutory

[1:37:27] Voice 5: obligations under the process but does that mean your your obligations on your under direct and all

[1:37:32] Voice 5: the other things that draft council is trying to get you to do in particular

[1:37:35] Voice 5: with the y-axis

[1:37:36] Voice 5: really feels unheard they're one of the most vocal nations with respect to all of our referrals and

[1:37:42] Voice 5: and how they are dissatisfied with that level of accommodation.

[1:37:47] Voice 5: So I'm happy to take courses here in Valdez as well.

[1:37:51] Voice 5: So Tim, any questions, I'll turn it back to you.

[1:37:55] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:37:55] Voice 5: Thank you for

[1:37:56] Voice 6: that summary.

[1:37:58] Voice 5: Very good.

[1:38:01] Voice 6: It's a tricky one.

[1:38:03] Voice 6: Well, it's deep.

[1:38:09] Voice 6: It's unfortunate, because I almost

[1:38:16] Voice 6: feel like we need more staff supporting this, because

[1:38:20] Voice 4: The primary thing I'm going to ask is that they say that we unilaterally pass the

[1:38:26] Voice 4: Regulations of Support without consulting with the proper rights and title holders.

[1:38:31] Voice 4: And I'm just trying to understand, well, what is defined as being the proper rights and title

[1:38:36] Voice 4: holders? Is that the South Bank? Or is that everybody within the First Nations?

[1:38:42] Voice 4: They're speaking to themselves. They

[1:38:44] Voice 5: are their asserting rights. And that's why they're

[1:38:48] Voice 5: are out there in the boundary because they assert their rights so that do this whole area and so

[1:38:54] Voice 5: wherever those rights are asserted and defined by that provincial database that is the the

[1:39:04] Voice 5: cookie cutter outline area everything inside that is their interests and is it our

[1:39:13] Voice 5: it's a slippery slope when it's when we try to make it our decision as to whether it's important

[1:39:18] Voice 5: to them because that's

[1:39:20] Voice 4: because they i don't think they're talking from the malahat nation yeah and

[1:39:24] Voice 4: they they basically deferred itself is is so it's my

[1:39:30] Voice 5: action doesn't yeah

[1:39:31] Voice 4: so the thing is

[1:39:32] Voice 4: i

[1:39:32] Voice 5: think the wording that can in your first staff

[1:39:39] Voice 5: report the wording was like nine of

[1:39:41] Voice 1: light that he supported

[1:39:42] Voice 5: when it should have been a staff recommended that the

[1:39:46] Voice 5: the local trust committee directs staff to initiate a process to determine something

[1:39:53] Voice 5: like that so they so uh but you know those that stated is less significant intelligence

[1:40:00] Voice 5: is there anything we would request to say yeah

[1:40:07] Voice 7: i find we're in an impossible situation

[1:40:13] Voice 7: situation here, not impossible is probably too strong a word, but, you know, we've been,

[1:40:20] Voice 7: we're good on the hot seat and I see a whole bunch of things coming together. Like this is the first

[1:40:25] Voice 7: time that we're involved in this different new process where we have to make the, support the

[1:40:35] Voice 7: application and it's going beyond us for a decision. So we don't make the decision, but we

[1:40:42] Voice 7: have to do some preliminary work to support that request and then the um the you know there was a

[1:40:54] Voice 7: judgment there was an equal opinion recently provided to galiano and and they say um it has

[1:41:03] Voice 7: been confirmed that the duty to consult and accommodate first nations um does not extend

[1:41:10] Voice 7: to the Alliance Trust is the local government. That said, the Alliance Trust's commitment to

[1:41:16] Voice 7: establishing mutually respectful relationships binds us. And I wonder whether this

[1:41:28] Voice 7: response is, is it always the same? Have you had similar responses to

[1:41:36] Voice 7: you know zoning the zoning requests or is this particular to this aol a

[1:41:42] Voice 5: specific request for

[1:41:43] Voice 5: a site visit is uh more particular than what it is so i wonder if there's nothing

[1:41:50] Voice 5: last term there was a photo housing project in the community forest and i requested a site

[1:41:57] Voice 5: monitor here beyond cyber when it should have been so that was something that was a great

[1:42:07] Voice 5: You know, I think that

[1:42:08] Voice 5: you got a lot of response, more response on this than you get on most of your bylaws.

[1:42:15] Voice 5: So I think that anything ALR related triggers more interest because it has a meaningful impact on land base.

[1:42:24] Voice 5: And there are, you know, known archaeological sites right there.

[1:42:31] Voice 5: there. So it is a culturally historic site. The upland portion, I assume that we don't get to see

[1:42:41] Voice 5: what those sites are, but I assume in the Midlands, that's what most of the people's

[1:42:45] Voice 5: ones are. And so if there are Midlands there, then it means there is some kind of temporary or

[1:42:54] Voice 5: long-term use of that area. And it's a little like East Point there. There's a boiling

[1:43:01] Voice 5: boiling reef there and even now you don't struggle to see anywhere else. It's huge and rich.

[1:43:06] Voice 5: Mr. Hall had

[1:43:07] Voice 5: a lovely day. We visited the site and there's like a significantly

[1:43:16] Voice 5: rift there. So historically, in the Mescal everywhere, it would have been, because of that constant boiling,

[1:43:25] Voice 5: it would have been a huge language site so in this case it's probably you know there's probably a

[1:43:35] Voice 5: more genuine reason for them to want to come see that site and understand what farming activities

[1:43:43] Voice 5: might do to it that being said mr hall could be doing whatever he wants on that land base as long

[1:43:50] Voice 5: as long as it meets the bylaw provisions now,

[1:43:52] Voice 5: he could build his mega house there,

[1:43:55] Voice 5: right in that water, that wetland area and, you know,

[1:44:01] Voice 5: do all the accessory agricultural use that's not allowed,

[1:44:04] Voice 5: but that's not really the point because that's not,

[1:44:07] Voice 5: you know, he's

[1:44:08] Voice 5: in this process,

[1:44:09] Voice 5: and he'd be looking to add that

[1:44:11] Voice 6: to the ALR,

[1:44:12] Voice 6: which has, you know, it's a very low space,

[1:44:24] Voice 6: So I know also that in

[1:44:30] Voice 7: the trust, there's a discussion about the referral process, and

[1:44:44] Voice 7: the fact that, you know, involving First Nations earlier in discussions than just saying we've

[1:44:52] Voice 7: come to this conclusion what you think in a way that's kind of what we do at the moment so um

[1:45:01] Voice 7: it's very very difficult i see like at one extreme when i say why would we not do this because it

[1:45:09] Voice 7: builds a respectful relationship um and at the other extreme there's the is it our responsibility

[1:45:16] Voice 7: accountability is it to our cost you know for instance and Mr Hall will have extra costs

[1:45:24] Voice 7: and imposed on him even though it's not a decision that we make it we're referring the decision

[1:45:31] Voice 7: or was you know supporting it to go to a higher level yeah I'm torn in every direction

[1:45:42] Voice 7: If the site visit was initiated or a request, how would that work?

[1:45:48] Voice 7: Can you describe to us how long it would take, what would be involved?

[1:45:53] Voice 5: I assume members of the nation would come to Saturna and they would meet up with Mr. Hall and myself

[1:45:59] Voice 5: and do the same tour we did last time around the sand and a couple of hours of removing your logs across your own.

[1:46:09] Voice 5: It was an interesting planning day,

[1:46:11] Voice 6: but

[1:46:13] Voice 5: that would be what it would look like.

[1:46:15] Voice 5: So the cost would be the salary for that person probably is what they need to start, and travel costs would

[1:46:21] Voice 6: come with it.

[1:46:26] Voice 7: And I know that you recommend that the invitation be extended to all First Nations involved?

[1:46:36] Voice 7: I think that was the recommendation.

[1:46:38] Voice 7: I think

[1:46:39] Voice 5: at least the sake of the sale and

[1:46:40] Voice 7: potentially any other nation that would be

[1:46:45] Voice 5: for you to decide. I wouldn't send it to all the nations but as I did consider sending it to those

[1:46:51] Voice 5: nations that internally are understood to have the most significant interest so they may or may not

[1:46:59] Voice 5: take it up but at least then you can be seen as being fair

[1:47:03] Voice 1: and if

[1:47:04] Voice 5: that site business is occurring

[1:47:11] Voice 5: My view around the cost to do things is that if you want to do something a bit different on your van base, it costs money and it takes time and you have to jump through the hoops.

[1:47:22] Voice 5: And so, in my view, the cost associated to the property versus what it's trying to do wouldn't play in very much.

[1:47:35] Voice 5: but that's just kind of my world view around self-responsibility and the need to do things that are required for me.

[1:47:44] Voice 7: And how has a request like this been, so we are not responsible, this is the first time we're moving this.

[1:47:54] Voice 7: This is

[1:47:55] Voice 7: the first time, the

[1:47:56] Voice 5: first time that I've encountered it, the first time that Robert's encountered it.

[1:47:59] Voice 5: i

[1:47:59] Voice 7: mean so when the process was that you went directly that's

[1:48:05] Voice 5: what i mean it's not i don't

[1:48:06] Voice 5: know there might have been other files like that not

[1:48:11] Voice 7: involving us i'm just curious as to whether

[1:48:14] Voice 7: there's any knowledge of of similar um situations

[1:48:21] Voice 5: that this is one of the first if not the first

[1:48:25] Voice 5: application that we received under the auspices of applying on behalf of the company

[1:48:30] Voice 5: it may have been a couple

[1:48:32] Voice 5: others but uh i'm not familiar with them so yeah

[1:48:37] Voice 7: they

[1:48:37] Voice 5: obviously wouldn't have had the same recommendation on first nations or

[1:48:43] Voice 5: like being able to go back to that but robert had no knowledge of any other yeah i'm just

[1:48:50] Voice 7: wondering we're kind

[1:48:51] Voice 5: of feeling through this as we go when

[1:48:53] Voice 7: the when the applications went directly

[1:48:56] Voice 7: to whoever they went to and did they get similar responses and how did they deal with their the

[1:49:06] Voice 7: referral process at that time again and if we regardless of what we do immediately eventually

[1:49:21] Voice 7: will there be another referral process after that?

[1:49:26] Voice 5: My assumption would be that...

[1:49:33] Voice 5: I lost my thought.

[1:49:34] Voice 7: Can

[1:49:35] Voice 5: you finish your question?

[1:49:36] Voice 7: No, I'm just saying, so we go through the referral process

[1:49:39] Voice 7: and we're given a potential recommendation or recommendation.

[1:49:45] Voice 7: And so if we go through the referral process,

[1:49:48] Voice 7: through this loop and assume that we come out of it at the other end with a recommendation that we

[1:49:57] Voice 7: push

[1:49:57] Voice 5: the tables on. If you pass the recommendation today, staff would initiate that

[1:50:08] Voice 5: site visit. Any information gleaned from that site visit is post-public hearing. You're not supposed

[1:50:16] Voice 5: to receive any information because this is an application that's going to AOC versus an actual

[1:50:23] Voice 5: bylaw. I don't think we require that currently. We just send whatever information the LIAC sent

[1:50:30] Voice 5: provides back after their site visit to the AOC and you

[1:50:34] Voice 6: can decide that that's going to be

[1:50:36] Voice 6: supported going to the MMO. So it seems that from

[1:50:46] Voice 2: what we're generally hearing that if we

[1:50:49] Voice 2: working forward this without addressing the the site visit request we may be presenting the

[1:50:59] Voice 2: application and not the most favorable light as in how likely is the commission to you know move

[1:51:05] Voice 2: on it without themselves wanting to address the um the interest of the vaccination i mean it's

[1:51:12] Voice 2: conjecture at the end of the note, but

[1:51:17] Voice 2: there's

[1:51:17] Voice 2: those two aspects.

[1:51:19] Voice 2: I mean, the actual improvement in change,

[1:51:21] Voice 2: exclusion, and increase

[1:51:23] Voice 2: of net agricultural capacity is obviously

[1:51:25] Voice 2: seen, we see this

[1:51:27] Voice 2: or I'm sure you can see it for all of us, but I see it so

[1:51:29] Voice 2: positive.

[1:51:32] Voice 2: So we have

[1:51:33] Voice 2: some interest in presenting the

[1:51:36] Voice 2: application as favourable

[1:51:37] Voice 2: as possible for it to be successful.

[1:51:39] Voice 2: So if we don't

[1:51:42] Voice 2: address the accent concern our way you know and we just kick it out to the alc for their

[1:51:50] Voice 2: decision making i don't know how i don't know how well the application would then be received

[1:51:58] Voice 2: or obviously it's impossible to know that could be one approach is to respect what we say this

[1:52:04] Voice 2: we're deferring the

[1:52:05] Voice 6: um i guess the uh the

[1:52:13] Voice 2: analysis of the interests or the uh the various nations

[1:52:17] Voice 2: in charge of uh their local land reserves you know we tried to do that in this way with wording as

[1:52:24] Voice 2: respectful as possible but are we benefiting the application anyway by doing that i don't know

[1:52:30] Voice 5: staff memo was originally worded that way okay

[1:52:33] Voice 5: staff memo right here's all your information if you want to do this if you want to do that right

[1:52:43] Voice 5: and through the mail of rpm kajima union advisor kathy brader from mr martin all of them leading

[1:52:54] Voice 5: to the conclusion that no statue so okay no fair enough so

[1:53:00] Voice 5: staffer took a lot of

[1:53:09] Voice 6: Is

[1:53:10] Voice 7: there any way that archaeologists are going to be able to do that?

[1:53:17] Voice 5: The second question I have is they're not going to come here and start digging around to see if they

[1:53:23] Voice 5: can find archaeology sites, so what do they gain

[1:53:28] Voice 6: by actually being on the site? That's my question.

[1:53:31] Voice 6: Yeah, I mean, obviously

[1:53:36] Voice 2: I can't answer that question, but I would consider that there would be a concern if you were being asked to host a visit that would quite likely result in sustained interest from various nations about the archaeological and historical nature of that site.

[1:53:57] Voice 2: in particular, I think hearing Planner Smith's impression,

[1:54:00] Voice 2: I think he's quite correct.

[1:54:01] Voice 2: I think there would be,

[1:54:04] Voice 2: in the new context of reconciliation and or empowerment,

[1:54:08] Voice 2: people from First Nations

[1:54:12] Voice 2: are going to probably look at that property

[1:54:14] Voice 2: with different eyes.

[1:54:16] Voice 2: And I don't put moral weight to that as being good or bad,

[1:54:22] Voice 2: but it is simply a fact.

