Gambier Island Local Trust Committee special meeting, October 31, 2023

[0:00:03] Trustee Luckham: Okay, well good morning everybody. Welcome to the special meeting of the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee. My name is Peter Luckham, I'm elected on Thetis Island and I'm the chair of the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:16] Trustee Luckham: It's a pleasure to be here today. I want to recognize that we're meeting broadly across Coast Salish territory. The picture in my background is actually looking across the Salish Sea from Valdez Island from a significant location to the Laiakshan people.

[0:00:32] Trustee Luckham: And, of course, the Laiaksin and the Penelakut people have the greatest interest in the area

[0:00:37] Trustee Luckham: that I have been elected to govern, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to live and learn

[0:00:41] Trustee Luckham: about this place.

[0:00:44] Trustee Luckham: I'm going to turn to introduce Trustee Joe Bernardo, Keats Island.

[0:00:49] Trustee Luckham: Good morning, Joe.

[0:00:49] Trustee Luckham: JOE BERNARDO, KEATS ISLAND, Good morning.

[0:00:51] Trustee Luckham: JOE BERNARDO, KEATS ISLAND, And also Trustee Kate Louise Stanford from

[0:00:54] Trustee Luckham: Gambier Island.

[0:00:56] Trustee Luckham: KATE LOUISE STANFORD, Good morning.

[0:00:57] Voice 4: I think I've done it.

[0:00:59] Trustee Luckham: JOE BERNARDO, KEATS ISLAND, Well, we've still got a foggy view of you

[0:01:02] Trustee Luckham: but we'll look forward to getting a better visual.

[0:01:05] Trustee Luckham: And joining us today, our staff to support us

[0:01:08] Trustee Luckham: in this important work associated

[0:01:10] Trustee Luckham: with the Keats Shoreline Protection Project

[0:01:13] Trustee Luckham: is a regional planning manager, Rene Jamarat,

[0:01:17] Trustee Luckham: and also a planner, Marlis McCarger.

[0:01:21] Trustee Luckham: We also have Diane Corbett in the background

[0:01:25] Trustee Luckham: assisting us with our minutes.

[0:01:27] Trustee Luckham: And of course, Will Cottingham is in the background

[0:01:29] Trustee Luckham: around supporting our technology here today.

[0:01:32] Trustee Luckham: Thank you for all of you in preparation for this meeting.

[0:01:37] Trustee Luckham: We have an agenda before us.

[0:01:38] Trustee Luckham: I'll note Trustee Bernardo has sent a memo along, 15 pages.

[0:01:44] Trustee Luckham: Quite a piece of work there, Joe.

[0:01:46] Trustee Luckham: Thank you for your writing there with respect to the agenda.

[0:01:52] Trustee Luckham: And I agree with you in some summary remarks

[0:01:56] Trustee Luckham: you passed on earlier with respect

[0:01:58] Trustee Luckham: to going through those with the agenda in order to achieve the best outcome. And certainly let's

[0:02:05] Trustee Luckham: have a conversation once we get the meeting started about how we want to proceed. But 3.11

[0:02:10] Trustee Luckham: is a late addendum to the agenda today and is also connected directly to proposed bylaw number 154.

[0:02:19] Trustee Luckham: They are, Kate. You've joined us. That's great. Okay. So we have an agenda before us. Are there

[0:02:27] Trustee Luckham: any changes to the agenda other than the addition of the addendum could

[0:02:33] Trustee Bernardo: i ask that the agenda be

[0:02:34] Trustee Bernardo: put up because i i don't think i've seen the copy of the addendum i don't really want to jump around

[0:02:40] Trustee Bernardo: to web dev sure

[0:02:44] Trustee Luckham: yeah it's oh i see yeah so you just need to download it but um understood your

[0:02:49] Trustee Luckham: memo um it's just a single item 3.11 trustee memo and it just takes your uh uh uh addendum item and

[0:02:58] Trustee Luckham: and presents it to us so it's in a public meeting package.

[0:03:02] Trustee Luckham: Dory, I thought it was something else, thank you.

[0:03:04] Trustee Luckham: Is that all right?

[0:03:06] Trustee Luckham: So then I'll take it then the agenda be adopted

[0:03:12] Trustee Luckham: as presented and with the addendment

[0:03:16] Trustee Luckham: or as amended with the addendment.

[0:03:17] Trustee Luckham: And so the first business item is 3.1.

[0:03:21] Trustee Luckham: And normally we would start off with the staff

[0:03:24] Trustee Luckham: just making a brief introduction

[0:03:26] Trustee Luckham: and then we'll get into the details of it.

[0:03:30] Trustee Luckham: I'm trusting Kate that you've seen Joe's email

[0:03:33] Trustee Luckham: with the recommendations.

[0:03:34] Trustee Luckham: I don't have any trouble with that.

[0:03:36] Trustee Luckham: Do you concur?

[0:03:39] Trustee Luckham: Yep.

[0:03:40] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so maybe let's just kick off

[0:03:42] Trustee Luckham: by getting a high level view of where we're at

[0:03:47] Trustee Luckham: at this particular moment,

[0:03:49] Trustee Luckham: what the materials are that we're looking at

[0:03:50] Trustee Luckham: and is it possible, regional RPM,

[0:03:54] Trustee Luckham: PM Jumarat that we could ask Planner McCarger to help us with that, or do you have any opening

[0:03:58] Trustee Luckham: remarks?

[0:03:59] Voice 2: Through the chair, I'll kick it off to Marlis, Planner McCarger. She'll provide just a

[0:04:06] Voice 2: sort of a quick overview about the approach to facilitating the discussion today. Perfect,

[0:04:12] Trustee Luckham: thank you. Over to you, Planner McCarger.

[0:04:14] Planner McCargar: Great, good morning everyone. So I've included a staff

[0:04:18] Planner McCargar: report as part of the agenda package and you'll probably recognize it from the staff report at

[0:04:24] Planner McCargar: the last LTC meeting. It's much the same. So there's just a brief background and then go into

[0:04:33] Planner McCargar: a little bit of detail on what I believe to be the main issues that were remaining, which was

[0:04:41] Planner McCargar: was shared dock size increase exemptions so there was three additional exemptions that were listed

[0:04:49] Planner McCargar: there and then consideration for alternate wording for a section regarding repair and

[0:04:58] Planner McCargar: maintenance those came out of the discussions with the community and then also some of the

[0:05:05] Planner McCargar: feedback that we heard from the ltc at the last meeting and then attached to that staff report

[0:05:12] Planner McCargar: you'll see bylaw number 153 which is just attached for information and that are the those are the

[0:05:19] Planner McCargar: amendments to the official community plan and i don't believe there well there are no proposed

[0:05:24] Planner McCargar: changes um from staff on that bylaw and i'm not sure i don't believe there are any from the ltc

[0:05:31] Planner McCargar: but included that just for information and reference. And then you'll see there's

[0:05:37] Planner McCargar: attached bylaw number 154. There's a clean copy. And then there's also a redlined document. So

[0:05:47] Planner McCargar: many of the changes that we discussed at the last, we went line by line at the last LTC meeting.

[0:05:56] Planner McCargar: And those you'll see are all still reflected there. Staff didn't make any changes from the last LTC meeting until now. So that's actually, I made one small change and that was regarding, there was some discussion on the word manual in,

[0:06:22] Planner McCargar: maybe we can kind of talk about it when we get to that, but there was kind of quite a bit of

[0:06:27] Planner McCargar: back and forth. And so I made one small change there.

[0:06:34] Voice 5: Okay, very good. Thank you.

[0:06:38] Trustee Luckham: Let's get my screen shuffled here a little bit. So that's great. Thank you. So Trustee

[0:06:45] Trustee Luckham: Trustee Bernardo, I think we'll kick over to you

[0:06:51] Trustee Luckham: with your suggestion of going through your memo

[0:06:56] Trustee Luckham: and do you have any remarks you'd like to make about that?

[0:06:59] Trustee Luckham: And then Trustee Stamford, we can have a conversation,

[0:07:03] Trustee Luckham: discussion to look at how we're going to proceed there.

[0:07:07] Trustee Bernardo: Sure, as

[0:07:07] Trustee Bernardo: I mentioned in the email

[0:07:08] Trustee Bernardo: that I sent out circulating the memo,

[0:07:10] Trustee Bernardo: the idea here is to focus the discussion,

[0:07:12] Trustee Bernardo: discussion, frankly, on the prominent points that are the hardest ones perhaps to resolve,

[0:07:20] Trustee Bernardo: or certainly maybe the better way for me to put it is the ones that I consider to be the most

[0:07:25] Trustee Bernardo: important and, frankly, crucial for the benefit of the people on Keats Island. As we go through

[0:07:32] Trustee Bernardo: the memo, I don't think it's necessary. I'm going to assume everybody's read it, so I don't think

[0:07:36] Trustee Bernardo: it's necessary for me to orally go through the memo and everything I say in there. I'm just

[0:07:44] Trustee Bernardo: hoping that people have read it and thought about it a little bit. I start with a certain amount of

[0:07:49] Trustee Bernardo: background about the history of Keats Island and really try to set out the context in which this

[0:07:55] Trustee Bernardo: bylaw proposes to operate. And from my vantage point, the bylaw has to be designed in a way

[0:08:06] Trustee Bernardo: that's consistent with the reality of what's of what Keats Island is actually like right now

[0:08:11] Trustee Bernardo: and that's the thrust of that and then it seems to me what we can do in the interest of being

[0:08:19] Trustee Bernardo: efficient is you know it's that little preamble subject to what the other trustees want to discuss

[0:08:26] Trustee Bernardo: about this memo I would suggest that we just go into just take the my recommendations one by one

[0:08:33] Trustee Bernardo: and discuss them and you know go through them that way sounds

[0:08:40] Voice 5: good okay

[0:08:42] Trustee Luckham: so then um looking at

[0:08:45] Trustee Luckham: your addendum there then i got a phone ringing in the background i'm just trying to ignore it

[0:08:49] Trustee Luckham: um there is the preamble there um and thank you for that and so kate should we just jump and and

[0:08:58] Trustee Luckham: uh trustee bernardo are you suggesting we jump in at the item bolded as docs and uh and proceed

[0:09:06] Trustee Luckham: speed from there right

[0:09:07] Trustee Bernardo: now yeah i i'm i'm in the hands of the trustees here uh you know i set out

[0:09:14] Trustee Bernardo: my rationale for you know uh you know for each of these conclusions and recommended amendments

[0:09:24] Trustee Bernardo: uh i'm assuming i don't need to summarize it but i can summarize it uh if you think that's useful

[0:09:31] Trustee Bernardo: for the benefit of the record or we can just go straight into a discussion of the of the

[0:09:35] Trustee Bernardo: recommended change uh but i don't know how you want to proceed on that i

[0:09:42] Trustee Stamford (probable): i think just going into

[0:09:44] Trustee Stamford (probable): the you know come up with your recommendation and then we can discuss it from there i mean

[0:09:49] Trustee Stamford (probable): some of these seem perfectly fine and then others i'd like to discuss more okay

[0:09:55] Trustee Bernardo: well on that front

[0:09:57] Trustee Bernardo: i mean if we if we dive into the first one um it's a it's a it's a twofold issue uh you can

[0:10:04] Trustee Bernardo: I can see from the staff's red line version of the bylaw,

[0:10:10] Trustee Bernardo: they agree that the dock size in P12 for a residential dock

[0:10:17] Trustee Bernardo: should be reduced to the same amount for as it is

[0:10:20] Trustee Bernardo: in the other residential areas to 47 square meters.

[0:10:24] Trustee Bernardo: One thing that is missing though from the red line

[0:10:28] Trustee Bernardo: is that the definition of dock in P12 is different

[0:10:34] Trustee Bernardo: slightly different than it is in the others and uh i think it would be appropriate that

[0:10:42] Trustee Bernardo: the whole bylaw uh the alub uh uh have a consistent usage as to as to what it means

[0:10:52] Trustee Bernardo: when it's when it's dealing with docks and dock sizes in p12 the dock size uh includes

[0:10:59] Trustee Bernardo: includes the ancillary structures that relate to it whereas it does not do that in the other areas

[0:11:07] Trustee Bernardo: and so it seems to me that p12 the definition of dock size should be amended to conform with

[0:11:16] Trustee Bernardo: the same usage that you have in the in the cr1 rr rc and m2a zones that way it's consistent

[0:11:23] Trustee Bernardo: we're just talking about dock floats everywhere instead of in p12 it's dock floats and you know

[0:11:29] Trustee Bernardo: the ramp and all the rest of it that way it's like to like because if you if you reduce the

[0:11:38] Trustee Bernardo: maximum dock size to p12 strictly to 47 meters then it's 47 meters inclusive of the dock float

[0:11:45] Trustee Bernardo: inclusive of the ramp etc so i mean that's not really i mean that's just a really a drafting

[0:11:55] Trustee Bernardo: um change for the purpose of just making sure it's it's equitable for everybody in those

[0:12:01] Trustee Bernardo: those different areas so would

[0:12:05] Trustee Stamford (probable): that go into a the definition side or um i

[0:12:10] Trustee Bernardo: think the way it's done

[0:12:12] Trustee Bernardo: in the other in the language for the other zones um but they just talk about dock floats

[0:12:18] Trustee Bernardo: as opposed to dock size and uh in p12 specifically they talk about marine based structures

[0:12:27] Trustee Bernardo: structures. In any event, it's really to get the parallel concept in there. I haven't crafted

[0:12:37] Trustee Bernardo: language to do that, unlike some of the other areas, but it's on page four. If you look at the

[0:12:47] Trustee Bernardo: two bullets on page four in the middle of the page, which says conclusion, if staff can't identify a

[0:12:52] Trustee Bernardo: policy reason for discrepancy, the bylaw should be amended, blah, blah, blah. Well, the first bullet

[0:12:58] Trustee Bernardo: hasn't been addressed in the red line the second bullet has been addressed i think we need to do

[0:13:02] Trustee Bernardo: both that's my point

[0:13:05] Voice 5: okay and um so

[0:13:08] Voice 4: we can frame those conclusions in terms of emotion right

[0:13:13] Voice 5: yeah look

[0:13:15] Voice 5: yeah i was thinking

[0:13:16] Trustee Bernardo: about that this morning do we want to do that one by one or do

[0:13:19] Trustee Bernardo: we want to just have a shop collect a shopping list of them as we collect them and then go

[0:13:24] Trustee Bernardo: through them i don't know i guess we'd have to have a straw vote to figure that and yeah

[0:13:29] Trustee Bernardo: You know, forget it. I'm going to leave it to you guys to figure out how we deal with them.

[0:13:33] Trustee Luckham: I'd like to go through one at a time because then it's clear and we can just move on.

[0:13:36] Trustee Luckham: All right.

[0:13:37] Trustee Luckham: Is that OK, Kate? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Makes sense to me.

[0:13:41] Trustee Luckham: And so this. Thank you, Joe, for raising that. That makes sense to me.

[0:13:46] Trustee Luckham: I guess my question to and not having a historical perspective, my question to Kate would be,

[0:13:52] Trustee Luckham: Is there a historical reason for this anomaly of the definitions not being similar in each of the zones?

[0:14:02] Trustee Luckham: Because it would be my conclusion that somebody decided that they should be different rather than making them different.

[0:14:08] Trustee Stamford (probable): I don't know. I think some of the zoning, especially for this particular area, was done a while ago.

[0:14:17] Trustee Stamford (probable): So I don't know what the rationale would be.

[0:14:19] Trustee Stamford (probable): i'm not sure if staff have a sense of what the rationale is for the separate definition of docs

[0:14:25] Trustee Stamford (probable): but i agree that keeping it all the same if there's no um material difference um makes it

[0:14:33] Trustee Stamford (probable): clear for reading of the bylaw does

[0:14:36] Trustee Bernardo: staff have an explanation of or an understanding or some clue

[0:14:39] Trustee Bernardo: about the historical reason why this this discrepancy might be there through the chair

[0:14:45] Planner McCargar: No, I don't.

[0:14:51] Voice 5: Yeah, yeah,

[0:14:52] Planner McCargar: no, sorry. I was just kind of having a quick look at the difference here. But yeah, I'm not not sure.

[0:14:59] Planner McCargar: So

[0:15:00] Trustee Luckham: then I'll just a question for staff then is that in the conclusion section there on page five is I think what I'm seeing here, but maybe there's a cover page on it, where it says two bulleted items change the definition XYZ, reduce the maximum dock size.

[0:15:18] Trustee Luckham: Could that simply be captured as a motion, the LTC move that those two bullets?

[0:15:25] Trustee Luckham: Well,

[0:15:29] Planner McCargar: so I guess what we've got here is, so there is the document that staff have proposed and there's a variety of changes in there.

[0:15:38] Planner McCargar: And Trustee Bernardo mentioned that, so the second bullet is already proposed to be changed in that document.

[0:15:49] Planner McCargar: The first bullet hasn't been addressed.

[0:15:53] Planner McCargar: So I don't know, Rene, if you have...

[0:15:58] Planner McCargar: Can

[0:15:59] Trustee Bernardo: I step in? I think I've got a suggestion here that might help us move this along.

[0:16:04] Trustee Bernardo: Thank you.

[0:16:05] Trustee Bernardo: There are a number, quite a few actually, points that I make in this memo that the staff's already considered and has worked into its draft redline version.

[0:16:16] Trustee Bernardo: That's just a draft redline version. As it stands today, as far as the LTC is concerned, is we have the second reading version of the bylaw.

[0:16:23] Trustee Bernardo: So if we go through this, and notwithstanding that staff's already proposed some language for the dog size reduction and some of these other points, if we just have a resolution that deals with them one by one, then that's going to be the authorization that clears away when we get.

