Islands Trust Council regular meeting, December 11, 2023

[0:00:01] Voice 8: All right. Looks like

[0:00:18] Voice 15: we're ready to go. Can everyone hear me okay? Good morning.

[0:00:25] Voice 15: Hi. Yes, that's thumbs up. Okay. I'm here on Gabriela Island. It's the name of First Nation

[0:00:33] Voice 15: Territory, but of course, this is the regular business meeting of the Liskete Island Local

[0:00:40] Voice 15: Trust Committee located on Hoyete, Luskete, and we want to begin by acknowledging that the land

[0:00:48] Voice 15: in which we gather is within the traditional territory of many Coast Salish peoples,

[0:00:53] Voice 15: including the Kuala Lumpur, Stana'as and Tla'aman peoples, on whose lands and waters the Islands

[0:01:01] Voice 15: Trust and Hoyete is located. And we acknowledge the historical and continuing relationship to

[0:01:09] Voice 15: this land, culture, and spirit of the place that continues to this day. I'm joined by your local

[0:01:17] Voice 15: trustees, Mikayla Laroni. Hi there. And Tim Biedersen. And we're supported by staff in the

[0:01:27] Voice 15: background, Planner Stephen Baugh. Sorry, I always get that wrong. And Catherine Vogt,

[0:01:37] Voice 15: our recorder. Hi, Catherine. And Will Cottingham in the background.

[0:01:42] Voice 15: Mm-hmm. I'm struggling with COVID, so apologize if I'm a little less

[0:01:52] Voice 15: vocal than usual. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. And so, yeah, calling this meeting to

[0:01:59] Voice 15: order and looking to approve the agenda. Is there anything trustees or staff would like to reorder

[0:02:08] Voice 15: for the agenda today yes

[0:02:14] Voice 8: no okay um i'll

[0:02:23] Voice 15: note actually we do want to um change something

[0:02:27] Voice 15: director fall so the electoral area director's report uh he'll be coming in he's only able to

[0:02:35] Voice 15: join us at noon or just after noon so katherine if we can move 3.3 to it's going to be somewhere

[0:02:45] Voice 15: before our break and we'll just receive his report whenever he gets here. Is that okay

[0:02:53] Voice 15: with everybody? Okay. Why don't you introduce yourselves, trustees? I don't want to be the

[0:03:01] Voice 15: only one talking here. Tell me a little bit about your week so far coming back from Trust

[0:03:10] Voice 15: trust council uh

[0:03:15] Voice 3: good morning tim peterson here on beautiful huete lasquite island um

[0:03:21] Voice 3: territory of many coach salish peoples and the treaty territory of the tla'aman nation

[0:03:27] Voice 3: um not such a bad week really uh i'm sorry to hear that a few trustees um

[0:03:35] Voice 3: I came down with COVID post-trust council.

[0:03:44] Voice 3: That's unfortunate.

[0:03:45] Voice 3: I hope everyone gets better soon.

[0:03:47] Voice 3: I am looking at a busy little week for me because I have this meeting today

[0:03:53] Voice 3: and I have Galliano tomorrow, Hornby Wednesday, and Salt Spring Thursday.

[0:03:58] Voice 3: So busy little week coming up for this fella here.

[0:04:02] Voice 3: And I'll just leave it at that for now.

[0:04:05] Voice 15: Thank you, Trustee Peterson.

[0:04:07] Voice 15: And you are, I don't know how you handle the schedule that you've got.

[0:04:10] Voice 15: It's pretty amazing.

[0:04:13] Voice 15: Trustee Laroni, where are you at?

[0:04:14] Voice 15: And what has your week been like?

[0:04:17] Voice 15: I

[0:04:20] Voice 13: didn't go to trust council in person.

[0:04:21] Voice 13: I Zoomed, so I am healthy as a sheep.

[0:04:24] Voice 13: I just finally figured out how to put the Islands Trust background on.

[0:04:28] Voice 13: I hope you'll like it.

[0:04:29] Voice 13: And this week has been insane, juggling all kinds of different jobs and getting ready

[0:04:39] Voice 13: ready for christmas and but it's been good i've been doing trying to get places my other roads

[0:04:46] Voice 13: are so bad right now that i almost slid into somebody last night driving past them and i

[0:04:52] Voice 13: have all-wheel drive so trying to spend some time at home as it's just a better idea and um that's

[0:04:59] Voice 8: about it excellent thank you always good

[0:05:07] Voice 15: to hear your voice um yeah for a chair's report uh as

[0:05:12] Voice 15: As noted, we all just came out of Trust Council, held over three days in Victoria, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, some joined remotely.

[0:05:21] Voice 15: And it was a really good session overall.

[0:05:24] Voice 15: I'd say we were able to advance on the vision statement, sort of got to a place where we have a draft,

[0:05:33] Voice 15: And that will be continually worked on as a living document as we incorporate and learn more from First Nations in the trust area about their vision for these islands.

[0:05:48] Voice 15: and um initial discussion of the budget so the draft budget is along with most local governments

[0:05:57] Voice 15: looking at a uh quite a tax hike if all the projects and line items are approved so we'll

[0:06:06] Voice 15: be working on that from now until march and um there's what other discussions did we have

[0:06:16] Voice 15: I'm trying to remember. It was actually a fairly light agenda, more a time for trustees to get together and work on sort of consensus building and bringing our different perspectives.

[0:06:30] Voice 15: As we all know, the islands are all very, very different communities, and so we all bring different things to the table.

[0:06:39] Voice 15: So working that out at the council table is always exciting.

[0:06:43] Voice 15: exciting. Tim, what am I missing? Sorry, my brain's a bit foggy. It feels like a long time

[0:06:51] Voice 15: ago. Anything else significant?

[0:06:55] Voice 3: Mostly heavy on the budget discussion. Motion was passed to

[0:07:03] Voice 3: look into updating the procedure for the CAO performance review. Those, I think,

[0:07:13] Voice 3: were the two biggest items um let's work on the vision statement uh or consideration thereof

[0:07:22] Voice 3: and then a lot a lot of reporting out from uh committees trust programs committee

[0:07:28] Voice 3: we're expecting to get the um draft of the the new draft of the updated um island stress policy

[0:07:35] Voice 3: policy statement uh early in the new year to run by trustees and uh governance committee continues

[0:07:42] Voice 3: its work there was some uh some suggestions and some direction from trust council for the

[0:07:49] Voice 3: governance committee that's that's all i'm remembering off the top of my head because

[0:07:53] Voice 3: i didn't make any notes the

[0:07:57] Voice 15: um we had a presentation with the san juan um san juan

[0:08:04] Voice 15: County so that was that was really interesting so we have a transporter agreement with San Juan

[0:08:10] Voice 15: County um and it's been quite a while since we've had the opportunity to build relationship with

[0:08:18] Voice 15: them again and so two of their they have three counselors if I'm not mistaken um and uh

[0:08:27] Voice 15: And unfortunately, one of them, well, they were not able to join us in person because fog socked them in, but they joined us virtually.

[0:08:39] Voice 15: And so we had a really good discussion on marine advocacy, mainly oil spill protection and prevention.

[0:08:49] Voice 15: And I had a bit of a deep dive into their Marine Resources Committee and would note that it seems like a really good model to follow.

[0:09:01] Voice 15: And as we look at shoreline protection, erosion, the effects of climate change, their form of government has a lot of scientists, biologists, members of the public at large, as well as councillors sitting on their committees.

[0:09:22] Voice 15: So everything isn't done just in-house with their government.

[0:09:26] Voice 15: They have committees that sort of do the work intergovernmentally, I suppose.

[0:09:31] Voice 15: So it was a really interesting discussion.

[0:09:34] Voice 15: We did talk about housing as well and their approach to housing.

[0:09:39] Voice 15: Lots to be learned there, especially with directing increased density or intensification of development to what they call urban growth areas.

[0:09:52] Voice 15: and away from sort of the open spaces to support conservation.

[0:09:57] Voice 15: So really interesting conversation.

[0:10:01] Voice 15: I think that was of value to both of our governments.

[0:10:07] Voice 15: So that's about it from Trust Council.

[0:10:15] Voice 15: So we'll move the Electoral Area Director's Report, as I said,

[0:10:19] Voice 15: to whatever Director Fall can zoom in here.

[0:10:22] Voice 15: And we have nothing to report on First Nations engagement,

[0:10:25] Voice 15: engagement except I guess there is a significant development with the um the Islands Trust Nanaas

[0:10:34] Voice 15: protocol agreement was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and so

[0:10:43] Voice 8: the the working group

[0:10:53] Voice 8: uh

[0:10:53] Voice 15: with all three of us uh Trustee Peterson and Leroni and myself will be on that working group

[0:10:59] Voice 15: along with Cherlockham and I'm trying to remember is there's one other. So it is focused on the

[0:11:05] Voice 15: Liskety area and areas of interest to the Snoh Nahas Nation but it could be adapted

[0:11:12] Voice 15: as we move through the conversation if there's other local trust areas that

[0:11:19] Voice 15: we want to have conversations about we can add in other people or trustees or staff so that's a

[0:11:28] Voice 15: really positive development um anything else that you could think of tim or michaela on first

[0:11:34] Voice 15: nations engagement i

[0:11:38] Voice 3: would just add that it's um it's great that this protocol agreement has

[0:11:42] Voice 3: finally been passed through the minister it took considerable time and of course uh since um about

[0:11:50] Voice 3: halfway through last term we've been uh hoping to have the working group established um so that we

[0:11:57] Voice 3: can hear directly from the nation they do have some outstanding issues with the draft of our ocp

[0:12:03] Voice 3: and it will be important for us to have the opportunity to sit down and explore what those

[0:12:07] Voice 3: are um and hopefully that's can be resolved in a good way and we can move on and potentially even

[0:12:17] Voice 3: finish the ocp review in the next while and get on to the land use bylaw um review part so that would

[0:12:25] Voice 3: would be all I would add.

[0:12:29] Voice 15: Yes, indeed. So yeah, the four members so far, as I mentioned, Chair

[0:12:38] Voice 15: Luckham, Tim, Mikayla, and myself, and other trustees may attend as needed to support the work,

[0:12:44] Voice 15: and we're looking at four meetings in the next year to support our joint endeavors and

[0:12:50] Voice 15: conversations. So that is a really great piece of work, and I'm excited to be part of it.

[0:12:59] Voice 15: so we'll move into town hall and uh comments from the public we've got 12 participants all together

[0:13:12] Voice 15: and so if anybody would like to and myself or will will promote you so there is

[0:13:28] Voice 15: okay so if we can promote tom weinerth i actually have to figure out how to do this oh

[0:13:36] Voice 15: there he is hello mr weinerth you might have to yep unmute yourself i'm

[0:13:48] Voice 4: unmuted am i yes you are

[0:13:52] Voice 15: we can hear

[0:13:53] Voice 8: you hello

[0:13:55] Voice 4: hello i'll try again we

[0:13:59] Voice 12: can we can hear you mr weinerth go ahead and speak

[0:14:03] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:14:04] Voice 12: We can hear you.

[0:14:04] Voice 12: You're coming through.

[0:14:05] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:14:05] Voice 4: Very good.

[0:14:06] Voice 4: I'll speak.

[0:14:07] Voice 4: I would like to comment on some activities of one of the local trustees.

[0:14:14] Voice 4: Trustee Peterson is addressing a missing component in Mesquitee's after-death care.

[0:14:20] Voice 4: Many of us want to live, die, and be buried here without being embalmed or anything, and

[0:14:27] Voice 4: our burials have had to be very rushed because we have no refrigeration unit for the storage

[0:14:32] Voice 4: They're just bodies prior to burial.

[0:14:34] Voice 4: But Tim is arranging a refrigeration unit to store bodies, cool them.

[0:14:42] Voice 4: And I would like to thank him for that personally.

[0:14:44] Voice 4: And there's lots of other people here who appreciate this and will appreciate it far into the future.

[0:14:53] Voice 4: Secondly, as you know, Madam Chair, I've...

[0:14:56] Voice 15: Mr. Weiner, is this...

[0:14:57] Voice 15: Could you, sir, sir, could you speak to LTC business?

[0:15:01] Voice 15: Thank you.

[0:15:02] Voice 15: I don't believe that that matter can be addressed by the LTC.

[0:15:08] Voice 15: So if you could keep your comments to matters relevant to the Local Trust Committee, that would be wonderful.

[0:15:14] Voice 15: Thanks.

[0:15:15] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:15:16] Voice 4: Madam Chair, as you know, I've made a couple of FOI requests, and I have an email I'd like to read that does pertain to islands.

[0:15:26] Voice 15: Again, this is

[0:15:27] Voice 15: not relevant to LTC business.

[0:15:31] Voice 15: this is a private matter and um no

[0:15:33] Voice 4: no no okay madam chair you're the chair if that's what you

[0:15:37] Voice 4: say you it's your you're in charge yeah i

[0:15:41] Voice 4: would like to formally object to that ruling if it's

[0:15:45] Voice 4: possible and with the permission of the local trust committee i'd like my objection and the

[0:15:50] Voice 4: reasons for my objection to be included in the minutes

[0:15:55] Voice 15: i'm not sure if a member of the public

[0:16:00] Voice 15: can object to the ruling of the chair um do i have anybody who can advise on this tim you've

[0:16:07] Voice 15: got more experience than this than i do um it's my if you're addressed trying to address the matter

[0:16:20] Voice 15: of complaints um we did go over this in our last no

[0:16:25] Voice 4: no of course you madam chair you act as if you

[0:16:29] Voice 4: can read my mind or can see into the future but you really can't you have no idea what i'm going

[0:16:35] Voice 4: to say or talk about.

[0:16:36] Voice 15: Okay, I'm going to ask the local trustees if they will accept you reading an

[0:16:44] Voice 15: email that was obtained from an FOI request. No,

[0:16:50] Voice 4: that's not what I said. That's what you read

[0:16:54] Voice 4: into what I said. That's not what I said.

[0:16:57] Voice 15: Okay, if you want to repeat what you said, thank you.

[0:17:03] Voice 4: I have an email that I received from the Island Trust

[0:17:06] Voice 8: that I would like to read.

[0:17:14] Voice 8: Trustees, what are your thoughts here?

[0:17:17] Voice 15: What is the nature of...

[0:17:21] Voice 4: Do you want to pre-censor me?

[0:17:23] Voice 4: Is that what this is about?

[0:17:26] Voice 13: I think we could be emailing you.

[0:17:28] Voice 3: Chair, if I may, could we just ask the speaker to tell us what the subject matter of the email is,

[0:17:36] Voice 3: and then we can have a better basis for decision?

[0:17:39] Voice 15: Good idea.

[0:17:40] Voice 15: Yep.

[0:17:42] Voice 15: What is the subject

[0:17:43] Voice 4: of the email?

[0:17:44] Voice 4: You want to pre-censor me? Is that what this is about?

[0:17:49] Voice 15: No, I just want to

[0:17:50] Voice 4: be assured that...

[0:17:51] Voice 4: You want to know what I'm going to talk about before you allow

[0:17:54] Voice 4: me to say anything?

[0:17:55] Voice 15: Planner Baugh, what would you like to interject here?

[0:18:01] Voice 5: I can read out the section of the meeting procedure bylaw that would be helpful to you

[0:18:08] Voice 5: um that kind of relates to individual delegations um being

[0:18:14] Voice 8: heard at ltc meetings so it says i um

[0:18:21] Voice 8: i'm trying to i'll try and just

[0:18:24] Voice 5: be fairly quick with this but uh the chair is to preserve order

[0:18:28] Voice 5: at every meeting of the local trust committee and has the power to make such rulings as are

[0:18:32] Voice 5: necessary to do so including the power to rule on all points of order and may deny any individual

[0:18:37] Voice 5: or delegation the right to address a meeting if in the chair's opinion the individual or

[0:18:43] Voice 5: the delegation makes defamatory remarks about any person or speaks disrespectfully of any person

[0:18:48] Voice 5: addresses issues not contained within the written application of the individual or delegation as

[0:18:55] Voice 5: prescribed in sections 19 and 20 of this bylaw it moderately raises his or her voice or uses

[0:19:01] Voice 5: as profane vulgar or offensive language gestures or signs and then the next section in the

[0:19:08] Voice 5: bylaws individuals delegations will not be heard at regular meetings of local trust committee

[0:19:13] Voice 5: on the following the promotion of commercial products or services which have no connection

[0:19:17] Voice 5: to the business of the local trust committee matters on which the local trust committee has

[0:19:22] Voice 5: approved commencement of prosecution and on which judgment has not been rendered

[0:19:26] Voice 5: publicly tendered contract proposals for the provision of goods and services for the local

[0:19:32] Voice 5: trust committee uh skip the next little bit of that because it probably isn't relevant here

[0:19:36] Voice 5: and topics which are not are normally dealt with by island's trust staff as a matter of routine

[0:19:42] Voice 5: thank

[0:19:47] Voice 15: you for that clarity uh planner baugh it's very helpful to hear uh so mr weiner if your

[0:19:54] Voice 15: If your comments are going to be in line with what the meeting procedures bylaw lays out, then of course we are happy to hear them.

[0:20:05] Voice 15: And if not, then we'll just have to move on.

[0:20:09] Voice 4: If not, then you can stop me.

[0:20:12] Voice 4: You shouldn't stop me in advance.

[0:20:14] Voice 4: You can't read my mind.

[0:20:17] Voice 15: Exactly.

[0:20:18] Voice 15: Go ahead.

[0:20:22] Voice 4: I have an email from Naneen Maru, FOI coordinator.

[0:20:26] Voice 4: I asked her if I have a question concerning the copies of the documents I received.

[0:20:33] Voice 4: Are my copies considered public or private documents?

[0:20:36] Voice 4: Her answer is, hi, Tom.

[0:20:38] Voice 4: Anything we release is considered public in the sense that you can do what you want with

[0:20:43] Voice 4: them.

[0:20:43] Voice 4: This is contrary to your ruling of the last meeting where they were private.

[0:20:48] Voice 4: That's why I wanted to read it.

[0:20:51] Voice 4: uh i have a third issue i'd like to address um madam chair you're an elected public official as

[0:21:03] Voice 4: is trustee peterson and trustee laroni you're all three elected public officials you're elected to

[0:21:11] Voice 4: act for the benefit of the public to act in the public interest you you have made several rulings

[0:21:20] Voice 4: concerns concerning my ability to talk about or even quote emails from the Island Trust concerning

[0:21:29] Voice 4: Trustee Laroni. I would like to know how those rulings are in the public interest. I can see

[0:21:37] Voice 4: how they're in, but Kyla, in your self-interest, but how are they in the public interest?