[1:54:23] Voice 2: And I think that's what you're, you know,

[1:54:27] Voice 2: what would come of it other than an increased interest

[1:54:30] Voice 6: in that property. I think that's what

[1:54:32] Voice 6: would come of it. Like I said, there's no moral judgment

[1:54:38] Voice 2: there. It's neither good nor bad. That

[1:54:40] Voice 2: is simply a fact. I think it will occur. And then what would that do in terms of the application?

[1:54:46] Voice 2: It's almost driving to a catch-22 situation in some sense. This is why I think we feel

[1:54:54] Voice 2: This is a tricky one because there's no clear way forward to your goal without, in essence, so to speak, rolling the dice of engagement, which could produce entirely unknown outcomes.

[1:55:14] Voice 2: outcomes you know it's like so i can i can if you know if i detect some concern in your question

[1:55:20] Voice 2: you know i can certainly understand let me just say that um is it a morally good thing to engage

[1:55:27] Voice 2: with first nations and try to build relations yes of course it is but we have to be careful

[1:55:32] Voice 2: at whose expense you know both financially and um in terms of um uh future you know uses of

[1:55:41] Voice 2: a person's private property i mean my my sense would be that an engagement process

[1:55:48] Voice 2: by the community not necessarily posted on this one individual's private land

[1:55:53] Voice 2: is a is a better outcome that's not what's been requested here not not what we're doing but i'm

[1:55:59] Voice 2: just throwing myself there that would be a better it would seem like fairer approach

[1:56:05] Voice 2: to reconciliation that doesn't excessively burden one individual member of the community

[1:56:12] Voice 2: But that's an extra step or an extra couple of steps or that's maybe more than a couple of steps.

[1:56:18] Voice 2: And then, you know, your application is moved in that time.

[1:56:24] Voice 2: So I don't know that that's... I always find that thinking out loud,

[1:56:29] Voice 2: generally the community members appreciate that you can kind of follow the line of thinking when you come to a decision.

[1:56:35] Voice 2: so that's kind of where my mind is going so

[1:56:40] Voice 4: yes oh gosh i'm getting very into the paper here because my head's been on the circle mr hall

[1:56:49] Voice 5: well one thing was they got offended because they thought a decision had already been made

[1:56:56] Voice 5: and they didn't

[1:56:58] Voice 5: specifically ask a site visit for a second visit they said they don't have

[1:57:03] Voice 5: But like I said, I think the dealing was upset, because they thought the process had gone ahead of them, before they could get the recommendation.

[1:57:14] Voice 5: And the only ones, the South, they made the first one more information, they got it, and you heard nothing further.

[1:57:22] Voice 7: So come back to, you referenced another email or some information that had tracked.

[1:57:27] Voice 7: Did you say Bradley and Robert have responded to them?

[1:57:31] Voice 7: There is more information.

[1:57:33] Voice 7: They say they have a number of areas of concern.

[1:57:37] Voice 7: Friendly enough, they don't mention agriculture.

[1:57:40] Voice 7: They mention privatisation, logging and expansion of residential properties.

[1:57:44] Voice 7: None of those are necessarily going to happen on that land.

[1:57:49] Voice 7: But either way, a number of areas of concern.

[1:57:52] Voice 7: Also, I believe that you did have some archeological reports, which were not attached to the majority.

[1:58:04] Voice 7: Yeah, the

[1:58:05] Voice 7: reports are for the

[1:58:06] Voice 5: specific sites on the point.

[1:58:10] Voice 5: I had an archeologist come in, he assessed them, produced reports saying that some of the middens had been destroyed by logging in the 50s and so on.

[1:58:19] Voice 5: It's all true, but there was still in fact that it's a notable one we are not protecting, but in fact, that's what we're

[1:58:26] Voice 5: going to do.

[1:58:27] Voice 5: Okay,

[1:58:27] Voice 7: so to summarize that, is there more information? Did Robert respond to them with information which may have changed?

[1:58:35] Voice 7: And then secondly, would it be appropriate to go back and say, like, try and find out what are the areas of concern

[1:58:46] Voice 7: And would the archeological reports answer any of those concerns?

[1:58:52] Voice 5: So, Mr. Kijima, I sent you the response.

[1:58:56] Voice 5: Ms. Kijima just basically responded to Eli Agson, who were concerned that they received a public hearing notice.

[1:59:05] Voice 5: And this is the challenge of trying to go so fast, is that they received a public hearing notice before we had the opportunity to respond to their referral.

[1:59:14] Voice 5: And so, Mr. Kojima responded to them, basically reiterating what recommendations that was

[1:59:22] Voice 5: .

[1:59:24] Voice 5: That's all.

[1:59:25] Voice 5: There's no other archaeological evidence that I can see.

[1:59:31] Voice 5: And I would say that the Y-axis says, clearly, after a preliminary review, there's insufficient

[1:59:39] Voice 5: information on number of areas of concern.

[1:59:40] Voice 5: Without a site visit, we cannot assess the impacts your constitution could have had.

[1:59:45] Voice 5: So that to me sounds like

[1:59:46] Voice 5: they would like to visit the site.

[1:59:50] Voice 5: And may also state required pass-through funding to support them in the formation.

[1:59:55] Voice 5: So they're here. We

[1:59:57] Voice 6: can go back to them and say, okay,

[1:59:59] Voice 5: well, we're done.

[2:00:00] Voice 5: you to hear a scientist and see what they want. We don't really want to worry about

[2:00:03] Voice 5: to decide really, really what to do, but I think that there's a pretty clear request there,

[2:00:16] Voice 5: and the response factor indicates that they are feeling more shit. And in

[2:00:22] Voice 5: an ideal world,

[2:00:23] Voice 5: we would have that response to occur before auto-curing, and we would have

[2:00:29] Voice 6: all of this

[2:00:43] Voice 7: I don't mean to, but it's kind of, we, we meant that,

[2:00:47] Voice 5: so in terms of the wording, like as I said to Trustee Middleton, the wording in the

[2:00:53] Voice 6: original resolution could have been more clear as to where some of that review, in that sort of how the resolution was written.

[2:01:05] Voice 6: uh

[2:01:05] Voice 5: uh yeah so and i also said the blind is again the most local nation

[2:01:12] Voice 5: there is a clear indication where we can't we can't review this without a visit

[2:01:25] Voice 7: okay so is this information that we have now is that in public

[2:01:36] Voice 5: So

[2:01:37] Voice 7: is it appropriate to read this so I think we can hear it or not?

[2:01:41] Voice 5: Oh it's for public, it's a public

[2:01:43] Voice 7: comment, yeah, but it's right since we

[2:01:45] Voice 5: claimed it's all

[2:01:46] Voice 5: yeah that's all now included in the public hearing by us.

[2:01:49] Voice 7: So is anybody um so basically there's an

[2:01:55] Voice 7: an email trail here which comes from the Islands Trust to referral coordinators saying a date has

[2:02:03] Voice 7: been set for the public hearing regarding September Island proposed application. Public hearing will

[2:02:09] Voice 7: be held in person etc etc and that was sent out on September the 26th and the response from

[2:02:17] Voice 7: from the Lianxin consultations is please see attached,

[2:02:24] Voice 7: i.e. the announcement of the public hearing.

[2:02:27] Voice 7: It's very difficult to build a relationship based on trust and respect

[2:02:31] Voice 7: when our nations continue to be ignored.

[2:02:34] Voice 7: It's unclear and paraphrasing about why Alistair's request for feedback

[2:02:38] Voice 7: with pretension to infringe on our rights and then your staff ignore it.

[2:02:43] Voice 7: So it seemed to them, because of the climbing disconnect,

[2:02:46] Voice 7: met then we asked for their feedback and then we hadn't received their feedback and or responded

[2:02:53] Voice 7: i don't believe they had even submitted their feedback this

[2:02:56] Voice 5: was last weekend

[2:02:57] Voice 7: so okay so then

[2:02:59] Voice 7: they um then they said you're announcing public hearing as though you know our feedback doesn't

[2:03:07] Voice 7: count so yeah we've we've and then um so the ice trust senior planner responded and said

[2:03:17] Voice 7: our apologies that the mail about the public hearing was distributed before staff were able

[2:03:21] Voice 7: to respond to your specific concerns and then he speaks to the process and that there's only one

[2:03:28] Voice 7: step and um so

[2:03:33] Voice 2: well i think you should read that then staff are recommending to the local trust

[2:03:37] Voice 7: committee yeah if you want to read that that's yeah start recommending to so so the senior

[2:03:42] Voice 7: The regional planning manager says, our apologies, this is to the Lianxin consultation person.

[2:03:53] Voice 7: Our apologies that the mail about the public hearing was distributed before staff were

[2:03:58] Voice 7: able to respond to your specific concerns.

[2:04:01] Voice 7: While the public hearing for the application will be held on October 19th, this is just

[2:04:06] Voice 7: one required step in the process.

[2:04:08] Voice 7: Staff are recommending to the Local Trust Committee at the meeting of the 19th that

[2:04:14] Voice 7: the application not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission until lands have had an opportunity

[2:04:20] Voice 7: to conduct a site visit and provide input.

[2:04:24] Voice 7: Staff are also determining how costs for the site visit can be covered.

[2:04:28] Voice 7: We will ensure that we will follow up directly with you at the meeting of the 19th.

[2:04:33] Voice 7: And I think

[2:04:37] Voice 4: that's it, basically.

[2:04:40] Voice 7: But

[2:04:40] Voice 4: I think that's it. Unfortunately, that word is there.

[2:04:45] Voice 4: Because to me,

[2:04:49] Voice 6: that has

[2:04:52] Voice 4: raised expectations.

[2:04:54] Voice 4: So now, if we do anything other than the disciples, we're side by side in the face.

[2:05:00] Voice 4: yeah because

[2:05:01] Voice 4: as we've said even

[2:05:02] Voice 7: more so than the

[2:05:03] Voice 7: original step yeah

[2:05:05] Voice 4: yeah i

[2:05:06] Voice 4: don't really agree with

[2:05:07] Voice 4: that wording yeah is

[2:05:09] Voice 4: this it should have been is that it's before the local trust committee

[2:05:12] Voice 4: on the 19th and we'll advise as to what the next steps would be rather than actually laying out

[2:05:18] Voice 4: a recommendation recommendations yeah

[2:05:21] Voice 4: but

[2:05:22] Voice 5: it's just the way

[2:05:23] Voice 4: it is worded you know

[2:05:23] Voice 5: just at this

[2:05:24] Voice 5: point they could just go to the end of that so

[2:05:26] Voice 6: it's not like it's it's

[2:05:29] Voice 5: going to be worth it

[2:05:37] Voice 6: i mean to

[2:05:46] Voice 7: be honest i agree with you david we're yeah okay let's not go down that route

[2:05:54] Voice 7: and so I don't

[2:05:59] Voice 6: think it's fair to put it on staff

[2:06:02] Voice 6: well

[2:06:03] Voice 5: I

[2:06:10] Voice 7: think I think you know we we misstepped collectively with the best of intentions

[2:06:16] Voice 7: um how do we rebuild that bridge is is the question and doesn't set a precedence

[2:06:25] Voice 7: and what happens next?

[2:06:27] Voice 7: To

[2:06:27] Voice 5: be clear, the referral response

[2:06:29] Voice 5: request to the site visit

[2:06:32] Voice 5: there's some

[2:06:36] Voice 5: not ideal way

[2:06:37] Voice 5: of how it was communicated back to them

[2:06:40] Voice 5: at the timing of the

[2:06:41] Voice 5: second public hearing of this

[2:06:43] Voice 5: but the first referral received by the

[2:06:45] Voice 5: like the live

[2:06:48] Voice 5: request to the site visit.

[2:06:49] Voice 7: Okay, great.

[2:06:50] Voice 5: So it's not

[2:06:52] Voice 5: So it

[2:06:53] Voice 7: wasn't figured by

[2:06:58] Voice 2: and the public correspondence from the accent nation the matters concerning the trust

[2:07:04] Voice 2: follows this exact set of concerns like you see the letters to the salt spring

[2:07:08] Voice 2: local trust committee basically mirror the same little concerns outlined in this response to our

[2:07:15] Voice 2: referral which is generally could be summed up as any development activity which i think

[2:07:24] Voice 2: I think agriculture would be classed as is diminishes the scope of our rights to historical territory.

[2:07:37] Voice 6: So I don't know that we are going to be able to specifically address that broad concern.

[2:07:45] Voice 6: concerned um by yeah I guess we're going to

[2:07:55] Voice 2: have to get through that conference about this

[2:07:58] Voice 2: we've got two choices we can simply respond to the request to provide um

[2:08:04] Voice 2: um you know support a site visit and only respond to my accent or what I think is probably the more

[2:08:17] Voice 2: correct course is we would need to open that invitation up to um it would have to be the

[2:08:23] Voice 2: entire 13 i think otherwise we get into then parsing um prioritization of territorial

[2:08:31] Voice 2: fine which i don't think we do i mean like my instinct is to get the sale and signal involved

[2:08:38] Voice 2: and uh presumably nation to nation protocols exist for for them to kind of work out issues

[2:08:46] Voice 2: issues of this nature, but this is my assumption.

[2:08:49] Voice 6: So.

[2:08:54] Voice 6: Even so, if you expand this,

[2:08:56] Voice 6: I don't know those

[2:08:57] Voice 5: costs based on money.

[2:08:58] Voice 5: I mean, that's too much of a burden.

[2:09:00] Voice 5: You put on a person who's applying for a process in BC

[2:09:04] Voice 5: to move agricultural land from one location to another.

[2:09:08] Voice 5: It's just, I mean, the obligation to consult

[2:09:14] Voice 5: is really a provincial government responsibility.

[2:09:16] Voice 5: It's not my responsibility.

[2:09:19] Voice 6: to finance the consultation I I hear you about the cost and my instinct was offered

[2:09:27] Voice 2: in some way might be the the correct uh body to fund any enhanced consultation activities

[2:09:38] Voice 2: uh it does seem unfair to court you know for us I can say that's not fair it's it would be a poor

[2:09:46] Voice 2: decision if we were to basically embark upon a process that we didn't know what the costs were

[2:09:51] Voice 2: we were we were burdening a private individual yeah so

[2:09:56] Voice 2: i had a bare minimum to proceed we need

[2:09:58] Voice 2: to have some sense of what the costs of such a you know consultation visit might be like for

[2:10:05] Voice 2: instance the ones i've been involved with guards canada with sale nation involved four cultural

[2:10:09] Voice 2: for monitors um and one or two staff members it's not typically in my experience that one

[2:10:16] Voice 2: individual comes and that's the decision of the nation of course um but um you know that that has

[2:10:24] Voice 2: a cost um they actually know the water taxi is that is it going to be requested that the water

[2:10:31] Voice 2: taxi be um funded to come to mr all's property and if so that's that's a significant cost i mean

[2:10:38] Voice 2: And we just have .