[0:16:49] Trustee Bernardo: it will be basically the resolution that approves those changes including the ones that staff's on

[0:16:54] Trustee Bernardo: board with and then we just move on and then we'll have a collection of of things that have

[0:16:59] Trustee Bernardo: been agreed to when we get to the red line version so then when we get to the red line version we

[0:17:04] Trustee Bernardo: will have to have more resolutions um in order to uh accept different changes there but we won't

[0:17:11] Trustee Bernardo: have to have a resolution in respect of these two points i'm sorry to be so convoluted but

[0:17:17] Trustee Bernardo: Yeah,

[0:17:18] Trustee Luckham: no, you're correct. It's complicated with such a document, but I get it. So just to move it along, we could obviously then say we're trying to use the language that you created there in your memo that the LTC concur with the amendments proposed to the definition of maximum dock size and further direct status.

[0:17:47] Trustee Luckham: to reduce the maximum dock size and p2 size to 47 square meters um blah blah blah and that will

[0:17:54] Voice 5: cover

[0:17:54] Trustee Luckham: both the red line and your thing and we could approach that as we go through if that

[0:17:59] Trustee Luckham: seems like a reasonable thing joe and then kate okay um

[0:18:05] Trustee Stamford (probable): i just want to point out i want to make

[0:18:08] Trustee Stamford (probable): sure that um there's points that joe has put in the memo that we're discussing and we can cover

[0:18:14] Trustee Stamford (probable): with recommended with motions but are there items that are redlined in this something i didn't check

[0:18:21] Trustee Stamford (probable): was the redlining is it included in the full memo or are we going to miss red line items

[0:18:28] Trustee Stamford (probable): by just doing it this way

[0:18:30] Trustee Bernardo: my memo does not address every change yeah i

[0:18:34] Trustee Bernardo: think so we what will happen

[0:18:36] Trustee Bernardo: is after we've done this we will address really the major points yeah and

[0:18:42] Trustee Bernardo: then when we go to the

[0:18:43] Trustee Bernardo: redline version we will still have to deal with changes and decide whether we want to approve

[0:18:48] Trustee Bernardo: them or not but it's going to be basically picking through the ones and it'll be most of them in the

[0:18:53] Trustee Bernardo: redline version that we have not yet addressed and and so we'll we'll be sort of partially complete

[0:18:58] Trustee Bernardo: by the time we get to the redline version but you know the memo does not address everything

[0:19:03] Trustee Bernardo: great

[0:19:03] Voice 4: okay that's that helps me clear it up thanks so

[0:19:06] Trustee Luckham: we'll all have to keep uh sort of a mental

[0:19:10] Trustee Luckham: tab on all those things that we've done and then I'm going to probably lean on staff I think this

[0:19:14] Trustee Luckham: is a reasonable approach lean on staff to when we get to saying okay we want to endorse the other

[0:19:21] Trustee Luckham: remaining red line pieces we'll have to go through those and and uh and uh and endorse them or not

[0:19:27] Trustee Luckham: and I see step a uh regional planning manager Gemarat has her hand up so do you have some

[0:19:33] Trustee Luckham: advice to assist us um

[0:19:36] Voice 2: yes I think this was a a prompt through the chair a prompt for

[0:19:39] Voice 2: for planner mccarger to note in the red line version of the proposed bylaw which provisions

[0:19:49] Voice 2: as as the ltc makes their resolutions so for the minute takers benefit and for your benefit

[0:19:57] Voice 2: in preparing this for the next set of readings so we might need i think planner mccarger

[0:20:04] Voice 2: may need a moment as she's cross-referencing i'm going to do the same um so we are keeping track of

[0:20:10] Voice 2: of that as it's happening

[0:20:11] Trustee Luckham: awesome that sounds to me like that will work does that sound uh good to

[0:20:17] Trustee Luckham: both the trustees excellent all right then so then this brings us then to the potential for a motion

[0:20:23] Trustee Luckham: based upon the first conclusion um although i didn't actually ask staff oh no what we did

[0:20:28] Trustee Luckham: there's no historical record for why we wouldn't make those changes are there any uh

[0:20:35] Trustee Luckham: technical aspects to this that we should be discussing

[0:20:39] Trustee Luckham: or can we advance on the motion for those two items?

[0:20:44] Trustee Bernardo: Well, before we contemplate the idea of having a motion

[0:20:52] Trustee Bernardo: specifically for those two items,

[0:20:55] Trustee Bernardo: there are a couple of other points that I make

[0:20:58] Trustee Bernardo: that relate to doc sharing and issues like that

[0:21:07] Trustee Bernardo: I WAS WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD TRY TO DO A COMPENDIOUS MOTION THAT ADDRESSES

[0:21:14] Trustee Bernardo: I WOULD PREFER NOT TO

[0:21:21] Trustee Stamford (probable): I WANT TO TALK TO THEM SEPARATELY IF POSSIBLE

[0:21:28] Trustee Luckham: OKAY YEAH OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE IDEAL EFFICIENCY WISE BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE COMPLEX BECAUSE

[0:21:35] Trustee Luckham: obviously if one uh a second motion amends in a previous motion then that would be a little

[0:21:43] Trustee Luckham: difficult for staff to reconcile but we have to have to be careful well

[0:21:47] Trustee Bernardo: it's just that the four

[0:21:48] Trustee Bernardo: points that i make on page four with respect to people i mean they're all about docs and p12 but

[0:21:53] Trustee Bernardo: you know it's like it's not going to kill us to just you know take them what they want if that's

[0:21:57] Trustee Bernardo: easier for people to sort of consider them so on that front i'm going to uh if i may make a motion

[0:22:05] Trustee Bernardo: THAT PROPOSED BYLAW 154 BE AMENDED BY, ONE, CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MAXIMUM DOCK SIZE

[0:22:15] Trustee Bernardo: IN P12 TO CONFORM WITH THE USAGE IN THE CR1, RRC, AND M2A ZONES THAT SPECIFIES IT TO MEAN

[0:22:25] Trustee Bernardo: the size of the dock float period to reduce the maximum dock size

[0:22:36] Trustee Bernardo: in p12 to the same 47 square meter limit that bylaw 154 contemplates for the other zones

[0:22:46] Trustee Bernardo: okay thank

[0:22:48] Trustee Luckham: you joe do you have a seconder um

[0:22:50] Trustee Stamford (probable): i just have a point to clarify because we are

[0:22:53] Trustee Stamford (probable): are and and excuse me if i haven't interpreted this correctly we are specifically talking about

[0:23:00] Trustee Stamford (probable): residential docks we're not talking about the larger um um um camp dock so i'm wondering if

[0:23:10] Trustee Stamford (probable): we should put the word the definition max and maximum residential dock

[0:23:15] Trustee Bernardo: that's uh

[0:23:16] Trustee Bernardo: thank you that's helpful i did when i first drafted these conclusions it i didn't think

[0:23:24] Trustee Bernardo: of them in terms of them being potential resolutions um i hadn't quite got my head

[0:23:31] Trustee Bernardo: around that at that point but i think it makes sense uh that we specify that we're referring

[0:23:37] Trustee Bernardo: here to residential docs so uh

[0:23:40] Voice 5: i'm

[0:23:42] Trustee Bernardo: gonna let's pull back that language i just articulated and

[0:23:45] Trustee Bernardo: i'll start over to include the residential dock business uh if that's all right that's all right

[0:23:52] Trustee Bernardo: all right uh i move that uh proposed bylaw 154 be amended to change the definition of

[0:24:02] Trustee Bernardo: maximum dock size in p12 with respect to residential docks to conform with the usage

[0:24:11] Trustee Bernardo: in the cr1 rr rc and m2a zones that specify it to mean the size of the dock float period

[0:24:20] Trustee Bernardo: And the second component, reduce the maximum dock size for residential docks in the P12 zone to the same 47 square meter limit that bylaw 154 contemplates for the CR1, RR, RC, and M2A zones, period.

[0:24:48] Voice 5: Can we say reduce the maximum residential dock size on that one?

[0:24:53] Voice 5: I think I said that.

[0:24:54] Trustee Stamford (probable): Did you? Okay.

[0:24:55] Trustee Stamford (probable): Okay, I'll

[0:24:57] Trustee Bernardo: repeat that just for the benefit

[0:24:59] Trustee Bernardo: of the minute taker and so the record, so it's, she's good

[0:25:05] Trustee Bernardo: at that end, reduce the maximum, reduce the maximum residential dock size in P one in the P one, two zone, sorry, reduce the maximum residential dock size in the PI two zone to the same 47 square meter limit that bylaw 152.

[0:25:26] Trustee Bernardo: for contemplates for the cr1 rr rc and m2a zones period okay

[0:25:36] Trustee Luckham: so then um uh recorder corbett you've

[0:25:41] Trustee Luckham: managed to capture that yes i did thank you

[0:25:45] Trustee Luckham: seconded by trustee stamford uh uh

[0:25:50] Trustee Luckham: final camera you had your hand up but you've lowered it now i i do want to ask that that's

[0:25:55] Trustee Luckham: understood by staff what um section we're amending here um whether or not we shouldn't say 9.3

[0:26:03] Trustee Luckham: point x or something planner jamara or rpm jamara through

[0:26:10] Voice 2: the chair um i think i would like

[0:26:13] Voice 2: confirmation from planner mccarger um and we may need to capture that at the end of our um of our

[0:26:21] Voice 2: session today and and confirm that for the minute taker um to know which proposed bylaws so we have

[0:26:28] Voice 2: bylaw 154 is good um the change to the proposed regulations so that's there so that's good

[0:26:37] Voice 2: i think for ease of reference if i can ask planner mccarver to note which um 1.18 or 1.19

[0:26:45] Voice 2: in which proposed bylaw just to make sure we have them all covered in case we need to

[0:26:52] Voice 2: add any further reference um

[0:26:55] Voice 5: well

[0:26:57] Trustee Luckham: let's let planner mccarver answer that and then we'll

[0:27:00] Trustee Luckham: come to bernardo trustee bernardo go ahead mccarver the citation piece of it i think is

[0:27:07] Trustee Luckham: what the question i have in that planet rpm generator is asked whether

[0:27:13] Planner McCargar: we need to be noting

[0:27:14] Planner McCargar: the citation here or

[0:27:16] Trustee Luckham: in the in the uh in the motion yeah i

[0:27:22] Planner McCargar: i mean i understand i mean for

[0:27:25] Planner McCargar: for clarity that would make it clear for the record,

[0:27:30] Planner McCargar: but it's clear to me.

[0:27:34] Trustee Bernardo: That's all that matters.

[0:27:38] Trustee Luckham: Okay, yeah, I'm just sort of following along

[0:27:40] Trustee Luckham: with what I expect staff doing

[0:27:42] Trustee Luckham: and ticking off some of the red line items as we go.

[0:27:45] Trustee Luckham: And so let's just keep flowing with this

[0:27:49] Trustee Luckham: and see how it goes.

[0:27:50] Trustee Luckham: I think we're satisfied.

[0:27:52] Trustee Luckham: So is there any discussion on the motion

[0:27:53] Trustee Luckham: and we're clear on it so if everybody's ready then I'll call the vote all those in favor

[0:28:00] Trustee Luckham: just raise your hand digitally or physically all right so that's a good start let's get to

[0:28:06] Trustee Luckham: the second one Trustee Bernardo over to you right

[0:28:09] Trustee Bernardo: and uh what I was going to mention before is that

[0:28:11] Trustee Bernardo: you know if I if I had um had the time and to actually contemplate the resolutions for this

[0:28:19] Trustee Bernardo: that language in that we've just dealt with although it refers to the p12 zone it probably

[0:28:26] Trustee Bernardo: should have referred to you know the lub but that's okay i mean it's clear enough for the

[0:28:31] Trustee Bernardo: staff to sort of

[0:28:32] Trustee Bernardo: craft the language and then we'll end up seeing the final version in any case

[0:28:36] Trustee Bernardo: um

[0:28:38] Voice 5: yeah moving on to the next point uh the p12 yes it

[0:28:46] Trustee Bernardo: permits residential docks but

[0:28:48] Trustee Bernardo: it doesn't say anything about dock sharing. And unlike for the other zones, there's no

[0:28:54] Trustee Bernardo: regulations prescribed with respect to the width of dock access, ramps, piers, walkways, and stairs.

[0:29:01] Trustee Bernardo: And bylaw 154 for each of the other zones is going through stage by stage. It's actually changing

[0:29:10] Trustee Bernardo: the width of walkways and stairs and so forth. So conceptually for the other residential docks,

[0:29:20] Trustee Bernardo: the regulation pays attention to kind of a shopping list of items. It's not just the dock

[0:29:25] Trustee Bernardo: float. It's also the width of dock ramps and so forth, and also has those provisions

[0:29:32] Trustee Bernardo: there with respect to dock sharing. P1-2 doesn't, and I don't see any reason in principle why it

[0:29:43] Trustee Bernardo: shouldn't. Now, staff may be able to inform us of that, but if there isn't, it seems to me,

[0:29:49] Trustee Bernardo: similar to what I was talking about before with the other two let's bring this into conformity

[0:29:54] Trustee Bernardo: with let's bring all of the terms under which residential docks were permitted

[0:30:00] Trustee Bernardo: one two to be in conformity with the requirements that apply to the other zones where residential

[0:30:05] Trustee Bernardo: docks are permitted and it's it's kind of a minor theme here is that in the lub not the bylaw but in

[0:30:12] Trustee Bernardo: the lub it's frankly wonky there's there's discrepancies here and there and there's some

[0:30:18] Trustee Bernardo: flat out errors so um i'm sensitive to the fact that different zones may have different considerations

[0:30:27] Trustee Bernardo: which is why I want to ask that question as to whether or not there's a reason in principle as

[0:30:31] Trustee Bernardo: to why those residential docks are treated differently in p12 because they are well there

[0:30:37] Trustee Bernardo: is a different arrangement there they've got all the you know they're limiting them to 40 acres and

[0:30:42] Trustee Bernardo: all that stuff so um that's uh there may be a reason so perhaps can staff could tell us whether

[0:30:49] Trustee Bernardo: or not um there's a there's some sort of policy reason not to have dock sharing over there and

[0:30:55] Trustee Bernardo: and not to have regulations with respect

[0:30:57] Trustee Bernardo: to the width of ramps and so forth.

[0:31:02] Planner McCargar: Yeah, through the chair.

[0:31:03] Planner McCargar: So there's only two lots that are actually in the P,

[0:31:08] Planner McCargar: the zone, the P1-2 or PI-2, so two lots.

[0:31:12] Planner McCargar: And those are the larger institutional camps, I believe.

[0:31:18] Planner McCargar: So it could be a case

[0:31:20] Planner McCargar: that there aren't gonna be residential lots to share.

[0:31:24] Planner McCargar: So, it wouldn't really make sense, I don't think, to include it with these lots. So, there might be some residential homes on these lots, but I don't know how we would allow dock sharing with residential homes on the same lot.

[0:31:45] Voice 5: just

[0:31:45] Trustee Stamford (probable): just for argument's sake is it possible for the institutions to split off to a residential

[0:31:54] Trustee Stamford (probable): law we would have to go through this process anyway wouldn't we it wouldn't that wouldn't

[0:32:00] Trustee Stamford (probable): help it at all so right now there isn't any structure that this this prescribes to

[0:32:08] Trustee Stamford (probable): is what i'm understanding you say yeah

[0:32:15] Voice 5: that's correct so

[0:32:19] Trustee Luckham: let me just ask your question and

[0:32:20] Trustee Luckham: come to you joe um is not the residential usage on those subject or accessory to the

[0:32:26] Trustee Luckham: institutional use that's the overarching thing no oh so interesting okay well over to you trustee

[0:32:34] Trustee Luckham: bernardo uh i you know i i take panama

[0:32:38] Trustee Bernardo: carter's point um the difficulty is it appears p12 the

[0:32:44] Trustee Bernardo: conditions for that were drafted contemplating that there would be the or to address the

[0:32:50] Trustee Bernardo: contingency of residential dwellings being constructed and being there and you know

[0:32:56] Trustee Bernardo: there's all this language uh in terms of density that talks about how many houses are permitted

[0:33:01] Trustee Bernardo: committed on lots lots of various sizes so built into the into the p12 zoning conditions

[0:33:12] Trustee Bernardo: uh it is an anticipation that there and maybe the subdivision hasn't happened yet and maybe

[0:33:18] Trustee Bernardo: it'll never happen but um as drafted p12 contemplates that there are going to be

[0:33:24] Trustee Bernardo: residential dwellings even if they're not there now and uh and you know i take the point that

[0:33:33] Trustee Bernardo: there's just two lots over there and you know one of them is landlocked the other one is on the

[0:33:38] Trustee Bernardo: waterfront there would have to be subdivision in order to create these residential lots

[0:33:44] Trustee Bernardo: but as i you know i'm kind of repeating myself but p12 anticipates that's going to happen so

[0:33:49] Trustee Bernardo: if we just talk about dock float sizes at 40 or at 47 square meters and have that condition for p12

[0:33:59] Trustee Bernardo: to then we're kind of half in you know we're not all the way in in terms of bringing the the

[0:34:05] Trustee Bernardo: regulations in conformity to what they are elsewhere even if it is at this point wholly

[0:34:10] Trustee Bernardo: hypothetical and

[0:34:12] Trustee Stamford (probable): and in terms of process um we're assuming that that would be caught at a different

[0:34:19] Trustee Stamford (probable): point in history um in the future and i'm not necessarily sure that would happen so uh is there

[0:34:26] Trustee Stamford (probable): any problem with including this language. I don't see an issue with it. It just makes it consistent

[0:34:33] Trustee Stamford (probable): and it's there to the point that in future, if there's ever a subdivision, although, you know,

[0:34:42] Trustee Stamford (probable): it'll all have to be examined anyway, at least there's a consistency of language. That's more

[0:34:48] Trustee Stamford (probable): to staff. Yeah.