[0:21:44] Voice 4: That's a real question, and I believe it requires a serious answer,

[0:21:50] Voice 8: Madam Chair.

[0:21:51] Voice 8: Well,

[0:21:54] Voice 15: what is in the public interest is that we conduct the business of this LTC on matters relating to the LTC.

[0:22:03] Voice 15: Private opinions about your interactions with a trustee, I would consider a matter that needs to be addressed by our CAO or the chair of the Islands Trust as per the policy.

[0:22:17] Voice 15: and that is not within the jurisdiction of this LTC to address,

[0:22:21] Voice 15: nor is it in the public interest to hear complaints

[0:22:24] Voice 15: about how an individual feels they've been treated.

[0:22:29] Voice 15: And so you have your FOI requests filled out,

[0:22:32] Voice 15: you have the information that you need,

[0:22:34] Voice 15: and I'm not sure what else we can do for you in terms of this LTC meeting.

[0:22:40] Voice 4: Madam Chair, you misunderstand my intention and what I want to do.

[0:22:46] Voice 4: you, I don't believe that reading a document from the Islands Trust pertaining to communications

[0:22:57] Voice 4: between a trustee and staff is anything but trust business. How is it? It's totally trust business.

[0:23:10] Voice 4: It's a trust document. It's communications between an elected public official and her staff and the

[0:23:17] Voice 4: the administrators. I guess

[0:23:19] Voice 15: I would ask, sir, I guess I would ask, what is your goal? What are

[0:23:23] Voice 15: you wanting to achieve here? Is it to address...

[0:23:28] Voice 4: Is that pertinent?

[0:23:30] Voice 15: Absolutely. Because if your

[0:23:33] Voice 15: goal is to advance the trust business, that's great. If not, we're just wasting time. My goal

[0:23:38] Voice 4: is to advance trust business. I'm not going to do that today. My goal is to advance trust business,

[0:23:46] Voice 4: obviously. And your explanation of why your

[0:23:50] Voice 4: pre-censorship is in the public interest is difficult

[0:23:55] Voice 4: for me to accept. But you're the chair, and of course you

[0:23:59] Voice 4: have absolute rulings here. So if that's how you want to play

[0:24:04] Voice 4: it, that's your business.

[0:24:07] Voice 15: Thank you for your comments, sir.

[0:24:09] Voice 4: I think

[0:24:10] Voice 15: we'll move on to the next speaker. Yes,

[0:24:13] Voice 8: of course. Are you wanting to say

[0:24:19] Voice 8: anything else about another matter okay he's muted himself can we promote uh peter johnston please

[0:24:30] Voice 8: uh to address the local trust committee hello this is tom am i am i supposed to be unmuted

[0:24:55] Voice 15: yeah hello

[0:24:56] Voice 15: no we're moving on to the next speaker peter that's what i thought

[0:25:00] Voice 4: someone told me to

[0:25:03] Voice 4: unmute

[0:25:04] Voice 15: no it may have been thank

[0:25:05] Voice 4: you thank

[0:25:06] Voice 8: you go ahead there you are hi peter please go ahead

[0:25:18] Voice 8: unmuted myself i finally

[0:25:27] Voice 2: joined can you hear me excellent

[0:25:29] Voice 15: yes we can okay

[0:25:31] Voice 2: i don't know why that

[0:25:32] Voice 2: took so long um i have two things one is very brief uh we used to have a locally hired minute

[0:25:40] Voice 2: taker and for a couple of years now we've had a a foreign one and i wonder if the trustees have

[0:25:48] Voice 2: requested or would you please request that a search be conducted for a minute taker that

[0:25:54] Voice 2: lives here so that some of the trust money could be spent and benefit the skidi okay that's the

[0:26:01] Voice 2: easy one um i just i really want to to address the subject of the delegation and i'm sorry that

[0:26:08] Voice 2: the delegation is so long away in time uh so that the two don't relate uh i've read carl's

[0:26:15] Voice 2: presentation and i agree with most of what he says however a private doc takes up and effectively

[0:26:21] Voice 2: effectively privatizes a considerable area of a public uh resource a public area meaning the uh

[0:26:29] Voice 2: the uh Shorefront um in the application for uh and that that makes the dock is for the exclusive

[0:26:38] Voice 2: unit of the use of the owner and their guests or friends uh it is not a public amenity although

[0:26:45] Voice 2: it sits on a public space i presume in a case of emergency one could or would use it but that's not

[0:26:53] Voice 2: clear to me and different people's ideas of emergencies can differ so that there's room for

[0:27:00] Voice 2: dispute and and you know will in there the community in our official community plan has

[0:27:08] Voice 2: been clear that we don't want a proliferation of private docks fortunately most of the area

[0:27:13] Voice 2: around the island you couldn't put a private dock and expect it to last the winter but there are a

[0:27:19] Voice 2: few places where you could and this is one with the original application for this dock that is

[0:27:26] Voice 2: there now there was an additional application for a dock on the adjacent lot not many feet down the

[0:27:34] Voice 2: beach they were to use the same private road to share that private road and access but that

[0:27:41] Voice 2: that application is not here yet.

[0:27:43] Voice 2: It will be coming along later, I assume,

[0:27:47] Voice 2: and others in that area.

[0:27:50] Voice 2: And when you are discussing this and deciding on

[0:27:57] Voice 2: whether or not to accept that application for a doc

[0:28:01] Voice 2: or approve that application,

[0:28:03] Voice 2: I want you to consider how you will do that

[0:28:05] Voice 2: with future ones.

[0:28:06] Voice 2: What criteria will you use?

[0:28:09] Voice 2: How will you decide for the second one,

[0:28:11] Voice 2: the third one the fourth one the fifth one there is as you're probably aware a public access in

[0:28:18] Voice 2: the corner of maple bay it is not an ideal one as carl says in his presentation but it's uh

[0:28:26] Voice 2: more ideal less difficult than the one that was constructed at the lot where the dock now is

[0:28:32] Voice 2: and it could be done uh partly as a joint thing by neighbors but it could be done

[0:28:38] Voice 2: uh through the regional district or just as part of the community association or the rate

[0:28:43] Voice 2: peers association or a local group to have a public dock in maple bay and i can't see any

[0:28:51] Voice 2: reason why it couldn't be done such that the people that had their own boat and put a whack

[0:28:55] Voice 2: of money or time or or materials into it couldn't have a priority in in tying up to it and using it

[0:29:03] Voice 2: when they needed to so that's my concern that's all i want to say uh and if you've got any

[0:29:10] Voice 2: questions ask me and i will be involved when it comes up again later

[0:29:14] Voice 8: thanks thank you mr johnston

[0:29:22] Voice 8: your comments are

[0:29:23] Voice 15: um received and and we do appreciate the input uh as a former trustee

[0:29:28] Voice 15: you have a lot of knowledge in this area and um it's much appreciated um okay if we can recognize

[0:29:38] Voice 15: eyes. There's a caller with a phone number. Hands raised. Not sure

[0:29:44] Voice 8: if we can promote them.

[0:29:47] Voice 8: Thank you, Will. Bye. No.

[0:30:00] Voice 8: We can hear you.

[0:30:01] Voice 1: Great. This is Dave Olson. I'm the editor and publisher of the RLN Times newspaper on Leskete.

[0:30:08] Voice 1: Thanks for the time to address the LTC.

[0:30:12] Voice 1: The first issue is a resolution that was made last meeting, ending in 039.

[0:30:22] Voice 1: It's on page 7 of the agenda package.

[0:30:25] Voice 1: It asks staff to report back on requirements for identifying members of the media in your

[0:30:30] Voice 1: minutes.

[0:30:31] Voice 1: And then on page 14, under the heading 23rd October, 2023, section 1 has an update section

[0:30:41] Voice 1: from David Marler and Nadine Marauro, apologies if I mispronounce her name, and it directs

[0:30:50] Voice 1: that media will not be identified in your minutes. But then on page 4, in the draft minutes of your

[0:30:58] Voice 1: last meeting, it again states that no members of the media were in attendance, despite consensus

[0:31:04] Voice 1: at the last meeting that there was media in attendance. And also, this is contrary to the

[0:31:12] Voice 1: staff decree. So I'm just pointing that out for your information. On page 47, there's more

[0:31:20] Voice 1: bookkeeping magic the LTC expense report it and it is for the period ending of

[0:31:29] Voice 1: October and the last expense report was for the period ending August you've had

[0:31:38] Voice 1: a meeting in between those two dates and miraculously not a penny has been spent

[0:31:45] Voice 1: in your budget so pointing that bookkeeping magic out for the record

[0:31:53] Voice 1: page 45 of your agenda package states that there is still no protocol in place

[0:31:59] Voice 1: between this LTC and the shun anas nation it says there's a protocol in

[0:32:06] Voice 1: place for the Trust Council and that nation but not for individual LTC so I'm

[0:32:13] Voice 1: just highlighting that and hopefully somebody can address that because my

[0:32:17] Voice 1: understanding is the OCP process has been on hold for probably two years or

[0:32:23] Voice 1: more now waiting for that to be addressed and I heard earlier that it

[0:32:28] Voice 1: was but the document on page 45 suggests that it is not in place so there's

[0:32:36] Voice 1: another minor issue in regards to your meeting schedule. The Islands Trust seems to have omitted

[0:32:48] Voice 1: July 1st as a stat holiday. It has July 9th in your listing of stat holidays. I'm not sure what

[0:32:57] Voice 1: could be a stat holiday on July 9th, but I do know that July 1st in 2024 falls on a Monday,

[0:33:05] Voice 1: and that it's officially recognized as a holiday.

[0:33:09] Voice 1: So just hopefully that's helpful to your planning process.

[0:33:13] Voice 1: You brought up the meeting procedures bylaw.

[0:33:16] Voice 1: I see that it's on your agenda for adoption today.

[0:33:21] Voice 1: There's a few issues that I think are important to point out

[0:33:26] Voice 1: before that adoption happens.

[0:33:30] Voice 1: Last meeting, because of your budget being spent,

[0:33:34] Voice 1: there was a suggestion made that the rest of your meetings be canceled until your budget

[0:33:40] Voice 1: is replenished. And the response to that was that the business of this LTC is much too important to

[0:33:50] Voice 1: just cancel meetings. So I also would expect and I do appreciate this LTC wanting to be inclusive

[0:34:02] Voice 1: and allow residents to speak to the LTC, people that live on Liskieti, it's very

[0:34:10] Voice 1: important to engage with us. However, the meeting procedures bylaw is suggesting,

[0:34:18] Voice 1: it's not suggesting, it's designating that the public

[0:34:25] Voice 1: participation period be limited to 15 minutes in duration. And it may be

[0:34:31] Voice 1: extended by majority vote but I don't see why there needs to be a restriction

[0:34:37] Voice 1: that's in section 34 in section 35 it states that a member of the public may

[0:34:46] Voice 1: have three minutes to address the LTC I would suggest and and that can be

[0:34:55] Voice 1: extended of course as well but that has to be by a unanimous vote of the LTC

[0:35:01] Voice 1: members present so if I were to raise an issue say with trustee Peterson and

[0:35:09] Voice 1: trustee Peterson didn't want to hear about it then it's very unlikely that

[0:35:16] Voice 1: there would be a unanimous vote to allow me to continue past three minutes my

[0:35:21] Voice 1: suggestion given the fact that this committee believes that your business is

[0:35:29] Voice 1: extremely important and obviously there's multiple issues on every agenda

[0:35:37] Voice 1: but my suggestion is that each member of the public be limited to three minutes

[0:35:42] Voice 1: per topic rather than three minutes in total and just for point of reference

[0:35:52] Voice 1: section 22 suggests well it doesn't suggest again it demands that

[0:35:57] Voice 1: delegations be limited to five minutes and I find that pretty difficult to

[0:36:05] Voice 1: accept in that if a person is going to or a group is going to put a bunch of

[0:36:12] Voice 1: effort into presenting a delegation five minutes is hardly a significant amount

[0:36:18] Voice 1: of time to make a point for obviously an issue that's somewhat significant if

[0:36:25] Voice 1: delegation comes together to do so so that's those issues on the meeting

[0:36:31] Voice 1: procedure by law and I have one last sir

[0:36:34] Voice 15: if we could if we could pause you've

[0:36:37] Voice 15: you've given us quite

[0:36:38] Voice 15: a long list of issues and I know trustee Peterson has

[0:36:41] Voice 15: had his hand up maybe wanting to address the protocol agreement so before you

[0:36:45] Voice 15: move into your final one perhaps we could respond before we forget what the

[0:36:52] Voice 15: the earlier topics were about trustee peterson did you want to jump in here

[0:36:56] Voice 3: uh thank you chair

[0:36:58] Voice 3: uh yes i did have a comment on the protocol agreement uh for information um local trust

[0:37:05] Voice 3: committees are not empowered to enter into protocol agreements and so therefore it's

[0:37:11] Voice 3: trust council that enters into protocol agreements and then in this case because we have a working

[0:37:17] Voice 3: group it's trust council's authority to appoint the members of the working group um in this case

[0:37:25] Voice 3: all three members of the local trust committee as well as the chair of islands trust have been

[0:37:29] Voice 3: appointed by trust council to to the working group um but there is no provision for local

[0:37:35] Voice 3: trust committees to have uh an actual like official protocol agreement so i hope that helps

[0:37:43] Voice 3: and I don't want to take up a lot of time getting into that.

[0:37:46] Voice 3: I'd also just note that the meeting procedures bylaw

[0:37:50] Voice 3: that we have in front of us,

[0:37:51] Voice 3: I have heard some other suggestions

[0:37:54] Voice 3: that three minutes might not be long enough.

[0:37:57] Voice 3: I would also note that without any resolutions today,

[0:38:00] Voice 3: we're already 38 minutes into this meeting

[0:38:02] Voice 3: and a lot of that time has been public comment.

[0:38:06] Voice 3: So I'm not sure in a situation like today

[0:38:10] Voice 3: that that the revision of those numbers is is really such

[0:38:18] Voice 8: an urgent matter but I'll leave it

[0:38:19] Voice 8: at that yes thank you for

[0:38:27] Voice 15: that I would add that um we do allow latitude for um speakers to finish

[0:38:34] Voice 15: the comments as you are

[0:38:37] Voice 15: being allowed so I'm not sure how changing the median procedures by law

[0:38:41] Voice 15: would support additional public participation and i would also note that this ltc has two minor

[0:38:48] Voice 15: projects on the books and the ocp project is the one we are trying to advance and so going back

[0:38:55] Voice 15: into the meetings procedures bylaw would require making another minor project of a project that

[0:39:02] Voice 15: we've just finished so i i wouldn't necessarily support that at this time but your comments are

[0:39:08] Voice 15: noted for the record thank you did you have one final comment mr olson yeah

[0:39:14] Voice 1: thank you very much

[0:39:15] Voice 1: madam chair yeah and just uh to respond quickly to that i i certainly appreciate the latitude that

[0:39:22] Voice 1: has been given uh the meeting procedures bylaw is a new addition to the mix i understand so um

[0:39:29] Voice 1: you know obviously the restrictions are significant compared to what has been

[0:39:36] Voice 1: happening, so I appreciate that you continue the tradition of giving us time and space to

[0:39:43] Voice 1: address the committee. The last issue is on page 35 of the agenda package. It states that the OCP

[0:39:52] Voice 1: must have greenhouse gas emission reduction targets with policies and actions to achieve them.

[0:40:02] Voice 1: So my question to the LTC is, what are those greenhouse gas emissions?

[0:40:11] Voice 1: What are those greenhouse gases?

[0:40:13] Voice 1: I hope everybody on the committee has a good understanding of what the greenhouse gases actually are,

[0:40:20] Voice 1: because you're being asked to do something pretty significant here.

[0:40:25] Voice 1: You need to come up with policies and actions,

[0:40:29] Voice 1: and so you need to actually know what the hell you're talking about.

[0:40:32] Voice 1: And I know this is coming from the province, so it's not necessarily your purview, but it certainly would influence your decision in terms of policies and actions.

[0:40:45] Voice 1: And the question is, what evidence-based science supports this directive?

[0:40:53] Voice 1: So those questions are there.

[0:40:57] Voice 1: And then just to give you a hint on what the answer is.

[0:41:00] Voice 15: Mr. Olson, sir, you've asked a question, and we're going to address that during our discussion of the OCP project.

[0:41:08] Voice 15: And I would just consider that we've taken into advisement your question, and we will consider it.

[0:41:14] Voice 15: So if there's nothing else that you wish to speak to, I think thank you for your time.

[0:41:23] Voice 1: Well, I do have one last comment on that topic, and it's very brief.

[0:41:30] Voice 1: Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas that creates a greenhouse effect on this planet.

[0:41:40] Voice 1: And just to give you another little bit of information, it's 95% of all the greenhouse gases.

[0:41:47] Voice 1: So if you need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because that's what the direction from the province suggests,

[0:41:54] Voice 1: Mike, my last question is, how the heck is this committee going to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere?

[0:42:04] Voice 1: So thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today.

[0:42:12] Voice 8: Thank you for your comments.

[0:42:16] Voice 15: I see no other hands raised in the attendees list.

[0:42:22] Voice 15: we'll just give another 10 seconds if anybody wants to address the local trust committee and

[0:42:27] Voice 15: then we'll close the town hall period for today okay thank you to everybody who addressed the

[0:42:38] Voice 15: local trust committee um we'll move into adopting the minutes of october 23rd 2023 pages 4 to 11

[0:42:49] Voice 15: Is there any changes or additions?

[0:42:52] Voice 15: And I will note the

[0:42:57] Voice 8: presence of media issue.

[0:43:07] Voice 8: I don't really see a conflict of

[0:43:10] Voice 15: interest.

[0:43:12] Voice 15: I would, or sorry, I don't really see a discrepancy between the minutes and the direction we got

[0:43:21] Voice 8: from Director Marler.

[0:43:23] Voice 8: Does everybody find the minutes congruent?