[2:10:41] Voice 6: Yeah.

[2:10:44] Voice 6: So another

[2:10:45] Voice 7: question, has Robert or anybody

[2:10:51] Voice 7: asked the ALR commission, body, whatever,

[2:10:55] Voice 7: if they have ever had to respond to something like this?

[2:11:02] Voice 4: When

[2:11:03] Voice 7: they got the direct applications, yeah.

[2:11:08] Voice 7: I

[2:11:08] Voice 4: guess that's sort of the real question is that we have a referral process with the Malice Trust for land use applications and such, but the ALR is traditionally seeking, and they require First Nations consultations, but the ALR application, that's sort of more, because I'm just wondering if we, in this application process,

[2:11:35] Voice 4: process, if we truly went well above and beyond what

[2:11:40] Voice 6: the expectations they had longed for.

[2:11:42] Voice 6: At some stage, there was a filter of consultation required between a senior government agency

[2:11:50] Voice 6: and First Nations, as determined by

[2:11:56] Voice 5: dozens of court cases. But in a sense, in my view,

[2:12:03] Voice 5: and all of the agencies have a duty to consult and that may not be a defined duty as per

[2:12:12] Voice 5: how the Canadian legislation is but at the future of the more senior governments

[2:12:21] Voice 5: the duty goes down to local governments as well. I mean there's time you spend at

[2:12:27] Voice 5: trust council talking about my understanding is that one of your priorities is improving this

[2:12:32] Voice 5: so you don't get in this space where you're at the end of the line and want to make a decision

[2:12:39] Voice 5: and you're in some prescription use it's not a system it's a system that we work in uh right now

[2:12:46] Voice 5: so at the trust council level you're trying to turn your mind to being more thoughtful neighbors

[2:12:53] Voice 5: in a sense.

[2:12:56] Voice 5: So I think the decision

[2:12:58] Voice 5: is the next step

[2:13:01] Voice 5: for the ALC

[2:13:02] Voice 5: is written here.

[2:13:06] Voice 5: The next step would be

[2:13:07] Voice 5: for them to offer us

[2:13:08] Voice 5: an excluded meeting

[2:13:09] Voice 5: so that then us,

[2:13:10] Voice 5: presumably staff,

[2:13:12] Voice 5: would go meet with the ALC

[2:13:13] Voice 5: and talk about all of this.

[2:13:16] Voice 5: But staff are not in a position

[2:13:19] Voice 5: to support or not support.

[2:13:20] Voice 5: It's not our obligation.

[2:13:21] Voice 5: So most of all,

[2:13:22] Voice 5: it would have to be

[2:13:23] Voice 5: they're rationalizing the hows, whys, and whats, and I'd be describing the process that we come to, and

[2:13:30] Voice 5: if you decide to go forward to there, I'll describe all of that to them. This is where

[2:13:35] Voice 5: we're at with our consultation, with my accent, this is what they ask, this is the record, and we give them

[2:13:42] Voice 5: all of that, and I don't know what they do. There's people that have their own process, just like you have,

[2:13:49] Voice 5: to work through where where uh input is uh considered announced

[2:13:55] Voice 6: here's the point of

[2:13:57] Voice 6: information are you able to table and then deal

[2:14:03] Voice 6: with this we are that is that is one of the

[2:14:09] Voice 6: the alternatives i mean as

[2:14:15] Voice 7: i won't think actually we would

[2:14:16] Voice 7: just pause on this

[2:14:20] Voice 6: So I think what we

[2:14:23] Voice 2: want to cover is there's a set of criteria for consultation in anything

[2:14:31] Voice 2: to do with the agricultural land reserve and considerations of First Nations that are somewhat

[2:14:36] Voice 2: beyond our ability to address or deal with.

[2:14:39] Voice 2: It seems to me that if we can, in a respectful manner, acknowledge the interest that the

[2:14:45] Voice 2: the nations have but basically point out that those interests would be much better met by the

[2:14:53] Voice 2: body responsible for the administration of the African for land reserve which we are not

[2:15:00] Voice 2: and that you know I'm presumed a perspective communication like reconciliation is a two-way

[2:15:06] Voice 2: street that involves discussion right we can't just say this is a ping-pong ball

[2:15:11] Voice 2: there's some way we've got to say okay we hear you here's kind of what we did with that

[2:15:16] Voice 2: and communicate that now then the vaccination may not be in agreement with our decision or

[2:15:22] Voice 2: they may feel that their interests uh should have been met or championed by us but we have

[2:15:29] Voice 2: no ability to champion those interests with the agricultural land commission because we're asked

[2:15:33] Voice 2: to do i guess or no here and i think what we can say is there's obviously concern expressed

[2:15:38] Voice 2: expressed the vehicle to meet that concern is is something that we are we don't have that vehicle

[2:15:44] Voice 2: but the province through its I would go for a line condition does and so therefore we're recommending

[2:15:50] Voice 2: this be considered you know we're looking we're saying use your process and we respond to the

[2:15:56] Voice 2: nations involved and say here's what we've done with respect um I think that's what I I don't

[2:16:03] Voice 2: I would draft that as an option, but there's no questions.

[2:16:08] Voice 5: Part of the problem is we don't know much

[2:16:10] Voice 5: about the operation of the ALCs.

[2:16:12] Voice 5: But I do know that they do site visit themselves

[2:16:21] Voice 5: of where the members of the council

[2:16:23] Voice 5: will actually visit the site.

[2:16:25] Voice 5: I don't know anything about whether they sponsor

[2:16:27] Voice 5: sites for vaccinations.

[2:16:29] Voice 5: That's a great idea, because we don't know.

[2:16:38] Voice 5: but

[2:16:39] Voice 7: it would be good to find out um or to assume whichever is they've been through this process

[2:16:46] Voice 7: before without us as a proxy in a way so they must have some experience and even with respect to

[2:16:56] Voice 7: and you know the archaeological sites and that's all that's that material and that knowledge

[2:17:04] Voice 7: is brought together to some degree at the provincial level of how to the intersection

[2:17:10] Voice 7: between agricultural land and science yeah i mean

[2:17:16] Voice 2: that i guess what this falls down to is

[2:17:18] Voice 2: a obviously a delay if we were to take this approach because we would say to the ALC we

[2:17:25] Voice 2: We don't understand the burden placed upon us here,

[2:17:28] Voice 2: what your consultation duties are,

[2:17:31] Voice 2: what your obligation and feel on the reconciliation is.

[2:17:35] Voice 2: So we can't mediate that.

[2:17:36] Voice 2: We need to know more, and we're being asked things

[2:17:39] Voice 2: by nations who've expressed interest

[2:17:40] Voice 2: that we genuinely can't answer or supply.

[2:17:45] Voice 2: And basically, we need more information from you, ALC,

[2:17:49] Voice 2: before we can move here.

[2:17:51] Voice 2: We can express this to the nation saying,

[2:17:53] Voice 2: saying, we hear you, you've expressed an interest,

[2:17:57] Voice 2: we don't feel that we have enough information either,

[2:18:01] Voice 2: we're talking to the ALC, we'll be back to you.

[2:18:04] Voice 7: I think that's a good approach because realistically,

[2:18:09] Voice 7: even if we said, okay, welcome, Annie,

[2:18:13] Voice 7: here's a site visit to an ALC,

[2:18:16] Voice 7: it's a whole new process, a new domain for us,

[2:18:22] Voice 7: we could end up in a clodmire of things where we then have to go to the ALC and say now what do we

[2:18:27] Voice 7: do or you know so why not go to the ALC now and say what do you recommend yeah

[2:18:34] Voice 2: and say we found

[2:18:36] Voice 2: a problem with your process yeah like um you know no no no without prejudice it's a new process

[2:18:43] Voice 2: we're all into it but to pretend otherwise it's not helping anybody the first nations the applicant

[2:18:49] Voice 2: or the province's interests at large.

[2:18:52] Voice 7: And I do, and we can be very, I don't know what the word is,

[2:19:00] Voice 7: but I respect what they're saying, which is they didn't really get an answer

[2:19:05] Voice 7: to their first referral, and bingo, we appear to be going ahead regardless.

[2:19:10] Voice 7: So we can speak to that, apologize, whatever, and then make it clear

[2:19:18] Voice 7: that in our deciding to approach BA or ALC

[2:19:24] Voice 7: for further information,

[2:19:26] Voice 7: like we have effectively halted the process

[2:19:29] Voice 7: until other things.

[2:19:33] Voice 7: So, you know, we just have to slow down

[2:19:36] Voice 7: and say we need to consult with the ALC.

[2:19:40] Voice 7: And in the meantime,

[2:19:42] Voice 7: we'll be assured that nothing will happen

[2:19:45] Voice 7: without you knowing.

[2:19:46] Voice 7: We

[2:19:47] Voice 2: will make clear to the AOC your historical connection to this land and the constraints

[2:19:57] Voice 2: that you were about finding in your communication and blah, blah, blah.

[2:20:02] Voice 3: Go ahead.

[2:20:03] Voice 3: I was going to say, it sounds to me like when they amended this legislation, the governor

[2:20:08] Voice 3: will tend to consequence that's arisen from the Biden.

[2:20:11] Voice 3: Yes.

[2:20:12] Voice 3: And I think the thing is, you're going to write, you should probably say that it's

[2:20:17] Voice 7: the

[2:20:17] Voice 3: process is new right new legislation first time it's come through previously it would have

[2:20:24] Voice 3: been a landowner but

[2:20:26] Voice 7: now it's us and we have to go back to the alc to find out what their procedure

[2:20:33] Voice 7: was prior to the uh this transplanting to me yeah yeah

[2:20:40] Voice 6: i think once you get that

[2:20:41] Voice 7: kind of intersected

[2:20:43] Voice 7: and create with this.

[2:20:45] Voice 7: So something I was going to say was with respect to,

[2:20:51] Voice 7: I think it's been, oh, yes.

[2:20:53] Voice 7: Is it possible in a situation where the form,

[2:21:01] Voice 7: to ask them what their areas of concern are,

[2:21:06] Voice 7: to just inform their discussion going forward?

[2:21:10] Voice 7: Can they be a little bit more clear?

[2:21:13] Voice 7: yeah as part of this dialogue like we hear

[2:21:18] Voice 7: you we understand

[2:21:19] Voice 7: what

[2:21:19] Voice 2: we want to do is say we've discovered that there are legitimate concerns that at third

[2:21:29] Voice 2: removal as if we are not the agricultural land condition we are not equipped to deal with that

[2:21:35] Voice 2: we recognize they need dealing with it so we're we're pausing to to address this issue with the

[2:21:41] Voice 2: agricultural land commission and we will keep you posted on what yeah what happens because i think

[2:21:48] Voice 2: once we get the consent it becomes the job of the land commission right well the concerns are

[2:21:52] Voice 2: not always in that point because we have no ability to address really address any issues

[2:21:58] Voice 2: on the agricultural land because we're not the alc yes

[2:22:01] Voice 5: the process defines you notifying first

[2:22:05] Voice 5: restrictions on the requirements as one of the steps prior to submitting your application so i

[2:22:11] Voice 5: my understanding of why legislation changed is to put more rigor and do discipline on the

[2:22:18] Voice 5: applicants uh instead of having the property wasn't savvy and able to do all of this stuff

[2:22:27] Voice 5: right uh instead of the burden falling on the seat and i would step back and think like what

[2:22:35] Voice 6: what is Lighthouse's impression going to be

[2:22:39] Voice 6: if you punted to the NLC to

[2:22:42] Voice 5: deal with?

[2:22:44] Voice 7: But we're not asking them to deal with it.

[2:22:47] Voice 7: We're asking them to advise us and give us more information.

[2:22:50] Voice 5: But what I'm saying is that the NLC

[2:22:53] Voice 5: is going to receive the information they receive.

[2:22:56] Voice 5: They're not going to initiate a matter of all the fact.

[2:23:01] Voice 5: They're not going to initiate some deep, robust consultation process

[2:23:05] Voice 5: with the NLC.

[2:23:07] Voice 5: so can

[2:23:07] Voice 7: we can we as this attorney and local trust committee not speak to the alc

[2:23:12] Voice 7: they can follow up and confirm that if you want yeah that's what we're proposing is just

[2:23:19] Voice 7: i think is that right we're just asking them this is the first time through this process for us

[2:23:26] Voice 7: and how could we i don't know for anybody yeah

[2:23:29] Voice 2: and that's what we would tell the action nation

[2:23:31] Voice 2: and all the respondents is that we need to get better information

[2:23:40] Voice 2: on how to better meet reconciliation objectives

[2:23:44] Voice 2: through this referral process, which is brand new to us.

[2:23:48] Voice 2: And through just being honest, I mean, I think that's where we have to start

[2:23:52] Voice 2: is just like, you know, an honest response

[2:23:56] Voice 2: and saying that we are seeking to understand better

[2:24:02] Voice 2: the consultation process for the agricultural land reserves

[2:24:06] Voice 2: and we will follow up with more information.

[2:24:12] Voice 2: Because we don't know the outcome, we're not committing to.

[2:24:14] Voice 2: So we're not at this point saying we're,

[2:24:18] Voice 2: I mean, if we would just simply default it to the ALC

[2:24:21] Voice 2: and say, okay, we have to deal with it.

[2:24:23] Voice 2: We don't know how to address this concern,

[2:24:25] Voice 2: from that funding but we're saying we hear what you said we acknowledge here's what we're doing

[2:24:31] Voice 2: to try to figure this out and get a process in place that doesn't currently seem to accommodate

[2:24:37] Voice 2: your interests and um and

[2:24:40] Voice 7: also um do you have you know a table of right you know estimated costs

[2:24:46] Voice 7: for site visits i

[2:24:50] Voice 5: mean

[2:24:52] Voice 7: you know just a range it's just a kind of

[2:24:55] Voice 7: involved discussion because it's easy for us to just say it would be at the cost of the applicant

[2:25:01] Voice 7: but it's a very unknown amount yeah and and i think that's that's another element of this

[2:25:08] Voice 7: scariness yeah this is unknown cost factor and

[2:25:15] Voice 2: i think in the consultation with the alc that's

[2:25:17] Voice 2: exactly what we asked is because of the way consultation has worked in the past where

[2:25:24] Voice 2: just when we were with with our elders committee and the consultation with the sales elders

[2:25:31] Voice 2: committee a contribution would be made it's not i do not have the experience that i have

[2:25:38] Voice 2: where you know we've been in noise for costs yeah and

[2:25:41] Voice 2: so that is one approach you'd say

[2:25:42] Voice 2: that the support to consign consultation is this number of dollars and i don't know that that's

[2:25:50] Voice 2: been defined by the alice trust or has been i think there has been some discussion but i don't

[2:25:55] Voice 2: know what that one and so yeah so we're talking about the pointy end of the stick so to speak in

[2:26:01] Voice 2: terms of like trying to figure out how we meaningfully engage where we are you know we

[2:26:08] Voice 2: therefore are entering zones where

[2:26:09] Voice 6: we don't have information maybe nobody has information at this

[2:26:12] Voice 6: for yes and yes

[2:26:16] Voice 6: so um to

[2:26:18] Voice 2: i guess give our plan of some guidance there would be a thing to try

[2:26:23] Voice 2: and craft a motion of some nature that um it's kind of not any of the other responses i don't

[2:26:31] Voice 2: think although we should just try that

[2:26:33] Voice 6: okay yes

[2:26:36] Voice 5: yes thank you not the saturn island trust give

[2:26:39] Voice 5: me a direct staff to contact alc staff to determine what process they would take to

[2:26:44] Voice 5: consider First

[2:26:45] Voice 6: Nations concerns after submission by a local government?