[0:34:50] Planner McCargar: Yeah. I just had a quick look at the subdivision requirements. I don't know the

[0:34:55] Planner McCargar: minimum lot size is 30 acres so i don't know that it's all that likely that this area will be

[0:35:02] Planner McCargar: getting subdivided but i do hear the point for consistency i just think that it's highly

[0:35:10] Planner McCargar: unlikely i don't can't even think of a situation where it would be

[0:35:15] Planner McCargar: implemented to share a dock between residential lots that don't exist so it just sort of seems

[0:35:21] Planner McCargar: a bit I yeah I see for consistency but when it doesn't really it's not going to ever apply to

[0:35:30] Planner McCargar: that zone I just don't know the point but we can include it if there's yeah a desire to well if

[0:35:40] Trustee Bernardo: with respect I don't know whether it's possible to predict the future as to whether to say whether

[0:35:44] Trustee Bernardo: it's never going to happen but if we're convinced and we can say with certainty it's never going to

[0:35:48] Trustee Bernardo: happen then we got off on the wrong foot and we should be repealing the provisions for residential

[0:35:53] Trustee Bernardo: docs because they're irrelevant. I don't want to do that because I do believe things are possible.

[0:36:02] Trustee Bernardo: I mean, when this thing was designed in the first place, residential docs were contemplated

[0:36:07] Trustee Bernardo: for P1-2 and P1-2 hasn't changed in size since the time this was drafted.

[0:36:13] Trustee Bernardo: So it's not just a matter of consistency, although it is that. The point is the LTC

[0:36:22] Trustee Bernardo: see at some point reach the conclusion that residential lots were a contingency that had

[0:36:29] Trustee Bernardo: to be allowed for in p12 uh and it's possible that it could happen it may be unlikely but it's

[0:36:39] Trustee Bernardo: possible which is why the residential dock provision is there in the first place if it is

[0:36:44] Trustee Bernardo: truly wholly irrelevant then that stuff should be pulled out if it isn't entirely irrelevant

[0:36:49] Trustee Bernardo: relevant then it should be consistent with how it is elsewhere so that's the point right uh

[0:36:55] Trustee Luckham: i think

[0:36:56] Planner McCargar: we were talking about two different things there can there is no residential lots

[0:37:02] Planner McCargar: that can be subdivided but there could be a residential home built on this large p1

[0:37:10] Planner McCargar: pi2 lot that could have a dock associated with it yeah i

[0:37:14] Planner McCargar: don't know how to write the provision

[0:37:16] Planner McCargar: so that the residential homes that are permitted on this one large lot could share a dock.

[0:37:23] Trustee Bernardo: Then why do the density requirements for P1-2 have this long song and dance

[0:37:32] Trustee Bernardo: and this complicated arrangement about how many dwellings are permitted on lots

[0:37:36] Trustee Bernardo: that are greater than eight acres and less than 30 and then over 30 and up to 60 and all that jazz?

[0:37:47] Trustee Bernardo: i mean it's all contemplating uh that if those lots don't exist today they may exist in the

[0:37:53] Trustee Bernardo: future but

[0:37:54] Trustee Stamford (probable): it's again it's not lots that that they it's a way of trying to prescribe the design of

[0:38:02] Trustee Stamford (probable): the camp so the camp itself could have residential homes on it that are used full-time but they're

[0:38:11] Trustee Stamford (probable): are not for the camp so they're not for the institution itself and I know that that's been

[0:38:20] Trustee Stamford (probable): a concern on other camps that they proliferate their buildings without any consideration of

[0:38:27] Trustee Stamford (probable): of planning and the ability for local trust committee to at least have an examination of

[0:38:35] Trustee Stamford (probable): what's happening on that lot so that could be the reason why they've put that provision in

[0:38:40] Trustee Stamford (probable): in is to try and at least have some supervisory oversight

[0:38:46] Trustee Stamford (probable): as to what is being built on that campus.

[0:38:51] Trustee Bernardo: I think that's a different point because in, you know,

[0:38:54] Trustee Bernardo: maybe we should put up the,

[0:38:56] Trustee Bernardo: if we can put up the language that's in by-law 78 now

[0:39:01] Trustee Bernardo: with respect to P1-2 density,

[0:39:03] Trustee Bernardo: because that's what's really leading me

[0:39:08] Voice 5: to raise this issue because

[0:39:13] Voice 5: the way that density

[0:39:13] Trustee Bernardo: uh those provisions read and i'll have to see it again but my recollection is

[0:39:21] Trustee Bernardo: it it's the density provisions are drafted with um contemplating that these are in fact

[0:39:30] Trustee Bernardo: different sized parcels it's not just one parcel well here we go thank you so

[0:39:38] Trustee Luckham: i might just suggest

[0:39:40] Trustee Luckham: that i think it was concluded earlier that for consistency this was a not an unreasonable idea

[0:39:47] Trustee Luckham: a good idea um and i think we could go down the rabbit hole of looking at the much more complex

[0:39:53] Trustee Luckham: conversation about the use of that property and the intentions but i i think that we should stick

[0:39:59] Trustee Luckham: to the suggestion which i think is correct to provide that consistency which i think trustee

[0:40:04] Trustee Luckham: bernardo is drawing our attention to well for the benefit of the for the benefit of planner mccarger

[0:40:09] Trustee Bernardo: um

[0:40:10] Voice 7: uh

[0:40:11] Trustee Bernardo: it and uh what we see here is page 28 of the lub and um in the at the point 10

[0:40:24] Trustee Bernardo: subsection in that density right around the middle of the page yep

[0:40:28] Voice 5: you

[0:40:29] Trustee Bernardo: know it's talking

[0:40:30] Trustee Bernardo: about it's not talking i mean the institutional stuff is discussed at point eight but point 10

[0:40:36] Trustee Bernardo: is talking about in respect of each full 15 acre lot uh in areas that are lots of 30 acres or

[0:40:45] Trustee Bernardo: larger i appreciate they don't exist but for whatever reason this was drafted in anticipation

[0:40:50] Trustee Bernardo: that they may well exist in the future i mean there's a lot of detail in here and um yeah i

[0:40:57] Trustee Stamford (probable): think that's in anticipation of the upper lot there has

[0:41:01] Trustee Stamford (probable): been discussions around that but that's

[0:41:04] Trustee Stamford (probable): just you know talk at this point but i i agree with trustee luckham that i think putting this

[0:41:12] Trustee Stamford (probable): language in is certainly not harmful it provides clarity and then i because i do want to get on with

[0:41:23] Trustee Bernardo: yeah yeah uh trustee stanford's screen seems to have frozen she may we may we should probably

[0:41:30] Trustee Bernardo: make sure she's available yeah

[0:41:34] Trustee Luckham: although on that final note that she said there we'll wait for her

[0:41:38] Trustee Luckham: to come back online the suggestion is to go ahead with that

[0:41:41] Voice 5: yeah yeah

[0:41:42] Trustee Luckham: and i agree

[0:41:43] Voice 5: but i

[0:41:45] Trustee Luckham: want to actually note trustee bernardo that you pointed out uh in that same section on the uh your

[0:41:50] Trustee Luckham: uh your memo that 24 hectares is not 40 acres and you're correct and just looking at that section on

[0:41:57] Trustee Luckham: the screen there's three four references to 24 hectares being different sizes all the way down

[0:42:06] Trustee Luckham: to 30 acres and up as high as 60. so that would need to be addressed in a future time and place

[0:42:12] Trustee Luckham: and so sorry

[0:42:13] Trustee Stamford (probable): i i don't know what happened there but i'm back oh

[0:42:16] Trustee Luckham: yeah so that's we were kind of

[0:42:18] Trustee Luckham: waiting for you i was just pointing out that trustee bernardo's note that 24 hectares is

[0:42:24] Trustee Luckham: defined as a different size in acres in that lub is true it's actually quoted three different times

[0:42:30] Trustee Luckham: with different sizes yeah so that needs to be correct that's

[0:42:33] Trustee Luckham: a future that's a future thing

[0:42:34] Trustee Luckham: staff can make note of that so trustee bernardo over back to you for potentially a motion there

[0:42:40] Trustee Bernardo: yes uh i move that bylaw 154 be amended uh to include provisions that will bring the regulations

[0:42:49] Trustee Bernardo: for residential residential docks in the p12 zone into conformity with requirements bylaw 154

[0:42:56] Trustee Bernardo: for residential docks in the CR1, RRC and M2A zones.

[0:43:05] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so that's more or less as prescribed in your memo.

[0:43:10] Trustee Luckham: Yes, and Recorder Corbett, have you got that?

[0:43:15] Trustee Luckham: I do.

[0:43:16] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[0:43:17] Trustee Luckham: Trustee Stamford then is seconding that.

[0:43:19] Trustee Luckham: Is there any further discussion?

[0:43:22] Trustee Luckham: Are you ready to vote?

[0:43:24] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[0:43:26] Trustee Luckham: Excellent, thank you very much.

[0:43:28] Trustee Luckham: trustee bernardo over to you again uh

[0:43:30] Trustee Bernardo: as you've mentioned the chair luck comes uh

[0:43:35] Trustee Bernardo: but there is a in the memo here i talk about there's basically a type of graphical error

[0:43:41] Trustee Bernardo: in that in that part of the p12 regulations and uh 24 um uh uh 30 acres is not 24

[0:43:58] Trustee Bernardo: 30 acres is 12 hectares and so that should be corrected uh it does refer to uh 24 hectares

[0:44:06] Trustee Bernardo: elsewhere but it's referring to i believe uh 40 acres um or 60 acres or something i think

[0:44:14] Trustee Bernardo: it's referring to the 60 acre references um so i think this is the only typo uh

[0:44:22] Trustee Bernardo: you know we can deal with it today or we can leave it to staff to bring forward at some other point

[0:44:27] Trustee Bernardo: to correct the uh lub uh but since we're on it today uh uh since we're discussing it today it

[0:44:35] Trustee Bernardo: seems to me we could just address this typo to fix up the lub the lub now um

[0:44:40] Voice 5: is it is there a

[0:44:46] Voice 5: necessity to just make sure all the calculations are correct uh so over

[0:44:56] Trustee Luckham: to planning staff rpm

[0:44:57] Trustee Luckham: PM Jamarat, can we include amendments to the LUB

[0:45:01] Trustee Luckham: as we go through here as independent motions?

[0:45:05] Trustee Luckham: Well, no, I'm suggesting that

[0:45:07] Trustee Bernardo: we put the amendment

[0:45:10] Trustee Bernardo: that corrects it in bylaw 154.

[0:45:13] Trustee Luckham: Oh, I see.

[0:45:15] Trustee Luckham: Oh, so that, yeah, I don't know about

[0:45:18] Trustee Luckham: whether that would be consistent with an OCP,

[0:45:20] Trustee Luckham: but over to the planning staff who would like to address it.

[0:45:23] Voice 2: Through the chair, I'd also like to ask

[0:45:26] Voice 2: mccarter planner mccarter to weigh in um but i think if we if we flag conversion errors

[0:45:32] Voice 2: in any of the bylaws i would like to see them scooped in to this proposed bylaw amendment

[0:45:39] Voice 2: to make them correct can

[0:45:42] Trustee Stamford (probable): can we leave this um for later then and

[0:45:46] Voice 4: then anything else

[0:45:47] Voice 4: did to the same um

[0:45:49] Trustee Stamford (probable): motion would that be okay trustee bernardo i'm fine with that um

[0:45:53] Trustee Bernardo: And that's something staff, which is obviously strong in the technical side for keeping track

[0:46:00] Trustee Bernardo: of things like this, as we go through this, we may accumulate other little things like

[0:46:06] Trustee Bernardo: this that the

[0:46:08] Trustee Bernardo: staff might think are best dealt with in a different type of resolution or

[0:46:13] Trustee Bernardo: a different approach.

[0:46:14] Trustee Bernardo: So it's sufficient that to identify, I think, the problem.

[0:46:20] Trustee Bernardo: and i think by discussing it like this we're providing sufficient direction for staff to

[0:46:25] Trustee Bernardo: address it and we can just move on

[0:46:26] Trustee Bernardo: the

[0:46:27] Voice 2: chair i i think so as well um i think the purpose for

[0:46:31] Voice 2: today is to capture these big discussion topics and the direction for that so

[0:46:36] Trustee Luckham: that's good thanks

[0:46:39] Trustee Luckham: great so back to trustee bernardo for the next item uh

[0:46:43] Trustee Bernardo: the next point is um there seems to be

[0:46:46] Trustee Bernardo: some a lapse in um how bylaw 144 was uh drafted in that uh at the moment in the p12 and m2b zones

[0:46:57] Trustee Bernardo: the maximum coverage area for an institutional dock is set at 3 000 square meters and that

[0:47:03] Trustee Bernardo: basically applies to uh barnabas and keats camp those are the two institutions uh that we're

[0:47:09] Trustee Bernardo: talking about p12 being where essentially describes the barnabas property and uh n2

[0:47:17] Trustee Bernardo: is part of the the keats camp area section 1.17 of bylaw 14154 uh proposes to reduce the 3000

[0:47:30] Trustee Bernardo: square meter limit in p12 to 1500 square meters and the reasoning for all of that is the familiar

[0:47:37] Trustee Bernardo: reasoning we've seen in the materials leading up to this project which is we want to reduce the

[0:47:42] Trustee Bernardo: overall shading of the sea bottom uh okay so that all makes sense that's consistent with what we're

[0:47:49] Trustee Bernardo: doing the 47 meter deal with private residential dogs got it strangely no provision has been made

[0:47:55] Trustee Bernardo: to reduce the maximum coverage area um uh in m2b instead it bylaw 144 would just leave it alone

[0:48:03] Trustee Bernardo: So if bylaw 154 passed as it currently is drafted, we get this weird situation where the institutional dock over at Barnabas is reduced to 1500, but the one at Keats Camp stays at 3000 meters.

[0:48:18] Trustee Bernardo: If, again, if staff isn't aware of some historical or specific reason why the larger dock might be necessary at Keats Camp, then it should be reduced to the same size as it is over at Barnabas.

[0:48:34] Voice 5: so that's the point so okay

[0:48:39] Planner McCargar: go ahead

[0:48:40] Planner McCargar: i was just going to say that was an oversight that we

[0:48:43] Planner McCargar: discussed at the last meeting proposed to be changed to be consistent okay

[0:48:48] Trustee Bernardo: so i must just

[0:48:50] Trustee Bernardo: move it then so we can just get it locked in uh uh i move that uh bylaw 154 be amended to reduce

[0:49:03] Trustee Bernardo: the maximum coverage area for institutional dock facilities in the M2B zone to the same

[0:49:10] Trustee Bernardo: 1,500 square meter limit contemplated for

[0:49:13] Voice 5: the P1-2 zone.

[0:49:18] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:49:18] Voice 5: Planner Corbett, Recorder

[0:49:20] Trustee Luckham: Corbett, you've got that understood?

[0:49:22] Trustee Luckham: Yes.

[0:49:23] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[0:49:24] Trustee Luckham: And Trustee Stanford is seconding.

[0:49:26] Trustee Luckham: And any further discussion?

[0:49:29] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[0:49:31] Trustee Luckham: That carries.

[0:49:32] Trustee Luckham: Excellent.

[0:49:32] Trustee Bernardo: Okay.

[0:49:33] Trustee Luckham: What's next here?

[0:49:36] Trustee Bernardo: There is a point I'd like to touch on briefly. It's not going to call for us to have a resolution. There's nothing to be done about it, really. But it's that for the folks who are the leaseholders over on the shoreline residential lots over Keats Landing, they've got issues going into the future.

[0:49:58] Trustee Bernardo: and it is I won't belabor it now but it's a source of real concern for them that they may need to

[0:50:07] Trustee Bernardo: build new docks and the site the siting requirement that they'd be at least 10 meters from any

[0:50:12] Trustee Bernardo: existing dock or structure is viewed by many of them over there as an unreasonable imposition

[0:50:18] Trustee Bernardo: because their lots have a frontage most of them I believe except for three have a frontage of only

[0:50:24] Trustee Bernardo: 50 feet uh and so that that you can easily imagine the math is pretty simple uh but you can see

[0:50:32] Trustee Bernardo: situations where depending on the profile of the seashore and the location of pre-existing docks it

[0:50:37] Trustee Bernardo: may be impossible for a leaseholder to build a dock if it's necessary so that's been a persistent

[0:50:44] Trustee Bernardo: objection of theirs and unfortunately um the reasons it's persistent is we haven't explained

[0:50:53] Trustee Bernardo: sufficiently that what we're doing with that isn't original what we're doing is bringing our

[0:51:00] Trustee Bernardo: bylaws into conformity with federal legislation and it's not within our power to grant variances

[0:51:06] Trustee Bernardo: and going forward certainly leaseholders it needs to be made clear to them that it's outside of our

[0:51:13] Trustee Bernardo: power well first of all that it's reasonable and appropriate for us to to craft bylaws that are

[0:51:18] Trustee Bernardo: consistent with other legislation especially federal marine legislation but it also means

[0:51:24] Trustee Bernardo: that it's outside of our power to grant any variances or leeway to the for the distance

[0:51:28] Trustee Bernardo: requirement uh we're just trying to make sure our bylaws are lawfully consistent with federal laws

[0:51:35] Trustee Bernardo: uh that's gonna be disappointing news for the for the leaseholders um who are hoping for some

[0:51:40] Trustee Bernardo: relief along those lines but uh there's nothing to be done about it unfortunately and i just feel

[0:51:44] Trustee Bernardo: frankly terrible that the leaseholders have gone for a number of years now uh under the idea

[0:51:52] Trustee Bernardo: yeah, unnecessary, that there might be some relief for them in that provision,

[0:51:58] Trustee Bernardo: but there cannot be, and that's unfortunate.