[0:43:28] Voice 8: okay by general consent we'll adopt

[0:43:33] Voice 15: the minutes of october 23 2023

[0:43:40] Voice 15: sorry

[0:43:41] Voice 12: chair elliott i just wanted to oops note that um mr darwin put his hand up

[0:43:47] Voice 12: sort of right

[0:43:48] Voice 12: on the cusp of um oh

[0:43:50] Voice 15: thank you ending town hall so so mr darwin um you will have a chance to

[0:43:56] Voice 15: to address the local trust committee as a delegation probably just before the break

[0:44:02] Voice 8: did you want to also speak now mr darwin if you could just unmute yourself how's that that's great

[0:44:18] Voice 8: it's good we can hear you yeah okay um

[0:44:21] Voice 6: when's the break

[0:44:23] Voice 15: approximately 12 50 so you're slated

[0:44:28] Voice 15: to be for your delegation it's about 12 40 and you'll have 10 minutes or yeah

[0:44:34] Voice 6: well let me do i

[0:44:36] Voice 6: can do it now or or uh i'd do it later now would work for me

[0:44:41] Voice 15: um

[0:44:42] Voice 14: if

[0:44:43] Voice 6: it doesn't work for you i'm easy

[0:44:45] Voice 6: with it

[0:44:46] Voice 15: what is the wish of this committee do you want to hear mr darwin's uh delegation now

[0:44:54] Voice 15: and just

[0:44:55] Voice 8: reorder the agenda thumbs up thumbs down i'm fine with that okay well thanks

[0:45:06] Voice 15: so we'll move

[0:45:08] Voice 15: 9.1 to just after town hall catherine and please proceed mr darwin okay

[0:45:17] Voice 6: thank you thank you uh

[0:45:18] Voice 6: first off just a bit of humor there uh on the skitty with the community list whenever anybody

[0:45:24] Voice 6: put something in that peter johnson uh didn't like he issued a rebuttal before the person could even

[0:45:32] Voice 6: speak, and that's what happened today, which has got a bit of humor to it. Anyway, to carry on,

[0:45:39] Voice 6: I'll just read my preamble. The Rape Payers Association was established in 1997

[0:45:47] Voice 6: in response to the inability of our elected representatives, the regional directors,

[0:45:52] Voice 6: the trustees, to initiate a project without the advocacy of a community organization.

[0:45:57] Voice 6: The purpose of this society is to provide direction and liaise with other levels of

[0:46:02] Voice 6: government where the interests of property owners may be affected, and to provide in

[0:46:08] Voice 6: general for the welfare of Liskieti Island in any capacity.

[0:46:13] Voice 6: To this end, we were instrumental in initiating the multi-use barge ramp on Liskieti, and

[0:46:21] Voice 6: And I personally negotiated with the Island's Trust for 25 years just to get zoning for that.

[0:46:29] Voice 6: And obliquely, we conspired to help get the Fulton Hill cave.

[0:46:35] Voice 6: Today, we're involved in a court case to prevent privatization of Tucker Bay Road

[0:46:40] Voice 6: and the only public access to a deep water site for another wharf on Lutiti.

[0:46:47] Voice 6: That one should theoretically be in court in March.

[0:46:53] Voice 6: It's been going on for 10 years.

[0:46:56] Voice 6: Currently there are 10 locations where private docks are permitted under the current land use bylaw.

[0:47:02] Voice 6: The criteria for the establishment of these locations is that they are inaccessible to a public road.

[0:47:09] Voice 6: We propose that land use bylaw 415, and I think 413 is in there too, be changed to permit

[0:47:16] Voice 6: permit, in conjunction with the objectives in the OCP, to permit the construction of private

[0:47:22] Voice 6: locks on properties which are accessible by public roads. The principal objection to private

[0:47:28] Voice 6: locks is that they'll proliferate in great numbers, detract from the aesthetics of the shoreline,

[0:47:34] Voice 6: and damage the marine ecology. Well, Liskety is mostly abrupt, and it's very difficult

[0:47:42] Voice 6: difficult to come up with anywhere. So counting the locations where private box could possibly

[0:47:50] Voice 6: be built, starting in Jenkins Bay and going around the island, it would be Jenkins Bay,

[0:47:58] Voice 6: Graveyard Bay, Richardson Bay, Boat Cove, Windy Bay, Rouse Bay, Anderson Bay, Boho, Long Bay,

[0:48:05] Voice 6: Tucker Bay, Conn Bay, Sandy Cove, West Point, Nine Bay, Scotty Bay, Maple Bay, Spring Bay,

[0:48:10] Voice 6: and Cocktail Cove, Mud Bay and lastly False Bay. Eight of these locations go dry at low tide and

[0:48:18] Voice 6: three are exposed to high winds. This leaves nine possible locations spread along an estimated

[0:48:25] Voice 6: 50 kilometers of shoreline. Now when the aversion to docks, public private docks came in, it was

[0:48:35] Voice 6: when piers island was done just the subdivision right off sydney a little round island and it's

[0:48:41] Voice 6: got private box sticking out of it like porcupine and you can see it from the sydney ferry

[0:48:48] Voice 6: luskete whether you like it or not isn't somewhat psychologically endangered fairyland but a growing

[0:48:53] Voice 6: community with unique problems one of which is the absence of an adequate public box to

[0:49:00] Voice 6: to accommodate the growing fleet of residential boats. If you doubt the community's growing,

[0:49:07] Voice 6: you only need to count the park cars in Falls Bay along with the 70 or so mooring buoys that

[0:49:13] Voice 6: are spread around the island. The public box was an ideal location for a 220 foot

[0:49:22] Voice 6: cardina which served the island for decades. The occasional southwest gale force wind didn't have

[0:49:29] Voice 6: any effect on it. Today, the southwest gales that blow into False Bay are the same, but it is not

[0:49:36] Voice 6: ideal for mooring small boats. You can get waves coming in there four feet high. This year, I've

[0:49:43] Voice 6: been in there when it's been blowing 40 and gusting 50 straight into False Bay. Scotty Bay has been

[0:49:51] Voice 6: proposed as the best location for a public dock. However, the only public access is prohibitively

[0:49:58] Voice 6: steep and ends on a drying mud flat, and there is no place to park a car there. The Speedy's got a

[0:50:07] Voice 6: five-day-a-week passenger-only ferry, and one day it may be inadequate if the population continues

[0:50:13] Voice 6: to grow. Will we need a bigger ferry, and where can it tie up? Private docks, of course, are a

[0:50:22] Voice 6: great convenience to the owner of one. It alleviates the necessity of packing freight

[0:50:28] Voice 6: and groceries on and off an overcrowded ferry and you can work on your own time we live in a fool's

[0:50:36] Voice 6: paradise nothing ever happens here nevertheless the regional district is obliged to outline

[0:50:42] Voice 6: evacuation routes in the event of some calamity the current plan is that everybody get in their

[0:50:48] Voice 6: car and drive to false bay and try and get on the ferry that's not going to happen um if the island

[0:50:55] Voice 6: had to be evacuated due to a wildfire? It's unlikely, but possible. What happens if you

[0:51:01] Voice 6: had a car fire area on the dock? And what if there was a qualicum blowing at the time?

[0:51:07] Voice 6: Additional points of departure, such as private docks, would assess this, would help this.

[0:51:16] Voice 6: We don't believe that private docks, given the very few locations where they could be

[0:51:22] Voice 6: constructed as ever are much of a threat to the environment nor will they involve any problems

[0:51:28] Voice 6: proposed by growth solve any problems proposed by growth there's no logic to prohibit them and

[0:51:35] Voice 6: some advantage to the community consequently we would ask the changes to bylaws 4.13b

[0:51:42] Voice 6: and 4.15 be undertaken and i believe on 4.13b if you took out and and put in also

[0:51:51] Voice 6: that would change the bylaw to allow it um and the one thing that um fisheries biologists say

[0:52:02] Voice 6: is that floats are great places for immature fish to hide from above they like them and on that note

[0:52:12] Voice 6: I don't know. I'm open to any questions about sighting. I've lived here for over 70 years. I know the area, the island extremely well. And I'm a mariner. I work on the water. I live on the water. I know the place.

[0:52:31] Voice 6: the majority of people on this island don't have boats and they are totally dependent on the ferry

[0:52:37] Voice 6: totally dependent on the ferry and if there was a need for people to move it would be the private

[0:52:46] Voice 6: boats that got people off the place not the ferry and i uh i'm done for that if anyone wants to

[0:52:57] Voice 6: um ask me any questions fly at it thank

[0:53:03] Voice 15: you mr darwin that was an excellent presentation and i

[0:53:06] Voice 15: appreciate the thought and the local knowledge that you provide to the topic it's very uh relevant

[0:53:14] Voice 15: uh trustee peterson thank

[0:53:19] Voice 3: you chair um thank you carl uh and i also want to thank you for

[0:53:24] Voice 3: for bringing this to us before we've completed

[0:53:27] Voice 3: the OCP and LUB process because it's much better

[0:53:31] Voice 3: for us to have these discussions

[0:53:32] Voice 3: before we've made a bunch of decisions.

[0:53:34] Voice 3: I just want to note very briefly,

[0:53:38] Voice 3: the LCA conducted I think 18 public engagement sessions

[0:53:44] Voice 3: to prepare their report to the local trust committee

[0:53:48] Voice 3: on the OCP and I didn't see any suggestions

[0:53:51] Voice 3: to change any of the dock policies.

[0:53:54] Voice 3: However, that doesn't mean we can't consider it.

[0:53:59] Voice 3: I don't have the information in front of me,

[0:54:02] Voice 3: but I am curious of the locations that you've identified.

[0:54:06] Voice 3: I think it was nine locations.

[0:54:08] Voice 3: What I'm unclear about is how many lots

[0:54:11] Voice 3: would be adjacent to those bays

[0:54:12] Voice 3: and which of them would have a public access to the water

[0:54:17] Voice 3: that might be appropriate

[0:54:18] Voice 3: appropriate for uh potential of a public or community doc as is supported in the current

[0:54:26] Voice 3: version of the OCP and then the final would be whether um whether yourself that won't ask you

[0:54:35] Voice 3: to speak for for Lyra because that's an off-the-cuff question but well I'm wondering whether what do

[0:54:40] Voice 3: you think the support would be around um around a project to try and establish uh a public or

[0:54:49] Voice 3: community dock at at one or more of those locations that you've identified that would have

[0:54:55] Voice 3: uh that do have uh public access to the water okay

[0:55:00] Voice 6: um the majority of them that have

[0:55:04] Voice 6: have a public access are untenable for a for an adequate dock that would be say on a par with

[0:55:14] Voice 6: false bank where you could have a you know a multi-purpose dock this is one of the reasons

[0:55:21] Voice 6: why the rate payers have been have this court case in tucker bay because it was the first

[0:55:28] Voice 6: government dock on Luskete. And it was there up until, well, the dock was taken out in the 40s

[0:55:37] Voice 6: and the float disappeared in the 50s. You mentioned when they were doing the OCP that

[0:55:48] Voice 6: that nothing was said on the changes

[0:55:52] Voice 6: for the docks and floats in the OCP.

[0:55:57] Voice 6: That's funny because I was pushing for the OCP overhaul

[0:56:01] Voice 6: and I wanted it to get it done here.

[0:56:03] Voice 6: And like I said, I'm a mariner.

[0:56:07] Voice 6: I took a job, I was gone for four months.

[0:56:10] Voice 6: When I came back, the group had just breezed right over

[0:56:15] Voice 6: and through that whole thing on the marine zoning.

[0:56:18] Voice 6: and hadn't changed a word, because none of them have vote. I was the only person on that committee,

[0:56:27] Voice 6: I believe, that was familiar with and used vote, which this island is totally dependent on.

[0:56:34] Voice 6: So if there's something on this coming up, yes, help me in, you know, to speak to it.

[0:56:43] Voice 6: Now, as far as bays on the south side of the island, I mean, if there's a dock in the entrance of the lagoon that services the strata tidal that's landlocked out there, and if you come down around the south side of the bay facing Parksville, the next protected place that you could put a place in, Jenkins Bay is open to a qualicum.

[0:57:09] Voice 6: There's a breakwater at the end of the public road in Richardson Bay that's silted up. That was built

[0:57:23] Voice 6: by a guy named Butler many years ago. It used to have a dock there and it's surrounded by the

[0:57:33] Voice 6: the private land, the Three Coat subdivision.

[0:57:36] Voice 6: In Bavyard Bay, Alistair Gordon has a,

[0:57:45] Voice 6: his lot has a site that could have a dock,

[0:57:50] Voice 6: but again, it's private, totally private.

[0:57:55] Voice 6: Boat Cove's wide open to a southeast.

[0:57:59] Voice 6: Where I am is wide open to a southeast,

[0:58:01] Voice 6: east uh where joseph uh um driftwood bay there that's open to a southeast uh squiddy bay has a

[0:58:12] Voice 6: dock that's small it could do some dredging and the dock could be expanded because that was a

[0:58:19] Voice 6: dredged as far as i know in 1938 when that went in um roast bay is completely private

[0:58:28] Voice 6: private and it's steep too and it would not you know it just it's not an option um anderson bay

[0:58:37] Voice 6: is private boho bay is landlocked uh long bay sir i'm

[0:58:43] Voice 6: i'm

[0:58:44] Voice 15: gonna have to stop you yeah it's not

[0:58:46] Voice 15: gonna be um i don't think it'll be helpful to go through all the bays but i think the question was

[0:58:51] Voice 15: more are you willing to be part of the community input process um as we go through our ocp review

[0:58:58] Voice 15: you and it sounds like you are um actively engaged and and have the knowledge so yeah

[0:59:05] Voice 6: trustee peterson i'm sorry to cut you off okay no i'm usually yep

[0:59:10] Voice 15: uh trustee peterson did you

[0:59:12] Voice 15: have something else you wanted to ask uh

[0:59:15] Voice 3: yeah i just wanted to to thank carl and um and i think

[0:59:20] Voice 3: that um there's maybe some more discussion to be had but uh probably not today but carl i'd be i'd

[0:59:28] Voice 3: be really interested in having a chat with you and uh maybe a look at some maps and um and and

[0:59:35] Voice 3: by all means when we're when we're as we're advancing the ocp um and the land use bylaw

[0:59:40] Voice 3: review projects by all means come back and tell us more okay

[0:59:45] Voice 8: excellent trustee laroni did you have

[0:59:52] Voice 13: something to weigh in here i just wanted to quickly thank carl for that really thorough assessment

[1:00:00] Voice 13: obviously spent a lot of time on it and as a mariner as well I really appreciate yeah just how

[1:00:06] Voice 13: he's really provided a very well

[1:00:09] Voice 14: -rounded presentation indeed

[1:00:16] Voice 15: it was very thoughtful and

[1:00:17] Voice 15: I do think that local knowledge is key to developing an OCP plan that will serve your

[1:00:25] Voice 15: community now and into the future so thank you so much for your submission and your comments

[1:00:32] Voice 15: and we look forward to hearing from you again okay

[1:00:39] Voice 14: okay

[1:00:43] Voice 15: move into get back to

[1:00:50] Voice 15: the agenda thank you okay so we were approving minutes and I'll note there's

[1:00:58] Voice 15: as always the resolutions without meeting report and there was no

[1:01:02] Voice 15: advisory planning commission meeting minutes and so we'll just look at our follow-up action list

[1:01:07] Voice 15: that's on pages 13. i had a couple of questions but uh trustees is there anything you wanted to ask

[1:01:15] Voice 15: the planner on the follow-up action list okay um just for my own information as i'm learning about

[1:01:26] Voice 15: this community page 13 the interim ocp referral status update to first nations with interest in

[1:01:34] Voice 15: the Liskety LTA, does that mean all the nations who have territorial areas within this LTA

[1:01:44] Voice 15: or First Nations that have expressed interest in our OCP project?

[1:01:53] Voice 5: That was to all First Nations that have an interest in this area.

[1:01:59] Voice 15: Okay.

[1:01:59] Voice 15: Not

[1:02:00] Voice 5: limited to those that have expressed an interest

[1:02:03] Voice 8: in LCP.

[1:02:05] Voice 8: Great.

[1:02:06] Voice 8: um so

[1:02:10] Voice 15: yes just to clarify this uh page 14 the policy or requirements for identifying members

[1:02:18] Voice 15: of the media um

[1:02:20] Voice 8: it is a bit confusing but media is not i

[1:02:29] Voice 15: guess the position of this ltc and the

[1:02:32] Voice 15: islands trust is that media does not need to have certain qualifications and it's probably best just

[1:02:40] Voice 15: just not to identify whether it was media present or not.

[1:02:44] Voice 15: Is that,

[1:02:45] Voice 15: because this has been a bit of a confusing piece of business.

[1:02:51] Voice 15: Catherine Vogt,

[1:02:52] Voice 15: I don't know if you're able to weigh in on this or Tim or Stephen.

[1:02:58] Voice 5: I see Trustee Peterson has his hand up and I can speak after.

[1:03:02] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:03:04] Voice 3: I had a question about the referrals.

[1:03:08] Voice 3: So if I

[1:03:10] Voice 8: can wait and come back to that.

[1:03:13] Voice 8: mm-hmm with regards to the the meeting minutes um to the sheriff um there's

[1:03:25] Voice 5: a template that's

[1:03:27] Voice 5: used and i think that the template have included a section to identify media representatives

[1:03:32] Voice 5: and the note in here is to say that that's actually not necessary we don't other local

[1:03:37] Voice 5: trust areas i think aren't haven't been doing that from my understanding and so uh just going

[1:03:43] Voice 5: going to update that template so that it just avoids that confusion in the future right so

[1:03:50] Voice 15: because we don't want to be in the business of affirming or denying people's media accreditations

[1:03:58] Voice 15: let's say and so just not including whether there was media present or not um would follow other

[1:04:06] Voice 15: local trust areas is everyone in agreement with that okay great thanks for the clarity

[1:04:15] Voice 15: trustee peterson uh

[1:04:19] Voice 16: thank you chair yeah so on um

[1:04:22] Voice 3: on the uh uh interim ocp referral status

[1:04:28] Voice 3: update uh it's listed as completed and and uh my question is is that the referrals have gone out or

[1:04:35] Voice 3: that we've um that the window is closed and there's been responses or not responses just

[1:04:42] Voice 3: uh just that question can

[1:04:47] Voice 8: you uh to

[1:04:49] Voice 5: the chair are you able to just point out which which uh

[1:04:52] Voice 5: fuel item that that is i just want to find it here so i can make sure i answer

[1:04:57] Voice 5: correctly here is

[1:04:58] Voice 8: that is that the 8th of may number one yes

[1:05:04] Voice 16: that's correct okay

[1:05:06] Voice 8: yes that was

[1:05:07] Voice 5: just a a letter that was sent out to first nations with an interest in the lesquite local trust area

[1:05:13] Voice 5: area to inform them of the OCP project and see if they had an interest in providing feedback

[1:05:23] Voice 8: or anything so that was completed that was

[1:05:29] Voice 5: sent out along with the I think there was more than

[1:05:33] Voice 5: just that one thing in the letters but there was letters sent out I think a couple months ago

[1:05:38] Voice 5: to all the First Nations in the in the trust area generally and and for the ones that were

[1:05:45] Voice 5: or First Nations with an interest

[1:05:46] Voice 5: in the Leskewiki local trust area,

[1:05:48] Voice 5: there was

[1:05:48] Voice 8: a section included on the Leskewiki OCP project.