[2:26:54] Voice 2: It does, of course. The context for that conversation is we've hit a problem,

[2:27:00] Voice 2: a procedural problem in where we're triggering that to meaningfully engage

[2:27:07] Voice 2: involves downloading costs to the applicant of an unspecified nature and asks us also to perhaps

[2:27:13] Voice 2: take a political position in the relative interests of the nations who have expressed

[2:27:18] Voice 2: of, you know, historical right and title, which is not appropriate for us to be placed

[2:27:24] Voice 2: into. But I mean, that can come out of

[2:27:27] Voice 6: it, obviously, you don't have to capture that

[2:27:29] Voice 6: into the ad.

[2:27:32] Voice 7: That's probably an advance, I imagine, by now, is it? Do we don't need to put it into

[2:27:36] Voice 7: that resolution? You know, that it's...

[2:27:38] Voice 7: No,

[2:27:39] Voice 2: I'm sure not. No, it wouldn't be in the resolution anyway, I don't think, unless we

[2:27:44] Voice 2: want to add a phrase that um the saturnal local trust too many feels it's impossible to proceed

[2:27:52] Voice 2: with the with the referral process uh without clarification of the expectation and

[2:28:02] Voice 2: goals of the alc in this regard in

[2:28:07] Voice 7: this changing procedure

[2:28:08] Voice 2: and that that basically is an expectation

[2:28:12] Voice 2: of like hey you've caused a problem here and uh you know we we need some help to figure this out

[2:28:19] Voice 2: together yeah

[2:28:21] Voice 5: that's the problem itself let's do it the problem

[2:28:25] Voice 2: has caused us it's obvious i'll

[2:28:27] Voice 2: just repeat that point it places the local trust committee in a position of having to play having

[2:28:33] Voice 2: to make political decisions in reference to uh the perceived ranking of type of applicant

[2:28:41] Voice 2: multiple holders interests in the in the portion of the alar subject to this application and then

[2:28:48] Voice 2: secondly to adequately deal with those um concerns requires us to download to the property owner

[2:28:58] Voice 2: unspecified and potentially very high expenses that may still not result in the alc receiving

[2:29:04] Voice 2: the information it needs to make its decision so they're both an information void a process

[2:29:11] Voice 2: that's void and um a dodging of the of the question about aboriginal interest by the alsc

[2:29:18] Voice 2: onto putting that interest onto the local trust committee which i don't think is

[2:29:23] Voice 6: appropriate thank

[2:29:24] Voice 6: you so what do you think all right this is a big one um so you got the post motion and you set it

[2:29:36] Voice 6: off to currently it

[2:29:37] Voice 5: didn't sound like that motion so i

[2:29:41] Voice 2: i think the motion is fine the context is

[2:29:44] Voice 2: just the discussion we've had is it's not it's not it's not just a polite you know we want a

[2:29:51] Voice 2: real conversation with the ac hero that's like we've got a situation that we need some support

[2:29:55] Voice 2: in working through it together.

[2:29:57] Voice 5: I'm sure you're going to get that.

[2:30:00] Voice 5: and i think the lc is going to come out and say step four says you send the notice you send in

[2:30:08] Voice 5: the application or don't and we will consider all the information we will determine what consultation

[2:30:14] Voice 5: that many is required we

[2:30:16] Voice 6: don't have a map for everyone everyone would be different just like

[2:30:20] Voice 5: every one of our applications is different each one of them okay

[2:30:24] Voice 2: and if we

[2:30:25] Voice 2: receive that that's

[2:30:26] Voice 2: what we receive and then we proceed

[2:30:28] Voice 2: accordingly. So I think my

[2:30:39] Voice 7: emergency food available.

[2:30:41] Voice 7: Yeah.

[2:30:42] Voice 7: I agree with

[2:30:44] Voice 7: me that for a variety

[2:30:46] Voice 7: of reasons, like this is a new process.

[2:30:49] Voice 7: It's a new

[2:30:50] Voice 7: type of land

[2:30:52] Voice 7: thing that we haven't had to

[2:30:54] Voice 7: actively deal with before.

[2:30:57] Voice 7: And, you know, the response is very clear.

[2:31:03] Voice 7: We have to honour what they asked for,

[2:31:08] Voice 7: but we should get some more advice beforehand

[2:31:12] Voice 7: because increasingly, you know, as I said,

[2:31:15] Voice 7: the legal requirement is A, and we're being asked to do,

[2:31:20] Voice 7: and voluntarily have volunteered to do B,

[2:31:24] Voice 7: be, but it does leave us in a very tricky situation where we potentially, as you said,

[2:31:33] Voice 7: download an unconfirmed amount of costs, and all of that should be at least on the table

[2:31:40] Voice 7: and acknowledged and up front by the ALC as well as us before we move forward.

[2:31:49] Voice 6: Yeah.

[2:31:51] Voice 5: Clearly, the ALC didn't require you to do this.

[2:31:54] Voice 5: you send it out as a by-law referral, which was a direction from Director Marlowe.

[2:32:00] Voice 5: So the ALC hasn't, all the ALC is telling you to do is notify persons.

[2:32:06] Voice 5: So

[2:32:07] Voice 6: in a sense, your duty to them is complete.

[2:32:17] Voice 6: But I, so how

[2:32:20] Voice 5: about that the Sub-Saharan Island Local Trust Community directs staff

[2:32:24] Voice 5: to contact ALC staff to clarify process steps the ALC would take to consider

[2:32:29] Voice 5: first nations input after submission by a local government

[2:32:34] Voice 7: that's

[2:32:34] Voice 5: good that's good

[2:32:35] Voice 7: i mean i would

[2:32:37] Voice 7: like to know if they did this in the past how they responded because they've downloaded that

[2:32:46] Voice 7: requirement to us and they haven't told us what normally happened and how they dealt with it and

[2:32:54] Voice 2: we could add to the motion this that may not need to be and that first nations respondents be

[2:33:02] Voice 2: be

[2:33:03] Voice 6: informed of this

[2:33:04] Voice 6: step-up.

[2:33:05] Voice 6: And a general point,

[2:33:14] Voice 6: but I don't know what went out

[2:33:16] Voice 7: as a notification,

[2:33:19] Voice 7: but, you know,

[2:33:21] Voice 7: I wonder whether the fact

[2:33:22] Voice 7: that this is the first time

[2:33:26] Voice 7: that we were,

[2:33:27] Voice 7: I don't know if it's happened

[2:33:29] Voice 6: in any other MTC.

[2:33:34] Voice 6: And I will

[2:33:35] Voice 6: also direct you to

[2:33:36] Voice 6: Master of Motion

[2:33:38] Voice 6: and i'll also put in the following actions to get the costume as to follow up with legs

[2:33:50] Voice 6: so so you're sending that motion now to carly okay so carly i have a motion coming here today

[2:33:58] Voice 6: thank you thank you for this opportunity

[2:34:23] Voice 7: to voyage into unknown uncharted territories

[2:34:29] Voice 7: Unknown territory, unknown and

[2:34:32] Voice 7: uncharging waters, yeah.

[2:34:38] Voice 6: Is it possible that to deal with it, you could simply put on a plaintive comment,

[2:34:53] Voice 6: But that when the First Nations raise issues, you are referral only and you refer to the

[2:35:05] Voice 6: AR with their decision rather than you having to make the decisions.

[2:35:12] Voice 2: This is the clarification exactly.

[2:35:15] Voice 2: How do we understand the interests of the ALC when it comes to responding to express

[2:35:25] Voice 2: concern of another party, which they don't, right?

[2:35:28] Voice 6: And

[2:35:29] Voice 2: so, unless the ALC is expressing, giving us that power, in which

[2:35:37] Voice 6: case, obviously, some

[2:35:39] Voice 6: some protocol around that has to be given you know

[2:35:46] Voice 2: i don't think we i don't think we should have

[2:35:50] Voice 2: uh that power when it comes to the rules of the province with reconciliation it's inappropriate

[2:35:55] Voice 2: that we we'd be trying to strategically navigate that we're not we're not in the web

[2:36:03] Voice 2: okay

[2:36:03] Voice 6: so currently you have motion i

[2:36:07] Voice 8: do would you like me to read it out

[2:36:08] Voice 6: yes please um

[2:36:10] Voice 8: okay it was

[2:36:11] Voice 8: moved and seconded or that the saturn island local trust committee direct staff to contact

[2:36:15] Voice 8: the agricultural land commission staff to clarify the process steps the alc would take to consider

[2:36:22] Voice 8: first nations input after submission by a local government and that first nations respondents be

[2:36:28] Voice 8: informed of this step

[2:36:29] Voice 6: that works who wants to do that i'll

[2:36:34] Voice 4: move that trust me better

[2:36:35] Voice 4: to lose it and through the discussion call the question on paper that carries

[2:36:43] Voice 2: and thank you for planning for his assistance and guidance through this process

[2:36:49] Voice 4: so is that enough of a conclusion of this program

[2:36:53] Voice 4: program or some follow-up letters so we'll

[2:36:57] Voice 6: bring this back to you at your next meeting should we

[2:37:00] Voice 7: should we um will they sorry my question with respect to asking them

[2:37:08] Voice 7: um if they wanted to elaborate on the concerns is this appropriate that would you touch or not

[2:37:14] Voice 7: i

[2:37:14] Voice 2: think not at this point that's that's yes into we probably should take some protocol

[2:37:20] Voice 2: call in five steps to figure that out yeah um there's issues with placing constraints on the

[2:37:27] Voice 2: public record that the first nations have and you know that we we so

[2:37:32] Voice 7: should there be a response or

[2:37:34] Voice 7: will there be a response then to describe i think it's in that email that the outcome of this

[2:37:39] Voice 7: I think we can hear you.

[2:37:40] Voice 6: I was going to ask you a question.

[2:37:45] Voice 6: Okay.

[2:37:46] Voice 6: Okay.

[2:37:52] Voice 4: So moving forward, we have local trust committee report.

[2:37:55] Voice 7: Now we're going to lock the door, okay?

[2:37:58] Voice 7: I'm sorry.

[2:37:59] Voice 7: I can't hear you.

[2:38:04] Voice 3: Thank

[2:38:04] Voice 6: you very much.

[2:38:05] Voice 3: Good

[2:38:06] Voice 6: luck.

[2:38:07] Voice 4: Thank

[2:38:08] Voice 3: you very much.

[2:38:11] Voice 4: so we have work programs reports so we have active projects and future projects

[2:38:16] Voice 4: is there anything to talk through those only

[2:38:19] Voice 5: that we're treating uh the larp project

[2:38:22] Voice 5: 55 56

[2:38:37] Voice 6: projects

[2:38:38] Voice 2: would not the new business items will modify this so we would leave that to the business

[2:38:43] Voice 2: state.

[2:38:44] Voice 6: So application report is simply for information. We've

[2:38:52] Voice 4: got the policies, the rules.

[2:38:56] Voice 4: Well, trust me, but thanks for your knowledge. No Island Trust and Service report.

[2:39:00] Voice 4: That takes us to page 66, which is a new feed file.

[2:39:19] Voice 6: Okay, so we have proposed the bylaw, this

[2:39:27] Voice 4: has been deferred over, and so we're here,

[2:39:31] Voice 7: and

[2:39:32] Voice 4: where do we want to be?

[2:39:33] Voice 4: Well,

[2:39:34] Voice 7: I have looked at this and personally I feel that, you know, I tried to find out, you know,

[2:39:47] Voice 7: what the problem was and the fact that all islands other than the Sachem and North

[2:39:52] Voice 7: plan to have adopted it and to be honest I feel that we should, it's a revenue, so a little bit

[2:40:06] Voice 7: from a budget perspective, in the budget they refer to revenue, revenue from application fees

[2:40:15] Voice 7: and when I see that sum and it isn't huge it's in the context of the budget it's not a giant sum of

[2:40:22] Voice 7: money and I feel that Citerna and Northender, although I don't have a role for that, we should

[2:40:30] Voice 7: carry our share. So I am in favour of adopting this file but I would like to hear from my fellow

[2:40:40] Voice 7: trustee as to if there are any other concerns that I haven't brought up. And you're of course from

[2:40:47] Voice 7: I'm from Maine and you did adopt it, I believe.

[2:40:49] Voice 7: I did,

[2:40:50] Voice 4: but I'm also from Saterra and Northlander, who are not adults.

[2:40:55] Voice 7: But they're

[2:40:56] Voice 6: in this area right now.

[2:40:58] Voice 7: Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I don't know, on Maine, when you adopted it, were there, is there a discussion that you want to share with us?

[2:41:06] Voice 7: i

[2:41:07] Voice 4: mean the same particular discussion um about that um because because both uh trustee dogs

[2:41:13] Voice 4: served on the regional committee that sort of did them all apart so we kind of had the in-depth

[2:41:21] Voice 4: discussion yeah um and certainly it is that there are different opinions um racial planning committee

[2:41:31] Voice 4: But as you noted, it's 11 out of 13 local trustees that adopted it, so it seems it is

[2:41:40] Voice 4: the will of the organization to sort of proceed with this.

[2:41:46] Voice 4: And

[2:41:46] Voice 7: it's been, I don't know whether it's been a success, certainly there hasn't been a huge

[2:41:50] Voice 7: have a road test about it, I don't believe,

[2:41:55] Voice 6: from any of the local justice initiatives, you know.

[2:41:58] Voice 6: It's, yeah.