[0:52:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): So we do put information notes in our bylaws.

[0:52:07] Trustee Stamford (probable): Is this an appropriate place to put a sidebar note that goes into the bylaws

[0:52:13] Trustee Stamford (probable): stating that this comes from the marine regulations

[0:52:20] Trustee Stamford (probable): from the transport, wherever it's coming from, from

[0:52:25] Trustee Bernardo: the federal level?

[0:52:26] Trustee Bernardo: I would think so, you know, to make the cross-reference in the bylaw. I mean, if it's

[0:52:34] Trustee Bernardo: consistent with the practices for drafting these things, but if we could have a note that explains

[0:52:39] Trustee Bernardo: that,

[0:52:39] Voice 5: I think that would be helpful. Through the

[0:52:46] Planner McCargar: chair, the advice that we've received from

[0:52:50] Planner McCargar: legal in the past is that information notes are not meant for bylaws. And I know that LTCs like

[0:52:57] Planner McCargar: to put them in there but they they're really not appropriate the the legislation could change

[0:53:03] Planner McCargar: then we're kind of stuck with this information note that is no longer relevant and it really

[0:53:11] Planner McCargar: holds no weight so as

[0:53:15] Trustee Stamford (probable): an alternative there should be some communication

[0:53:19] Trustee Stamford (probable): communication to residents as these types of regulations are put in, it would be worth having

[0:53:27] Trustee Stamford (probable): an appropriate communication piece that outlines some of these issues. And that is always provided

[0:53:34] Trustee Stamford (probable): as part of a package, especially, obviously, to dock owners. And there's a number of things that

[0:53:43] Trustee Stamford (probable): can go into that but one of them would be this um criteria if

[0:53:51] Trustee Bernardo: i may uh when planner mccarver and i

[0:53:53] Trustee Bernardo: had our brief exchange of information about this a few weeks ago uh she suggested helpfully that

[0:53:59] Trustee Bernardo: we could uh in connection with this point and other some other points that are particularly

[0:54:04] Trustee Bernardo: prominent for the community to come up with a pamphlet of some sort that would accompany

[0:54:09] Trustee Bernardo: the material and I could see how that a pamphlet like that when we finally get

[0:54:15] Trustee Bernardo: to the public hearing stage if that's part of the package which is it it

[0:54:21] Trustee Bernardo: addresses some of these specific things that we know of concern and just puts in

[0:54:26] Trustee Bernardo: plain language what people need to know in addition to to this point I think

[0:54:30] Trustee Bernardo: there may be some points relating to green shores and things like that and

[0:54:34] Trustee Bernardo: we'll get to some of these other things possibly but I I would certainly think

[0:54:38] Trustee Bernardo: the idea of a pamphlet that accompanies uh the bylaws uh in the public materials like for meeting

[0:54:46] Trustee Bernardo: agendas and that sort of thing and certainly for the public hearing that might be very helpful

[0:54:51] Voice 5: yeah any other remarks there or

[0:55:01] Trustee Luckham: no we

[0:55:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): need a motion to make that happen or is that going to

[0:55:06] Trustee Stamford (probable): be part of our communications out with the um well

[0:55:11] Trustee Bernardo: i i i think i i think it might be a bit premature

[0:55:15] Trustee Bernardo: sure to actually have an outright motion to it because we have one item for this pamphlet and

[0:55:19] Trustee Bernardo: the other ones are in the abstract uh staff it was staff's idea they can they can you know

[0:55:27] Trustee Bernardo: i'm just transmitting their point a communication point so i'm comfortable with just leaving it to

[0:55:31] Trustee Bernardo: staffs to to sort of you know they've got the idea and work with it when we get to the right

[0:55:36] Trustee Bernardo: point that it's useful to have that thing i expect they will draft something and bring it to us to

[0:55:42] Trustee Bernardo: look at. And unless they say otherwise, if they do need specific direction, I'm happy to make a

[0:55:48] Trustee Bernardo: resolution on those lines. I'm also happy to just leave it to them. I see Planner McCarger has her

[0:55:53] Trustee Bernardo: hand up, Mr. Chair.

[0:55:55] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, go ahead, Planner McCarger.

[0:55:57] Planner McCargar: Yeah, we would require direction from

[0:56:00] Planner McCargar: the LTC if they did want specific communication out. It was just an idea. So if the LTC is

[0:56:06] Planner McCargar: agreeable to that, then it would be great to have a resolution. It might be a little premature,

[0:56:11] Planner McCargar: mature as you were saying as we only have one item on there currently but perhaps at the end of this

[0:56:16] Planner McCargar: or even at the next LTC meeting there could be a resolution that you know for a pamphlet with

[0:56:22] Planner McCargar: the following so

[0:56:24] Trustee Stamford (probable): I I've kept that as a note and I will follow through on that um

[0:56:29] Trustee Bernardo: just

[0:56:30] Trustee Stamford (probable): as a point

[0:56:31] Trustee Stamford (probable): of interest so thank

[0:56:33] Trustee Bernardo: you if I may Mr. Chair this brings us now to actually one of the really

[0:56:40] Trustee Bernardo: really some stand up points.

[0:56:41] Trustee Bernardo: Yeah.

[0:56:42] Trustee Bernardo: Which is with respect to dock sharing.

[0:56:45] Trustee Bernardo: And on this, I think I do need to go through the reasoning

[0:56:48] Trustee Bernardo: for what I'm proposing in some detail.

[0:56:50] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:56:53] Trustee Bernardo: And it flows naturally

[0:56:55] Trustee Bernardo: from the distance requirement issue.

[0:56:57] Trustee Bernardo: We can't help the leaseholders

[0:56:58] Trustee Bernardo: with respect to the distance requirement.

[0:57:00] Trustee Bernardo: Well, the logic of that is people 50 foot lots,

[0:57:06] Trustee Bernardo: some of them in the future are gonna need to share docks

[0:57:09] Trustee Bernardo: with people if they don't already do so.

[0:57:13] Trustee Bernardo: And we should, and also for environmental reasons, we should be encouraging stock sharing as much as possible.

[0:57:23] Trustee Bernardo: That means the bylaws should be structured in such a way as to incentivize it.

[0:57:28] Trustee Bernardo: Right now, our bylaw does the opposite.

[0:57:31] Trustee Bernardo: And I'm sorry, math is involved here.

[0:57:35] Trustee Bernardo: So, you know, strap on your helmets.

[0:57:38] Trustee Bernardo: We have to sort of go through this.

[0:57:39] Trustee Bernardo: uh bylaw 154 uh for the residential docks in um is contemplates that that's going to be set

[0:57:50] Trustee Bernardo: the maximum dock float size for those is set at 47 square meters

[0:57:57] Trustee Bernardo: and uh for the sharing provisions that are contemplated 154 and as i pointed out there

[0:58:06] Trustee Bernardo: it's a little erratic it's it's we haven't consistently done that but the sharing

[0:58:12] Trustee Bernardo: provisions are straightforward which is an additional 30 square meters can be added to

[0:58:17] Trustee Bernardo: the size of a dock flow uh as you add a dwellings into in terms of the usage of the dock flow and

[0:58:28] Trustee Bernardo: um but only up to a maximum of 105 square meters now as i say at page six

[0:58:38] Trustee Bernardo: Six, under that arrangement, under that dynamic, where you end up with is if you have two dwellings sharing a dock, the dock size increases to 77 square meters, which means that each of those dwellings would have a space allocation on the dock float of 38 square meters per dwelling, which, you know, I'm not going to go through the square route and all that stuff.

[0:59:07] Trustee Bernardo: But I mean, in terms of boat length, in terms of being able to access, well, that's plenty of room for two boats on a dock.

[0:59:17] Trustee Bernardo: But if you have three dwellings, well, we've got that maximum 105 square meter limit.

[0:59:23] Trustee Bernardo: So you hit the ceiling right away because, you know, 47 plus 30 plus 30 is 107.

[0:59:32] Trustee Bernardo: So you're already at the limit.

[0:59:34] Trustee Bernardo: So all you can do is allocate 105 square meters among three people.

[0:59:40] Trustee Bernardo: horizon three dwellings among three that works out to 35 square meters

[0:59:44] Voice 5: per

[0:59:45] Trustee Bernardo: dwell then as you move forward like the more dwellings you put on the dock or the

[0:59:51] Trustee Bernardo: chair of the dock the more the space allocation becomes reduced at four dwellings it's reduced

[1:00:00] Trustee Bernardo: to 26.25 square meters.

[1:00:02] Trustee Bernardo: I'm not gonna go on and on about it,

[1:00:05] Trustee Bernardo: but bottom line is that's pretty much the limit in terms,

[1:00:10] Trustee Bernardo: because if you break down the square meters

[1:00:14] Trustee Bernardo: into what that actually means in terms of amount

[1:00:17] Trustee Bernardo: of dock length that's available to the boats,

[1:00:20] Trustee Bernardo: and as I explained here in the meter, in the memo,

[1:00:26] Trustee Bernardo: you need to have a boat that's at least five meters

[1:00:29] Trustee Bernardo: more or less for it to be useful.

[1:00:32] Trustee Bernardo: for for most purposes given the weather conditions and seasonal stuff on keats bottom line is that

[1:00:39] Trustee Bernardo: effectively sets the upper limit for dock sharing at four dwellings uh you know four dwellings with

[1:00:45] Trustee Bernardo: boats of more or less five meters can make use of a dock that's 105 square meters a dock of 105

[1:00:52] Trustee Bernardo: square meters for any more than those four boats uh is not going to be practical it's it's too tight

[1:00:58] Trustee Bernardo: so there you've we've created a ceiling basically on dog sharing that takes us up to four boats

[1:01:07] Trustee Bernardo: to four dwellings sorry four dwellings meaning four boats and

[1:01:12] Voice 5: you know the whole point but you

[1:01:16] Trustee Bernardo: know dog sharing as i say here is serves the same environmental protection purpose

[1:01:24] Trustee Bernardo: that is underlying our justification for reducing the size of new dog floats

[1:01:29] Trustee Bernardo: and it's got to do with the shadow we don't want to have excessive shadowing of the seaboard so we

[1:01:35] Trustee Bernardo: want to mitigate that going forward with respect to new docks and the province in its marine dock

[1:01:43] Trustee Bernardo: construction guidelines is urging wherever possible that people to develop dock facilities can

[1:01:49] Trustee Bernardo: facilitate numerous upland owners and it's for the same reason i mean the more people you have

[1:01:55] Trustee Bernardo: on the dock uh the means of fewer docks you have to build and so in designing this i mean these

[1:02:04] Trustee Bernardo: numbers um if i recall from some of the previous community information meetings that took place

[1:02:13] Trustee Bernardo: before uh i became a trustee uh the size um the the the numbers that the ltc settled on to reduce

[1:02:25] Trustee Bernardo: the size of the dogs, I think Dan Rogers said

[1:02:28] Trustee Bernardo: to a certain extent, they were arbitrary.

[1:02:29] Trustee Bernardo: They're just, you know, they're the best guests

[1:02:33] Trustee Bernardo: that staff in the LTC could come up with

[1:02:35] Trustee Bernardo: in terms of what would be feasible, and that's fine.

[1:02:37] Trustee Bernardo: I'm not gonna complain about that.

[1:02:39] Trustee Bernardo: I mean, at 47 square meters, you know,

[1:02:45] Trustee Bernardo: there are people who aren't happy about that,

[1:02:47] Trustee Bernardo: but it seems functional at least.

[1:02:50] Trustee Bernardo: And in doing that, staff determined that for the purpose

[1:02:54] Trustee Bernardo: of enabling two dwellings, as I mentioned before,

[1:02:56] Trustee Bernardo: it was appropriate.

[1:02:58] Trustee Bernardo: to increase the default maximum of 47 square meters

[1:03:01] Trustee Bernardo: by

[1:03:02] Voice 5: 30 square meters.

[1:03:04] Voice 5: So under the same logic,

[1:03:09] Voice 5: I

[1:03:10] Trustee Bernardo: think it makes sense to amend the bylaw

[1:03:13] Trustee Bernardo: to enable prorating at the maximum float size

[1:03:17] Trustee Bernardo: by an additional three square meters per participant

[1:03:21] Trustee Bernardo: up to a higher absolute maximum.

[1:03:26] Trustee Bernardo: And the one I'm proposing is 150 square meters,

[1:03:29] Trustee Bernardo: 54 square meters,

[1:03:32] Trustee Bernardo: which is the current maximum we now have for short-shared docks.

[1:03:38] Trustee Bernardo: And that's going to incentivize greater dock sharing

[1:03:42] Trustee Bernardo: because it sets a higher ceiling on how many participants

[1:03:45] Trustee Bernardo: can actually make use of the dock at the same time.

[1:03:48] Trustee Bernardo: And I'm going to burden you with some more math here.

[1:03:51] Trustee Bernardo: Under the higher maximum, it doesn't change the size of the dock

[1:03:57] Trustee Bernardo: that would be allowed for two dwellings.

[1:04:00] Trustee Bernardo: It's still going to start at the 47-meter limit.

[1:04:03] Trustee Bernardo: it adds 30 which takes us to 77 which means we still have 38.5 square meters per dwelling

[1:04:10] Trustee Bernardo: but when we get to three four or five three four five or six dwellings because we have the higher

[1:04:19] Trustee Bernardo: maximum we can enable greater dog sharing because the useful space allocation when we get to the

[1:04:25] Trustee Bernardo: six wellings is 25 point set 25 point square meters which means that's

[1:04:33] Voice 5: a space that is

[1:04:36] Voice 5: usable and practical for a boat uh in the conditions over at keats so

[1:04:42] Voice 5: that means

[1:04:45] Trustee Bernardo: the cost to the environment of increasing the maximum float size as i'm

[1:04:50] Trustee Bernardo: suggesting would be the need to construct a dock one dock that causes 154 square meters of shading

[1:04:58] Trustee Bernardo: If, however, we stay with 105-square-meter limit, the cost to the environment is higher because it means we have to construct two docks, one for four boats, another one for two boats, and the one for four boats hits the 105-square-meter maximum.

[1:05:16] Trustee Bernardo: The other one for two can hit the 77-square-meter permitted amount for a total of 182 square meters of shade.

[1:05:28] Trustee Bernardo: So what that means is, if we stick to the 105 square meter limit, we are encouraging

[1:05:35] Trustee Bernardo: the consumer.

[1:05:36] Trustee Bernardo: When we've got six people who want to share a dock, we're basically saying, too bad, you're

[1:05:42] Trustee Bernardo: not going to be able to build a usable dock, it is a disincentive, because you can only

[1:05:50] Trustee Bernardo: fit four.

[1:05:52] Trustee Bernardo: so it seems to make sense to me that if the environmental cost is lower if we increase the

[1:06:00] Trustee Bernardo: ability people share dogs then we should that's the direction we should go uh maximizing the

[1:06:06] Trustee Bernardo: number of dwellings that can share a dog that's consistent with our mandate so uh that's why i'm

[1:06:10] Trustee Bernardo: saying

[1:06:10] Voice 5: we should do that trustee stanford i'm just wondering

[1:06:20] Trustee Stamford (probable): um we have this if that particular

[1:06:22] Trustee Stamford (probable): incentive is in right now to the maximum that you're suggesting, how many people or landowner

[1:06:31] Trustee Stamford (probable): separate lots have made use of that at its current rate? And is that a practical

[1:06:41] Trustee Stamford (probable): consideration? If you've got five, six lots all using the same dock, you've then got considerations

[1:06:48] Trustee Stamford (probable): of how they're moving their goods back and forth between the lots i'm assuming this doesn't

[1:06:54] Trustee Stamford (probable): apply in the same way to a single lot with like five dwellings on it which has we do have examples

[1:07:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): of on on keats um and they have a specific size lot but the question of encouraging or

[1:07:12] Trustee Stamford (probable): discouraged they're only allowed one dock on that lot anyway so it's a good point this this

[1:07:18] Trustee Stamford (probable): uh consideration specifically for separate lots making use of the option to to share and i think

[1:07:27] Trustee Stamford (probable): it becomes regardless of the size of what's appropriate per vote it becomes impractical

[1:07:34] Trustee Stamford (probable): for people to be able to use it

[1:07:36] Trustee Bernardo: uh yes and no uh if i may mr chair respond to that point

[1:07:41] Trustee Bernardo: yes

[1:07:42] Voice 5: um uh first of

[1:07:47] Trustee Bernardo: all i the no i don't know uh i am aware of uh some docks that have

[1:07:54] Trustee Bernardo: multiple dwellings that are using them and as trustee stanford has pointed out

[1:08:00] Trustee Bernardo: that's mostly with larger lots that have um multiple dwellings on them but the numbers

[1:08:06] Trustee Bernardo: that we have like it's not possible to compare what i'm suggesting here of increasing the

[1:08:13] Trustee Bernardo: maximum for shared uh docks up to 154 square meters um but it's not really possible to have

[1:08:23] Trustee Bernardo: a fair comparison with that because the permitted amount for a single dock right now is 65 square

[1:08:29] Trustee Bernardo: meters so it's not a straight comparison so i don't know how we deal with that in terms of

[1:08:36] Trustee Bernardo: looking at what has been done now but the thing is what's been done now in various areas is actually

[1:08:43] Trustee Bernardo: not relevant because what we're trying to do is look at the condition of keats island the way it

[1:08:48] Trustee Bernardo: is now uh and we're trying to anticipate future docks and there's a limited number of areas where

[1:08:56] Trustee Bernardo: it's feasible uh

[1:08:58] Voice 5: or even necessary uh and i'm principally

[1:09:05] Trustee Bernardo: thinking about the folks over keats

[1:09:06] Trustee Bernardo: landing there i take trustee stanford's point that if you you know multiple dwellings on

[1:09:14] Trustee Bernardo: multiple lots uh is a complicated situation for dog share it requires working out frankly a you

[1:09:23] Trustee Bernardo: know a kind of a complicated deal um if you're if you're dealing with more than um three properties

[1:09:31] Trustee Bernardo: which is to say the one in the middle and the two on the other side uh it can get awkward right and

[1:09:37] Trustee Bernardo: it's going to be difficult but the folks over keith's landing are in a difficult situation

[1:09:43] Trustee Bernardo: and uh they would have to negotiate and deal with access and i think the way you deal with that and

[1:09:49] Trustee Bernardo: i i was thinking about this uh last night i was looking at the restrictive covenant language the

[1:09:55] Trustee Bernardo: staff is talking about we'll get to it later i i think can be you know it can and should be dealt

[1:10:01] Trustee Bernardo: with in terms of the covenant that's required which is people who share docs uh you know the

[1:10:08] Trustee Bernardo: The people who don't, the people who are on the properties

[1:10:12] Trustee Bernardo: on which the dock is not constructed

[1:10:14] Trustee Bernardo: need to have guaranteed access to it.