[1:05:53] Voice 16: Great,

[1:05:54] Voice 3: okay, thank you for that.

[1:05:55] Voice 3: And then my other question is item one on the next page,

[1:06:01] Voice 3: the July 26th item,

[1:06:04] Voice 3: the high-level technical analysis and latest draft.

[1:06:07] Voice 3: And is that what we're looking at today,

[1:06:10] Voice 3: or is that, that's actually,

[1:06:13] Voice 3: I don't believe it is what we're looking at today.

[1:06:15] Voice 3: that's going to be coming to us later is that correct uh

[1:06:17] Voice 5: to the chair that is that is the

[1:06:19] Voice 8: report that you have on your attendance date okay thank you any more questions on the follow-up

[1:06:36] Voice 8: action list folks

[1:06:38] Voice 15: okay um i'm going to recommend that we move to director fall if that's is that

[1:06:46] Voice 15: okay with everybody because i know his time is limited um and we wanted to hear his report which

[1:06:54] Voice 15: is always interesting is that okay with everybody all right director fall you're on scene thank you

[1:07:02] Voice 15: for taking

[1:07:02] Voice 9: time out thank you for accommodating i just got off my heather meeting and now i

[1:07:06] Voice 9: dive back in in a while to my third meeting of the day so i'll try to put in a bit of words so

[1:07:12] Voice 10: and i'll catch up on this meeting on the video uh i just really have two things to report on uh

[1:07:17] Voice 10: that may be relevant at this time um and impacting island's trust processes one is the the uh

[1:07:25] Voice 10: QRD is going to be developing has embarked on developing an update to its regional community

[1:07:30] Voice 10: wildfire resiliency plan and so they've contracted out a company called Frontiera Forest Solutions

[1:07:36] Voice 10: and they'll work to update this resiliency plan and there will be some community engagement with

[1:07:43] Voice 10: that and then some maps on where there will be you know where there will be risks and some proposed

[1:07:49] Voice 10: mitigations so it's about trying to improve our ability you know risk fire risk wildfire risk

[1:07:55] Voice 10: in the community so i think that may there may be some follow-on implications for

[1:08:00] Voice 10: land use or at least property owners but there may be some other uh other issues depending on

[1:08:05] Voice 10: what comes out of it um in relation to crown land and wild general wildland urban interface areas

[1:08:10] Voice 10: and a lot of liskiti islands actually considered wildland urban interface which is defined as

[1:08:16] Voice 10: anywhere with combustible forced fuel fuel adjacent to homes structures and other buildings so

[1:08:22] Voice 10: So because Liskiti is so distributed with, you know, in this rural pattern, a lot of the island, approximately half of it would be considered a wildland urban interface.

[1:08:33] Voice 10: So it's fairly high risk.

[1:08:35] Voice 10: So I think there will be some products coming out of that.

[1:08:38] Voice 10: And maybe when it's done, hopefully the many mapping products will be shared.

[1:08:43] Voice 10: So the Honest Trust can include that.

[1:08:46] Voice 10: The second thing I wanted to report.

[1:08:48] Voice 10: Sorry,

[1:08:48] Voice 15: just before you move on, what is the timing of that community wildfire resiliency plan and engagement?

[1:08:56] Voice 10: Oh, so I guess, actually, I don't have the dates exactly.

[1:08:59] Voice 10: I mean, we have a grant.

[1:09:02] Voice 10: Partly it's funded by grants.

[1:09:03] Voice 10: It's going to be over the whole QRD.

[1:09:05] Voice 10: So I expect sometime in the spring there will be community engagement and hopefully we'll have the report.

[1:09:11] Voice 10: report i'd be i'm hoping it'd be before summer that we get a report so that it's useful for the

[1:09:16] Voice 10: next summer because uh every summer you dive in and then you just kind of hold on until the rains

[1:09:22] Voice 10: come um but i'll try to get an update on that on my next round as it goes forward the second item

[1:09:28] Voice 10: is really uh more provincial in nature i i they're they're the honest trust is likely aware of these

[1:09:34] Voice 10: uh recent uh significant housing bills and and accommodation bills the province has enacted

[1:09:40] Voice 10: Act, and in particular Bills 44 and 45. I attended a UBCM seminar on Bill 45, which is about

[1:09:51] Voice 10: encampments and the need, you know, the new requirement that if there's an encampment that

[1:09:56] Voice 10: a local government wants to move, there has to be sufficient housing to accommodate those people,

[1:10:02] Voice 10: which is good in intent, but actually has a number of concerns about it, in particular that

[1:10:07] Voice 10: that no community in BC has sufficient housing

[1:10:09] Voice 10: and it's not even clear

[1:10:10] Voice 10: what sufficient adequate housing means.

[1:10:12] Voice 10: But the other bill, which maybe has more of an implication

[1:10:15] Voice 10: for Leskete's Bill 44, and so there's,

[1:10:18] Voice 10: I guess I just wanted to raise that to your attention.

[1:10:22] Voice 10: I think in the regional district as a whole elsewhere

[1:10:25] Voice 10: where we do planning, there will be some implications

[1:10:29] Voice 10: and Bill 44 is about increasing the ability to create

[1:10:36] Voice 10: and for development of new housing so it's about increasing housing supply and it does that

[1:10:43] Voice 10: primarily by either requiring local governments to do things they haven't been required to do or

[1:10:48] Voice 10: taking away some authority of local governments to do things that they have had authorities to do so

[1:10:55] Voice 10: I generally it's meant for municipalities and more urban areas but there are some implications

[1:11:00] Voice 10: for rural areas.

[1:11:01] Voice 10: And on Laskete Island, it may have some implications

[1:11:04] Voice 10: in relation to secondary housing in the cabin.

[1:11:09] Voice 10: So there may be some implications related to the OCP.

[1:11:12] Voice 10: So I just like to raise that because I think as the OCP

[1:11:15] Voice 10: has gone through its long process,

[1:11:19] Voice 10: it may be that the implications of Bill 44

[1:11:23] Voice 10: in relation to housing on Laskete and our OCP

[1:11:28] Voice 10: may require some changes.

[1:11:30] Voice 10: and maybe something that can be rolled in.

[1:11:33] Voice 10: So, you know, I don't want to dive into the details too much.

[1:11:36] Voice 10: I've read through the bills in detail and tried to understand how it affects

[1:11:43] Voice 10: Liskete Island and other rural areas.

[1:11:46] Voice 10: But, you know, I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding, I think, is pretty good.

[1:11:50] Voice 10: But I just encourage, you know, maybe some legal advice or understanding of what those are.

[1:11:55] Voice 10: And I think the province has more or less heard from UBCM on these,

[1:11:59] Voice 10: these because there's been a lot of feedback from the local governments and in particular that there

[1:12:05] Voice 10: was no inter no no engagement with local governments on these before they got passed so

[1:12:10] Voice 10: that's one of the big concerns that they didn't involve local government to understand so i think

[1:12:15] Voice 10: getting a handle on what it means is going to be important for the animals trust in general i know

[1:12:20] Voice 10: in the regional rest of the regional district that certainly caused a lot of concern and there

[1:12:24] Voice 10: will be a lot of discussion about that and I expect it'll come up at AVICC and UBCM as well

[1:12:30] Voice 10: and that's about it for now thank you thank

[1:12:34] Voice 15: you director fall yes I think we were just advised

[1:12:39] Voice 15: by staff that the ministry of housing has released sort of a primer and some manuals

[1:12:48] Voice 15: to walk people through the legislation and to my understanding so far the

[1:12:54] Voice 15: on the trust areas are not included in basically anything except for the requirement to waive

[1:13:04] Voice 15: public hearings if there's a rezoning that will result in residential development. So

[1:13:12] Voice 15: there's a bigger question of do we want to advocate to be included to local trust area?

[1:13:19] Voice 15: Does each LTC want to opt in to some of the legislation?

[1:13:26] Voice 15: And that's the conversation that we definitely should be having.

[1:13:32] Voice 15: But yeah, it is challenging because most of the directives seem to be towards urban areas and municipalities with lots of transit.

[1:13:43] Voice 15: it because it looks like the province is trying to boost the housing supply where it's going to be

[1:13:48] Voice 15: most, well, obvious, I guess. And so, our OCP review is going to tease out, I think, some of

[1:13:59] Voice 15: those implications and consider the question of whether we are ready to address the housing needs

[1:14:07] Voice 15: uh of this community going into the future um so yeah your points are well taken that

[1:14:13] Voice 15: provincial legislation seems to be leaving us behind and it's going to be up to this community

[1:14:18] Voice 15: whether we want to opt in and take action or not so well

[1:14:26] Voice 10: and also if i might these these two bills

[1:14:29] Voice 10: are sweeping and they were done fairly quickly so i think that's the general sense from ubcm

[1:14:36] Voice 10: is that they would have been better if they'd gone a little bit slower and taken time to get

[1:14:41] Voice 10: some feedback but the province wanted to get something in place that's their prerogative but

[1:14:46] Voice 10: i think there's a number of um you know uncertain areas of how they apply and i think it's going to

[1:14:53] Voice 10: be take a little bit of time to figure out because there's things like the housing needs reports

[1:14:58] Voice 10: which now must be considered so the the local government must consider the most recent housing

[1:15:03] Voice 10: needs report these these public hearing uh restrictions and uh and and yeah a lot of them

[1:15:10] Voice 10: don't apply but there may be other ones that do and they're you know looking at where exactly

[1:15:14] Voice 10: because they're they're complicated so yeah

[1:15:18] Voice 8: indeed okay any questions for director fall

[1:15:26] Voice 8: comments

[1:15:28] Voice 15: right well thank you so much for taking time out for your busy day to uh advise us of

[1:15:34] Voice 15: those two important developments and we'll look forward to seeing the community wildfire reduction

[1:15:40] Voice 15: project rolling out i think it's very important and um oh yeah trustee peterson

[1:15:48] Voice 3: yeah i just want to take the opportunity to thank director fall for um coming and speaking at our

[1:15:55] Voice 3: lgc meetings it's great for us as trustees to have the opportunity to hear what's going on at the

[1:16:00] Voice 3: regional district and and good for the public too so

[1:16:02] Voice 8: most appreciate it yes thank you you're

[1:16:09] Voice 8: welcome i will let you get on with your

[1:16:11] Voice 9: meeting thanks for allowing me to speak

[1:16:12] Voice 15: excellent okay

[1:16:15] Voice 15: so we are going to move into our two projects on the books um it was noted at uh trust council that

[1:16:28] Voice 15: we're not supposed to have more than one minor project each ltc uh but the media procedures

[1:16:34] Voice 15: procedures bylaw with sort of a legacy or sorry the OCP review is a legacy project from before

[1:16:42] Voice 15: and we're just wrapping up the LISC-ED meeting procedures bylaw to adopt so I'll let you take

[1:16:50] Voice 15: it over planner Baugh if you would pages 16 in the agenda and yeah we'll try to wrap this up by 1250

[1:16:59] Voice 15: to be able to take a break.

[1:17:03] Voice 5: I can introduce

[1:17:04] Voice 5: the Listing Meeting Procedures

[1:17:06] Voice 5: By-law, which is on your agenda

[1:17:08] Voice 5: for consideration of adoption.

[1:17:11] Voice 5: And this was because

[1:17:12] Voice 5: at your last LTC

[1:17:14] Voice 5: meeting,

[1:17:16] Voice 5: this amendment by-law, and it is

[1:17:18] Voice 5: an amendment to your existing

[1:17:20] Voice 5: meeting procedures by-law,

[1:17:22] Voice 5: was given first, second, and third reading

[1:17:24] Voice 5: and forwarded to EC for

[1:17:26] Voice 5: approval. And the Executive Committee

[1:17:28] Voice 5: approved the by-law at their

[1:17:30] Voice 5: meeting on November 22nd and so it's back on your agenda for adoption and the motion uh the

[1:17:36] Voice 5: recommended motion is on the cover agenda

[1:17:38] Voice 8: cover I think it's on page two sorry um

[1:17:55] Voice 15: switching back

[1:17:58] Voice 15: and forth I was actually looking up the um trust council agenda to be able to see that decision

[1:18:05] Voice 15: that was made to to do some work on synchronizing meeting procedures bylaws across the local trust

[1:18:12] Voice 15: areas but uh we won't get into that right now just stick to this business so would either

[1:18:21] Voice 15: trustee like to read out the resolution that we adopt this bylaw

[1:18:27] Voice 8: which is 16 i actually don't see

[1:18:39] Voice 8: um and it so do we have to read the i'm a little bit lost actually page

[1:18:51] Voice 15: two did you say

[1:18:53] Voice 8: yes the the motion is on the agenda

[1:18:55] Voice 5: gotcha the

[1:18:59] Voice 5: bylaws in there for your information as well

[1:19:01] Voice 5: thank you

[1:19:02] Voice 15: just getting caught up trustee laroni or trustee peterson do you feel comfortable

[1:19:11] Voice 15: moving the resolution to adopt the bylaws okay am

[1:19:17] Voice 13: i on i'm on the it's on page 16 right i'm on

[1:19:19] Voice 13: on the right page here page

[1:19:23] Voice 15: two it's right under um it's at the top of page two under

[1:19:27] Voice 15: 8.1 no it's okay i was a little confused as well

[1:19:33] Voice 14: okay i move that the liskety island

[1:19:39] Voice 14: local trust committee

[1:19:40] Voice 13: um approves bylaw number 102 cited as liskety island local trust committee

[1:19:48] Voice 13: committee meeting procedure bylaw 2022 amendment number one 2023 be adopted great

[1:19:58] Voice 8: trustee Peterson

[1:20:00] Voice 8: do you second uh

[1:20:03] Voice 3: I'll second uh um as as uh as printed there we didn't we didn't need the extra

[1:20:09] Voice 3: word in there but uh that's doesn't change the intent

[1:20:12] Voice 15: so any further discussion on this um no

[1:20:19] Voice 15: item no i'll call for the vote all those in

[1:20:22] Voice 16: favor i have i have further

[1:20:23] Voice 3: discussion okay

[1:20:25] Voice 15: thank you

[1:20:26] Voice 3: trustee peterson uh so just wanted to point out it was mentioned uh today in the town hall

[1:20:31] Voice 3: and i've heard from uh some members of the public around the amount of time given to um

[1:20:38] Voice 3: uh during town hall for speakers and a desire to have a perhaps a longer limit

[1:20:45] Voice 3: it um given the way that uh the chair has been conducting our meetings though however i don't

[1:20:53] Voice 3: want to hold up the adoption um of this bylaw today because i feel like the chair has been

[1:20:59] Voice 3: generous uh with with the members of the public uh in terms of uh speaking time um and i would

[1:21:07] Voice 3: also note for those members of the public that are concerned that when these type of limits are

[1:21:13] Voice 3: are most likely to be important

[1:21:16] Voice 3: is when we have a long list of speakers at town hall.

[1:21:21] Voice 3: And then in fact, allocating time is more important.

[1:21:25] Voice 3: That's certainly been my experience in chairing some islands

[1:21:29] Voice 3: where we had, you know, 40 people that wanted to speak.

[1:21:33] Voice 3: And so I'm satisfied at this point

[1:21:36] Voice 3: that the chair and the LTC

[1:21:40] Voice 3: see are um are uh willing to consider uh continue to consider to be generous with our time for the

[1:21:47] Voice 3: public and i don't want to hold up the adoption of this also as the chair noted um there is a

[1:21:53] Voice 3: there's a consideration at trust council that there might be a trust area wide meeting procedures

[1:22:01] Voice 3: bylaw which if that does happen would supersede any bylaw that we have and so it may end up being

[1:22:07] Voice 3: a moot point down the road so with that i will stop talking and uh i just wanted to note those

[1:22:13] Voice 3: items thank

[1:22:16] Voice 15: you no i mean don't stop talking i always like it when you bring the perspective

[1:22:23] Voice 15: um so i'll call for the vote all those in favor it's ai or put up your hands and that is carried

[1:22:31] Voice 15: thank you so much for this work it's very responsive to the specific needs of this

[1:22:36] Voice 15: community and um yeah we'll look forward to more work in the future as we potentially amend trust

[1:22:46] Voice 15: wide meeting procedures bylaws to make it easier keep muting myself okay and so let's move into

[1:22:56] Voice 15: 8.2 this is our do we need a five minute break or is everybody comfortable uh moving into this

[1:23:07] Voice 8: project i'd be happy to take five okay let's uh

[1:23:15] Voice 15: recess for five minutes

[1:23:16] Voice 15: and come back at 12 28 thanks

[1:23:20] Voice 8: everybody keep your

[1:30:12] Voice 8: i'm so sorry everybody i had a visitor come in

[1:30:16] Voice 15: and uh time flew all right here we are

[1:30:23] Voice 15: excellent eager to see this report and thank you so much uh planner boff for undertaking this

[1:30:30] Voice 15: significant project midstream as it were and giving us this high level

[1:30:36] Voice 15: level status update I'll turn it over to you I'll

[1:30:42] Voice 5: just highlight the kind of the main conclusions

[1:30:45] Voice 5: in this report and and I think we've left lots of time in the agenda here for discussion as well so

[1:30:51] Voice 5: um so the LTC has requested that staff report back with the high level technical analysis of

[1:30:57] Voice 5: the latest draft of the proposed the scheme the official Community Plan and the scope of potential

[1:31:04] Voice 5: So this report presents the findings of the technical analysis and notes potential land-use by-law amendments that could be initiated, which would be on a new project after the Official Community Plan is adopted.