[2:42:01] Voice 6: So it's been kind of road tested and I think at this stage

[2:42:14] Voice 7: because it's been road tested and it's

[2:42:16] Voice 7: kind of, you know, it's not like it's a revolution, it's more like a, I don't know what your,

[2:42:25] Voice 7: evolution we i see here that there was the possibility of energy information meeting i

[2:42:30] Voice 7: i don't really think it's necessary at this stage it's kind of you know um standard piece of business

[2:42:39] Voice 7: so with that i will turn it over to my fellow trustee um yes

[2:42:46] Voice 2: i think the reason being delayed

[2:42:47] Voice 2: in the past of all come to pass which was look on and reorganizing how those services were delivered

[2:42:56] Voice 2: um and the supplement the document this new bylaw by other local trust committees so

[2:43:03] Voice 2: um i think the time has come to

[2:43:07] Voice 6: um probably do the same

[2:43:12] Voice 7: i was not hopefully glad you know blood sugar isn't uh passing death into you to this

[2:43:20] Voice 6: um well hallelujah is what i was saying

[2:43:26] Voice 2: yes that's right just a quick question on the permits we don't actually have all these

[2:43:32] Voice 2: permits right this is the model and then you would like distill down like so yeah okay so

[2:43:37] Voice 2: i would second the motion if uh so a

[2:43:44] Voice 7: recommendation here is that we draft a new key bylaw but

[2:43:47] Voice 7: it hasn't been drafted already or do we have to do a specific

[2:43:52] Voice 7: So if you

[2:43:53] Voice 5: approve, then it

[2:43:55] Voice 6: will be drafted today, and I guess probably brought back to you shortly.

[2:44:03] Voice 2: Page 78 is basically the wording of the by-law there.

[2:44:07] Voice 5: And then the by-law would come back to you for adoption.

[2:44:14] Voice 7: So, and then if I could post it, it's just this recommendation on page 68, is that adequate?

[2:44:25] Voice 6: I think it says duplicate on 67, so I think that's the idea.

[2:44:30] Voice 6: give it to you exactly okay

[2:44:33] Voice 7: so um i move that's to try and open the trust commission request down

[2:44:40] Voice 7: to draft a new fee by law based on the monthly fee by law which has just cancer policy 9.6.1

[2:44:48] Voice 7: application process of services i'll

[2:44:51] Voice 6: second that any discussion

[2:44:53] Voice 7: call

[2:44:54] Voice 6: the question one paper

[2:44:56] Voice 6: Okay.

[2:44:57] Voice 7: Great.

[2:45:00] Voice 7: Robert, I never know.

[2:45:04] Voice 5: We can reconsider.

[2:45:05] Voice 7: Aren't you all so dumb?

[2:45:06] Voice 7: We can just leave.

[2:45:08] Voice 7: This

[2:45:08] Voice 2: is an example of the excellent level of cooperation and collaboration the Saturna

[2:45:14] Voice 2: Naval Trust Committee brings to the Islands Trust Federation after two years.

[2:45:21] Voice 6: Slowly.

[2:45:23] Voice 4: Okay.

[2:45:24] Voice 4: Okay, so now we have the Freedom of Information and Detection of Privacy File.

[2:45:32] Voice 6: So this, you deferred.

[2:45:40] Voice 6: So it was North Canyon that asked for more information.

[2:45:46] Voice 5: Your committee asked for clarify the question on the wording of secretary.

[2:45:51] Voice 5: And with respect to the fees and increase the table.

[2:45:56] Voice 5: all and tomorrow

[2:45:58] Voice 6: is providing us yeah the secretary function as i elaborated on

[2:46:09] Voice 6: so does that provide sufficient answer to me i think it does so somebody prepared to make the

[2:46:19] Voice 6: motion i'll

[2:46:21] Voice 2: move that's tonight on the local trust committee bylaw number 139 said is turn

[2:46:24] Voice 2: on the local trust committee freedom of information and protection of privacy bylaw

[2:46:29] Voice 2: Bylaw number 139, 2023, re-read a second time.

[2:46:33] Voice 2: I second that.

[2:46:34] Voice 2: All questions in favour?

[2:46:36] Voice 2: Carries.

[2:46:39] Voice 7: I move that the Southerner Island Local Trust Committee

[2:46:42] Voice 7: bylaw number 139, cited in the Southerner Island Local Trust Committee

[2:46:46] Voice 7: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

[2:46:49] Voice 7: bylaw number 139, 2023, be read a third time.

[2:46:53] Voice 2: Seconded that.

[2:46:54] Voice 2: Discussion moved.

[2:46:55] Voice 2: All questions in favour?

[2:46:56] Voice 2: Carried.

[2:46:57] Voice 2: move that's to turn on the local trust committee bylaw number 139

[2:47:00] Voice 2: so it is to turn on the local trust committee

[2:47:02] Voice 2: freedom of information and

[2:47:04] Voice 2: protecting the privacy bylaw number 139

[2:47:06] Voice 2: 2023

[2:47:07] Voice 2: forwarded to the secretary of the Amos Trust

[2:47:10] Voice 2: for approval by the executive

[2:47:13] Voice 2: second

[2:47:14] Voice 2: discussion

[2:47:15] Voice 2: who is

[2:47:18] Voice 6: currently the secretary of the Amos Trust

[2:47:20] Voice 6: David Marley

[2:47:21] Voice 3: isn't he

[2:47:22] Voice 6: I

[2:47:23] Voice 7: think

[2:47:26] Voice 7: that's one of the governance review and things which is you know like appointment of a secretariat

[2:47:41] Voice 7: okay

[2:47:41] Voice 4: so now we move down to advisory committee discussion okay

[2:47:48] Voice 6: no so that is so which page is it exactly

[2:47:56] Voice 4: it's my page

[2:47:56] Voice 4: page 89 yeah this is the line item yeah so i think that's the discussion so it's about four

[2:48:06] Voice 6: yeah so um

[2:48:24] Voice 7: So our desire is an advisory committee with a specific limit to talk to Moti on our behalf.

[2:48:36] Voice 7: So

[2:48:37] Voice 5: you need to be clear just before you go any further that you cannot assign the committee to go and have external conversations with other agencies about your EPC by-law, which is based on the local government aspects and really clear that you're limited in scope, sending a referral

[2:48:56] Voice 6: and receiving information back from the board, like you said.

[2:49:00] Voice 6: I don't really understand that because, so

[2:49:10] Voice 7: there is a protocol agreement with the committee, and within that, there was the possibility of having a task force, and the possibility that a local trust committee could also have a subcommittee to act in that regard, similarly.

[2:49:29] Voice 5: We don't have a provision to have subcommittees other than your advisory committee.

[2:49:36] Voice 7: Well, we

[2:49:36] Voice 7: don't now because that policy was removed, the one that addressed the traffic

[2:49:43] Voice 7: committee, traffic advisory commission.

[2:49:46] Voice 5: In that agreement?

[2:49:47] Voice 7: No, and Trust Council and David Marlowe went forward about it were to be removed on the

[2:49:54] Voice 7: basis that they were obsolete but one of those was a policy about uh having a traffic advisory

[2:50:02] Voice 7: committee okay so we can't mention the word mochi we can just well

[2:50:08] Voice 6: so just to be clear

[2:50:09] Voice 6: the local trust committee may by resolution refer

[2:50:26] Voice 5: any matter respecting land use community

[2:50:28] Voice 5: planning or proposed bylaws or permits

[2:50:30] Voice 5: the APC must meet and where there is a referral, blah, blah, blah.

[2:50:38] Voice 5: But

[2:50:38] Voice 6: nevertheless.

[2:50:45] Voice 6: So if we describe what

[2:50:47] Voice 7: we want and then you figure out how best to do it,

[2:50:49] Voice 7: would that be right?

[2:50:51] Voice 5: That's what you try to do and it doesn't work that way

[2:50:53] Voice 5: because I'm limited by what I can, by what

[2:50:55] Voice 5: you can do.

[2:50:57] Voice 5: So you can only establish an advisory command,

[2:50:59] Voice 5: which that is what your authority is.

[2:51:01] Voice 5: You can't establish any other subcommittee to go out and do stuff on your own path.

[2:51:06] Voice 5: That is not mandated by me.

[2:51:08] Voice 5: It's mandated by the provincial statutes.

[2:51:12] Voice 5: If you establish an advisory planning commission,

[2:51:15] Voice 5: that advisory planning commission can't be an intermediary

[2:51:19] Voice 5: over there conducting business on what we have.

[2:51:22] Voice 5: No, no,

[2:51:22] Voice 8: I understand that.

[2:51:23] Voice 5: They can't be, so they can only receive information

[2:51:26] Voice 5: and provide you advice.

[2:51:29] Voice 7: Okay, so that's fine.

[2:51:31] Voice 7: that's their process and their way of working what i'm keen to do is keep their limit narrow

[2:51:37] Voice 7: because they want the right people you know

[2:51:40] Voice 7: you know there are people who are really concerned

[2:51:42] Voice 7: about low quality there

[2:51:43] Voice 5: would be an advisory planning commission to advise local trust

[2:51:47] Voice 5: on matters concerning

[2:51:53] Voice 7: that's all we want yeah because you know i i if we sort of advertise it it would be nice to get

[2:52:00] Voice 7: the right people who have been part of the national reform committee so as we need to

[2:52:07] Voice 7: target that for sure that would be

[2:52:09] Voice 5: no good absolutely okay i just want to make it really

[2:52:13] Voice 5: there that it can't be a task force it can't be at all doing stuff you know what i mean

[2:52:20] Voice 5: it is i i'm not saying yeah it's

[2:52:24] Voice 5: not my opinion

[2:52:25] Voice 5: so we're

[2:52:36] Voice 7: only going to uh appoint people who are shell ready basically

[2:52:45] Voice 7: Oh, you went out on Yarmouth Bay Road, of course, yeah.

[2:52:49] Voice 5: There were a lot of trees off the road.

[2:52:52] Voice 7: So, yeah, I think you should be offering that as a big precaution from, anyway, a day out of court.

[2:53:00] Voice 7: So, come back to the point. So we need to just make a resolution, which I think we didn't do, did we?

[2:53:07] Voice 5: this is your question you

[2:53:08] Voice 5: asked for it by uh okay resolution so you could have the resolution

[2:53:13] Voice 5: saying direct staff to advertise for a advisory planning commission with the scope of what

[2:53:20] Voice 5: so do you want to repeat what you just said which is yeah that the saturn island local

[2:53:28] Voice 5: trust committee direct staff to initiate advertising for five I think it was a good

[2:53:38] Voice 5: number for up to five members of an advisory planning commission

[2:53:41] Voice 6: with the scope of addressing

[2:53:49] Voice 6: traffic problems

[2:53:51] Voice 7: on Szechuan island would that be okay or is that too broad

[2:53:55] Voice 7: uh well

[2:53:57] Voice 2: would it be road infrastructure problems or just what it's like a period

[2:54:04] Voice 7: okay

[2:54:05] Voice 5: considering road infrastructure issues on saturn right yeah

[2:54:10] Voice 7: so did you capture that

[2:54:12] Voice 5: i

[2:54:13] Voice 8: did yes thank you i did yeah okay

[2:54:16] Voice 4: can you read that back please sure

[2:54:18] Voice 8: uh that the saturn

[2:54:19] Voice 8: island local trust committee direct staff to initiate advertising for up to five members

[2:54:23] Voice 8: of an advisory planning commission with the scope of addressing road infrastructure issues on

[2:54:29] Voice 8: Saterna Island.

[2:54:31] Voice 4: Excellent. So, somebody wants to move that?

[2:54:34] Voice 8: I move that.

[2:54:35] Voice 4: Just a moment, a second,

[2:54:36] Voice 4: one moment, discussion, follow-up question, all in favor? That carries.

[2:54:42] Voice 7: Thanks, Bill. Okay. And, yeah, great. Okay. So,

[2:54:49] Voice 4: 15.4, we

[2:54:50] Voice 4: have the wonderful census infographics

[2:54:53] Voice 4: that have been well-received across the Amherst Trust.

[2:54:59] Voice 4: I

[2:55:01] Voice 7: have circulated this via Facebook, et cetera,

[2:55:04] Voice 7: and people like it a lot.

[2:55:07] Voice 7: But I think we need to push it more.

[2:55:10] Voice 7: And I think what I

[2:55:14] Voice 7: like about this is that

[2:55:16] Voice 7: every conversation that we have about,

[2:55:21] Voice 7: about, especially by changes, people often have opinions

[2:55:28] Voice 7: that are sort of emotional.

[2:55:32] Voice 7: And when you look at these numbers, they really tell stories

[2:55:37] Voice 7: that need to be part of those debates, conversations.

[2:55:42] Voice 7: So, you know, thinking about the housing assessment,

[2:55:45] Voice 7: these are the kind of numbers, but more of this kind of stuff

[2:55:48] Voice 7: that will come out of that.

[2:55:50] Voice 7: And in fact, I have seen, and Brad, you shared with me, I don't know if it's in here, it's the housing version of this, is it?

[2:55:59] Voice 7: I shared

[2:56:01] Voice 5: with you a profile that's just being included with SWILT, being part of the toolkit, which I further confirmed before it's posted online and is waiting for final approval by region

[2:56:15] Voice 7: planning.

[2:56:16] Voice 7: yeah yeah so the back line to that is that within regional planning there is a toolkit being

[2:56:25] Voice 7: prepared which is a so-called flexible housing or something toolkit and a lot of the information

[2:56:32] Voice 7: came actually from main island because they've done some really good groundwork and piloted a

[2:56:37] Voice 7: number of ways of increasing flexible housing options so this toolkit anyway will contain

[2:56:45] Voice 7: these profiles and the profiles. I think we could share this eternal one now, going forward,

[2:56:58] Voice 7: with people who have left the room.

[2:57:02] Voice 4: A lot of the LTCs have asked for this to be attached to the web page.

[2:57:11] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:57:12] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:57:13] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:57:15] Voice 4: Sure.

[2:57:16] Voice 4: Can we ask the same thing?

[2:57:18] Voice 4: I'm sure we can ask.

[2:57:21] Voice 4: Tanya's got some advice.

[2:57:23] Voice 4: Is that, does that need a motion or could that just be requested?

[2:57:26] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:57:27] Voice 3: I was wondering what was your question?

[2:57:29] Voice 4: So the, through this info element.

[2:57:31] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:57:31] Voice 4: It's one of the graphs.

[2:57:32] Voice 4: One.

[2:57:33] Voice 4: How do we, what's the process for getting an attack to the local trust committee web

[2:57:38] Voice 4: page?

[2:57:39] Voice 5: I think that's kind of what set us.

[2:57:41] Voice 5: Yeah.

[2:57:41] Voice 5: Yeah.

[2:57:41] Voice 5: Because someone else, uh, I think, I think,

[2:57:44] Voice 5: uh, so I, I asked yesterday where the toolkit is. I think all of this stuff is, so the

[2:57:53] Voice 5: idea is eventually

[2:57:55] Voice 4: to let us all of this stuff.