[1:10:18] Trustee Bernardo: That's out of our hands.

[1:10:19] Trustee Bernardo: That's something to be negotiated and dealt with

[1:10:21] Trustee Bernardo: by the folks who are interested in sharing a dock.

[1:10:24] Trustee Bernardo: I'm just trying to create incentives here

[1:10:26] Trustee Bernardo: that make it easier for them.

[1:10:28] Trustee Bernardo: If the point Trustee Sanford's making is there's no point,

[1:10:33] Trustee Bernardo: they're not going to share a dock,

[1:10:34] Trustee Bernardo: First, I'm not so confident that's the case. The folks over at Keats Landing, I think it's up to

[1:10:42] Trustee Bernardo: them to figure that out. But if that is the case, then why does By-law 154 contemplate dock sharing

[1:10:50] Trustee Bernardo: in any event? Because

[1:10:52] Trustee Bernardo: the way the language is currently written doesn't limit to dock sharing

[1:10:56] Trustee Bernardo: two dwellings on two different properties. It basically has this formula of increasing them

[1:11:03] Trustee Bernardo: by 30 until you hit this limit to

[1:11:06] Trustee Stamford (probable): a practical limit um i'm specifically not like i i don't

[1:11:12] Trustee Stamford (probable): have a specific issue with your calculations or or the argument itself um i'm wondering if

[1:11:20] Trustee Stamford (probable): there is other arguments against this um the other considerations i haven't thought of

[1:11:28] Trustee Stamford (probable): all i'm thinking of is practicality and whether or not this would be used but

[1:11:32] Trustee Stamford (probable): But giving the option in the spirit of encouraging sharing docs, I have no issue with.

[1:11:42] Trustee Stamford (probable): I'm not sure it can be used to that extent, but that's fine.

[1:11:53] Voice 5: Well, I'm not hearing anything, so.

[1:11:57] Planner McCargar: Through the chair, I'll just, I don't know if I have anything super helpful to add,

[1:12:01] Planner McCargar: but I will say that the numbers for the docks weren't just arbitrarily plucked. They were

[1:12:09] Planner McCargar: originally at 35 square meters, and that was based on the BC Stewardship Center,

[1:12:16] Planner McCargar: based on provincial guidelines, and then they have been increased by the LTC since that time.

[1:12:23] Planner McCargar: But just, you know, I think the points that you made that, yes, we are trying to decrease

[1:12:27] Planner McCargar: increase overwater structures, smaller dock sizes. In some cases, people might be forced to share,

[1:12:35] Planner McCargar: and that's, you know, we don't want to be creating these monster dock structures. That also

[1:12:41] Planner McCargar: adds something that we then have to regulate. Yes, it would be a restrictive covenant, but

[1:12:47] Planner McCargar: things can change, and people can move, and the restrictive covenant stays with the property,

[1:12:53] Planner McCargar: but then that is something that you know enforcement might have to to regulate okay they

[1:12:58] Planner McCargar: you know they were supposed to share with four four residentials they have this huge dock now

[1:13:04] Planner McCargar: they're not sharing now we're into an enforcement issue but that aside you know i think that it

[1:13:10] Planner McCargar: hasn't there hasn't been a lot of uptake as far as i know as the bylaws currently written and allows

[1:13:16] Planner McCargar: shared docs but going forward like you say there's some different circumstances and it could be and

[1:13:21] Planner McCargar: And we are trying to encourage shared docks where possible, but smaller shared docks.

[1:13:29] Planner McCargar: Yeah, I think that's I think we all know that sort of the reasoning behind why we want smaller structures in general.

[1:13:37] Planner McCargar: And we have done quite a few increases. But yeah, I think that's all I have to add on that.

[1:13:43] Planner McCargar: So

[1:13:45] Trustee Stamford (probable): just making sure I'm clear that with the numbers we're proposing, the shared dock size for the first three homes is what's currently being proposed in the bylaw.

[1:14:05] Trustee Stamford (probable): But that we were going to add additional size in order to accommodate additional usage by different lots.

[1:14:14] Trustee Stamford (probable): that's

[1:14:15] Trustee Bernardo: that's that's why i'm coming i

[1:14:16] Trustee Stamford (probable): i think given how much i think this will be taken up on

[1:14:22] Trustee Stamford (probable): um i'm i don't have an issue with that so i'd like to see we don't have a uh conclusion that

[1:14:30] Trustee Stamford (probable): for a motion on that i'm not sure if that's something i

[1:14:33] Trustee Bernardo: i do have a conclusion here i can

[1:14:35] Trustee Bernardo: i well okay

[1:14:36] Voice 4: i've got my paper question

[1:14:38] Trustee Bernardo: i can turn into a resolution

[1:14:40] Trustee Bernardo: If I may, Mr. Chair, I move that bylaw 154 be amended to enable the prorating of the

[1:14:50] Trustee Bernardo: maximum float size for shared docks by an additional 30 square meters for additional

[1:14:56] Trustee Bernardo: participant up to an absolute maximum of 154

[1:15:01] Voice 5: square meters.

[1:15:08] Voice 5: Okay, well, that's good for discussion.

[1:15:10] Trustee Luckham: We've got your motion.

[1:15:12] Trustee Luckham: motion um we can discuss this further or debate it if we need to um so do I you have that plan

[1:15:22] Voice 5: of Corbett recorder Corbett sorry yes thank

[1:15:30] Trustee Luckham: you trustee Stanford are you uh seconding this motion

[1:15:33] Trustee Luckham: okay thank you um is there further discussion uh I say planner Gemma you have your hand up

[1:15:41] Trustee Luckham: you have some advice yes

[1:15:43] Voice 2: through the chair um i would like to um check in with planner mccarger

[1:15:50] Voice 2: on um understanding the proposed amendment wording um uh because we wouldn't use um prorating but if

[1:15:59] Voice 2: you understand that intent in terms of how it would be proposed um that's clear enough

[1:16:07] Voice 2: I

[1:16:09] Planner McCargar: would just use the similar wording that we have in the bylaw currently, and then just replace it with the numbers being proposed.

[1:16:17] Voice 2: So the wording will remain maximum float area may be increased by 30 square meters per residential dwelling served up to a maximum float size of 154 square meters, for example.

[1:16:33] Trustee Bernardo: And that would be, and the resolution is by, as I've framed it.

[1:16:38] Trustee Bernardo: you know it you know uh in an ideal world world it would refer to the fact that the maximum

[1:16:45] Trustee Bernardo: floats out like foot size language within the bylaw is repeated a number of times for the

[1:16:50] Trustee Bernardo: different zones and you know you'd have the cross reference and all the rest of it this basically

[1:16:54] Trustee Bernardo: cuts to the heart of it basically says wherever in the bylaw we're talking about it let's increase it

[1:17:00] Trustee Bernardo: the maximum for shared dots up to 154 and there's just to be clear i'm not saying this is the

[1:17:09] Trustee Bernardo: language that goes into the the bylaw i'm leaving that to staff to sort of adjust that so through

[1:17:17] Voice 2: the chair um and just checking in with planner mccarter does that make sense yes

[1:17:22] Voice 5: thank you yeah

[1:17:23] Voice 5: okay

[1:17:28] Trustee Luckham: uh trustee stanford you have a question yeah

[1:17:31] Trustee Stamford (probable): i just i just thought of a scenario and

[1:17:34] Trustee Stamford (probable): and just throwing it out there are there a number of lots uh waterfront lots um in these smaller

[1:17:42] Trustee Stamford (probable): subdivisions like keats andy where an owner has more than one lot and i'm asking that question

[1:17:50] Trustee Stamford (probable): because is there a potential that somebody say has um they're a lot with their house on they've

[1:17:56] Trustee Stamford (probable): got two bare land lots on either side so they build their dock for three lots and they build

[1:18:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): out even though there's only one dwelling using it so is this based on dwellings or

[1:18:10] Trustee Stamford (probable): you know is that a realistic scenario

[1:18:12] Voice 4: that could come up through

[1:18:17] Planner McCargar: the chair the the wording um

[1:18:19] Planner McCargar: in the bylaw is the maximum so not i don't have all the numbers plunked in but i would be plunking

[1:18:27] Planner McCargar: in the the numbers despite or so the maximum float area may be increased by 30 square meters

[1:18:33] Planner McCargar: per residential dwelling served up to a maximum of 105 square meters provided a restrictive covenant

[1:18:40] Planner McCargar: subject to section 1.2.4 is registered on the title of the benefiting parcels to limit the

[1:18:46] Planner McCargar: total number of private docks so it is per residential dwelling okay

[1:18:50] Voice 4: that helps i was

[1:18:51] Planner McCargar: just wondering okay

[1:18:52] Voice 4: thanks okay

[1:18:58] Voice 5: um

[1:18:59] Trustee Luckham: any further questions or discussion yeah so i've been busy

[1:19:04] Trustee Luckham: busy doing math you're trying to figure out docks and and all the size and all that kind of stuff and

[1:19:11] Trustee Luckham: i appreciate you not digging into the square root of whatever the number of square meters

[1:19:18] Trustee Luckham: and it seems to make sense in that overall you're looking at an average boat space

[1:19:26] Trustee Luckham: of 20 lineal feet or seven meters we'll say just kind of rounding numbers up significantly

[1:19:34] Trustee Luckham: significantly um and then that growth thing and i see some benefit to that i guess what i'm worried

[1:19:41] Trustee Luckham: about or what the question that i have is up to a total 154 square meters thinking about the worst

[1:19:49] Trustee Luckham: possible case scenario is do we have also a maximum length limit to a dock or a finger

[1:19:58] Trustee Luckham: because I'm presuming maybe we're talking about a dock with multiple fingers or are we potentially

[1:20:04] Trustee Luckham: talking about and so obviously the length the maximum length and a maximum width that covers

[1:20:11] Trustee Luckham: that I think the width is prescribed in here but I wasn't able to put my finger on it just now

[1:20:17] Trustee Luckham: so could somebody help me with that a maximum length and a minimum width I guess is what I'd

[1:20:24] Trustee Luckham: be after in order to understand the total linear space because in other trust areas we prescribe

[1:20:31] Trustee Luckham: that i if i'm not mistaken that a dock uh finger shouldn't ever be any longer than 100 feet

[1:20:38] Trustee Luckham: sticking out into the water so that's where i'm wanting to make sure that that's understood and

[1:20:45] Trustee Luckham: so maybe this is that staff and then i'd seek definitely feedback from uh the trustees on

[1:20:51] Trustee Luckham: on whether that applies to the Keats-Gambe area or not.

[1:20:57] Trustee Luckham: So maximum length and minimum width,

[1:20:59] Trustee Luckham: I think is probably

[1:21:01] Voice 5: the thing I'm thinking about.

[1:21:03] Voice 5: As far

[1:21:10] Planner McCargar: as I know, there is no maximum length prescribed

[1:21:13] Planner McCargar: and there would be a maximum ramp width.

[1:21:17] Trustee Luckham: A maximum, but not a minimum.

[1:21:20] Planner McCargar: Correct.

[1:21:21] Trustee Luckham: Well, the

[1:21:22] Planner McCargar: ramp width-

[1:21:23] Planner McCargar: And there'd be a ramp, not the float.

[1:21:25] Trustee Bernardo: Yeah, I mean, the

[1:21:26] Trustee Bernardo: ramp is not relevant

[1:21:27] Trustee Bernardo: relevant to the current consideration so no right the issue here is the float and

[1:21:32] Trustee Bernardo: um I don't think we should I'm reluctant to start wading into maximums and minimums for

[1:21:39] Trustee Bernardo: that that I don't think was contemplated by bylaw 154 that's a whole new different direction and

[1:21:45] Trustee Bernardo: then oh the what I'm talking about here is actually not increasing anything it's actually

[1:21:51] Trustee Bernardo: leaving it alone it's leaving alone the maximum shared size that's worked up to this point right

[1:21:58] Trustee Bernardo: And the point of leaving it alone is it will maximize the number of share, potentially.

[1:22:04] Trustee Bernardo: I'm alive to the practical considerations that Trustee Sanford has raised.

[1:22:09] Trustee Bernardo: But it allows a potential of up to six different dwellings and boats to be able to usefully share a dock if we stay at what is currently 154.

[1:22:23] Trustee Bernardo: So I don't see it having any consequences in terms of length, width, and navigational issues and that sort of jazz, because that's where, frankly, we're at already.

[1:22:32] Trustee Bernardo: And in the specific, I would also point out that in the specific siting of a new dock, when the time comes for somebody to apply for a development permit for that, they're going to have to be providing a pretty detailed plan of what they've got in mind.

[1:22:49] Trustee Bernardo: and I would expect staff well first of all I'd expect the the professional that they hired would

[1:22:54] Trustee Bernardo: take into account the navigational concerns uh that are in play that's what that distance

[1:23:02] Trustee Bernardo: requirement is in part concerned with that's that's where you get into the width that's

[1:23:06] Trustee Bernardo: actually covered by the distance thing and um in the development improvement process uh if there's

[1:23:14] Trustee Bernardo: issues with length and width by virtue of where the sighting of the dock is I would think that

[1:23:18] Trustee Bernardo: that would be just a specific issue

[1:23:20] Trustee Bernardo: that would be dealt with

[1:23:21] Voice 5: then and there.

[1:23:25] Voice 5: Okay, and so help me out, Trustee Bernardo,

[1:23:28] Trustee Luckham: where's the distance factor considered in the bylaw?

[1:23:34] Trustee Bernardo: I'm trying to remember.

[1:23:36] Trustee Bernardo: Well, as I mentioned before,

[1:23:37] Trustee Bernardo: there's not much we can do about it,

[1:23:39] Trustee Bernardo: but it's in the regulatory changes

[1:23:45] Trustee Bernardo: for each of the zones.

[1:23:48] Trustee Bernardo: It's at the front end of the bylaw where like one by one,

[1:23:51] Trustee Bernardo: on the regulations that pertain to each of the zones

[1:23:53] Trustee Bernardo: in terms of residential docks

[1:23:56] Trustee Bernardo: or the relevant provisions are addressed.

[1:23:58] Trustee Bernardo: So it's in a number of different places.

[1:24:01] Trustee Bernardo: And the distance requirement is set at 10 meters.

[1:24:05] Trustee Luckham: Okay, well, that's great.

[1:24:08] Trustee Luckham: So that's understood then.

[1:24:10] Trustee Luckham: So then I didn't want to over-complicate it.

[1:24:13] Trustee Luckham: I just wanted to fully understand what we're proposing here.

[1:24:19] Trustee Luckham: So it sounds like perhaps we're ready.

[1:24:21] Trustee Luckham: we've moved in second to demotion so I'll see is there further advice from staff on this topic

[1:24:26] Trustee Luckham: otherwise we'll go to a vote I think well

[1:24:29] Planner McCargar: I guess I would just add so with the province if someone

[1:24:32] Planner McCargar: wanted to apply for a dock under the general permissions which is a you know as you know a

[1:24:36] Planner McCargar: much easier way to get a dock there are certain it can be no more than 60 meters from the present

[1:24:43] Planner McCargar: boundary of the sea 14 meters for the length of the float 3.7 meters for the width of the float

[1:24:50] Planner McCargar: So there are regulations that they would have to fall if they wanted to go under the general permissions.

[1:24:54] Planner McCargar: And then if they weren't going to be within that, they would go into the specific permissions, which is a much more onerous application process.

[1:25:03] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so you've answered and given me assurance on what my question was there.

[1:25:08] Trustee Luckham: that is prescribed by the province in their leasing arrangements

[1:25:12] Trustee Luckham: or associated with the water lot,

[1:25:15] Trustee Luckham: which would presumably be obvious to all landowners

[1:25:20] Trustee Luckham: that they need to follow that process that's dictated.

[1:25:29] Trustee Luckham: Okay, great. That's super. Thank you.