[1:31:18] Voice 5: The technical analysis begins with an overview of the differences between the existing OCP and the proposed OCP, which is bylaw number 98,

[1:31:27] Voice 5: and then provides an analysis of the consistency of the proposed bylaw with the project charter,

[1:31:34] Voice 5: the Islands Trust Policy Statement, and with the Local Government Act.

[1:31:40] Voice 5: The technical review kind of has three main conclusions I'd say that need to be,

[1:31:45] Voice 5: should be acted on prior to the bylaw being given further readings.

[1:31:50] Voice 5: The first is that the current project charter describes a project that is larger in scope

[1:31:57] Voice 5: than a minor project um and the second is that amendments to the bylaw are required so that it

[1:32:03] Voice 5: is consistent so that it is consistent with the island's trust policy statement

[1:32:09] Voice 5: and third amendments to the bylaw are required so that it is consistent with the local government

[1:32:14] Voice 5: act and so in order to address those those things staff are recommending that the ltc approve an

[1:32:21] Voice 5: an amended project charter which narrows the scope of the project to just the proposed OCP

[1:32:27] Voice 5: and it does not contemplate significant changes to the draft bylaw beyond what's required to

[1:32:34] Voice 5: address referral responses that have already been received and to address the consistency

[1:32:40] Voice 5: with the policy statement and the local government act. Additionally staff are recommending that the

[1:32:47] Voice 5: aspects of the project charter that are removed be added to the future projects list so that

[1:32:53] Voice 5: those projects can be taken on in the future by the LTC and at that time could be kind of

[1:32:58] Voice 5: scoped into an appropriate project whether it's minor or major at that time for those other topics

[1:33:06] Voice 5: and that's recommended motions one and three and the second thing or the third thing in a way

[1:33:12] Voice 5: is that the LTC directs staff to prepare bylaw amendments

[1:33:15] Voice 5: so that the proposed bylaw meets Island's trust policy statement,

[1:33:19] Voice 5: directive policies, and to satisfy Local Government Act requirements.

[1:33:24] Voice 5: And these proposed amendments would come back to the LTC for bylaw meetings.

[1:33:30] Voice 5: So additionally, staff did note some editorial improvements

[1:33:34] Voice 5: that could be made to the bylaw.

[1:33:36] Voice 5: So they would just be minor changes to improve readability,

[1:33:39] Voice 5: correct typographical errors, and then some formatting.

[1:33:43] Voice 5: And those bylaw amendments just being made

[1:33:45] Voice 5: at the same time as the others

[1:33:46] Voice 5: and brought back to the LTC as well.

[1:33:49] Voice 5: Then the aim of the recommendations

[1:33:51] Voice 5: is to allow the project to continue

[1:33:53] Voice 5: and to keep moving forward as efficiently as possible

[1:33:56] Voice 5: so that the LTC can complete this project

[1:33:59] Voice 8: and move to their next priorities, thanks.

[1:34:08] Voice 8: Great, thank you.

[1:34:11] Voice 15: So I'll turn it over to the local trustees

[1:34:13] Voice 15: for questions or comments trustee peterson thank

[1:34:20] Voice 3: you chair um i must admit to being a little little

[1:34:24] Voice 3: flummox and and slightly frustrated here uh i've certainly made comments at previous ltc meetings

[1:34:30] Voice 3: about the um about the major project minor project and how keeping uh our ocp project a minor project

[1:34:40] Voice 3: has other than the willingness of staff,

[1:34:45] Voice 3: which I do appreciate to help us get

[1:34:47] Voice 3: the meeting procedures by-law through as a minor project.

[1:34:50] Voice 3: But of course that was noticed as the chair mentioned

[1:34:52] Voice 3: at trust council being inconsistent.

[1:34:58] Voice 3: So at this late date, the trust council budget,

[1:35:03] Voice 3: of course is already underway.

[1:35:06] Voice 3: My frustration is around my desire

[1:35:11] Voice 3: to actually just proceed with the whole scope

[1:35:14] Voice 3: that had been contemplated before.

[1:35:17] Voice 3: And if the information is that that pushes us

[1:35:19] Voice 3: into the major project realm,

[1:35:22] Voice 3: I would have been nice to have that information

[1:35:25] Voice 3: and make some determinations on that

[1:35:28] Voice 3: before the budgeting process started

[1:35:30] Voice 3: so that we could have got a business case

[1:35:31] Voice 3: out to trust council, thus my frustration.

[1:35:36] Voice 3: So, I mean, I understand I am on the Financial Planning Committee, I am on Trust Council.

[1:35:44] Voice 3: I just wonder, in terms of the budgeting process from staff's perspective, what would we be

[1:35:54] Voice 3: looking at, how significantly we would be moving into major project status if we don't

[1:36:03] Voice 3: change the scope and what are some i'd just like to get some expectations or some understanding

[1:36:09] Voice 3: around implications of that also the other issue of course is how much of this work are we likely

[1:36:16] Voice 3: to finish in this uh well there's not much left in this fiscal year we have a meeting in march and

[1:36:24] Voice 3: then we'd be moving to the next fiscal uh for the rest of the project so i'm just i'd like us if

[1:36:32] Voice 3: i'd like us to have the flexibility of having a major and minor project i think that

[1:36:36] Voice 3: that's useful when we're uh when we have um emerging issues to be able to uh to shift

[1:36:43] Voice 3: to shift uh some resources into a second project while not abandoning or pausing the ocp

[1:36:50] Voice 3: it has been paused for a significant long uh period of time and that's got its positives

[1:36:56] Voice 3: but it also has in terms of public expectations

[1:36:59] Voice 3: on how we might be advancing this important work

[1:37:03] Voice 3: for the Leskete Island Local Trust area

[1:37:05] Voice 3: and the OCP revision

[1:37:07] Voice 3: and then land use bylaw revision coming up.

[1:37:11] Voice 3: So just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on that

[1:37:14] Voice 3: they'd like to share.

[1:37:17] Voice 3: And I'm sorry for being a little frustrated here,

[1:37:21] Voice 3: but I just needed to express that.

[1:37:23] Voice 3: Good.

[1:37:25] Voice 15: If you can ask one question at a time, it might be helpful just because this is a bit of a, we asked for a high level overview. And so here's the scope of work and here's a different series of approaches. If we can discuss one of them at a time, I think it'd be helpful because I'm still getting caught up with this project as well. So back to you, Trustee Peterson.

[1:37:50] Voice 15: and okay

[1:37:53] Voice 3: so maybe i could get uh some uh staff comment if we choose to not um amend the project

[1:38:01] Voice 3: scope uh do you have an estimate of how much uh financially how much bigger the project would be

[1:38:13] Voice 3: um i know minor project cutoff is five thousand so uh i i know i don't expect you to have an exact

[1:38:21] Voice 3: figure but it you know is it possible to borrow ballpark and give us an idea if we're going to go

[1:38:26] Voice 3: to trust council and financial planning committee essentially would be a little bit late in the

[1:38:31] Voice 3: process but if we're considering that how much what's what's the financial difference that we

[1:38:38] Voice 3: would be looking at if we're going to try and pitch it to to those bodies so

[1:38:44] Voice 5: that's a good

[1:38:45] Voice 5: question um but it's difficult to answer without so there's a number of i guess a number of things

[1:38:52] Voice 5: that are in the project right now

[1:38:54] Voice 5: that haven't been completed in drafting this OCP.

[1:38:59] Voice 5: One is to update it in consistency

[1:39:02] Voice 5: in regards to consistency

[1:39:04] Voice 5: with the regional conservation plan.

[1:39:06] Voice 5: The other is to update in regards to consistency

[1:39:09] Voice 5: with the coastal Douglas fir toolkit.

[1:39:12] Voice 5: And the other is some additional topics

[1:39:15] Voice 5: that were recommended by the Liskieti Community Association

[1:39:18] Voice 5: official community plan steering committee.

[1:39:22] Voice 5: and so so each of those things may need their own plan associated with them with regards to

[1:39:30] Voice 5: how much community consultation you may want to undertake as well as the bylaw drafting and

[1:39:37] Voice 5: and essentially we would need to go back to the drafting stage of this bylaw so go back to

[1:39:45] Voice 5: pre-first reading and we would be sending out referrals again as well once we had

[1:39:51] Voice 5: had an acceptable kind of bylaw that was given a reading so budget-wise it may depend it would

[1:40:01] Voice 5: be I'm sure within the major project realm not only because of the budget but because

[1:40:07] Voice 5: the other thing contemplated in the definition of a major project is how quickly the project can

[1:40:14] Voice 5: occur if it can occur within a fiscal year and just the scope of work if it's a significant

[1:40:22] Voice 5: significant amount of work which a comprehensive review of the official community

[1:40:26] Voice 8: plan uh would

[1:40:28] Voice 8: certainly be so I guess to get a budget figure we would need a work plan right and sorry what

[1:40:43] Voice 8: you're saying is

[1:40:45] Voice 15: that the OCP draft that we're looking at does not actually contemplate some

[1:40:53] Voice 15: of the recommendations of the liskiti uh community official community plan steering committee either

[1:41:05] Voice 15: yep through

[1:41:06] Voice 5: the chair story to jump in um yeah there were some topics i think that were just

[1:41:12] Voice 5: not fully discussed at the time and so and they were just recommended as additional topics that

[1:41:19] Voice 5: that could be taken on at a later date

[1:41:21] Voice 5: by the LISC-ED

[1:41:22] Voice 8: OCP Steering Committee.

[1:41:27] Voice 15: Okay,

[1:41:28] Voice 16: Trustee Peterson.

[1:41:30] Voice 16: Yeah, so I'm just thinking about

[1:41:32] Voice 3: this a little bit more.

[1:41:34] Voice 3: I'm just wondering sort of,

[1:41:38] Voice 3: if we're looking at the financial end of things

[1:41:40] Voice 3: and efficiency with both the finances and the workflow,

[1:41:47] Voice 3: what I'd hate to see us do is do a little section,

[1:41:51] Voice 3: go through the community information meeting,

[1:41:55] Voice 3: public hearing process,

[1:41:56] Voice 3: then do another section and do the same thing.

[1:42:00] Voice 3: If there's a way that we can work through

[1:42:03] Voice 3: all of these items

[1:42:09] Voice 3: without sort of duplicating

[1:42:10] Voice 3: those relatively cost intensive

[1:42:16] Voice 3: intensive um uh public participation engagement uh items like like can we can we I don't know

[1:42:30] Voice 3: maybe it's a matter of doing phases going back to sort of a phase thing and we could do a phase one

[1:42:34] Voice 3: with a a the reduced part project charter um that's being uh recommended here uh with the

[1:42:42] Voice 3: understanding that in phase two we'll get to these other items and um and then sort of when we have

[1:42:51] Voice 3: when we've gone through this whole the whole list of because these are all important things there's

[1:42:56] Voice 3: none of them that i think are appropriate really to put off for five or more years i know in terms

[1:43:02] Voice 3: of the resourcing um once we sort of finish a ocp review it may be some time before we we get back

[1:43:10] Voice 3: into another one so i'm just trying to think of a a efficient way for us to set out the remainder

[1:43:17] Voice 3: of the work in sort of a sequential fashion that brings us um at the end of this project to having

[1:43:24] Voice 3: dealt with all of these items and then um having a you know a consolidated version that's ready to

[1:43:31] Voice 3: to go out for public

[1:43:33] Voice 8: hearing, et cetera.

[1:43:42] Voice 8: Yeah, Planner Bog, go ahead.

[1:43:45] Voice 8: So through the chair,

[1:43:47] Voice 5: that's I think the intent of the recommendations

[1:43:51] Voice 5: in a way is to do that.

[1:43:53] Voice 5: It is to, it does narrow the scope of this project

[1:43:58] Voice 5: to not include the land use by-law review,

[1:44:02] Voice 5: the OCP update with regards to those,

[1:44:05] Voice 5: the tool kits and the conservation plan

[1:44:08] Voice 5: and the additional topics.

[1:44:10] Voice 5: But the other part of the recommendation is to add those to your future projects list.

[1:44:16] Voice 5: And so the intent is that then when this project is completed, the LTC could look at those things on their future projects list.

[1:44:27] Voice 5: They would still be tracked and would be there and could then decide on a direction forward if it's whatever the project might be at that point.

[1:44:36] Voice 5: And at that point, there'd be a chance to scope it out and create a good

[1:44:40] Voice 8: work plan to go forwards with. And that would hopefully line up better with the budgeting

[1:44:52] Voice 5: cycles as well, if that was.

[1:44:55] Voice 5: So

[1:44:55] Voice 15: there's two other factors that I don't know if we've explored before we talk about work plan and future scoping, and it's that housing was not addressed in this current OCP review, and also the amendment to the trust policy statement, which would be coming out in two or three years, let's say, all things going well, would require another OCP amendment in any case.

[1:45:26] Voice 15: um so even if we so if we choose not to do the update or continue the path with a reduced scope

[1:45:35] Voice 15: and do the update now and look at instead the larger project with the original scope plus

[1:45:41] Voice 15: potentially housing amendments plus the anticipated um amendments required by the

[1:45:50] Voice 15: the to get to become conforming with the ITPS policy statement we're looking at a much larger

[1:45:58] Voice 15: project I think in four or five years so I just wanted to put that out there as we consider this

[1:46:06] Voice 15: I and what I would like to make sure that we don't lose the community input

[1:46:15] Voice 15: input uh and the work that's gone into this document to date um so that was those are my

[1:46:22] Voice 15: thoughts but trustee peterson did you want to jump back in here

[1:46:26] Voice 3: yeah thank you so um the other

[1:46:30] Voice 3: issue is that uh of course uh trustees we have seen uh versions i think it's 2.4 and 2.1 which

[1:46:39] Voice 3: which contained a lot of the language out of the previous LTC's work

[1:46:47] Voice 3: and decision-making, and I have been getting some questions

[1:46:51] Voice 3: from constituents about where we're at in terms of public facing.

[1:46:56] Voice 3: I realize we haven't given any readings to either of those versions,

[1:47:00] Voice 3: and so the difficulty is that what tends to happen is people are going,

[1:47:07] Voice 3: looking at the the version that we gave second reading to before amending and and asking where

[1:47:14] Voice 3: those revisions disappear to so that that's uh one item and then of course the uh the policy

[1:47:24] Voice 3: statement is coming and there's also going to be uh the province is going to be mandating that we

[1:47:30] Voice 3: do a housing needs assessment and how that might affect the um progress of our work as uh i mean

[1:47:40] Voice 3: it's it's not it's not optional but i'm just you know it's back to how how are we uh managing to

[1:47:47] Voice 3: proceed with with the work that um that the local trust committee wants to do and and there's

[1:47:54] Voice 3: expectations in the community we've we have uh the project has been delayed because of our desire to

[1:48:01] Voice 3: to uh meet with us none of us and i'm very happy that's going to be happening um i just i really

[1:48:10] Voice 3: want us to be able to complete um most of this work notwithstanding what might come out of the

[1:48:19] Voice 3: policy statement etc uh in this term so i'm just i'm feeling a little concerned and

[1:48:24] Voice 3: and narrowing the scope feels to me like we might be pushing this work off for uh

[1:48:33] Voice 3: another ltc to do some of i'm just i'm a little frustrated i'll

[1:48:42] Voice 16: just add one more thing which is

[1:48:43] Voice 16: that um at this moment um i

[1:48:51] Voice 3: can see how the land use bylaw review is a a fairly large component

[1:48:58] Voice 3: And so I guess I would be more comfortable retaining the item C in the recommendations

[1:49:07] Voice 3: here, the official community plan and or land use by-law subdivision regulations related

[1:49:11] Voice 3: to lot size proof of water and public access to the shoreline.

[1:49:16] Voice 3: I would like to retain that item in a project charter that we approved today.

[1:49:21] Voice 3: day. I feel a little less time constraint. Obviously, as I said, the land use bylaw review

[1:49:30] Voice 3: is a big item. And so I'm just wondering if maybe it's a question to staff, if we retain item C

[1:49:37] Voice 3: and put item A and B on the future projects list, do you think we can still achieve minor project

[1:49:43] Voice 3: status?

[1:49:49] Voice 8: I'm just going to look at which is item C.

[1:49:53] Voice 15: Can you repeat the question? So C is the

[1:49:57] Voice 15: the ocp subdivision

[1:50:00] Voice 3: in the recommendations yeah because i i

[1:50:04] Voice 3: don't want to i don't want us to move

[1:50:06] Voice 3: off of lot size proof of water and public access to the foreshore at at this stage i i i i feel

[1:50:14] Voice 3: like there'll be a lot of public pushback uh i i feel like it's it's really tied up with what we

[1:50:20] Voice 3: we're doing and i really don't want that part to get pushed off to the future projects list i can

[1:50:25] Voice 3: live with the the other two a a and b going under the project list but i really i really don't want

[1:50:32] Voice 3: to see c go on to the projects the future projects list at this point so my question was whether

[1:50:37] Voice 3: if we this is just thinking out loud and considering here but do you think it's possible

[1:50:43] Voice 3: if we retain only c and and put a and b onto the future projects list would we still maybe be able

[1:50:50] Voice 3: to be in the minor project realm through the chair

[1:50:58] Voice 5: the so i would understand that to be just the ocp

[1:51:01] Voice 5: subdivision regulations not the land use bylaw um

[1:51:07] Voice 8: parts i think what

[1:51:11] Voice 5: i would suggest is that you

[1:51:13] Voice 5: ask me to report back on that because i think again it's it's going to be something where we

[1:51:19] Voice 5: need to have a scope as to uh in a work plan as to you know what are those regulations going to

[1:51:26] Voice 5: to look like? What is it that the community is hoping to see? And I think likely it would

[1:51:33] Voice 5: push this into a major project. Speaking with RP and Jamrat, it seems as if adding almost

[1:51:42] Voice 5: anything to the narrowed scope would push this into a major project.

[1:51:51] Voice 8: But I could report

[1:51:52] Voice 8: back and just give further detail or clarity about it.