[2:57:56] Voice 4: we don't need to make

[2:57:57] Voice 5: requests yeah i think it's seeing okay it's it's being good because it's

[2:58:03] Voice 4: really visually it's really important

[2:58:04] Voice 5: committee staff can then put everything up because there

[2:58:11] Voice 5: is a host page but it's mostly just yeah

[2:58:15] Voice 7: it's all about assessments but um but the profiles per

[2:58:21] Voice 7: per island I think that we should I don't know if there's an option to see a draft before it goes

[2:58:32] Voice 7: live because it would be nice to sort of review the title profile just in case there's sort of

[2:58:41] Voice 7: an opportunity to say give a bit more of this and less of that or whatever what do you think Brad

[2:58:46] Voice 7: on the

[2:58:47] Voice 5: webpage well

[2:58:48] Voice 7: it's it kind of falls in between like there's regional planning

[2:58:52] Voice 7: There's the web page manager, communications people, and there's the local trust areas.

[2:59:01] Voice 7: And I appreciate what's being done and I think it's terrific, but it would be nice to have

[2:59:06] Voice 7: some sort of final, okay guys, what do you think at this moment?

[2:59:11] Voice 7: For

[2:59:12] Voice 5: all of the demographics,

[2:59:13] Voice 7: don't you think?

[2:59:14] Voice 7: Well, not the demographics, but for the individual island profiles, what do you think?

[2:59:22] Voice 6: I don't know, maybe you just get a

[2:59:26] Voice 4: post and then you

[2:59:28] Voice 7: can get feedback.

[2:59:30] Voice 4: Because if they have to, everyone who does the meetings is kind of making a bit of a work,

[2:59:35] Voice 4: whereas maybe the staff that's out there, they don't know what's there.

[2:59:39] Voice 4: Thinking

[2:59:39] Voice 7: about it, if they said here's one option and here's another option,

[2:59:44] Voice 7: vote for them, like do you think this is great or would you like it to be in blue,

[2:59:48] Voice 7: you know, but okay, and then we'll see what happens.

[2:59:54] Voice 7: It's great work, I really like this stuff, thank you.

[2:59:58] Voice 4: So now.

[3:00:00] Voice 4: got three last issues and i don't know why maybe i'm a doctor i can't read my own writings um so

[3:00:08] Voice 4: i believe i see those first ones priorities by something

[3:00:14] Voice 6: oh yes um you just revised i made a

[3:00:21] Voice 6: draft motion here um let's check it out could you not exactly

[3:00:33] Voice 6: can you get me um yeah that's so oh it's been a new business yeah okay so

[3:00:52] Voice 6: trust the militants issue once we figure out what it

[3:00:56] Voice 2: is yeah i'm gonna i'm gonna make this

[3:01:00] Voice 2: this is so efficient you'll be amazed um so

[3:01:07] Voice 6: that's going to

[3:01:24] Voice 6: okay

[3:01:24] Voice 2: all right so this is in regard um we have uh received information from the trust council

[3:01:33] Voice 2: from the homeowner's person in bc in terms of modernizing and updating um uh the process of

[3:01:39] Voice 2: enforcement and of course we uh you know value having that option here on saturn

[3:01:45] Voice 2: and you don't want to bring some of this new guidance into into the way our bylaws are

[3:01:54] Voice 2: enforced so just filling down everything from the last person's report a lot of that is sort

[3:02:01] Voice 2: of internal policy and process which i'm sure will be attended to or is being attended to

[3:02:06] Voice 2: but specifically how that would work on saturn i think it comes down to the basically can be

[3:02:11] Voice 2: distilled down to um the circumstances where entry onto private property is um

[3:02:18] Voice 2: is permitted by law and so there were two bylaws that we've currently modified

[3:02:24] Voice 2: uh one is the land use bylaw 119 is modified to show that there needs to be 24-hour notice periods

[3:02:32] Voice 2: for entry onto private property for purposes of investigation of a complaint um the standing

[3:02:39] Voice 2: resolution i discovered that bylaw 30 is actually the enabling bylaw which allows uh bylaw

[3:02:47] Voice 2: enforcement officers to enter private property so i am just going to make the following motions

[3:02:53] Voice 2: to kind of modernize saturnus by law enforcement for the upwards person's report and i just have

[3:03:01] Voice 2: here an interest of embracing better practice by law enforcement for the compass person of

[3:03:06] Voice 2: bc reported trust council direct staff to revise bylaw awarding and bylaw 30 and b1 and team to

[3:03:14] Voice 2: require two weeks notice to a property owner tenant of bylaw officer intent to access private

[3:03:20] Voice 2: property for purposes of investigating bylaw complaints and places work on the priorities

[3:03:25] Voice 2: and

[3:03:26] Voice 6: i didn't send that elsewhere but i did send it to you so kind of stuff

[3:03:35] Voice 6: what's that about to

[3:03:36] Voice 4: charlie all right what do they trust you for any uh

[3:03:42] Voice 7: no i support this i

[3:03:44] Voice 7: think it's reasonable and um i think you know we heard a lot of disquiet around by law enforcement

[3:03:53] Voice 7: in a generic sense and i think there's a kind of um setting the bar at such a reasonable level

[3:04:03] Voice 7: especially when you're dealing with people who aren't necessarily always on their properties.

[3:04:08] Voice 7: I think it's appropriate to give people a decent time interval to respond and I support it, yeah.

[3:04:17] Voice 2: Having got that time frame from a couple of pieces of provincial legislation that seemed

[3:04:21] Voice 2: to have impressed that better practice. Yeah.

[3:04:24] Voice 2: And Planner Smith, of course,

[3:04:25] Voice 2: when drafting the by-laws if there's a need for urgency, a clause can be inserted in there.

[3:04:32] Voice 2: is involved to you know but something would be better that's good i'm not sure what you're asking

[3:04:38] Voice 2: thanks to do to provide bylaw number 30 and 119 to require two weeks notice of

[3:04:45] Voice 2: amendment to

[3:04:47] Voice 5: bylaw 19 the base bylaw would require a project to do that yeah

[3:04:53] Voice 2: so that's

[3:04:54] Voice 2: what the notice says and places that they appropriate spot on the priorities list

[3:05:01] Voice 7: is it actually in lib 119 it

[3:05:04] Voice 2: is yeah that's where i

[3:05:05] Voice 2: thought it only was but it's in 119 and it's in

[3:05:08] Voice 2: 30.

[3:05:09] Voice 7: okay 30

[3:05:10] Voice 2: was never modified 119 was modified to allow it to require 24 hours notice um which

[3:05:17] Voice 2: should we take

[3:05:18] Voice 7: it out of 119 and reference 30 and then you only update it in one place i don't that

[3:05:24] Voice 2: definitely leave that to I don't know if it's a requirement to be in there but would

[3:05:28] Voice 7: that not be

[3:05:29] Voice 7: a cleaner thing to do well

[3:05:30] Voice 4: I think it's the way the wording is to be in a patch that's discretion

[3:05:34] Voice 4: yeah it's

[3:05:36] Voice 5: still not clear as you're directing me to establish the project to do this well

[3:05:41] Voice 7: okay let's

[3:05:42] Voice 7: have more discussion on here so all we need is an update to the current notice which is 48 hours is

[3:05:51] Voice 7: is it 24 24 to make it two years and it appears to occur in two phases yes arguably we could

[3:06:02] Voice 7: remove it from lub119 and reference bylaw 30 whose explicit purpose is to direct bylawless

[3:06:11] Voice 7: execution enforcement is executed am i right on that

[3:06:17] Voice 7: see

[3:06:18] Voice 2: this is where we this is why we've not drafted the bylaws we're we're basically putting it to

[3:06:25] Voice 2: to class the method we're just

[3:06:27] Voice 7: trying to make it like no approach it's possible if it's very

[3:06:31] Voice 7: simple sure

[3:06:32] Voice 2: i see what you're saying yeah but 119 it may be in the lub that i got

[3:06:38] Voice 2: there may be a requirement that the enforcement protocols so

[3:06:43] Voice 5: i'm hearing any more information

[3:06:44] Voice 5: This is new to me, so I'm not going to just go away today and start drafting bylaws.

[3:06:56] Voice 2: I maybe didn't forget it as well as I should have.

[3:07:00] Voice 2: Your

[3:07:01] Voice 5: motion doesn't really make that much of a difference.

[3:07:03] Voice 5: if you

[3:07:04] Voice 5: want to want to find more

[3:07:05] Voice 4: so what's your way

[3:07:06] Voice 5: um that you just like that you add

[3:07:12] Voice 5: amendments to like bylaw 30 doesn't say like i'm looking at bylaw 30 it doesn't

[3:07:18] Voice 2: have a specified

[3:07:18] Voice 2: time no because we met with that so you recall we have a standing resolution that notifies bylaw 30

[3:07:25] Voice 2: because uh at the time when the fight still i missed bylaw it wasn't brought to our attention

[3:07:29] Voice 2: that bylaw 30 has actually been enabling bylaws and so um the standing resolution says two years

[3:07:39] Voice 2: and we would just erase the

[3:07:41] Voice 2: standard resolution right

[3:07:42] Voice 5: so i don't see that you would need to

[3:07:44] Voice 5: necessarily like right now by law 30s you could just have a standing resolution to support bylaw

[3:07:50] Voice 5: 30 or two weeks because it just says uh that well it doesn't say it

[3:07:56] Voice 2: doesn't say

[3:08:00] Voice 2: previously that the issues and that's what the ombuds person wants out to so

[3:08:05] Voice 5: i would just put

[3:08:06] Voice 5: like the the just may direct staff to add a review of bylaw enforcement provisions in bylaw

[3:08:15] Voice 5: number 30 and bylaw 119 to the priority buildings or

[3:08:21] Voice 6: to the projects yes yeah did you get that

[3:08:25] Voice 5: further

[3:08:25] Voice 6: no

[3:08:28] Voice 8: sorry brad can you just say it again the

[3:08:31] Voice 6: saturn island local trust committee

[3:08:34] Voice 5: add a review of the bylaw enforcement timing provisions notification or notification

[3:08:43] Voice 5: provisions in bylaw number one or nine bylaw number 30 and bylaw number 119 to the projects

[3:08:52] Voice 6: okay thank you thank you okay so we have a mover uh i guess some of that

[3:09:01] Voice 6: okay so

[3:09:10] Voice 4: now we have discussion on secondary sweeps so

[3:09:15] Voice 7: i think we are all a bit weary

[3:09:20] Voice 7: So I'm considering. So here's where I'm coming from, Brad. The Secondary Suites By-law, which was passed in 2018, I believe.

[3:09:33] Voice 5: Like the provisions in 119, you mean? Yeah,

[3:09:38] Voice 2: I guess that would be it.

[3:09:39] Voice 2: Yeah,

[3:09:40] Voice 7: so at the time, it refers to Schedule D, a map, and the process went on over about six months or more.

[3:09:53] Voice 7: And the initial recommendation was that two areas would be excluded, i.e. Trueworthy Road and East Point, based on water issues, generically.

[3:10:10] Voice 7: and that was fine and then the problems became involved and at the time there was a report on

[3:10:19] Voice 7: risk or thought for intrusion dated 2015 in the Gulf Islands and on the basis of that a map was

[3:10:29] Voice 7: provided to the Islands Trust and to Saturna LTC which recommended that there were areas of

[3:10:38] Voice 7: a vulnerability to sulfur intrusion around the edge of the island. The nature of mapping

[3:10:48] Voice 7: let's say abilities at the time was that in order to honor that risk of sulfur intrusion,

[3:10:59] Voice 7: this is my interpretation of what happened, huge zones that intersected with a small sliver of

[3:11:06] Voice 7: about the risk of saltwater intrusion were excluded from the secondary suites.

[3:11:11] Voice 7: So if you look at the resulting map, and if you know,

[3:11:16] Voice 7: and it's not on the map although it was requested to be on the map,

[3:11:20] Voice 7: it just references aquifer vulnerability,

[3:11:23] Voice 7: but it's actually specific in the risk of saltwater intrusion.

[3:11:27] Voice 7: And if you look at the map with that in your head,

[3:11:30] Voice 7: it's hard to understand why some of the areas are excluded.

[3:11:34] Voice 7: So the net result, anyway, was that the only areas, pretty much the only area that was considered, was where the COD water supply was.

[3:11:46] Voice 7: So since then, the province has done extensive work on soil water intrusion, and there is gist modelling published in 2021.

[3:11:57] Voice 7: and

[3:12:00] Voice 7: I would mention

[3:12:02] Voice 7: and of course you know

[3:12:03] Voice 7: I've seen through the Galliano

[3:12:05] Voice 7: mapping of

[3:12:08] Voice 7: pixels and small units

[3:12:10] Voice 7: in the

[3:12:12] Voice 7: watershed I think it was

[3:12:13] Voice 7: for protection

[3:12:15] Voice 7: there was a lot of work done

[3:12:18] Voice 7: to really fine tune

[3:12:20] Voice 7: how you would take

[3:12:22] Voice 7: something like

[3:12:23] Voice 7: the risk of solar intrusion

[3:12:25] Voice 7: and intersect it with

[3:12:28] Voice 7: uh lots not just zones and so i would like to reconsider that and see if we can refine it

[3:12:39] Voice 7: so that less areas are

[3:12:42] Voice 6: excluded so

[3:12:46] Voice 7: does that make sense are you all right

[3:12:48] Voice 7: because

[3:12:49] Voice 2: i've seen the reminds matching you right there's a much smaller and more precise definition

[3:12:57] Voice 6: mentioned the

[3:12:57] Voice 2: risk of saltwater improvement and our map is based on studies and for what that

[3:13:03] Voice 2: was a problem with our map it doesn't actually reference the study it's based on

[3:13:08] Voice 2: um but i remember that was the maxovich reports from the sfu from the 90s i think so yeah

[3:13:16] Voice 2: 20 plus years out from that and

[3:13:19] Voice 7: interestingly the most recent report on which this is modeling was

[3:13:24] Voice 7: based. They have an element which is called pumping threat. So they add in there, which is

[3:13:34] Voice 7: how many wells and let's assume that those wells are pumping at 500 gallons a day. So it's,

[3:13:44] Voice 7: to my view, it's kind of a worst case scenario in the Gulf Islands. There would be very few wells

[3:13:50] Voice 7: pumping 500 gallons a day or less and these are domestic wells, I mean obviously agricultural

[3:13:56] Voice 7: wells or other wells that are licensed would be in a different category entirely potentially.