[1:25:31] Trustee Luckham: And thanks for the math, Joe. It's something.

[1:25:35] Trustee Luckham: thing um so any further discussion can i call the vote then all those in favor right that carries

[1:25:44] Trustee Luckham: well done joe um next

[1:25:47] Voice 5: okay

[1:25:50] Trustee Bernardo: um i think the next couple of points i'm not

[1:25:52] Trustee Bernardo: entirely sure whether we actually need to uh resolve them now or simply um

[1:26:00] Trustee Bernardo: I'm happy to actually discuss them and possibly defer what we do about them when we get to

[1:26:08] Trustee Bernardo: reviewing the redlined version. There's a handful of other DOC issues that need to be addressed

[1:26:16] Trustee Bernardo: here. And we touched on it before in the reference that came up from staff about

[1:26:20] Trustee Bernardo: referring to a restrictive covenant it's currently written the um lub you know or uh and bylaw 154

[1:26:33] Trustee Bernardo: just throw things in the direction of just you know just use the word there has to be a

[1:26:38] Trustee Bernardo: restrictive covenant in place without providing any direction uh as to the content of it uh and

[1:26:46] Trustee Bernardo: And I think the discussion we just had about shared docks illustrates that it'd be prudent for the LTC to provide some clear direction with respect with what should be in that restrictive covenant.

[1:27:03] Trustee Bernardo: Now, in the red line version that staff has come up with, it addresses, I had raised that point before with Pauline McCarger, and she had addressed it in some of the language that, in fact, in the sentences that deal with shared docs.

[1:27:20] Trustee Bernardo: With respect, I don't think it quite does the job, and she has, believe it or not, some sympathy in my part.

[1:27:27] Trustee Bernardo: It's a difficult wording exercise.

[1:27:30] Trustee Bernardo: I don't really want to get into it now.

[1:27:33] Trustee Bernardo: Uh, but, um, the provision is in, we're going to get to that point when we go to the red

[1:27:42] Trustee Bernardo: line version, I do have some other language I want to suggest, but I think it's sufficient

[1:27:48] Trustee Bernardo: at this stage for me to simply make the point, you know, and we could have put a pin in it

[1:27:53] Trustee Bernardo: and say, look, we're going to get to this one later, but I do think it's an important

[1:27:57] Trustee Bernardo: point that the restrictive covenant provision or aspect of it be, be worded carefully, but

[1:28:03] Trustee Bernardo: But we can deal with it then, and we don't have to deal with it as a resolution now, as it could be getting a little ahead of ourselves.

[1:28:10] Trustee Bernardo: So we can just, I can make that point, we can move on and deal with it when we get

[1:28:14] Voice 5: to the red line, if that's okay.

[1:28:18] Voice 5: Is that okay? Yeah. All right.

[1:28:22] Trustee Bernardo: I would say the same about, you know, what I say at page seven and beginning of page eight, which is there's a weird guideline currently in 154 that says, you know,

[1:28:36] Trustee Bernardo: to allow for the maximum amount of light penetration to the water surface uh that's

[1:28:43] Trustee Bernardo: not a guideline that actually prescribes anything because it doesn't name the thing that's supposed

[1:28:47] Trustee Bernardo: to allow for maximum weight penetration i don't want to belabor it but it's the the guideline

[1:28:54] Trustee Bernardo: contradicts the one immediately before which provides very clear and specific guidance with

[1:28:58] Trustee Bernardo: respect to the transparent or the light permeability of dock flows the guideline at 9.3.3

[1:29:07] Trustee Bernardo: three and is basically should be deleted because it doesn't do anything it really doesn't function

[1:29:13] Trustee Bernardo: uh and again though uh staff's on that they're addressing it and we can deal with it when we

[1:29:20] Trustee Bernardo: get to the red line um staff's also on the other point i make respect to docs and we can also

[1:29:28] Trustee Bernardo: defer that until we get to the red line uh in that there's a guideline 9.3.3r that talks about

[1:29:37] Trustee Bernardo: what the width of ramps, piers and walkways

[1:29:42] Trustee Bernardo: and stairs should be for docks.

[1:29:45] Trustee Bernardo: Well, that's redundant because that's already dealt with

[1:29:48] Trustee Bernardo: in the specific regulations for docks, not the guidelines.

[1:29:54] Trustee Bernardo: So it simply repeats what is already in by-law one foot four.

[1:30:00] Trustee Bernardo: a 1.5 meter width requirement and we're providing for that in the proposed amendments for the regs

[1:30:06] Trustee Bernardo: for cr1 rr rc and m2a and because of the resolution we had before p12 now so uh as i said

[1:30:19] Trustee Bernardo: staff's on it we can address um the ltc's consideration and decision of that point

[1:30:25] Voice 5: when we get to that.

[1:30:29] Voice 5: So with that,

[1:30:30] Trustee Bernardo: we move on to a potentially thornier issue,

[1:30:35] Trustee Bernardo: the repair and replace issue.

[1:30:39] Trustee Bernardo: And I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate time

[1:30:41] Trustee Bernardo: to have a break, Mr. Chair.

[1:30:44] Trustee Luckham: Oh, well, that's a very good suggestion.

[1:30:48] Trustee Luckham: I was going to kind of check in closer to 11 here,

[1:30:51] Trustee Luckham: but we've been an hour and a half now,

[1:30:53] Trustee Luckham: we're making great progress,

[1:30:54] Trustee Luckham: but shall we have a 10 minute break?

[1:30:57] Trustee Luckham: Is that sufficient?

[1:30:59] Trustee Luckham: just to refill our teacups and stuff,

[1:31:01] Trustee Luckham: and then we'll continue on this conversation.

[1:31:04] Trustee Luckham: And

[1:31:04] Trustee Stamford (probable): I have a hard stop at about 20 after 11.

[1:31:10] Trustee Luckham: Oh, okay.

[1:31:11] Trustee Luckham: So,

[1:31:12] Voice 4: okay.

[1:31:15] Trustee Luckham: Well, let's break for 10 minutes

[1:31:18] Trustee Luckham: and we'll get on with the rest of it, okay?

[1:31:25] Trustee Luckham: All right.

[1:31:26] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so whoever's in charge of the screen

[1:31:29] Trustee Luckham: could maybe just put that up

[1:31:31] Voice 5: we got a 10 minute break so sorry

[1:41:42] Trustee Luckham: about that wouldn't you know what

[1:41:43] Trustee Luckham: i get a phone call and uh i'm off that now so let us uh continue so we were i'll go back to

[1:41:53] Trustee Luckham: trustee bernardo um where do you oh i see a planner rpm gemarat you have something to help

[1:41:59] Trustee Luckham: us get started i

[1:42:01] Voice 2: do i'm just i'm mindful of the trustee's time today um before 11 o'clock

[1:42:06] Voice 2: So I'd like to suggest a bit of an adaptation to request Planter-McCargill facilitate our discussion to jump to the key conclusions.

[1:42:20] Voice 2: And I think what's also recognized, and I wanted to defer to Planner McCarver to clarify this, there's some of the flagged bolded items from Trustee Bernardo's notes here are already captured in the revised amendments.

[1:42:41] Voice 2: So I think we can already recognize that and jump to the bigger pieces that require some more in-depth discussion.

[1:42:52] Voice 2: And I want to lean on Planner McArker to jump us and sort of facilitate us jumping through the document to get those pieces of direction.

[1:43:05] Trustee Bernardo: I

[1:43:06] Voice 2: wanted to check in on that approach.

[1:43:07] Voice 2: Well,

[1:43:08] Trustee Bernardo: we're already there because the next two items are really, I mean, these are the major ones where we're into the repair and replacement issue and the scope of permitted construction within the DPA without a development permit.

[1:43:27] Trustee Bernardo: So the housekeeping, if you want to put it that way, there is more housekeeping, but it's after these two points. So we can use the remaining time on the real substance.

[1:43:41] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so then what we're at then is on page eight of your, page seven of your memo, which is other doc issues, one and two, is that correct?

[1:43:49] Trustee Luckham: That's correct.

[1:43:50] Trustee Luckham: Right. Okay. So that seems reasonable. If we can get through these one way or the other

[1:43:57] Trustee Luckham: relatively quickly, leave space for the red line version, and then we'll turn it back to

[1:44:02] Trustee Luckham: Planner McCarver at that point. So we got, let's say we got 15 minutes to get to 11 o'clock and

[1:44:07] Trustee Luckham: then maybe 15 minutes to wrap up. And then that gives you your hard deadline, Kate,

[1:44:13] Trustee Luckham: 20 minutes after 11, is that what you said? Yeah. Does that sound doable, everybody?

[1:44:18] Trustee Luckham: Yeah,

[1:44:19] Planner McCargar: through the chair if I could just jump in really quickly if we could just make sure that the discussion is focused on the, the document that's provided in the agenda package rather than referring to a previous iteration of the proposed

[1:44:34] Planner McCargar: proposed bylaws because staff has proposed a number of changes and I think it would be easier

[1:44:39] Planner McCargar: rather than looking at the repair and maintenance as it was at second reading to look at the

[1:44:44] Planner McCargar: definition of repair and maintenance as it is being proposed now and then proposing changes

[1:44:49] Planner McCargar: to that one okay

[1:44:51] Voice 4: is there a way of seeing that on the screen then if

[1:44:55] Trustee Bernardo: I may but yeah we need to

[1:44:57] Trustee Bernardo: do both the bylaw where it is now at second reading is what it is that's what the language is

[1:45:04] Trustee Bernardo: staff in its red line version has some suggestions and i agree we need to address those but we can't

[1:45:11] Trustee Bernardo: address them unless we understand what's in what's already there so planet mccarver is right we do

[1:45:16] Trustee Bernardo: need to look at the suggested text that's part of the whole process here so

[1:45:22] Trustee Luckham: can you weave that

[1:45:22] Trustee Luckham: together then so that we're looking at the suggested text in respect to your other doc issues

[1:45:29] Trustee Luckham: yes

[1:45:29] Voice 5: conclusion

[1:45:30] Trustee Luckham: okay let's keep going may

[1:45:34] Voice 5: i proceed yeah okay

[1:45:36] Trustee Bernardo: where we're at right now

[1:45:38] Trustee Bernardo: is bylaw 154 at section 9.3.1 proposes and that's the section that establishes the development

[1:45:51] Trustee Bernardo: permit requirement and among other things it proposes to make the alteration of a building

[1:45:58] Trustee Bernardo: or structure subject to the permit requirement unless there's an exemption there is an exemption

[1:46:05] Trustee Bernardo: provided in the current language with respect to pre-existing structures in the dpa it's at 9.3.

[1:46:14] Trustee Bernardo: 9.3.2 b as if the thing is currently written and i won't read the whole thing out but what it says

[1:46:22] Trustee Bernardo: is repair and maintenance of pre-existing lawful buildings structures or utilities and then it goes

[1:46:29] Trustee Bernardo: on with various conditions and all the rest of it but it essentially allows the repair and

[1:46:34] Trustee Bernardo: maintenance pre-existing lawful structures within the dpa the problem uh in my view is that's too

[1:46:44] Trustee Bernardo: general uh because the gen and the generality creates uncertainty about what is actually

[1:46:51] Trustee Bernardo: exempted and what is not and that's a real concern

[1:46:57] Voice 5: because um on keats

[1:47:02] Trustee Bernardo: island many of the shoreline

[1:47:04] Trustee Bernardo: cabins were built a long time ago and uh under what we would now consider to be building codes

[1:47:12] Trustee Bernardo: are outdated or when royal areas didn't even have any building codes i mean some of those cabins

[1:47:18] Trustee Bernardo: were built like in the 1930s and uh these cabins are particularly prone to corrosion failures decay

[1:47:26] Trustee Bernardo: due to building envelopes that are permeable to humidity docks of course they're they're included

[1:47:33] Trustee Bernardo: in this repair and maintenance provision in terms of the exemption uh they're exposed to extreme

[1:47:39] Trustee Bernardo: conditions so the repair and maintenance um provision like within like that would occur

[1:47:49] Trustee Bernardo: occur within an existing footprint can commonly require the replacement of building components

[1:47:58] Trustee Bernardo: and as I say the metal and I think it's worth going into this sort of thing I know I appreciate

[1:48:02] Trustee Bernardo: we're we're tough on time here but I don't want to rush through this one some of the things that

[1:48:08] Trustee Bernardo: we need to replace frequently wiring systems plumbing systems that are ancient leaking at

[1:48:16] Trustee Bernardo: every joint and so somebody decides to help with it I'm going to rip it all out and replace it

[1:48:20] Trustee Bernardo: with pecs building siding replacing a leaky roof we discussed that last

[1:48:25] Voice 5: time the decking on a patio

[1:48:30] Voice 5: these are all as well as say patio

[1:48:35] Trustee Bernardo: structural members that have been weakened the decking

[1:48:39] Trustee Bernardo: on dock ramps and floats individual structural members of a dock that have been damaged by a

[1:48:44] Trustee Bernardo: storm or just past their best before date all of these types of works they're all material

[1:48:52] Trustee Bernardo: replacements that are necessary for building maintenance and they constitute an alteration

[1:48:58] Trustee Bernardo: of a building structure as contemplating by 9.3.1 so what we have here is a repair and

[1:49:07] Trustee Bernardo: maintenance exemption that doesn't address the alteration factor that creates uncertainty about

[1:49:14] Trustee Bernardo: the scope of the exemption and it's why residents have asked the LTC to clarify that repair and

[1:49:21] Trustee Bernardo: maintenance includes the replacement of building components the alternative to that is to leave it

[1:49:27] Trustee Bernardo: vague which then leaves whatever permittable permitted repair and replacement is or repair

[1:49:34] Trustee Bernardo: and maintenance uh to staff's discretion or you might have a situation where you've got

[1:49:42] Trustee Bernardo: property owners who read repair and maintenance to include replacement and then you have a bylaw

[1:49:50] Trustee Bernardo: law enforcement officer who disagrees and then you've got a whole mess well we need the clarity

[1:49:56] Trustee Bernardo: that's fair to the islanders but they're also more efficient when you've got ambiguous rules

[1:50:03] Trustee Bernardo: you get confusion you end up having a whole bunch of conversations between staff and the public that

[1:50:08] Trustee Bernardo: aren't necessary we can skip the headaches now in connection with all of that i mean

[1:50:14] Trustee Bernardo: i had made some of these points in a different fashion with the plan of mccarver before

[1:50:21] Trustee Bernardo: and that led to language within the red line version that now reads uh the substantive part

[1:50:34] Trustee Bernardo: of it now talks about has basically been modified by including the language minor

[1:50:40] Trustee Bernardo: repair and maintenance of lawful buildings in fact i'll read the whole thing out

[1:50:43] Trustee Bernardo: what it now says is minor the exemption is for from the dp requirement is for minor repair and

[1:50:52] Trustee Bernardo: maintenance of lawful buildings and structures sorry minor repair and maintenance of lawful

[1:50:56] Trustee Bernardo: buildings structures or utilities provided there is no alteration about undisturbed land or

[1:51:01] Trustee Bernardo: vegetation and are entirely within the footprint of

[1:51:07] Voice 5: the existing building or structure uh there are

[1:51:12] Voice 5: There are, I'm sorry to say, this language is not

[1:51:18] Trustee Bernardo: helpful.

[1:51:20] Trustee Bernardo: It's problematic.

[1:51:22] Trustee Bernardo: For one thing, it doesn't actually,

[1:51:26] Trustee Bernardo: the second part of it where it says and are entirely,

[1:51:28] Trustee Bernardo: we don't know what is supposed to happen there.

[1:51:31] Trustee Bernardo: Presumably it means repair and maintenance,

[1:51:34] Trustee Bernardo: but that cross-reference isn't there.

[1:51:37] Trustee Bernardo: The grammar's not right.

[1:51:39] Trustee Bernardo: It also carries forward a deficiency

[1:51:42] Trustee Bernardo: that was in the original bylaw 154 in that it talks about minor repair and maintenance of

[1:51:50] Trustee Bernardo: lawful building structures or utilities and then when states the condition that the repair is

[1:51:56] Trustee Bernardo: supposed to occur entirely within the footprint it only talks about the footprints of existing

[1:52:01] Trustee Bernardo: buildings or structures it doesn't refer to utilities i think we want to create the same

[1:52:07] Trustee Bernardo: requirement that any repair or maintenance of utilities will occur only on undisturbed

[1:52:15] Trustee Bernardo: landed vegetation and as part of that it must be within the footprint of the existing utility that

[1:52:22] Trustee Bernardo: that needs to be added the real problem is adding the word minor it basically aggravates the problem

[1:52:29] Trustee Bernardo: all those things i mentioned before those are practical routine things that these old cabins

[1:52:35] Trustee Bernardo: frequently need and docks its normal course maintenance those replacements adding the word

[1:52:43] Trustee Bernardo: minor would certainly add clarity uh to the bylaw by making the problem worse for islanders

[1:52:51] Trustee Bernardo: because uh well i'll take it back it doesn't add clarity the reality is a minor it would

[1:52:58] Trustee Bernardo: certainly dissuade people from thinking the replacement was um part of the package but

[1:53:04] Trustee Bernardo: But minor is also a matter of subjective opinion.

[1:53:08] Trustee Bernardo: Using words like that just invites debate, argument.

[1:53:13] Trustee Bernardo: It's just, it injects a lack of clarity to it.

[1:53:18] Trustee Bernardo: But the worst of it is,

[1:53:20] Trustee Bernardo: it would definitively require property owners

[1:53:22] Trustee Bernardo: to obtain a development permit for normal course maintenance

[1:53:25] Trustee Bernardo: when it involves building components.