[1:52:00] Voice 8: in particular if there's a specific um request

[1:52:04] Voice 5: to add if you have any more

[1:52:07] Voice 5: specific direction about those

[1:52:10] Voice 8: topics might help as well yeah

[1:52:16] Voice 3: so i think the the the lot size is is

[1:52:20] Voice 3: fairly simple that's that's just a change of the number to reflect 10 acres uh with a decimal

[1:52:29] Voice 3: small point so i think that one's fairly basic the the public access to the foreshore is in my

[1:52:40] Voice 3: understanding and please correct me if i'm wrong but that's simply just codifying in our in our

[1:52:46] Voice 3: ocp and then eventually in the land use bylaw that when subdivision happens that in fact the

[1:52:52] Voice 3: community does want um public accesses to the foreshore at time of subdivision and then the

[1:52:59] Voice 3: proof of the proof of water at time of subdivision i think is is the one that we would need reporting

[1:53:04] Voice 3: and i would assume that would be uh mr shulba the freshwater specialist who'd be

[1:53:10] Voice 3: um helping assisting us with that part so i don't know that's the one i would say i i know the least

[1:53:16] Voice 3: about the scope of um uh and i could be wrong about that the the public access to the foreshore

[1:53:23] Voice 3: or at time of subdivision.

[1:53:25] Voice 3: But I mean, I can't say that I completely understand

[1:53:32] Voice 3: your work Planner Baugh, but it's one of these things

[1:53:36] Voice 3: where it seems like a fairly simple thing

[1:53:39] Voice 3: to write into our bylaws.

[1:53:42] Voice 3: But I do understand that the proof of water

[1:53:44] Voice 3: may be more significant.

[1:53:50] Voice 8: Through the chair, the

[1:53:55] Voice 5: bylaw drafting can be done often

[1:53:58] Voice 5: then it can be done fairly quickly.

[1:54:02] Voice 5: It's a matter sometimes of ensuring

[1:54:06] Voice 5: that that actually reflects what's desired by the trustees.

[1:54:12] Voice 5: Sometimes that might include additional consultation

[1:54:15] Voice 5: with the community or with First Nations or other agencies.

[1:54:22] Voice 5: And so that's where, if it's a really clear request

[1:54:29] Voice 5: request of this specific thing, and a good example is the lot size of changing that from,

[1:54:36] Voice 5: I think, whatever it was, four hectares to 4.04 hectares or something, is fairly simple.

[1:54:43] Voice 5: And I think I did retain that in the narrowed scope project charter as well because it is

[1:54:52] Voice 5: is a fairly easy fix.

[1:54:56] Voice 5: But the other pieces are less obvious

[1:55:01] Voice 5: as to what specific regulations

[1:55:03] Voice 5: or what specific, yeah,

[1:55:10] Voice 5: regulations we could put in place.

[1:55:12] Voice 5: Some of those potentially, at least,

[1:55:15] Voice 5: could be land use bylaw amendments as well.

[1:55:19] Voice 5: Thinking of your subdivision regulations,

[1:55:21] Voice 5: as long as the OCP had,

[1:55:23] Voice 5: you know

[1:55:24] Voice 8: was not in conflict with that in any way trustee peterson yeah

[1:55:36] Voice 3: sorry to be hogging up the

[1:55:37] Voice 3: conversation here oh it's great

[1:55:39] Voice 15: you've got the most

[1:55:40] Voice 3: experience with this so i

[1:55:42] Voice 15: mean i just i just

[1:55:43] Voice 3: really want us to to find a way forward that makes uh that makes sense and and is is efficient in

[1:55:50] Voice 3: terms of um time and finance as possible so that's really where i'm trying to come from here

[1:55:58] Voice 3: I want us to I want us to proceed I I guess at this point I'm a little bit torn whether

[1:56:05] Voice 3: whether my preferred way forward is just you know essentially putting a business case a late

[1:56:15] Voice 3: business case before a financial planning committee and and trust council and saying

[1:56:19] Voice 3: let's just do this and get it done or or whether it's whether it's the recommendations here I'm a

[1:56:26] Voice 3: a bit torn i would hear if anyone else has thoughts on on

[1:56:31] Voice 8: that dilemma well let's walk

[1:56:38] Voice 8: through

[1:56:38] Voice 15: the timeline um to get a business case done this would have to go to the rpm

[1:56:46] Voice 15: and then to regional planning committee for endorsement before it goes to financial planning

[1:56:52] Voice 15: committee and be a late addition for the march trust council meeting

[1:56:59] Voice 8: um we'd need feedback from

[1:57:06] Voice 8: staff as to whether that is doable um so what i'm hearing is narrowing the scope is not your

[1:57:25] Voice 15: preferred option because you think this project won't get done in a sufficient amount of time

[1:57:33] Voice 8: am i hearing you correctly it's

[1:57:40] Voice 16: that it's

[1:57:41] Voice 3: that some of the items that were being requested to

[1:57:45] Voice 3: hold off i think are are very important that i don't and i i don't want to put them on the

[1:57:53] Voice 3: back burner as it were um you know that the public access to the foreshore is a

[1:57:59] Voice 3: a question that's very near and dear to many islanders uh we we heard the the fellow mr

[1:58:06] Voice 3: Mr. Darwin speaking about docks and public accesses,

[1:58:12] Voice 3: the existence or non-existence of public accesses

[1:58:16] Voice 3: directly impacts whether and where future sites

[1:58:22] Voice 3: for potential community or public docks

[1:58:24] Voice 3: might be able to exist.

[1:58:26] Voice 3: I don't want there to be,

[1:58:27] Voice 3: I don't want more subdivisions to go through

[1:58:30] Voice 3: without us knowing that we've done everything we can

[1:58:34] Voice 3: to make sure that those public accesses go in where they ought to and and that the

[1:58:42] Voice 3: past practice of subdivisions happening and um public accesses to the foreshore not

[1:58:50] Voice 3: not taking place which is great for the landowner but it's it's not great for the public i don't

[1:58:56] Voice 3: want that to sit on our back burner

[1:58:58] Voice 7: and

[1:59:00] Voice 3: be addressed sometime in the future i want that

[1:59:02] Voice 3: to be done as soon as possible that one's really really important to me i i would say that that

[1:59:09] Voice 3: potentially um you know the proof of water might be a bigger thing maybe we could wait on that

[1:59:15] Voice 15: yeah

[1:59:16] Voice 3: so

[1:59:20] Voice 15: but what i'm hearing from the planner is that that consideration was not part of this

[1:59:27] Voice 15: amended OCP the proposed bylaw that has not been included if I'm not mistaken and we'd have to

[1:59:38] Voice 15: re like we'd have to go back to first reading with a new proposed a new draft OCP bylaw and

[1:59:47] Voice 15: put it out to public consultation am I mistaken in that because I thought this bylaw does not

[1:59:55] Voice 15: include those foreshore policies that you're looking for.

[2:00:03] Voice 8: Yes. And

[2:00:06] Voice 15: this is a high level overview. So this, we, we still have to ask staff to go back in and do the actual, do the actual work. So this is a, what is the work in front of us? What is doable? But what I'm hearing is there isn't, there wasn't sufficient, we didn't draft policies with foreshore to do with foreshore access.

[2:00:33] Voice 15: and

[2:00:36] Voice 8: so that means a whole new OCP process if I'm not mistaken I'm just

[2:00:54] Voice 8: looking through the one

[2:00:56] Voice 15: of the 4.1 or 4.0 proposed bylaw this might be

[2:01:05] Voice 15: something we could take a little break and for lunch do some thinking trustee

[2:01:14] Voice 15: Laroni what uh what are your initial thoughts with this report what you've heard so far or

[2:01:20] Voice 15: no pressure you don't have to weigh in I

[2:01:26] Voice 14: agree with Tim that it's frustrating the way that this

[2:01:29] Voice 14: is kind of um impeding us from

[2:01:35] Voice 13: doing what kind of need to do but I also understand that Tim has a

[2:01:40] Voice 13: lot more experience than me in this matter so

[2:01:44] Voice 8: very informative uh trustee Peterson um just before we

[2:02:02] Voice 3: we take a break uh just another consideration that i've had is and and i'd love to hear back

[2:02:09] Voice 3: from the the planner about this is if we if we reduce scope today so that work

[2:02:19] Voice 16: gets done

[2:02:21] Voice 3: um with an understanding that we would just i don't want to make i don't want to make this a

[2:02:30] Voice 3: lot more work but uh i'm just looking at the the proposed meeting schedule um we have a meetings

[2:02:38] Voice 3: proposed for july 15th and october 21st what i'm kind of thinking about is laying the groundwork

[2:02:44] Voice 3: for a request to financial planning committee and trust council for not this fiscal because we're

[2:02:51] Voice 3: late and i get it and and it's not going to be welcome and it we're you know it's way too late

[2:02:58] Voice 3: But some kind of a plan so that by the October meeting at the very latest, we've got a business plan going out to Financial Planning Committee for fiscal 25-26 and for a major project that we need the approval of those bodies.

[2:03:22] Voice 3: I'm just wondering how and again you know I don't need an answer right this moment maybe that's

[2:03:28] Voice 3: something to think about while we have a break and but I just maybe that's maybe that's the way

[2:03:35] Voice 3: to set us up that gets gets us closer to where I'd like us to be going. Leonard Ball.

[2:03:43] Voice 5: Yeah I have

[2:03:44] Voice 5: two things maybe one in response to Trustee Peterson there is time certainly to to have a

[2:03:51] Voice 5: the business case for the 25, 26 fiscal.

[2:03:55] Voice 5: And the second is that I'm just looking through

[2:03:58] Voice 5: some of my analysis here and see there's one new policy

[2:04:04] Voice 5: in the proposed OCP with regard to subdivision.

[2:04:07] Voice 5: And I'll read it.

[2:04:08] Voice 5: It says the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee

[2:04:10] Voice 5: will seek to ensure that the subdivision of properties

[2:04:13] Voice 5: that order public water bodies requires provision

[2:04:16] Voice 5: of public highway access that is appropriately located

[2:04:20] Voice 5: located to meet the objectives of the Leskeetee Island OCE.

[2:04:24] Voice 5: So that is the one policy you do have adding additional,

[2:04:28] Voice 5: but of course add to

[2:04:32] Voice 8: the scope of this,

[2:04:32] Voice 8: but that is a new policy.

[2:04:37] Voice 8: Okay, so that's in the draft right now?

[2:04:40] Voice 3: Yes.

[2:04:42] Voice 3: Okay, and I mean, I don't know for sure

[2:04:46] Voice 3: whether we would need more than,

[2:04:50] Voice 3: Then, I mean, I don't know enough about how we interact with MOTI on subdivisions if that's really kind of sort of all we need or if there's more to it than that that we would require.

[2:05:03] Voice 3: So,

[2:05:06] Voice 15: in the policy with regard to quantifying subdivision parcel size, does the current policy read parcels should be at least 4 hectares, 9.88 acres in subdivision district A, at least 8 hectares, at least 65 hectares in C?

[2:05:24] Voice 15: Is that the current policy? And what we'd be looking at is 4.04 hectares to match the 10 acre minimum, which is a frequent request of constituents from this body.

[2:05:42] Voice 15: Is that piece doable? Because it is quite a discreet change, and I would venture to suggest may not need a lot of public consultation, but I leave it to you, trustees. And Planner Baugh, yes, go ahead.

[2:05:59] Voice 15: um

[2:06:00] Voice 8: so through

[2:06:04] Voice 5: just with regards to how these policies interact with modi process and

[2:06:10] Voice 5: subdivision applications it's through your land use bylaw that uh that islands trust staff review

[2:06:18] Voice 5: subdivision applications that are referred so this would this policy on its own would not make

[2:06:26] Voice 5: a difference until the land use bylaw is updated but it is a policy that certainly encourages

[2:06:35] Voice 5: highway access that's appropriately located at the time of subdivision so

[2:06:43] Voice 5: and I can leave it at that I guess what I did I did the the 4.04 hectare

[2:06:50] Voice 5: question, I did leave it in the narrowed scope

[2:06:54] Voice 5: because it's really just a matter of adding

[2:06:58] Voice 5: those new lumbers.

[2:07:01] Voice 5: Oh,

[2:07:02] Voice 8: great. Okay. Thank you. And this OCP

[2:07:10] Voice 8: update does not reflect any

[2:07:13] Voice 15: housing

[2:07:17] Voice 15: provisions for additional housing

[2:07:20] Voice 15: and so this was a conversation that

[2:07:24] Voice 15: um we've been having trustee laroni has sort of canvassed the community um seems to appear there's

[2:07:36] Voice 15: a need for additional housing options the work that regional planning committee and the regional

[2:07:43] Voice 15: planning staff have done with the housing options toolkit could provide some of those policies

[2:07:51] Voice 15: in a future OCP update, but it doesn't appear to be addressed in this current OCP revision.

[2:08:02] Voice 15: So that's another consideration. I'm in favor of getting some work done. I do want to see this

[2:08:11] Voice 15: trust committee advance some work. This has been a longstanding project. And

[2:08:18] Voice 15: And if a reduced scope and continuing the minor project while planning to put forward

[2:08:29] Voice 15: a business case for a targeted OCP review for 2024-25, that seems like a plan rather

[2:08:44] Voice 15: rather than doing a series of minor projects that doesn't it's it just keeps pushing the timeline

[2:08:55] Voice 15: further further and further away so is that what i'm hearing from from you trustee peterson

[2:09:05] Voice 15: and i recognize yeah this is an unhappy compromise

[2:09:08] Voice 15: right

[2:09:09] Voice 3: so i i mean i i'd like us again yeah i agree

[2:09:13] Voice 3: i'd like us to get some work done if the most efficient way if the most efficient approach

[2:09:17] Voice 3: approach today is to is to essentially follow the recommendations although i note that um

[2:09:24] Voice 3: in terms the ocp part of the public access that that's already in the draft and the lot size is

[2:09:32] Voice 3: is noted as being uh fairly minor for the ocp of course we still have to come back and do them in

[2:09:38] Voice 3: the land use bylaw that's understood um then then i'm i'm happier uh proceeding knowing that that

[2:09:47] Voice 3: that those two items aren't, you know,

[2:09:50] Voice 3: the one is addressed in the OCP

[2:09:52] Voice 3: and the other one can be by a simple change of number.

[2:09:55] Voice 3: If we, you know, I can live with leaving the proof of water

[2:09:59] Voice 3: for another day.

[2:10:01] Voice 3: But if all with the understanding

[2:10:04] Voice 3: that we're going to consider bringing a business case

[2:10:08] Voice 3: to bump up this project into a major project

[2:10:13] Voice 3: for fiscal 25, 26, I'm content with that.

[2:10:16] Voice 3: i i won't i won't i won't i won't scream and cry and and make a big fuss if if that's uh

[2:10:23] Voice 3: that's would be my preferred and it seems like the most reasonable approach at this time uh rather

[2:10:29] Voice 3: than trying to bring a late budget request yeah who wants to do that no one wants no one wants

[2:10:35] Voice 15: i don't think it would meet with with success to be honest um it it's it's going to be challenging

[2:10:41] Voice 15: As we know, the budget's looking pretty big this year, but I do want to see Laskiti move forward on some aspect.

[2:10:49] Voice 15: Planner Baugh, do you think you could have a report for us by the March LTC meeting on the current,

[2:11:01] Voice 15: Well, on your recommended course of action to leave off elements A, B, and C, except for the subdivision lot size regulation, and actually have those amendments for springtime?

[2:11:23] Voice 15: Do you think that's doable?

[2:11:24] Voice 15: So

[2:11:26] Voice 5: two reports. One would be about a new project, a new major project, which would be a land use bylaw review, which is A, and an update to your OCP with regards to consistency with Coastal Logosphere Toolkit, Regional Conservation Plan, and additional topics.

[2:11:47] Voice 5: and the whatever's left of C that isn't the proof of water.

[2:11:51] Voice 5: I believe it's just the proof of water

[2:11:53] Voice 5: that isn't addressed in the current project.

[2:11:55] Voice 5: And the other report being the updated bylaw

[2:11:58] Voice 5: with proposed amendments.

[2:12:00] Voice 5: So I just want to confirm, okay.

[2:12:03] Voice 5: Yes, I think that's achievable.

[2:12:08] Voice 5: If there's, and I think, oh, if it's okay,

[2:12:12] Voice 5: I just, one other note, I mentioned a couple of times,

[2:12:14] Voice 5: I think even that that lot size is in the reduced narrowed project charter I was just looking and I

[2:12:22] Voice 5: didn't see it there I didn't mean to leave it in so it's my answer is is no different than it's

[2:12:30] Voice 5: possible to do but I do see I missed I missed that in that amended project charter so I just

[2:12:36] Voice 5: may want to if it does I'm hearing it's important so you may want to just make sure that it does

[2:12:41] Voice 5: getting quicker again just for clarity okay

[2:12:45] Voice 15: so we can by resolution just just add that part in so

[2:12:52] Voice 15: the it's noted in the public record um i do have a question about versions 2.4 and 2.41 that this is

[2:13:01] Voice 15: on page 19 showed amendments that would address some of the public comments received and remove

[2:13:06] Voice 15: move policies identified by the mystery as policies of concern so would those

[2:13:13] Voice 15: changes be rolled into a future OCP review update

[2:13:20] Voice 8: they would be the comments

[2:13:29] Voice 5: from Sun Roar it's okay for me to use that acronym that way but the ministry

[2:13:35] Voice 5: they are for all response so included included in the current project the

[2:13:40] Voice 5: narrowed project charter scope um because those are those were comments that were received and

[2:13:47] Voice 5: you have a referral to your apc that's outstanding but but in january decided to defer that until

[2:13:54] Voice 5: after first nations consultation was complete so that's where that is sitting right now um

[2:14:00] Voice 5: uh yeah so i think that's those are within the scope is those removing those policies or or

[2:14:08] Voice 5: or keeping them, yes.

[2:14:11] Voice 15: Right.

[2:14:12] Voice 15: And of course we could be contemplating more amendments

[2:14:17] Voice 15: once we have conversations with SNAAS

[2:14:21] Voice 15: and get some feedback as well.

[2:14:24] Voice 15: Yeah.

[2:14:25] Voice 8: So

[2:14:25] Voice 15: I'm supportive of sort of a larger project,

[2:14:29] Voice 15: a major project being contemplated for 2425

[2:14:33] Voice 15: 25 that would include feedback from the APC, comments from SNNOS, and all those other pieces

[2:14:48] Voice 15: that we're not able to address.

[2:14:54] Voice 15: I want to go carefully with this because it is important work and I'll note that we don't

[2:15:03] Voice 15: have all the information.

[2:15:04] Voice 15: This isn't a complete staff report.

[2:15:07] Voice 15: Planner Baugh has not been able to go through everything.