[3:14:02] Voice 7: So this is just the information around private domestic wells that they're pumping 500 gallons

[3:14:08] Voice 7: a day. So I think that the map of the risk is probably a worst case scenario and I do think

[3:14:15] Voice 7: that it deserves to be revisited. I also think that there's an opportunity to consider the impact

[3:14:21] Voice 7: of the increased use of water catchment and the fact that the province has a very clear guideline

[3:14:30] Voice 7: on how to manage the risk of saltwater filtration. If you are drilling wells or you do have a well

[3:14:38] Voice 7: They say it's very clear that it's hard to deal with it.

[3:14:42] Voice 7: So, yeah, I'd like to give this up.

[3:14:47] Voice 4: So you're basically going to put another plan of project

[3:14:51] Voice 6: onto

[3:14:51] Voice 4: the list.

[3:14:53] Voice 6: Yeah, please.

[3:14:55] Voice 4: So we need some wording.

[3:14:58] Voice 4: So...

[3:14:59] Voice 4: Come to you, Caroline.

[3:15:03] Voice 7: Okay, I propose that

[3:15:07] Voice 7: that CETERN and LTC initiate a minor project to review the new information available

[3:15:16] Voice 7: that would influence the Schedule D map pertaining to secondary suites.

[3:15:25] Voice 6: Okay.

[3:15:26] Voice 6: Can you

[3:15:28] Voice 8: just say to influence the Schedule D map pertaining to what, sorry?

[3:15:33] Voice 8: the schedule

[3:15:34] Voice 7: d map okay okay schedule e map um pertaining to secondary suites perfect thank you

[3:15:46] Voice 5: this needs some clarification and emotion if this is going on your future projects list or

[3:15:51] Voice 5: if you're seeking to create this as a project if you are and i would declare by working on mr ross

[3:16:01] Voice 7: it's not it's i would say this comes first so

[3:16:06] Voice 4: future projects future

[3:16:07] Voice 7: projects okay

[3:16:08] Voice 4: and maybe

[3:16:09] Voice 7: we can have a we can just pledge it out you know in a conversation

[3:16:19] Voice 6: yes

[3:16:19] Voice 2: so second accepted uh sure yeah i find that's an interview for me is that uh an application

[3:16:27] Voice 2: process basically takes over the priority spot of our work that's another injustice i would say of

[3:16:34] Voice 2: this alc process is that now that's what you decided well let's be clear okay so you shouldn't

[3:16:44] Voice 5: put too much or

[3:16:46] Voice 2: you shouldn't blame the alc for too many evils but um um so basically what this

[3:16:53] Voice 2: this means, though, then is that, like, what is the end? What's

[3:16:57] Voice 2: the end goal of the ALR exclusion inclusion projects that

[3:17:00] Voice 2: we know when there's space available for other projects?

[3:17:04] Voice 2: Yeah.

[3:17:07] Voice 7: Yeah, I mean, it is, I understand that there are, you

[3:17:10] Voice 7: know, workloads and resources, but it is a tricky thing in

[3:17:14] Voice 7: that. Theoretically, there

[3:17:17] Voice 6: are project resources versus

[3:17:24] Voice 6: of standard

[3:17:25] Voice 7: day-to-day application processing resources could you give us a bit of clarity on

[3:17:30] Voice 7: that how does that well

[3:17:31] Voice 5: the application fees are meant to be paid by time as well as all the other

[3:17:39] Voice 5: expenses for the application in this case we are receiving no fee so all of my time

[3:17:48] Voice 7: That's interesting.

[3:17:49] Voice 7: That's another one.

[3:17:51] Voice 5: Yeah.

[3:17:53] Voice 7: So does the ...

[3:17:55] Voice 6: Yeah.

[3:17:56] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:17:57] Voice 5: So the Island Trust doesn't have the municipality that would have the authority in their legislation

[3:18:03] Voice 5: to charge an application fee to review this.

[3:18:06] Voice 5: The Island Trust is limited in your scope, so you can only charge fees for applications

[3:18:12] Voice 5: that you do.

[3:18:15] Voice 5: so you are

[3:18:15] Voice 5: receiving no fee for all of

[3:18:18] Voice 5: them and that's why we have cost recovery

[3:18:21] Voice 5: whereas

[3:18:22] Voice 6: in

[3:18:24] Voice 5: a public hearing the notification cost and all those other advertising costs

[3:18:29] Voice 5: and the sign or whatever is required those are paid

[3:18:33] Voice 6: before when the application is

[3:18:34] Voice 6: Oh, okay.

[3:18:39] Voice 6: So, the perspective of

[3:18:41] Voice 5: Arcadia Microgea and Stephan was that, where do we allocate the staff time?

[3:18:48] Voice 5: And really, the buckets we have are, like for you, are applications and broadcasts, along with all the other, like, inquiry work that we do in the courses that we have.

[3:19:03] Voice 5: but so my work needs to land in one of those two buckets and i would say i've spent

[3:19:09] Voice 5: dozens of hours in this particular location today so

[3:19:13] Voice 7: okay well first time through the

[3:19:17] Voice 7: wellness or is the hardest so

[3:19:18] Voice 5: it's all because of that yeah and

[3:19:22] Voice 5: i work through this process as

[3:19:23] Voice 5: well but that is the fundamental difference or one of

[3:19:27] Voice 5: the fundamental differences between why

[3:19:29] Voice 5: in this conversation with Mr. Hall and Sophie Black is because

[3:19:34] Voice 6: you don't own the decision.

[3:19:42] Voice 5: In most cases like you know I think well in some cases the the or the land

[3:19:48] Voice 5: swap would be in the lands of the municipality homeless and then so they would be the reasonable

[3:19:53] Voice 5: rightful captain. In this case it is a little odd how they haven't set up and I think they

[3:19:58] Voice 5: have it set up to ensure that due diligence is achieved by that applicant before they get to the

[3:20:07] Voice 5: ALC for a decision. They don't have their money issued when they're

[3:20:12] Voice 5: at the mall.

[3:20:16] Voice 7: So acknowledging that you have constraints is not critically urgent and I've probably got a

[3:20:24] Voice 7: low legwork already because I like to read that stuff so it can come to you shall be ready

[3:20:34] Voice 6: so people forgot what it is at this stage sorry

[3:20:44] Voice 8: it just froze for a minute did you ask me to

[3:20:46] Voice 8: reread the motion please okay

[3:20:48] Voice 8: um that the saturnal saturn island local trust committee add to the

[3:20:52] Voice 8: future projects list a review of the new information available that would influence

[3:20:56] Voice 8: the saturn island schedule e secondary suites land use byline number 119 map pertaining to

[3:21:02] Voice 8: secondary suites i

[3:21:05] Voice 6: know that yeah exactly that's about it yeah i think we're asking

[3:21:09] Voice 4: how

[3:21:09] Voice 6: many

[3:21:11] Voice 4: hours of college suppression all in favor that carries yeah

[3:21:15] Voice 6: all right so

[3:21:17] Voice 2: just on

[3:21:18] Voice 2: on the note that hearing about the constraints i mean and echoing kind of what you previously said

[3:21:24] Voice 2: that I think we could probably streamline

[3:21:28] Voice 2: that bylaw enforcement and make it not a project

[3:21:31] Voice 2: or, but it's still big work that needs to be done,

[3:21:34] Voice 2: but we have the wording, the bylaws are already written.

[3:21:38] Voice 2: If we have revised wording for the bylaw,

[3:21:41] Voice 2: it would just enter the bylaw process where I,

[3:21:44] Voice 2: you know, we get draft bylaws, we comment on them.

[3:21:49] Voice 2: And the fact that they're already written,

[3:21:51] Voice 2: we're literally adding the clause two weeks notice

[3:21:54] Voice 2: is into two already directed bylaws can we not direct that and that reduces your workload right

[3:21:59] Voice 2: and not to do a whole project charter and then we still

[3:22:01] Voice 5: need a public hearing the whole process

[3:22:03] Voice 5: steps to amend your bible and

[3:22:05] Voice 2: then and that's fine that's and i can i can so

[3:22:08] Voice 5: all of that

[3:22:08] Voice 5: okay that's just the way it is so

[3:22:14] Voice 2: yeah having said that about framing the

[3:22:17] Voice 2: it just what i'm not comfortable with is everything is on hold until this indeterminate

[3:22:22] Voice 2: the process with the AFC is that we need four times a year, we've got four chances to advance

[3:22:27] Voice 2: our business. We're now basically punted for three, four months to any work we're doing

[3:22:33] Voice 2: as a local trust committee. I don't find that exactly. We need to find a solution around

[3:22:38] Voice 2: that. Something has to be redefined about how the central control land review project

[3:22:43] Voice 2: is framed.

[3:22:44] Voice 7: Well, I think those are things to add to the discussion with them. The fact that it's

[3:22:50] Voice 7: reminding us to halt because we are effectively doing a preview of something over which we don't

[3:22:57] Voice 7: have control and there are costs being encouraged which we didn't anticipate.

[3:23:05] Voice 5: Yeah

[3:23:06] Voice 2: I'm pretty right so it's up to us to resume control of our own agenda right I mean

[3:23:13] Voice 2: perhaps a staff decision was made to characterize this project as you pointed out

[3:23:22] Voice 2: um we need to do something different like this doesn't work doesn't work for us so um

[3:23:27] Voice 2: i can we can either just frame it that way and say that um maybe rp and tajima put this

[3:23:34] Voice 2: thinking cap on about probably to be done differently but and you know he's going to

[3:23:38] Voice 5: come back to you and say it needs to be a project or an application in this case we're treating as

[3:23:45] Voice 5: a project the staff are taking a lot of time and it's not a feed you're going to know what you're

[3:23:51] Voice 5: going to say

[3:23:51] Voice 7: why was it designated project

[3:23:55] Voice 5: i wasn't even aware because you need to allocate

[3:23:58] Voice 5: my time and resources for things that i'm being directed to do somewhere so

[3:24:03] Voice 6: establish

[3:24:04] Voice 5: a minor project and we do project charter and we do that you get a major project

[3:24:13] Voice 5: which is you submit a request to the planning committee, like the RPC, and they approve it as a major project,

[3:24:21] Voice 5: or someone pays a fee, and that fee pays for my time.

[3:24:27] Voice 5: And so otherwise, right now, all of my time, it has to be allocated.

[3:24:35] Voice 7: So

[3:24:35] Voice 5: I just want to

[3:24:37] Voice 7: ask a question. I assume there are fees being paid, but they're not being paid to us.

[3:24:42] Voice 7: There's

[3:24:43] Voice 5: a $750 fee.

[3:24:45] Voice 7: So why don't we say today at WMLC, those fees should come to us.

[3:24:49] Voice 7: If you expect us

[3:24:50] Voice 6: to do this, those fees should come to us.

[3:24:53] Voice 7: In my mind,

[3:24:54] Voice 6: I would be looking at the applicant and saying,

[3:25:00] Voice 6: here's what's in front of you, here's the

[3:25:02] Voice 5: information we've gleaned,

[3:25:04] Voice 5: do you want to pay for it or not?

[3:25:06] Voice 5: If you agree today to direct the staff or the applicant to do that site visit,

[3:25:12] Voice 5: or even if the applicant said, sure, let's just go through this,

[3:25:15] Voice 5: I'll pay whatever it is we can figure out what it costs for before I decide if I do that or not

[3:25:21] Voice 5: but in principle I agree to do this let's get this done and then you don't then you

[3:25:29] Voice 5: could be in a position where in two weeks from now you could be ready to move on from this

[3:25:35] Voice 5: but right now what you've done is create more information which is okay like that this is a

[3:25:42] Voice 5: reasonable referral but you can't have it all here. Yeah

[3:25:47] Voice 7: but we're talking about this specific

[3:25:49] Voice 7: instance rather than a kind of a principle we're trying to clarify about multiple instances of this

[3:25:58] Voice 7: like this is the specific case right now in front of us and in a way where our holdup center is

[3:26:05] Voice 7: because it's the first time, it's different, we're unclear.

[3:26:09] Voice 7: So it's separate from that.

[3:26:12] Voice 7: So I understand what you're saying is this came through,

[3:26:16] Voice 7: it has no fee coming to the island's trust,

[3:26:19] Voice 7: separate influence in the fact that it goes into a project.

[3:26:23] Voice 7: But going forward, my argument would be that if there is a fee being paid

[3:26:31] Voice 7: and we're now going to do this work,

[3:26:37] Voice 5: to the ALC to be clear that you are the applicant, and the cost recovery will run and pay the

[3:26:44] Voice 5: islands trust back for the fee that we pay to the commission.

[3:26:50] Voice 5: How

[3:26:50] Voice 7: does that not then make it an application?

[3:26:54] Voice 5: Because he is not applying to us.

[3:26:58] Voice 5: But

[3:26:59] Voice 7: money comes through eventually.

[3:27:03] Voice 2: I don't know that it's fair to say we agree, I think this was legislation handed to us

[3:27:08] Voice 2: that might have

[3:27:08] Voice 2: been required, or maybe we're not.

[3:27:11] Voice 2: You're at a point where you're determining

[3:27:12] Voice 5: if you agree to submit the application or

[3:27:16] Voice 5: not.

[3:27:17] Voice 5: You're in all those steps, and all those steps are taking an enormous amount of wine online.

[3:27:23] Voice 5: So it seems, yeah.

[3:27:24] Voice 6: this

[3:27:25] Voice 7: seems completely crazy

[3:27:26] Voice 7: and I feel like I've entered

[3:27:28] Voice 7: the looking glass

[3:27:30] Voice 7: I'm in Alice in Wonderland

[3:27:33] Voice 7: what's all

[3:27:35] Voice 7: unclear?

[3:27:36] Voice 7: no, the facts are clear

[3:27:37] Voice 7: the consequences of the facts

[3:27:40] Voice 7: are, well, the facts are clear now

[3:27:44] Voice 7: and I didn't

[3:27:45] Voice 7: understand that

[3:27:46] Voice 7: I mean, the bottom line is

[3:27:49] Voice 7: we do a bunch of work

[3:27:50] Voice 7: we don't get paid for it

[3:27:52] Voice 7: Right. The AFC gets paid for it.

[3:27:56] Voice 5: They don't get paid. They get paid for their...

[3:27:59] Voice 5: They receive $750 to pay for their grant.

[3:28:03] Voice 5: Because

[3:28:03] Voice 7: they have downloaded a whole piece of their process to us.

[3:28:07] Voice 5: You don't have to do... They haven't downloaded it.

[3:28:12] Voice 5: You are deciding to do it. They're not making you do this.

[3:28:17] Voice 5: You can say that if we run today,

[3:28:20] Voice 6: we are not going to submit your application.

[3:28:26] Voice 6: Yeah,

[3:28:26] Voice 7: but that's not fair.