[1:53:30] Trustee Bernardo: Now, before we address that directly,

[1:53:32] Trustee Bernardo: I want to address a related point

[1:53:34] Trustee Bernardo: that's highly relevant to it.

[1:53:37] Trustee Bernardo: One of the specific concerns that came up

[1:53:39] Trustee Bernardo: at the community information meeting back in July

[1:53:42] Trustee Bernardo: was that some Islanders were talking about the need

[1:53:46] Trustee Bernardo: to be able to repair or replace preexisting septic fields

[1:53:48] Trustee Bernardo: that encroach into the DPA.

[1:53:55] Trustee Bernardo: When I was discussing with staff,

[1:53:56] Trustee Bernardo: staff helpfully suggested that 9.3.2 be amended

[1:54:02] Trustee Bernardo: by adding a new exemption that would provide

[1:54:06] Trustee Bernardo: for the repair or replacement of septic field site in the same location as the existing septic field

[1:54:13] Trustee Bernardo: and that does the job. That exemption is appropriate because it recognizes that

[1:54:18] Trustee Bernardo: restricting the work to an existing footprint of a septic field hits the right balance between

[1:54:27] Trustee Bernardo: protecting the environment within the DPA, which is the point of the DPA, and the needs of the

[1:54:31] Trustee Bernardo: property owners. It's a practical solution so we don't have to deal with it now but I certainly

[1:54:37] Trustee Bernardo: would support that when it comes down to sort of plowing through the red line version but

[1:54:45] Voice 5: so

[1:54:46] Trustee Bernardo: the justice that's proposed amendment addresses a legitimate public concern with some precision

[1:54:51] Trustee Bernardo: i i believe we need to do the same with the repair and placement the logic of the septic

[1:54:57] Trustee Bernardo: field exemption is that work

[1:55:02] Voice 5: within the dpa is okay provided that it is on the original footprint

[1:55:15] Voice 5: and doesn't create any further disruption of

[1:55:20] Trustee Bernardo: the length i think it's my strong view that the

[1:55:26] Trustee Bernardo: repair and maintenance of buildings in the DPA needs to be the exemption needs to clearly

[1:55:35] Trustee Bernardo: permit the replacement of building components which is why you will find at page 10

[1:55:42] Trustee Bernardo: I do have specific language that I think we need to incorporate for in fact to

[1:55:48] Trustee Bernardo: to change the language in bylaw 154

[1:55:52] Trustee Bernardo: that proposes section 9.3.2 sub B.

[1:56:00] Trustee Bernardo: I'm suggesting that it be rewritten to read as follows.

[1:56:03] Trustee Bernardo: The repair needs of lawful building structures or utilities,

[1:56:07] Trustee Bernardo: including the replacement of building components

[1:56:09] Trustee Bernardo: in connection with such repair and maintenance,

[1:56:11] Trustee Bernardo: provided always that any such work is conducted entirely

[1:56:15] Trustee Bernardo: within the footprint of the existing building structure

[1:56:17] Trustee Bernardo: or utility and does not alter undisturbed land or native vegetation it seems to me that is as

[1:56:26] Trustee Bernardo: with the septic field exemption hits the right balance it permits and enables residents to do

[1:56:32] Trustee Bernardo: necessary repair and maintenance when it requires the replacement of things but under the condition

[1:56:43] Trustee Bernardo: that it doesn't mess up anything that's worth preserving within the dpa because

[1:56:50] Trustee Bernardo: that work has to be within the footprint,

[1:56:53] Trustee Bernardo: and more than that, the work cannot alter

[1:56:57] Trustee Bernardo: undisturbed land or native vegetation.

[1:56:59] Trustee Luckham: So Trustee Bernardo,

[1:57:00] Trustee Luckham: apologies,

[1:57:03] Trustee Luckham: but we're using up some time here,

[1:57:05] Trustee Luckham: and I think I understand what you're getting at here.

[1:57:08] Trustee Bernardo: I have no

[1:57:08] Trustee Luckham: issues with that.

[1:57:10] Trustee Luckham: That's fine, I'm done.

[1:57:12] Trustee Luckham: That's my point.

[1:57:13] Trustee Luckham: Okay, sorry.

[1:57:14] Trustee Luckham: Well, that's good.

[1:57:17] Trustee Luckham: Yeah, so Kate, your hand's up.

[1:57:19] Trustee Luckham: yeah

[1:57:20] Trustee Stamford (probable): i mean i did read this um i do understand um where uh residents are coming from around

[1:57:27] Trustee Stamford (probable): their concerns that there is so much of their property or their building structures tend to

[1:57:34] Trustee Stamford (probable): be within this area um my concern is that just as there's some vague language in other aspects

[1:57:41] Trustee Stamford (probable): there's vague language within undisturbed land or native vegetation um i don't think that's the

[1:57:47] Trustee Stamford (probable): the point of a dpa the dpa is to protect um foreshore and beyond so just because you

[1:57:57] Trustee Stamford (probable): don't disturb some salal or something but you disturb other stuff that you know grass or rocks

[1:58:05] Trustee Stamford (probable): have been placed in still impacts the foreshore um so i that the part that i'm concerned about

[1:58:13] Trustee Stamford (probable): is does not alter undisturbed land or native vegetation i don't think that's clear enough

[1:58:18] Trustee Stamford (probable): um because i don't really know what undisturbed land is um i you know everything else i do

[1:58:28] Trustee Stamford (probable): understand i have a few examples of where this kind of restriction really hasn't worked including

[1:58:35] Trustee Stamford (probable): in the septic so i've watched somebody put a septic in um entirely within the regulations

[1:58:41] Trustee Stamford (probable): but took out a stream and took out all the vegetation on their waterfront

[1:58:47] Trustee Stamford (probable): property. And they said,

[1:58:50] Trustee Stamford (probable): that's what it's required to put their new septic in.

[1:58:53] Trustee Stamford (probable): So that didn't help at all.

[1:58:56] Trustee Stamford (probable): That just caused way more damage than I thought was appropriate.

[1:59:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): Can everybody hear me? Cause I'm frozen.

[1:59:05] Voice 4: Yeah,

[1:59:06] Trustee Luckham: no, we've got it.

[1:59:07] Trustee Luckham: And I think that, you know,

[1:59:09] Trustee Luckham: So I would like to move along. Certainly, I'm just going to say people can call me naive if I like, if you want, but I think this language is okay. Sure, it may not be completely clear, but you know the onus really is on the property owners.

[1:59:25] Trustee Luckham: If you're going to do something and you're not clear about it, you should talk to staff to find out what needs to

[1:59:30] Trustee Luckham: get done, and then we can move.

[1:59:33] Trustee Luckham: But I think that Trustee Bernardo has done a lot of work here to try and put some nuances in here to provide that certainty.

[1:59:40] Trustee Luckham: And it looks pretty good to me. So, Trustee Sanford, I'll let you continue.

[1:59:43] Trustee Luckham: But conscious of the drop dead time here.

[1:59:47] Trustee Stamford (probable): Yeah, well, I do need to be able to respond to this.

[1:59:52] Trustee Stamford (probable): So I don't have a problem with the rationale that only issue I have is does not alter undisturbed land or native vegetation.

[2:00:00] Trustee Stamford (probable): I don't think that goes far enough. I think that needs to be considered. And a lot of this is common sense. A lot of this is, hey, if I'm concerned about this, let me call the trust office to make sure.

[2:00:16] Trustee Stamford (probable): this is this is the most critical point this is where um people's impact is the greatest

[2:00:25] Trustee Stamford (probable): on the foreshore and this is the whole reason for this particular um bylaw so i want to make

[2:00:32] Trustee Stamford (probable): sure that there are protections in place that yes i understand people will have to deal with

[2:00:40] Trustee Stamford (probable): a certain amount of restrictions but in all practical purposes it does work for most cases

[2:00:47] Trustee Stamford (probable): um my question to staff would be is this consistent with other language and other

[2:00:53] Trustee Stamford (probable): bylaws and does it work so

[2:00:58] Trustee Luckham: could staff answer that through the

[2:01:01] Planner McCargar: chair um the language that's

[2:01:03] Planner McCargar: consistent with other bylaws is this language here that um has been amended i understand the

[2:01:10] Planner McCargar: rationale for not including minor but this is what we have seen for exemptions you know with

[2:01:17] Planner McCargar: bylaws in the south but so yeah we haven't seen exactly the version that trustee bernardo is

[2:01:25] Planner McCargar: is uh well that's the trustee

[2:01:28] Trustee Luckham: bernardo version there now and it doesn't include the word minor

[2:01:31] Planner McCargar: no it just and it kind of adds the including replacement of building components in connection

[2:01:39] Planner McCargar: with such repair and maintenance i guess i don't understand why that needs to be clarified but

[2:01:44] Planner McCargar: um

[2:01:46] Trustee Luckham: i i

[2:01:48] Planner McCargar: don't see anything

[2:01:48] Trustee Luckham: in fairness i don't either but i don't think it does any harm and

[2:01:51] Trustee Luckham: it addresses a concern and let's remember here that we're going to public hearing with this

[2:01:56] Trustee Luckham: we're trying to get to the next reading and if it becomes apparent that there's further

[2:02:00] Trustee Luckham: amendments that don't change the intent we are still free to do that so trustee bernardo

[2:02:07] Trustee Luckham: out your yeah i

[2:02:08] Trustee Bernardo: appreciate chair luckham that you want us to move us along and um trustee stanford

[2:02:15] Trustee Bernardo: has a a hard out but um we're not going to go through all of this stuff today obviously we'll

[2:02:22] Trustee Bernardo: have to continue but uh it is i believe important that concerns that trustee stanford or you have

[2:02:32] Trustee Bernardo: are fully addressed, that we don't sort of race past them. I have firm views about these things,

[2:02:38] Trustee Bernardo: but I also have a firm view that whether it's the LTC or the Trust Council, it's incumbent

[2:02:47] Trustee Bernardo: on trustees to fully deliberate these things so that when they do vote on things, it's a result

[2:02:52] Trustee Bernardo: of having really thought it through and having reached their own conclusions. They're not simply

[2:02:56] Trustee Bernardo: following the slipstream. And to address specifically where Trustee Stamford is coming

[2:03:01] Trustee Bernardo: from a couple of points there the language undisturbed land or native vegetation is

[2:03:09] Trustee Bernardo: clear enough to me I appreciate the point you're making that that may not be sufficient but

[2:03:16] Trustee Bernardo: the phraseology is actually repeated in numerous places in the bylaw and it has been from the

[2:03:23] Trustee Bernardo: beginning is when this bylaw was drafted so it's always been there and I think it's that the two

[2:03:29] Trustee Bernardo: elements need to be read together which is that the work has to be conducted within the footprint

[2:03:36] Trustee Bernardo: uh and doesn't alter the land um or native vegetation at least in this in this exemption

[2:03:44] Trustee Bernardo: so i think that would

[2:03:46] Voice 5: cover it but um if um there's better

[2:03:52] Trustee Bernardo: language that that that then does

[2:03:56] Trustee Bernardo: not alter all certain land or native vegetation i certainly would want to hear about it i'd certainly

[2:04:00] Trustee Bernardo: want to consider it um but if we go down that path uh then that is that language is going to

[2:04:08] Trustee Bernardo: have to change in a whole bunch of different places which is fine if that's what has to happen

[2:04:12] Trustee Bernardo: but uh that's where that exploration takes us uh with respect to the example that trustee

[2:04:18] Trustee Bernardo: sanford brought up which is that somebody repaired or replaced a septic field uh

[2:04:24] Trustee Bernardo: uh with basically catastrophic consequences for the environment um the first point that needs to

[2:04:33] Trustee Bernardo: be observed is that would be under the current rules which uh i'm not sure uh have the restriction

[2:04:43] Trustee Bernardo: and i don't know the planners left to tell us whether the restriction in the proposed language

[2:04:49] Trustee Bernardo: that the staff is contemplating it says in the same location as the existing septic field

[2:04:53] Trustee Bernardo: field. But we also have a separate problem here, which is, I don't know the circumstances of the

[2:05:01] Trustee Bernardo: example that the trustee brought up with, but if the report from a civil engineer is that this is

[2:05:10] Trustee Bernardo: what a septic field has to be like in order to satisfy health requirements of the province and

[2:05:15] Trustee Bernardo: so forth and it does involve the disruption of other land um the way this exemption is drafted

[2:05:27] Trustee Bernardo: which is that well that's going to require development from if you get like if that's

[2:05:32] Trustee Bernardo: what the design is okay then that's going to take you and it's like it's not straightforward

[2:05:36] Trustee Bernardo: it's complicated you're going to have to get development from it um so

[2:05:41] Voice 5: i don't know if that

[2:05:42] Voice 5: that alleviates the concern there thank you no um all

[2:05:51] Trustee Stamford (probable): all i mean i've been i totally understand

[2:05:55] Trustee Stamford (probable): the rationale for everything else we've done to this point um i just don't feel that uh the end

[2:06:03] Trustee Stamford (probable): bit does not alter undisturbed land or native vegetation is enough um i'd rather just leave it

[2:06:10] Trustee Stamford (probable): uh

[2:06:12] Voice 5: with a period at the end of utility i i just

[2:06:21] Trustee Stamford (probable): yeah that's my preference um i think

[2:06:24] Trustee Stamford (probable): we have to acknowledge it's more than undisturbed land or native vegetation that is is the issue

[2:06:32] Trustee Stamford (probable): it's any disturbed land it's disturbing any kind of land it has impacts below the property line

[2:06:40] Trustee Stamford (probable): um and i recognize that there are times where you like your roofing does land on plants and

[2:06:47] Trustee Stamford (probable): stuff like that i mean that to me is just one of those things um but i don't want to be allowing

[2:06:53] Trustee Stamford (probable): people free rain um because they have stone steps um or you know other features non-native

[2:07:04] Trustee Stamford (probable): of vegetation that then impacts below the property

[2:07:09] Trustee Stamford (probable): by that disturbance.

[2:07:14] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so I'm not sure if your hand is up there, Bernardo,

[2:07:16] Trustee Luckham: but I see staff, Gemma, that's up.

[2:07:19] Trustee Luckham: If there's a suggestion to assist

[2:07:26] Trustee Luckham: Trustee Stamford on that last part there,

[2:07:29] Trustee Luckham: which I think is what I'm hearing more loud and clear

[2:07:32] Trustee Luckham: than anything else is more clarity on that last couple,

[2:07:35] Trustee Luckham: half a dozen words there.

[2:07:38] Trustee Luckham: um if there's any help there or not but otherwise if we can advance this in some fashion

[2:07:45] Trustee Luckham: um and seek an amendment uh either and that would depend upon the mover um

[2:07:52] Trustee Luckham: otherwise um we're gonna end up running uh well anyway my

[2:07:56] Trustee Bernardo: ears are if i i'm sorry to

[2:07:58] Trustee Bernardo: interrupt mr chair my ears are open my mind's open on this i would welcome any practical suggestions

[2:08:05] Trustee Bernardo: questions uh from staff that would address trustee Stanford's concern okay but um I would want to

[2:08:13] Trustee Bernardo: point out that um and you know and this is the thing we ought not to do which is try to quickly

[2:08:19] Trustee Bernardo: do things on the fly we can do things on the fly but not quickly we're deleting the last part um

[2:08:27] Trustee Bernardo: would actually result in weaker environmental product protection so uh you know that's an issue

[2:08:35] Trustee Bernardo: but i i certainly would like to hear from staff and if they have if they have some other language

[2:08:41] Trustee Bernardo: they think uh is clearer in terms of the uh goal of not disturbing things that are worth protecting

[2:08:50] Trustee Bernardo: um because of course as i've mentioned before this phrase is used repeatedly um in the bylaw

[2:08:57] Trustee Bernardo: uh and if if the staff doesn't have any magic words today uh well yeah so then let's jump

[2:09:05] Trustee Bernardo: maybe it's one of those things that we'll just have to wait i don't know well

[2:09:09] Trustee Luckham: it's yeah it's a

[2:09:11] Trustee Luckham: matter of scheduling another meeting is what it means so let's um just ask that if you have a

[2:09:16] Trustee Luckham: magic solution to this that might help otherwise i'm going to suggest we move on from this one

[2:09:21] Trustee Luckham: and perhaps go to the red line version if that's even remotely possible if

[2:09:25] Voice 2: i may uh through the

[2:09:26] Voice 2: chair um so i'm mindful of time so i'll be five seconds here um because i know we have two more

[2:09:31] Voice 2: items to touch on so um i i suggest that um we capture the discussion and we the planner

[2:09:39] Voice 2: planner mccargo and i take this back propose what has been captured to see how we can keep in

[2:09:46] Voice 2: um does not disturb uh alter undisturbed land or native vegetation capture the also the disturbance

[2:09:52] Voice 2: of any kind of land as per um trustee stanford's comment um also wanted to flag that there may be

[2:10:00] Voice 2: some revisions as we try and weave what's been proposed here from trustee bernardo

[2:10:06] Voice 2: remove we could remove reminder mine the word minor um building components would be a common

[2:10:12] Voice 2: definition that we would take so if there's a level of comfort for staff to interpret that

[2:10:17] Voice 2: based on the common understanding um we can bring something back to you with this okay

[2:10:26] Trustee Luckham: so keeping in mind then bringing back to you is the key phrase we're obviously talking about

[2:10:31] Trustee Luckham: another meeting what would be ideal is if we could perhaps jump to the red line version and decide

[2:10:37] Trustee Luckham: what it is that we agree upon in this this the the subtleties of this that is less structural