[2:15:10] Voice 15: This is an overview.

[2:15:12] Voice 15: And so we're trying to pick our way through carefully.

[2:15:17] Voice 15: And I would venture to suggest that the housing policies that might be needed for this community

[2:15:25] Voice 15: would also potentially be part of a future OCP update.

[2:15:31] Voice 15: It's important and it's not in this proposed bylaw.

[2:15:35] Voice 15: there's nothing supportive of additional housing and that needs to be a

[2:15:41] Voice 15: conversation with the community of as to what that looks like is it transforming

[2:15:46] Voice 15: guest cottages into accessory dwellings many what do those policies look like so

[2:15:53] Voice 15: I think that's a conversation that's that's going to be very important but we

[2:15:58] Voice 15: can't wedge it into this OCP update Catherine you had appeared briefly do

[2:16:07] Voice 15: Do you need any clarity on the conversation so far?

[2:16:11] Voice 11: Sorry about that. I, I missed about one minute.

[2:16:14] Voice 11: I got bumped off and I've got back on now.

[2:16:19] Voice 8: Okay.

[2:16:25] Voice 8: Well, can I suggest we take a bit

[2:16:28] Voice 15: of a break?

[2:16:31] Voice 15: Unless people feel comfortable moving forward with the resolution,

[2:16:35] Voice 15: think about the different applications.

[2:16:37] Voice 15: Are there any further questions for Planner Ba?

[2:16:44] Voice 3: Yeah, I'm fine. Let's take,

[2:16:46] Voice 3: let's take a break and uh and maybe i can get a little bit of work done on applying for the

[2:16:53] Voice 3: amended resolutions and uh yeah appreciate the conversation thank

[2:17:01] Voice 15: you everybody so there was a

[2:17:03] Voice 15: planned break for about half an hour can i suggest we return at 150 or 145 would that be

[2:17:13] Voice 15: yeah 145 is that enough time uh trustee laroni you said you have to go and work

[2:17:20] Voice 15: try to come back earlier or is that okay um that's okay

[2:17:25] Voice 14: i'll just have to make it work

[2:17:27] Voice 14: okay

[2:17:31] Voice 15: so let's recess and come back at 145 and finish this discussion and move into the rest

[2:17:36] Voice 15: of our business thanks everybody

[2:45:55] Voice 8: okay we've got uh two out of

[2:45:58] Voice 15: three members here just give another minute or two to

[2:46:03] Voice 8: trustee laroni

[2:46:46] Voice 8: okay so we're

[2:46:48] Voice 15: all here and um let's continue our discussion on the minor ocp

[2:46:55] Voice 15: minor project our official community plan we're just considering a couple of resolutions

[2:47:03] Voice 15: in relation to the staff report on pages

[2:47:06] Voice 8: 18 to 40 okay trustee peterson surprise

[2:47:24] Voice 3: surprise it's me

[2:47:25] Voice 3: um just quick uh question for planner bob before i uh before i launch into this um

[2:47:35] Voice 3: i heard you say that the uh ocp part piece on the public access of the foreshore is in the

[2:47:45] Voice 3: the current draft yes yes

[2:47:48] Voice 5: you do have one policy okay

[2:47:50] Voice 3: and further that the changing of the lot size

[2:47:57] Voice 3: number in the subdivision part of the ocp is uh fairly minor through

[2:48:05] Voice 8: the chair yes if it's

[2:48:07] Voice 8: limited to that type

[2:48:09] Voice 5: of okay that number change yes

[2:48:11] Voice 3: great um so the further question is um i'm

[2:48:18] Voice 3: I'm just looking at the recommended resolutions here.

[2:48:26] Voice 3: The only one that I see that might need to be changed

[2:48:30] Voice 3: for clarity is the first one.

[2:48:32] Voice 3: The section C of resolution three can stand

[2:48:41] Voice 3: as it's written knowing that those other pieces,

[2:48:45] Voice 3: cause they do both relate to the land use by-laws

[2:48:48] Voice 3: subdivision part where we get there.

[2:48:50] Voice 3: so don't have to change that one i'm just wanting for staff do you need the first do you need an

[2:48:58] Voice 3: amendment to the project charter uh to do the work of including the lot size adjustment and i assume

[2:49:07] Voice 3: you don't to retain the public access language that's

[2:49:14] Voice 8: for the chair that's correct yeah don't

[2:49:16] Voice 8: need it to

[2:49:17] Voice 5: maintain that that policy that's already been inserted and i can provide a

[2:49:24] Voice 5: suggested resolution to add in that lot size okay just

[2:49:30] Voice 3: for simplicity should we just amend

[2:49:34] Voice 3: the project charter to include the lot size and then we can just read the resolution as amended

[2:49:39] Voice 3: So process wise, simple. Okay. And I'll just check in with the chair before I start making motions and see, and see, God forbid, anyone else has anything to say.

[2:49:54] Voice 15: We support your direction in this. I know, Tim, you've been involved in this from the beginning. So absolutely. Go ahead.

[2:50:01] Voice 15: okay

[2:50:02] Voice 3: thank you thank you very much for your confidence i hope it's well placed

[2:50:06] Voice 3: so i move that the luskete island local trust committee amend the proposed project charter

[2:50:14] Voice 3: version 6.0 for

[2:50:16] Voice 16: the luskete island ocp review project to include uh lots the adjustment of

[2:50:26] Voice 3: the lot size number two and i think this is important um i know that we uh 4.04 was mentioned

[2:50:36] Voice 3: i've heard from the public they would like that next decimal in there so i believe and and steven

[2:50:43] Voice 3: you can do this work offline but i believe it's uh 4.046 and uh just to just to go to that next

[2:50:52] Voice 3: decimal point is the intention here uh to satisfy that request from the public so uh

[2:50:59] Voice 3: is

[2:51:02] Voice 8: that clear enough as a motion catherine do you want to read that back for us

[2:51:19] Voice 11: that the luskete island local trust committee amends proposed project charter version 6.0

[2:51:26] Voice 11: for the luskete island ocp review project to include adjustment of the lot size number to

[2:51:33] Voice 11: to 4

[2:51:34] Voice 8: .046 that sounds right and and uh uh i see the planner has his hand up go ahead stephen

[2:51:49] Voice 8: um if

[2:51:51] Voice 5: that's fine to be that specific if you if you would want to be you may want to include just

[2:51:56] Voice 5: the units to hectares um just to be super clear

[2:52:00] Voice 3: okay okay and i don't have uh maybe i'll just

[2:52:06] Voice 3: take a quick minute to consult with google and make sure i've got that number right

[2:52:12] Voice 5: and i do understand the intent so i think um do you

[2:52:16] Voice 15: have the word of improve in there

[2:52:18] Voice 5: that's okay as well because

[2:52:20] Voice 15: you said the the ski no we're going to amend and then

[2:52:26] Voice 8: thank you good idea so would that okay would that be a different

[2:52:37] Voice 3: to 4.046

[2:52:40] Voice 3: hectares.

[2:52:42] Voice 3: That's what Google tells me.

[2:52:43] Voice 3: I don't think we'll go to the next decimal after that.

[2:52:45] Voice 3: That seems a bit too far.

[2:52:48] Voice 3: But let's do that.

[2:52:49] Voice 3: 4.046

[2:52:53] Voice 8: hectares.

[2:53:07] Voice 8: Are we all good there, Catherine?

[2:53:10] Voice 8: Excellent.

[2:53:11] Voice 8: Do I have a seconder for the motion?

[2:53:16] Voice 8: Seconded

[2:53:17] Voice 15: by Trustee Leroni.

[2:53:19] Voice 15: Any further

[2:53:20] Voice 15: discussion on the motion to amend

[2:53:22] Voice 15: amend the project charter to include the lot size adjustment or measurement all those in favor

[2:53:33] Voice 8: raise your hand or say aye and that is

[2:53:35] Voice 15: carried excellent

[2:53:37] Voice 8: okay

[2:53:41] Voice 15: so do we want to have a resolution

[2:53:43] Voice 15: to approve it yeah please do I

[2:53:47] Voice 3: move that the Laskita Island local trust committee approved

[2:53:49] Voice 3: approved project charter version 6.0 for the Lusketi Island OCP review project as amended.

[2:53:59] Voice 15: Excellent. Seconder? Trustee Laroni, do you wish to second? Okay. Seconded by Trustee Laroni. Any

[2:54:06] Voice 15: further discussion? All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. And Trustee Laroni, yep, that is carried.

[2:54:14] Voice 15: all right excellent and so I

[2:54:20] Voice 3: move that the Liskety Island local trust committee request

[2:54:23] Voice 3: staff to prepare amendments to proposed bylaw number 98 cited as Liskety Island

[2:54:28] Voice 3: Liskety Island official community plan 2020 so that the bylaw meets island's trust policy

[2:54:35] Voice 3: statement directive policies and to satisfy local government act requirements excellent

[2:54:41] Voice 8: Excellent. Seconder? Trustee Leroni seconds. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

[2:54:57] Voice 8: Aye. Aye. And that is carried.

[2:55:03] Voice 15: So this next one, instead of adding the following to the future

[2:55:08] Voice 15: projects list, this is where we want to do, it would be a targeted OCP review with a land use

[2:55:18] Voice 8: bylaw review is that am i correct

[2:55:22] Voice 15: trustee peterson um

[2:55:26] Voice 16: i think that that we can

[2:55:28] Voice 3: read the motion as

[2:55:30] Voice 3: recommended because um all three of those items in c that i was talking about earlier uh relate

[2:55:40] Voice 3: both to the official community plan and the land use bylaw so by reading the motion as it's written

[2:55:46] Voice 3: Now that we've amended the project charter, then those ones that are in the OCP will still be considered in the land use bylaw when we get to that, because it does say and or. Does that make sense?

[2:55:58] Voice 3: um

[2:56:00] Voice 15: maybe i'm a little slow on this does this move the project into a major project category or

[2:56:12] Voice 15: to me this reading says that we're going to sequence these as a future as future projects

[2:56:19] Voice 15: as minor projects well

[2:56:22] Voice 3: i think what and and maybe i'll we should check in with a planner on this what

[2:56:27] Voice 3: what we discussed earlier is moving ahead today

[2:56:31] Voice 3: as a minor project and requesting that staff

[2:56:37] Voice 3: at some future point get us prepped

[2:56:41] Voice 3: for next fiscal 25, 26 to move into a major project.

[2:56:48] Voice 3: So by putting these on the future project list,

[2:56:50] Voice 3: it just captures them.

[2:56:52] Voice 3: And then we can identify when we get to scoping

[2:56:55] Voice 3: the major project, we can identify what we want to put

[2:56:59] Voice 3: into that major project. Does that make sense? I

[2:57:04] Voice 15: guess I've just seen future projects lists

[2:57:07] Voice 15: would treat these each discreetly, whereas if you want an OCP review that includes each of

[2:57:14] Voice 15: these elements, that becomes one major future project. And I would actually suggest we include

[2:57:22] Voice 15: include housing amendments, which is not captured in any of the draft OCP policies or land use

[2:57:34] Voice 15: bylaws. It just wasn't contemplated. Trustee Leroni? I

[2:57:39] Voice 14: wanted to say that I was in touch

[2:57:41] Voice 14: with Stephen here. Sorry, Stephan? Stephan.

[2:57:48] Voice 13: Sorry. And we talked about bringing it as an

[2:57:53] Voice 13: agenda item for this meeting but ultimately it was still kind of in the works as we hadn't presented

[2:58:00] Voice 13: it to trust council yet the um toolkit so i didn't ask her to be included but i agree with you that

[2:58:06] Voice 13: it needs to be part

[2:58:07] Voice 8: of our ocp trustee peterson um i'm fine with adding

[2:58:24] Voice 3: that to our our i would

[2:58:26] Voice 3: assume at this point adding it to our future projects list with these other items um do we

[2:58:33] Voice 3: want to amend the recommended motion to say that or do we just want to make an additional motion

[2:58:42] Voice 15: i guess i'm gonna i would ask about the sequencing we still have to do an official community plan

[2:58:49] Voice 15: update that precedes a land use bylaw review am i correct so this update let's say it finishes in

[2:59:01] Voice 15: September 2024 and we have a business case for a new

[2:59:06] Voice 15: OCP update that includes the

[2:59:09] Voice 15: Regional Conservation Plan, Coastal Douglas for Toolkit, the additional topics

[2:59:14] Voice 15: including housing and then a

[2:59:18] Voice 15: land use bylaw review would follow that

[2:59:21] Voice 15: as a second

[2:59:23] Voice 8: major project? That would be my understanding

[2:59:27] Voice 8: Planner Ba is that? Yes

[2:59:34] Voice 8: Yes, we will take your direction.

[2:59:38] Voice 5: It would be, if you're planning to update the OCP,

[2:59:43] Voice 5: it makes sense to hold off probably on your land use bylaw update

[2:59:47] Voice 5: in order to capture all of those new amendments to the OCP

[2:59:52] Voice 5: that you would be making.

[2:59:53] Voice 5: If there's something more time-sensitive, say, that you want to insure.

[3:00:00] Voice 5: in the land use bylaw earlier, then you might want to do that first.

[3:00:05] Voice 15: I am, yeah, because I'm wondering if we don't adopt any land use bylaw amendments,

[3:00:16] Voice 15: and there are critical pieces that are needed, let's say, for shoreline access,

[3:00:26] Voice 15: access the relationship with public access to the foreshore, and if that waits until a second OCP

[3:00:36] Voice 15: review happens, that could be quite far in the future. So maybe we should leave the timing of

[3:00:43] Voice 15: everything up to staff, but include as a group all of these, and this is just, I don't want to

[3:00:55] Voice 15: to speak too much because i'm i'm still new to the process so trustee peterson if you want to

[3:01:01] Voice 15: jump in here well

[3:01:03] Voice 3: what what occurs to me listening to you is that um if if we're contemplating

[3:01:09] Voice 3: moving the ocp review um in next fiscal not you know 25 26 if we're contemplating moving it into

[3:01:18] Voice 3: major project at that point that would free us up to do a minor project which if we felt it was time

[3:01:27] Voice 3: sensitive to address for example the public access to the foreshore if we just addressed that one

[3:01:32] Voice 3: item or maybe that item and the amending the uh subdivision lot size that may qualify as a

[3:01:42] Voice 3: minor project which we would be allowed to have two projects if the ocp is then a major project

[3:01:50] Voice 3: So that's sort

[3:01:51] Voice 15: of what I was thinking as well.

[3:01:52] Voice 15: I think it would be helpful for staff if you clarify which, like you just did, public access to the shoreline and subdivision regulations related to lot size as the two potential priority land use bylaw review projects.

[3:02:13] Voice 15: So that if they're considered as a major minor project, they could be happening concurrently with a major subsequent OCP review.

[3:02:24] Voice 15: Is there enough in this discussion to have that clarity, Planner Baugh? I see your hand up there.

[3:02:32] Voice 5: Maybe a way to make it clear for me when I update the future projects list.

[3:02:38] Voice 5: So I think that's what we're talking about is, is which items will kind of, how they'll

[3:02:43] Voice 5: be sorted into that list and how that might impact your decisions on future projects.

[3:02:50] Voice 5: If you just say, you can say A, land use by-law review, like I will, I can put them in, maybe

[3:02:57] Voice 5: I will put A, whatever you put in A as a distinct item and B you can include multiple things

[3:03:04] Voice 5: and B I'll put them all in the same future project.

[3:03:07] Voice 5: and we can amend that list if there's something that doesn't come out the way you'd like to see

[3:03:13] Voice 5: it presented there uh in a future future meeting and i can easily amend that future projects list

[3:03:19] Voice 5: for you but i'll certainly do my best to make sure that it reflects the motion here okay

[3:03:26] Voice 16: trustee

[3:03:28] Voice 16: peterson yeah just

[3:03:30] Voice 3: for clarity so i think what i heard um planner boss suggests is that in the

[3:03:35] Voice 3: a recommended motion here after in A,

[3:03:40] Voice 3: after land use bylaw review to include in that section,

[3:03:46] Voice 16: lot size, public access to the foreshore.

[3:03:52] Voice 16: And then I guess C would just be down to the proof of water.

[3:03:57] Voice 16: Is that what I'm hearing?

[3:04:02] Voice 5: Through the chair, I'm just recommending

[3:04:03] Voice 5: that there's a couple of items that you are envisioning

[3:04:07] Voice 5: be part of the same project in the future.

[3:04:09] Voice 5: you could just include all of those in a single sub-point there.

[3:04:14] Voice 5: So as A or B or C

[3:04:16] Voice 8: or whatever it might be.

[3:04:19] Voice 15: Right. So A, land use bylaw review, including shoreline review and public access

[3:04:25] Voice 15: and subdivision regulations related to lot size is A.

[3:04:33] Voice 15: And then B, official community plan update as a major project.

[3:04:40] Voice 15: and then all of those items and adding

[3:04:44] Voice 8: housing options as a major project is that right

[3:04:54] Voice 8: and

[3:04:59] Voice 3: then the one item we haven't talked about today um but should definitely go on the list

[3:05:04] Voice 3: is the consideration of expanding the uh marine conservation

[3:05:09] Voice 16: zone we did pass a motion to or

[3:05:17] Voice 16: sorry maybe i'm getting confused no no no

[3:05:19] Voice 16: that's

[3:05:21] Voice 15: important where does that fit

[3:05:24] Voice 15: because that's an a zone zoning would be that's the ocp review so we could add because what i've

[3:05:33] Voice 15: seen is helpful is and i'll just use gabriel as an example you've got a major future project

[3:05:39] Voice 15: it's your ocp review and it's got sub like it's got bullets of each item that gets added

[3:05:45] Voice 15: added as discussion ensues at the LTC. So, constituent comes forward saying we need to

[3:05:54] Voice 15: consider this. That gets added to the future OCP review. And so, I think it would be helpful to

[3:06:00] Voice 15: list all of those items in the rezoning of Marine General would probably fall under

[3:06:09] Voice 8: that future OCP

[3:06:22] Voice 8: The future projects

[3:06:24] Voice 5: list is a way of tracking projects that the LTC may want to undertake in the future.

[3:06:32] Voice 5: The actual scope of each project can be determined when it comes time to prepare a business case or to prepare the project charter.

[3:06:42] Voice 5: So if there's things that we want to make sure that we catch to be included in this future projects list, and a couple of them are in different sub points, they could still in the future, when that project is initiated, you know, be combined into one single project.