[3:28:32] Voice 7: That's not fair in the sense that they're not saying you help them fill in the form and put the form into our portfolio.

[3:28:39] Voice 7: They're asking us to pre-virtual exam.

[3:28:45] Voice 5: The nowhere in the guide says that the local government is required to consider an applicant brought forward by a property owner.

[3:28:56] Voice 5: Or it says it must be submitted by a local government or a prescribed body.

[3:29:02] Voice 5: The LT doesn't care if all of this...

[3:29:08] Voice 7: Yeah, but all those steps...

[3:29:10] Voice 5: All of those steps, yeah, are the steps that a local government needs to take

[3:29:14] Voice 5: before they can submit an application.

[3:29:16] Voice 7: Well, exactly.

[3:29:17] Voice 5: Yeah.

[3:29:17] Voice 5: But

[3:29:17] Voice 7: in the past, those steps wouldn't have existed

[3:29:20] Voice 7: because we were not submitting the application.

[3:29:24] Voice 7: So there's a process given to us in order to submit the application

[3:29:29] Voice 7: and by implicit submission, support that application.

[3:29:34] Voice 7: So we have to do due diligence in a way that we did not have to do before.

[3:29:39] Voice 7: But anyway, I think we're all a bit too tired and hungry, so I don't think we should discuss this anymore.

[3:29:46] Voice 4: So next time, you're housing flexibility.

[3:29:51] Voice 4: Housing flexibility, you said.

[3:29:53] Voice 4: it

[3:29:54] Voice 7: um okay so uh so in the um

[3:30:00] Voice 7: So I have a proposal, which is probably another long distance on the horizon of my project,

[3:30:07] Voice 7: but it would be that the wording in the LUB 119, I believe that's what it is,

[3:30:16] Voice 7: refers in constraints the use of the MF4 zone to, I think, senior housing, affordable housing,

[3:30:25] Voice 7: and housing for disabled people, I believe.

[3:30:31] Voice 7: If that's politically correct or not.

[3:30:34] Voice 7: Anyway, I would like to consider removing that constraint.

[3:30:38] Voice 7: It came up in a discussion at the Seterna Island Residents

[3:30:43] Voice 7: and Repairs Association.

[3:30:46] Voice 7: I'm a member of the board.

[3:30:48] Voice 7: They had an AGM.

[3:30:50] Voice 7: Lee came along as an invited speaker and guest.

[3:30:53] Voice 7: And some background work on looking at the Citerna Island OCP, the numbers of lots, the zoning potential, and considering the fact that housing is, as it is in every island, an issue.

[3:31:14] Voice 7: Generally for younger people and the working people who support us all.

[3:31:22] Voice 7: So this is one suggestion, and I think it's a useful suggestion, which is, and I would

[3:31:31] Voice 7: look to actually the toolkit, it's why I asked you about the toolkit, to see if there's some

[3:31:38] Voice 7: guidance in there about how we can change it.

[3:31:40] Voice 7: So it's not like we're asking people to open the door to a flood of development.

[3:31:48] Voice 7: It's more like a baby step towards removing a constraint, which might allow a bit more

[3:31:56] Voice 7: innovation in our thinking about how to make housing choices available.

[3:32:06] Voice 7: That's a bit long-winded, I think I've been a trustee for too long.

[3:32:12] Voice 7: So

[3:32:12] Voice 5: I think there's only one instance of MIPOC rule.

[3:32:16] Voice 7: Yeah, there is only one instance.

[3:32:20] Voice 7: i mean it's possible that we could just say remove that restriction and we're done so

[3:32:27] Voice 4: well yeah you

[3:32:29] Voice 4: just you're putting on people's radar you want to bring the motion forward or

[3:32:32] Voice 4: do you want to bring

[3:32:33] Voice 4: them all forward now i think it's a good idea

[3:32:35] Voice 2: i don't

[3:32:38] Voice 7: know whether we can make it well what

[3:32:40] Voice 2: brent said just educate you this today is because that would be a change to the bylaw that it has

[3:32:45] Voice 2: to go through the whole process of changing the bylaw and it's almost like what we've got before

[3:32:50] Voice 2: for us, there are a few administrative changes that could potentially be bundled.

[3:33:02] Voice 2: And that would be one, the other would be, I think we've talked about catchment, potentially

[3:33:12] Voice 2: change the definition of catchment.

[3:33:13] Voice 2: Yeah, it's just having

[3:33:16] Voice 6: to also kind of

[3:33:19] Voice 2: direct from this to them.

[3:33:21] Voice 7: What kind of project that could potentially address the file notification period and the removal of this constriction?

[3:33:31] Voice 7: What does the

[3:33:32] Voice 3: constriction is right there?

[3:33:34] Voice 7: It says MFR and then it says can only be used for and we could remove that can only be used for.

[3:33:41] Voice 7: affordable

[3:33:41] Voice 5: senior especially

[3:33:43] Voice 5: in the housing? Yeah.

[3:33:44] Voice 5: And then so it could just be a

[3:33:46] Voice 5: like who owns that lot?

[3:33:49] Voice 2: It's a society I believe

[3:33:50] Voice 2: at some point. It meets the criteria

[3:33:53] Voice 2: right now. It's sort of that's only

[3:33:54] Voice 2: what's practic and custom for them.

[3:33:56] Voice 5: I'm really cautious with conserving

[3:33:59] Voice 5: that and administering it.

[3:34:02] Voice 5: It should be

[3:34:03] Voice 5: stemmed.

[3:34:04] Voice 2: It

[3:34:04] Voice 5: would be quite a shift

[3:34:06] Voice 5: in like really

[3:34:08] Voice 5: anywhere in the trust area that isn't really

[3:34:11] Voice 5: for-profit multi-family residential zones with like multi-family it doesn't exist i think it

[3:34:20] Voice 2: should therefore it obviously would have to be a project so okay we'll join the list i guess if

[3:34:25] Voice 2: you make that

[3:34:26] Voice 2: option but

[3:34:27] Voice 5: did you see that i'm just trying to tease a little bit do you see

[3:34:30] Voice 5: that property as being managed by society in the future or used by a developer to create houses

[3:34:39] Voice 2: yeah no it's a good question i think the intent of the discussion was create the zoning

[3:34:47] Voice 2: um that is possible to put on other areas of the island that would permit multi-family

[3:34:54] Voice 2: housing development in a commercial way right yeah so

[3:34:59] Voice 5: that i wouldn't not

[3:35:00] Voice 5: I want a sign in that that I would call it something, and

[3:35:04] Voice 2: that would be fair,

[3:35:05] Voice 5: because this one seems to be secured for that.

[3:35:09] Voice 5: So

[3:35:09] Voice 7: you're saying that the current NFOR, as it exists, should be left there?

[3:35:16] Voice 5: That's what I'm hearing. If that

[3:35:17] Voice 5: mod is supplied to society and the future vision is for...

[3:35:22] Voice 2: Exactly. The zoning

[3:35:23] Voice 2: is probably appropriate there.

[3:35:25] Voice 2: very loose. And so I think what Brad's saying is create a new zone, create a new zone, basically.

[3:35:29] Voice 2: Now, can you create a zone which doesn't actually have any place on the land?

[3:35:33] Voice 2: Well, yeah.

[3:35:35] Voice 2: Because it wouldn't.

[3:35:36] Voice 2: I assume you can. A holder zone.

[3:35:40] Voice 2: Yeah, I guess so.

[3:35:41] Voice 2: It's the way to start the discussion, I guess.

[3:35:44] Voice 7: Okay. And then it's possible that through that housing toolkit, either Eris and Ellen's helpers might have some devices.

[3:35:53] Voice 7: So,

[3:35:53] Voice 5: I mean, there's a lot of housing stuff going on.

[3:35:55] Voice 5: You guys have really turned your mind to where you fit into that.

[3:36:02] Voice 5: Like, this would just be potentially one piece of a modern housing type of view

[3:36:08] Voice 5: that you could frame again as a minor project

[3:36:11] Voice 5: or North Benders pursuing in that work as a major project,

[3:36:15] Voice 5: which includes your needs assessment and development of an active plan.

[3:36:20] Voice 5: But I'm not sure if your housing needs to be...

[3:36:25] Voice 7: We don't have... I would say it's kind of, you know, the housing needs assessment may prove different.

[3:36:34] Voice 7: We're looking for low-hanging fruit.

[3:36:35] Voice 7: And we're looking for small but efficient things that we can do to just loosen things up a bit.

[3:36:44] Voice 7: Rather than doing a major project where we overhaul everything.

[3:36:47] Voice 7: But

[3:36:48] Voice 5: I think that if you start to get into creating a new zone, creating like some kind of new multi-residential or like finding home, zoning, or that would trigger OCP in that sense.

[3:37:03] Voice 5: because you know no creation of big entity uh provisions and so it would be a significant piece

[3:37:11] Voice 5: of work to create a new zone that is considering and it would even be like groundbreaking across

[3:37:17] Voice 5: the trust because i can't think of any of the other islands actually an apartment building

[3:37:21] Voice 5: that's rented out by you know

[3:37:24] Voice 5: um was private owner maybe salt spring maybe

[3:37:30] Voice 4: may be something this should be a village but it sounds like maybe you need to go away and

[3:37:37] Voice 4: have a discussion and then figure out what emotions should be yeah it's not just just

[3:37:46] Voice 2: it's sort of like kicking off a fairly big project around housing gets into that magic

[3:37:53] Voice 2: lake thing that is discussed you know it's like

[3:37:56] Voice 5: you could incorporate your conversation around

[3:37:59] Voice 5: secondary streets and water houses yeah like maybe you could work through your like i'll

[3:38:06] Voice 5: talk to robert with the biolog but you do need some man like if you need to build your own set

[3:38:10] Voice 5: well

[3:38:10] Voice 2: that's all i'm starting to learn

[3:38:11] Voice 5: project for the last few years or something like that

[3:38:15] Voice 5: that incorporates your review of sony incorporates the review that's the method of water mapping

[3:38:22] Voice 5: uh you

[3:38:24] Voice 2: know no i i agree i think that's kind of mapped out our work plan to a degree the second

[3:38:28] Voice 2: to the end, probably to the end of it.

[3:38:31] Voice 7: Well, let's leave the one, so certainly I'll talk to you, Brad, about that map, because

[3:38:40] Voice 7: I think that would be a quick win.

[3:38:42] Voice 5: The schedule map, you could pursue that separately.

[3:38:44] Voice 7: And then it may feed into something bigger, but I don't want to make something where like

[3:38:50] Voice 7: everything we try to do can't happen until we have this.

[3:38:53] Voice 7: I

[3:38:53] Voice 2: think that's good to have the project for that scheduling, that makes sense.

[3:39:01] Voice 2: by law enforcement because it is standalone

[3:39:03] Voice 2: and we do need public input to see what people think of

[3:39:07] Voice 2: that. I'm happy for hearing

[3:39:11] Voice 2: where it sits and how things are quantified now that we've kind of aired

[3:39:15] Voice 2: it out so I understand. I guess it's kind of next up

[3:39:19] Voice 2: as I suppose now because that's fairly discreet.

[3:39:23] Voice 2: Sure.

[3:39:24] Voice 7: And Brad, for instance, if we came up with

[3:39:27] Voice 7: something that made sense like absolutely this makes sense with respect to getting e would it

[3:39:34] Voice 7: be appropriate to um put it into the standing resolution pending like say we said and a bit

[3:39:42] Voice 7: of water and then say okay it's part of a bigger picture but we want to move on this right now so

[3:39:48] Voice 7: you put a standing resolution in and then you well as well as the you know new zoning etc etc

[3:39:56] Voice 7: I just don't want to wait.

[3:39:58] Voice 7: But

[3:39:58] Voice 5: what would the standard resolution be?

[3:40:00] Voice 7: Well, let's say, since Schedule E has been updated.

[3:40:04] Voice 7: I

[3:40:04] Voice 5: don't think you can flip your bylaw, you have to update your bylaw.

[3:40:08] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:40:08] Voice 5: I don't think you can create a resolution that prevents the bylaw or we have 10,000 static resolutions.

[3:40:17] Voice 7: What I find interesting is, why don't you just replace Schedule E?

[3:40:21] Voice 7: because the the language probably would remain the same but the rest of

[3:40:26] Voice 5: what the byline would be

[3:40:28] Voice 5: but the community conversation might be a bit bigger than that okay because you might have

[3:40:33] Voice 5: people that are really conflicted with what we're talking about yeah and a whole bunch of debate on

[3:40:39] Voice 5: what mapping is so that yeah okay let's try to say that william would be fine with this

[3:40:49] Voice 5: Okay,

[3:40:50] Voice 6: so next up

[3:40:53] Voice 4: we have the meeting schedule, does everybody like the meeting schedule?

[3:40:59] Voice 6: Or do

[3:41:01] Voice 6: we move to bi-weekly?

[3:41:06] Voice 6: It

[3:41:08] Voice 7: is fine by me. I will be concluding the meeting by the year 16.

[3:41:14] Voice 4: so do we need a motion or just like you said uh

[3:41:19] Voice 5: you should pass a motion that the

[3:41:22] Voice 5: local trust committee uh uh adopts the 2024 business meeting schedule as presented

[3:41:31] Voice 6: carly have you got that yes

[3:41:33] Voice 8: i do thanks okay

[3:41:35] Voice 6: yeah that's just a generic thing okay

[3:41:40] Voice 4: Just noted on the schedule, it says the LPC will meet on Thursday of each month.

[3:41:48] Voice 5: Can you make a

[3:41:49] Voice 5: note of that a little bit further? To amend Thursday of each month?

[3:41:56] Voice 8: To amend, sorry, what?

[3:41:57] Voice 5: To amend draft notice where it said meeting day.

[3:42:02] Voice 8: Sure.

[3:42:03] Voice 5: Thank you.

[3:42:04] Voice 4: Okay, and somebody's already said they can fix that. Good.

[3:42:07] Voice 4: Good. Okay, so move by trustee Knowlton. Second by trustee Knowlton. Any discussion? All in favor? That's done. Now we have a town hall. So if anyone wants to put their hands up, stand in the corner.

[3:42:20] Voice 7: I'm fine.

[3:42:26] Voice 4: Thank you for your perseverance.

[3:42:29] Voice 4: All right, so we just need a motion to adjourn.

[3:42:34] Voice 4: I so move.

[3:42:35] Voice 4: All in favor?

[3:42:38] Voice 4: We are here. Thank you very much, Carly. Thank you very much, everybody, for all yourself.

[3:42:44] Voice 4: And Emily, have a good day off tomorrow.

[3:42:47] Voice 4: Thank

[3:42:47] Voice 8: you. Thank you. Bye, everyone.