[2:10:46] Trustee Luckham: um is there a remote possibility of that no there's

[2:10:49] Trustee Bernardo: just too much uh and um i mean trustee

[2:10:55] Trustee Bernardo: sanford is is you know uh running out of time here there's just too much in the red line version you

[2:11:00] Trustee Bernardo: have to go through and and the other point is i actually do think that um it is going to be

[2:11:06] Trustee Bernardo: not productive for us to discuss the next point that i have to make about construction within

[2:11:12] Trustee Bernardo: the dpa uh until we address or somehow deal with trustee stanford's concern about the insufficiency

[2:11:22] Trustee Bernardo: of the does not alter undisturbed land language okay

[2:11:26] Trustee Luckham: that's helpful i think you're right

[2:11:29] Trustee Luckham: so the

[2:11:30] Trustee Luckham: third and final bullet then on your list is their ability to address that today uh

[2:11:38] Trustee Luckham: sorry what what bullet are you referring to there was

[2:11:42] Trustee Luckham: two items remaining um well i'm being what you

[2:11:45] Trustee Luckham: just did protection yeah

[2:11:50] Trustee Bernardo: there's more than two okay can

[2:11:54] Trustee Stamford (probable): i i just um just sort of briefly touch

[2:11:58] Trustee Stamford (probable): with software protection again i understand the rationale i just think that kind of work

[2:12:07] Trustee Stamford (probable): unless it's done very carefully and with knowledge is not something you can do without it without a

[2:12:13] Trustee Stamford (probable): dpa so that's my concern with that one um i i do believe strongly that you need um expertise

[2:12:22] Trustee Stamford (probable): expertise to do and it's specifically significant like moving logs around things like that it is

[2:12:29] Trustee Stamford (probable): quite a science to get that one right um but a bit more of you know that's my concern with that one

[2:12:38] Trustee Stamford (probable): okay

[2:12:41] Trustee Luckham: so i want to use the last couple minutes here to uh determine a next meeting um so i'm

[2:12:47] Trustee Luckham: going to turn to staff can we schedule another meeting or will we have to do this in our next

[2:12:53] Trustee Luckham: already scheduled regular meeting so

[2:12:58] Planner McCargar: the next regularly scheduled meeting is november 21st

[2:13:01] Planner McCargar: and um there that was a was scheduled to be an in-person meeting because we were going to have

[2:13:08] Planner McCargar: a public hearing at that time so i would like a bit of clarity around whether that would still

[2:13:14] Planner McCargar: like you'd like that to be in person or whether electronic is fine um that's for november 21st

[2:13:19] Planner McCargar: and if uh you would like to move to an electronic meeting we could we would need a motion to that

[2:13:24] Planner McCargar: that effect i would look to renee to if we can schedule another special meeting before that time

[2:13:33] Planner McCargar: would be tight we've got a lot of meetings right now and there's a lot of balls in the

[2:13:38] Planner McCargar: air so to

[2:13:39] Planner McCargar: speak i

[2:13:40] Trustee Bernardo: i can i can say right now that it's not feasible for me to schedule another meeting

[2:13:46] Trustee Bernardo: between now and then

[2:13:48] Trustee Luckham: it's just there's too much happening well then

[2:13:50] Trustee Luckham: we have to sacrifice the

[2:13:52] Trustee Luckham: public hearing at our next meeting and just have a discussion i thought that when we discussed this

[2:13:58] Trustee Bernardo: last time um when we'd heard from uh planner gemrat that um or sorry regional planning manager

[2:14:07] Trustee Bernardo: gemra that um it's just not feasible to have a public hearing anyhow and that date's already

[2:14:13] Trustee Bernardo: been lost and correct me if i'm wrong but my recollection is we we'd already pulled back

[2:14:19] Trustee Bernardo: from it being a public hearing at that point and I think we'd already pulled back from it being in

[2:14:25] Trustee Bernardo: person but I can't remember exactly so

[2:14:28] Planner McCargar: I have a little bit of clarity we didn't get uh we we did

[2:14:31] Planner McCargar: the LTC passed a resolution to defer the public hearing until 2024 because we recognized there

[2:14:37] Planner McCargar: wouldn't be enough time to do all of this and also have the public hearing there wasn't clarity

[2:14:42] Planner McCargar: on whether to move that meeting from in person to electronic the the actual LTC portion of the

[2:14:47] Planner McCargar: meeting okay

[2:14:48] Trustee Bernardo: well it certainly makes sense to do it electronically and i i'm wondering if it's

[2:14:53] Trustee Bernardo: feasible for us to simply add this to the agenda so that we can just keep working on it i mean the

[2:14:59] Trustee Bernardo: public hearing date's lost so you

[2:15:02] Planner McCargar: know we're not going to

[2:15:03] Trustee Bernardo: get it all done at once but i mean if we

[2:15:05] Trustee Bernardo: can just continue we're making some progress so if we could just keep working on it um maybe we'll

[2:15:09] Trustee Bernardo: get it done so my suggestion is yes let's turn it into electronic meeting and let's add this to

[2:15:16] Trustee Bernardo: agenda and see how much we can get done then and then at that point we can decide to schedule a

[2:15:22] Trustee Bernardo: special meeting if necessary to wrap it up if if we can do it

[2:15:25] Trustee Luckham: okay well i

[2:15:26] Planner McCargar: think by

[2:15:27] Trustee Luckham: normal process

[2:15:30] Trustee Luckham: we need to just determine if it's going to be electronic and it sounds like one member wants

[2:15:35] Trustee Luckham: to do electronic two members yeah okay and can we just get

[2:15:39] Planner McCargar: some clarity on how long like what

[2:15:44] Planner McCargar: the time slot on the agenda would be ideal for talking about this because i think we're you know

[2:15:49] Planner McCargar: perhaps not scheduling enough time so if we could just have a sense from the ltc what the consensus

[2:15:54] Planner McCargar: is of the block of time that you would like this to be on the next agenda an hour

[2:15:59] Trustee Bernardo: in my estimate

[2:16:01] Trustee Bernardo: not less than three hours

[2:16:02] Voice 5: there's

[2:16:06] Trustee Bernardo: plenty in the redline version that can be very quickly disposed

[2:16:10] Trustee Bernardo: of uh there are also some uh issues that i have there and that's going to require some discussion

[2:16:18] Trustee Bernardo: and um some of our drafting changes i have a question for staff it's whether or not i should

[2:16:26] Trustee Bernardo: be sending those um concerns i have to staff now so they have time to think about them and

[2:16:35] Trustee Bernardo: either make changes or develop whatever position they want to have on it i mean should i do that

[2:16:40] Trustee Bernardo: on

[2:16:42] Trustee Luckham: these remaining items in the

[2:16:44] Trustee Bernardo: on the on the items that not in the memo but the other items

[2:16:47] Trustee Bernardo: that i've what after reviewing the red line version that i have some concerns about should

[2:16:51] Trustee Bernardo: i communicate that with staff does staff want me to do that or not okay

[2:16:55] Planner McCargar: so there's more items than

[2:16:57] Planner McCargar: that are just in this memo correct

[2:16:59] Trustee Bernardo: that have come from my review of the red line version

[2:17:05] Trustee Bernardo: so yes

[2:17:06] Trustee Luckham: would be the answer to the chair

[2:17:07] Trustee Luckham: i would

[2:17:08] Voice 2: yes please

[2:17:09] Trustee Luckham: okay i'll do that um and then with

[2:17:13] Trustee Luckham: respect to the next meeting you know to be honest i thought the two hours was going to be too short

[2:17:18] Trustee Luckham: to do this i would like to keep this as open-ended as humanly possible so if our next meeting we

[2:17:25] Trustee Luckham: don't have conflicting um activities on the same day that would be ideal so that we could not have

[2:17:33] Trustee Luckham: this rushing sense um so let's try and keep our calendars free and um uh i'll look for a motion

[2:17:42] Trustee Luckham: to change the November the 19th meeting to electronic?

[2:17:49] Trustee Bernardo: I move that the meeting scheduled to be in person.

[2:17:54] Trustee Bernardo: Sorry, I'll take that back.

[2:17:56] Trustee Bernardo: I move that the next meeting of the local trust committees

[2:18:00] Trustee Bernardo: that is scheduled for November 13th or 19th

[2:18:04] Trustee Bernardo: to be an in-person meeting be changed

[2:18:07] Trustee Bernardo: to be a meeting that is held electronically.

[2:18:11] Trustee Bernardo: All right, that's good.

[2:18:13] Trustee Bernardo: it's

[2:18:13] Planner McCargar: november 21st just clear

[2:18:15] Trustee Bernardo: that's all right

[2:18:16] Trustee Bernardo: thank you

[2:18:17] Trustee Bernardo: that motion that motion should read

[2:18:20] Trustee Bernardo: november 21st thank you i

[2:18:22] Trustee Luckham: think you've got that uh recorder corbett and trustee stanford you're

[2:18:28] Trustee Luckham: seconding

[2:18:29] Voice 5: yes all those in favor that's

[2:18:35] Trustee Luckham: great i think that does us for today you know uh trustee

[2:18:38] Trustee Luckham: bernard i want to thank you for the work that you put into this we made some good progress here and

[2:18:43] Trustee Luckham: And I think we can look forward to more of the same

[2:18:45] Trustee Luckham: and want to thank staff for their contribution

[2:18:47] Trustee Luckham: and helping us navigate this rocky road.

[2:18:50] Trustee Luckham: So thanks everybody.

[2:18:52] Trustee Luckham: And we'll talk again.

[2:18:55] Trustee Stamford (probable): I also want to thank Trustee Bernardo and staff.

[2:18:59] Trustee Stamford (probable): I mean, this is a lot of work and it's important work

[2:19:02] Trustee Stamford (probable): and I'm glad we're having this discussion.

[2:19:05] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

[2:19:06] Trustee Luckham: Absolutely.

[2:19:07] Trustee Luckham: Okay, so thank everybody for joining us today.

[2:19:10] Trustee Luckham: I'll call for the meeting to adjourn.

[2:19:11] Trustee Luckham: All those in favor?

[2:19:13] Trustee Luckham: and that carries and so we'll stay tuned we'll see you again at this station right thank you thank

[2:19:21] Trustee Luckham: Thank you.

ADOPTED 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambier Island ADOPTED 1 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
October 31, 2023 
 
Gambier Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
October 31, 2023 
Electronic Meeting 
 
Members Present: Peter Luckham, Chair 
 Kate-Louise Stamford, Trustee 
 Joe Bernardo, Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Renée Jamurat, RPP MCIP, Regional Planning Manager 
 Marlis McCargar, Island Planner 
Wil Cottingham, Office Administrative Assistant 
 Diane Corbett, Recorder 
  
Others Present: There was one (1) member of the media in attendance. 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
“Please note, the order of agenda items may be modified during the meeting. Times are provided 
for convenience only and are subject to change.” 
Chair Luckham called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.  He acknowledged that the meeting was 
held on the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. Trustees and Staff were introduced. 
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
The following addition to the agenda was presented: 
 Addendum:  3.1.1 Keats Shoreline Protection Project – Trustee Memo  
By general consent the agenda was approved as amended. 
3. BUSINESS ITEMS 
3.1 Keats Shoreline Protection Project – Proposed Bylaw No. 154 
Island Planner McCargar provided an overview of the staff report on the Keats Shoreline 
Protection Project – Proposed Bylaw Nos. 153/154. 

ADOPTED 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambier Island ADOPTED 2 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
October 31, 2023 
3.1.1 Keats Shoreline Protection Project - Trustee Memo 
There was discussion of the way to approach review of the Trustee Memo. It was agreed 
Trustee Bernardo would highlight, as focal points for discussion, the conclusions and 
recommendations for amendments noted in the memo. 
Trustee Bernardo provided context and background regarding Keats Island, and 
emphasized that the bylaw has to be designed in a way consistent with the reality of the 
way Keats Island is right now. 
Regional Planning Manager Jamurat requested that the Island Planner note in the red 
line version of the proposed bylaw as to which provisions were affected as the LTC made 
motions. 
Trustee Bernardo explained and gave context to recommended conclusions and 
amendments in the Trustee Memo that were itemized under the following categories:  
 Docks 
o Fairness problems 
o Distance requirement for docks 
o Sharing docks 
o Other dock issues 
 Repair vs. Replace. 
Discussions ensued on the above topics. 
GM-2023-039 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Proposed Bylaw 154 be amended to: 1) change the definition of maximum 
residential dock size in P12 to conform with the usage in the CR1, RR, RC, and M2(a) 
zones that specifies it to mean the size of the dock float; and 2) reduce the maximum 
residential dock size in P12 zone to the same 47 square metre limit that Bylaw 154 
contemplates for the CR1, RR, RC, and M2(a) zones. 
CARRIED 
GM-2023-040 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Proposed Bylaw 154 be amended to include provisions that will bring the 
regulations for residential docks in the P12 zone into conformity with the regulations 
Proposed Bylaw 154 proposes for residential docks in the CR1, RR, RC, and M2(a) zones. 
CARRIED 

ADOPTED 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambier Island ADOPTED 3 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
October 31, 2023 
GM-2023-041 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
That Proposed Bylaw 154 be amended to reduce maximum coverage area for the 
institutional dock facilities in the M2(b) zone to the same 1500 square metre limit 
contemplated for the P12 zone. 
CARRIED 
It was noted that Islands Trust needed to inform Keats Islanders that it is outside the 
Trust’s mandate to change permitted distances between docks, which falls under the 
jurisdiction of the federal government. 
There was discussion of developing a communications piece or pamphlet for Keats 
residents, especially dock owners, addressing points of concern. 
GM-2023-042 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Proposed Bylaw 154 be amended to enable the pro-rating of the maximum float 
size for shared docks by an additional 30 square metres per additional participant up to 
an absolute maximum of 154 square metres. 
CARRIED 
– BREAK 10:30 am - 10:42 am – 
The Regional Planning Manager requested that the Islands Planner facilitate discussion 
and jump to the key conclusions in the memo that required more in-depth discussion, 
recognizing that some of the flagged bolded items from the memo were captured in the 
revised amendments on the “red line” version of the proposed bylaw, attached to the 
staff report. 
Discussion moved to the definition of repair and maintenance in proposed Bylaw No. 
154, section 9.3. 
Trustee Bernardo considered that the definition was too general, creating uncertainty 
about what was actually exempted and what was not. He pointed out that many of the 
shoreline cabins on Keats were built some time ago, under what are now outdated 
building codes (or no building codes). These are permeable to humidity, and docks are 
exposed to extreme conditions. The repair and maintenance provisions that would 
occur within an existing footprint would commonly require replacement of building 
components. Things commonly needing replacement include wiring, plumbing systems, 
siding, leaky roofs, patio decking and structural members, decking on dock ramps and 
floats, and storm-damaged or aged structural members of docks. 
The Trustee noted that the repair and maintenance exemption does not address the 
alteration factor, creating uncertainty about the scope of the exemption. Further 
concerns included: use of the word “minor” describing repairs or maintenance; 

ADOPTED 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambier Island ADOPTED 4 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
October 31, 2023 
requiring owners to obtain a development permit for maintenance when it involves 
building components; replacement of pre-existing septic fields encroaching into the 
development permit area. 
The Trustee proposed that Section 9.3.2(b) be re-written as: “Repair and maintenance 
of lawful buildings, structures or utilities, including the replacement of building 
components in connection with such repair and maintenance, provided always that any 
such work is conducted entirely within the footprint of the existing building, structure or 
utility and does not alter undisturbed land or native vegetation;”. 
Points from ensuing discussion included:  
 I understand where residents are coming from in their concerns that so much of 
their property or building structures tend to be within this area. Concern that 
there is vague language within “undisturbed land or native vegetation”. Do not 
think that goes far enough. DPA is to protect the foreshore and beyond. There 
are examples of where this kind of restriction has not worked. If owners are 
unclear about this, call the Trust office. This is where peoples’ impact is the 
greatest on the foreshore, and this is the reason for this bylaw. Want to make 
sure that there are protections in place. 
 This language is okay; it may not be completely clear. Onus is on the property 
owners – if not clear about something, you should talk to Staff to find out what 
needs to be done.   
 “Undisturbed land or native vegetation” is clear enough to me; it is repeated in 
numerous places in the bylaw. “Within the footprint” and “does not alter 
undisturbed land or native vegetation” need to be read together.  
 If, based on the report of a civil engineer, the installation of a septic system 
would involve disruption of other land, which would require a development 
permit. 
 We have to acknowledge it is more than undisturbed land or native vegetation 
that is the issue. It is any disturbing any kind of land; it has impacts below the 
property line. 
 Would like to hear from Staff if they have some other language that they think is 
clearer in terms of environmental protection. 
 Soft shoreline protection, unless it is done very carefully and with knowledge, is 
not something you can do without a DPA. You need expertise to do so. 
The Regional Planning Manager suggested that Staff bring back proposed wording that 
incorporates points from this discussion. 
The Regional Planning Manager responded in the affirmative to an inquiry by Trustee 
Bernardo as to whether he should send to Staff concerns he had on some items in the 
red line version of Bylaw No. 154. 

ADOPTED 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambier Island ADOPTED 5 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
October 31, 2023 
There was discussion of continued LTC consideration of proposed amendments to Draft 
Bylaw No. 154 and the timeline for the proposed bylaw review process. 
GM-2023-043 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the next meeting of the Local Trust Committee that is scheduled for November 21 
to be in-person be changed to a meeting that is held electronically. 
CARRIED 
Trustees Luckham and Stamford expressed thanks to Trustee Bernardo and Staff for the 
work put into this review and discussion. 
4. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
Peter Luckham, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
_________________________ 
Diane Corbett, Recorder