[3:07:03] Voice 5: The marine conservation zone would be a land use bylaw amendment.

[3:07:08] Voice 5: So we can lay it out in a number of different ways in that future projects list if it's helpful to just put all the potential land use by-law amendments under one point and all those CPM amendments under a different point or a different line item.

[3:07:28] Voice 5: them and then when you go to to initiate a project you could look at those things and see what what's

[3:07:34] Voice 5: appropriate to add in uh in that particular project or

[3:07:37] Voice 8: what your priorities are there

[3:07:47] Voice 8: excellent trustee peterson i'm guessing you have a

[3:07:51] Voice 3: solution i'm busily writing here and i'm trying

[3:07:55] Voice 3: to trying to assimilate the advice here um so just before i get into a motion the land use bylaw

[3:08:04] Voice 3: review bullet should include just what we just mentioned the marine conservation zone

[3:08:10] Voice 3: uh i would assume that housing needs to be included both in the ocp and lub um the lot

[3:08:20] Voice 3: size proof of water and public access the foreshore also need to be in the land use bylaw

[3:08:25] Voice 3: so that would mean that land use bylaw review would include one two three four five items

[3:08:38] Voice 3: the items that we see on the on the recommendation plus housing and the marine conservation zone

[3:08:46] Voice 3: and then uh

[3:08:49] Voice 16: bead official community plan update would need to uh then also include um housing

[3:09:01] Voice 16: but just

[3:09:02] Voice 3: for clarity but not the the expansion of the conservation marine conservation zone

[3:09:08] Voice 3: is

[3:09:09] Voice 16: strictly lub it's not ocp

[3:09:12] Voice 5: through the chair it would need to be consistent with your ocp but

[3:09:17] Voice 5: the ocp does have uh policies encouraging conservation of the marine shoreline okay

[3:09:25] Voice 3: so we wouldn't need to include it in the ocp section of this proposed resolution then okay

[3:09:31] Voice 3: i'm getting i think i'm getting closer to a resolution now i

[3:09:35] Voice 15: think this is all right good

[3:09:37] Voice 15: good job everyone all

[3:09:39] Voice 16: right so let's see what did i say here okay so i moved that

[3:09:47] Voice 3: the luskete island

[3:09:47] Voice 3: darn it that luskete island local trust committee requests staff to add the following to the future

[3:09:53] Voice 3: projects list a land use bylaw review including

[3:09:59] Voice 16: subdivisions relate regulations related to lot

[3:10:03] Voice 16: plot size, proof of water,

[3:10:05] Voice 3: public access to the foreshore,

[3:10:09] Voice 3: consideration of expanding the marine conservation zone

[3:10:12] Voice 3: and housing, and B, official community plan update

[3:10:18] Voice 16: in regards to consistency with the regional conservation plan

[3:10:22] Voice 16: Coastal Douglas Furn Toolkit, housing,

[3:10:32] Voice 16: subdivision regulations related to proof of water.

[3:10:38] Voice 16: I

[3:10:38] Voice 3: think actually it would be and subdivision regulations related to proof of water because

[3:10:43] Voice 3: we've captured the other two correct and then we don't need a C a point C that

[3:10:50] Voice 15: all makes sense

[3:10:50] Voice 15: the additional topics um supplied by the LISCIDI oh

[3:10:55] Voice 3: and we could do those additional topics sorry

[3:10:56] Voice 3: yeah

[3:10:57] Voice 15: yeah because I don't think some of those weren't captured and

[3:11:00] Voice 3: additional topics recommended

[3:11:02] Voice 3: by the LISCIDI community association official community plan steering committee

[3:11:06] Voice 8: I'm feeling

[3:11:13] Voice 8: for Catherine

[3:11:14] Voice 3: at this moment.

[3:11:15] Voice 3: We'll see how well she did.

[3:11:17] Voice 3: She's amazing, but I don't make it easy.

[3:11:20] Voice 11: Hi, I might've got the point A,

[3:11:24] Voice 11: the five different ones in a different,

[3:11:27] Voice 11: but I've got that the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee

[3:11:32] Voice 11: requests staff add the following

[3:11:35] Voice 11: to the future projects list.

[3:11:37] Voice 11: A, land use bylaw review,

[3:11:41] Voice 11: including subdivision lot size,

[3:11:47] Voice 11: housing proof of water public access to foreshore and consideration of marine of expanding marine

[3:11:57] Voice 11: conservation zones and b official community plan update in regards to consistency with the regional

[3:12:07] Voice 11: conservation plan coastal douglas for toolkit housing and subdivision relation to proof of

[3:12:17] Voice 11: water and additional topics recommended by the Leskeetee Community Association Official Community

[3:12:23] Voice 11: Plan Steering Committee and is C scratched then? C?

[3:12:31] Voice 3: Yeah that was my thought is that we could

[3:12:32] Voice 3: scratch C if those A and B were as

[3:12:36] Voice 8: we did them.

[3:12:38] Voice 3: I'm content with that that's is that good and as

[3:12:41] Voice 3: staff is that clear direction

[3:12:43] Voice 8: for you i'm seeing a nod i'm seeing no that's great so move

[3:12:54] Voice 8: you're

[3:12:55] Voice 15: following and so moved okay i will second that just because uh not sure what happened oh

[3:13:06] Voice 15: trustee laroni just was just a second any further discussion i think we can trust staff to work this

[3:13:14] Voice 15: into our future work plan and of course this all may change or be added to

[3:13:22] Voice 15: depending on the feedback that we get from CINAHAS and other agencies but I'm

[3:13:30] Voice 15: comfortable with this direction I think it gets us moving and encapsulates most

[3:13:36] Voice 15: of the work that the community has done with this project so far so okay we'll

[3:13:43] Voice 15: call for the vote all

[3:13:45] Voice 8: those in favor aye aye aye there we go that is carried thank you everybody

[3:14:03] Voice 15: um did we have anything else that was not captured

[3:14:09] Voice 8: here i think we've got so

[3:14:15] Voice 15: what are the next oh

[3:14:16] Voice 15: yeah the what i had wanted to ask is does there need to be a referral to the apc and sorry trustee

[3:14:21] Voice 15: peterson i see your hand there um um i

[3:14:27] Voice 3: i wasn't going to speak about the apc but uh my feeling

[3:14:33] Voice 3: is that um we could probably hold off on the apc referral at this moment until our next meeting

[3:14:42] Voice 3: consider it then but i had a question for staff which is in terms of the uh

[3:14:52] Voice 3: sort of planning ahead for a business case

[3:14:58] Voice 3: for major project fiscal 25, 26.

[3:15:05] Voice 3: Does staff need any direction at this time

[3:15:09] Voice 3: to sort of get you geared up and preparing for that?

[3:15:13] Voice 3: Or is that something that we could do at a later meeting?

[3:15:19] Voice 8: Through the chair, yeah, I haven't.

[3:15:22] Voice 5: so you have you put those items on the future projects list but that does not uh direct me

[3:15:29] Voice 5: to prepare any project charter or business case or anything for for those projects

[3:15:35] Voice 5: and so if you would like me you you could wait and do it at your next meeting

[3:15:41] Voice 5: but at some point at least you you'll need to direct me to um to prepare those those things

[3:15:49] Voice 5: for you to to bring to uh the 20 what was it the 25 26 or the the budget anyways uh to be included

[3:15:57] Voice 5: i

[3:15:58] Voice 15: think the timing for business cases is ideally summer um so summer 2024 we'd start preparing a

[3:16:09] Voice 15: business case and then sorry part

[3:16:15] Voice 14: of me and

[3:16:16] Voice 15: have that ready for september so i think we've got a

[3:16:19] Voice 15: bit of time i'd like to see the staff report for um this current project and and keep that moving

[3:16:27] Voice 15: ahead unless you think differently trustees i

[3:16:33] Voice 3: just note on our on our um our draft meeting

[3:16:38] Voice 3: schedule we've got a meeting for march and we've got a meeting for may and i think as long as we

[3:16:44] Voice 3: were um preparing at but certainly by the may meeting at the latest to to give that direction

[3:16:51] Voice 3: of staff i'd be comfortable not not uh wading into that today that's fine okay

[3:16:59] Voice 8: excellent work everybody

[3:17:02] Voice 15: and um so we'll give the apc some work probably in march

[3:17:11] Voice 15: um and you'll update this timeline uh the review project work plan i guess you're

[3:17:17] Voice 15: to come back to us with an amended charter um

[3:17:22] Voice 8: planner no i was not uh planning on on coming

[3:17:29] Voice 5: again with an updated project charter the timeline will depend somewhat on your meetings dates with

[3:17:36] Voice 5: stanoffs and uh and you know when those occur and and you know come to those meetings uh how many

[3:17:44] Voice 5: it is that that you're talking about this project and um because we will want to incorporate that

[3:17:50] Voice 5: uh it's just i expect at least if there's uh there's comments that that you'll want to direct

[3:17:56] Voice 5: you will want to incorporate those into

[3:17:58] Voice 8: this bylaw so okay i'm satisfied this will give you

[3:18:06] Voice 8: enough work to do in the meantime uh that's great okay pardon me i have to keep coughing

[3:18:19] Voice 8: Such a pleasant thing. Okay,

[3:18:29] Voice 15: let's move on to the next piece of business. And Planner Baugh, if we don't need you for anything, free to go.

[3:18:41] Voice 15: We do have correspondence, pages 44 to 45. And as noted, the feedback from Ministry of Municipal Affairs regarding the protocol agreement between the Honest Trust Council and Honest Nation is there for the public's information.

[3:18:57] Voice 15: There is an email dated October 14th, 2023, from Em Love-Ouellette regarding the private

[3:19:06] Voice 15: dock at Scottie Bay, and so

[3:19:13] Voice 8: we'll receive that for information on Trustee Leroni.

[3:19:16] Voice 8: Sorry, I just

[3:19:23] Voice 13: was wondering if the other letter that I sent and was going was included,

[3:19:29] Voice 13: or if we didn't decide not to do that.

[3:19:32] Voice 15: thank you for reminding me um that's right it

[3:19:37] Voice 13: was in favor of not having a doc or opposed to a doc i

[3:19:42] Voice 13: guess

[3:19:42] Voice 15: right so there was a i'm just looking back at this so this was forwarded to the agenda materials

[3:19:56] Voice 15: um i apologize i forgot to include this as late correspondence but if the ltc is supportive we

[3:20:05] Voice 15: can include that as well and have it posted to the application on the website is that what you're

[3:20:15] Voice 15: recommending planner ba yeah yeah application for larz rezoning 2023.1 i

[3:20:23] Voice 5: was just going to say if

[3:20:24] Voice 5: there is uh application correspondence related directly to an application that that would be

[3:20:29] Voice 5: included on uh that part of the website with uh patient materials and uh

[3:20:35] Voice 8: and will be publicly

[3:20:37] Voice 8: available there okay trustee peterson i was just gonna say if

[3:20:45] Voice 3: it's a late um addition and there's

[3:20:50] Voice 3: no a particular time sensitive uh action requested or anything it could just could it not just show

[3:20:57] Voice 3: up on the next ltc agenda it certainly could

[3:21:03] Voice 3: just i just think in terms of the public adding it at

[3:21:08] Voice 3: this date at this part of our meeting when no one can see it is less um useful for the public than

[3:21:15] Voice 3: adding it to our next agenda but it will be our

[3:21:18] Voice 3: next agenda to

[3:21:20] Voice 15: the application section on the

[3:21:22] Voice 15: website but

[3:21:24] Voice 3: we don't know for sure if our application is going to be showing up on our

[3:21:28] Voice 3: next agenda or not so in terms of i'm just saying in terms of getting it on a on an agenda why don't

[3:21:33] Voice 3: we just add it to our next agenda so

[3:21:36] Voice 15: we'll request that this letter of the letter writer susan

[3:21:42] Voice 15: morrison be added as correspondence to the next agenda i think we should have a resolution so it

[3:21:52] Voice 15: it doesn't fall

[3:21:52] Voice 8: off the okay so i'll request that staff add

[3:22:02] Voice 15: letter from susan morrison to the

[3:22:05] Voice 15: to correspondence at our next

[3:22:08] Voice 8: ltc meeting do i have a seconder trustee peterson okay all those

[3:22:19] Voice 8: in favor don't

[3:22:23] Voice 15: fall asleep on me now it's carried thank you and it will be on the application

[3:22:29] Voice 15: part of the website as well but i understand that's difficult sometimes for people to

[3:22:35] Voice 15: access okay

[3:22:39] Voice 8: sorry my um screen is jumping around here there stop it i just get muddled if i don't

[3:22:58] Voice 8: have a paper copy so

[3:23:00] Voice 15: there's no new business um in terms of reports there is the applications

[3:23:06] Voice 15: report trustee local expense report adopted policies and standing resolutions and now we'll

[3:23:14] Voice 15: get to the 2024 ltc meeting schedule page 51 52 in your agendas trustee peterson chair

[3:23:25] Voice 8: um

[3:23:26] Voice 16: just

[3:23:28] Voice 3: before we uh get there there was a question at the town hall regarding the uh the uh ltc expense

[3:23:39] Voice 3: expense report and one wondering why the numbers didn't change from the august report despite the

[3:23:47] Voice 3: fact that we had a meeting in between and i don't know if there's anyone online with us that can

[3:23:52] Voice 3: address that question or not but i thought i'd just bring it up

[3:23:56] Voice 15: uh i have asked this question

[3:23:58] Voice 15: before and i've been told that sometimes it's just a matter of when the expenses are posted

[3:24:05] Voice 15: and sometimes there is a delay of two months in updating the LTC expenses at

[3:24:14] Voice 15: any given time so this may not reflect expenses for when is our October meeting

[3:24:21] Voice 15: in fact it certainly wouldn't okay yeah because we're only getting yeah the

[3:24:31] Voice 15: The cycle is September, October, November, December is the fourth quarter, third quarter,

[3:24:43] Voice 15: and they get submitted by end of December, and then it gets updated.

[3:24:46] Voice 15: So October expenses would not be included in this budget report.

[3:24:52] Voice 15: I think we've been asked this question before, and this is just pretty routine.

[3:24:57] Voice 15: I don't think there's

[3:24:58] Voice 8: anything egregious at all.

[3:25:05] Voice 8: Okay.

[3:25:10] Voice 8: So meeting dates.

[3:25:11] Voice 15: trustees did you have a chance to have a look at these as noted someone said July 1st was written

[3:25:22] Voice 15: in as a meeting and I'm not sure what that's referring to I

[3:25:30] Voice 8: don't see any July 1st do you

[3:25:34] Voice 8: remember what that was about the

[3:25:41] Voice 3: speaker just noted that July 1st was a statutory holiday but

[3:25:45] Voice 3: but we certainly don't have a

[3:25:48] Voice 8: July

[3:25:50] Voice 16: 1st meeting proposed here,

[3:25:52] Voice 16: and I

[3:25:52] Voice 8: didn't

[3:25:55] Voice 16: see any others, actually.

[3:25:58] Voice 15: So at this time, we can set whether the meetings are in-person or electronic.

[3:26:09] Voice 15: Paragraph 3 there, as part of this endorsement,

[3:26:11] Voice 15: the LTC may wish to designate which are anticipated to be electronic or in-person.

[3:26:16] Voice 15: Do you have a preference, trustees, as to in-person versus electronic meetings?

[3:26:24] Voice 15: Perhaps a mix to save budget costs?

[3:26:29] Voice 15: Trustee Peterson?

[3:26:32] Voice 16: I'll just speak

[3:26:33] Voice 3: in favor of in-person when that's feasible.

[3:26:38] Voice 3: Everything I hear from the public is in favor of in-person meetings.

[3:26:45] Voice 3: And so I just want to note that.

[3:26:48] Voice 3: that so and I also think that it's it's it's good uh for for us trustees as well however I understand

[3:26:57] Voice 3: that there's circumstances where it makes sense to go electronics so and certainly they're almost

[3:27:04] Voice 3: guaranteed to be at least one time a year where someone can can't make a ferry due to weather or

[3:27:11] Voice 3: other circumstances so i i'm not strident on it but i always prefer in person where possible

[3:27:21] Voice 13: trustee laroni i was gonna say that i mean i am just a trustee whereas you have you both have

[3:27:29] Voice 13: executive and i know toby has to come from two islands so i mean i'm happy to do either i do

[3:27:37] Voice 13: agree that there's some there's merit in being in person but if it's an insane week with a bunch of

[3:27:42] Voice 13: of other meetings i would totally understand be happy to do electronic you know i guess i'm saying

[3:27:48] Voice 13: i'm more or less in agreement with tim if it's if it's whatever's the easiest but of course in

[3:27:53] Voice 13: person is always best especially when it comes to community engagement yes

[3:27:58] Voice 15: um generally i've been

[3:28:01] Voice 15: starting to request meetings during the winter months uh be held electronically just because

[3:28:08] Voice 15: because travel is challenging. March 4th for Liskiti is borderline. I'm not sure how

[3:28:17] Voice 15: the ferries are running. I guess it just depends on weather. But I'm supportive of

[3:28:23] Voice 15: holding them all, except for probably December 16th. I would say that should probably be electronic.

[3:28:32] Voice 15: But the rest seem to be fine in person. And if we need to change that to an electronic meeting,

[3:28:37] Voice 15: we can give enough notice so would we be okay with designating december 16th that's an electronic

[3:28:47] Voice 15: meeting just as this one is although it's a beautiful day it would have been fine to travel

[3:28:52] Voice 15: at least you hear it on gabriella yay nay yes trust me

[3:29:04] Voice 3: i i i think let's my preference would

[3:29:08] Voice 3: would just be to uh set them up as in-person meetings and if we need to change it we'll

[3:29:14] Voice 3: we can do so because you never know maybe december 16th next year is going to be gorgeous

[3:29:22] Voice 3: maybe it'll be like right around the crafts fair and you can come early and spend a bunch of money

[3:29:27] Voice 3: here who knows i'm

[3:29:30] Voice 15: more interested in the fungi festival that looked fun i was sad to miss it

[3:29:34] Voice 15: it okay well let's just set them all as regular in-person meetings and if somebody wants to move

[3:29:44] Voice 15: the recommended motion go ahead trustee peterson okay

[3:29:48] Voice 3: and i'm just going to read the recommendation

[3:29:50] Voice 3: as it is and we'll ignore the designation because we may but we don't have to so i move that the

[3:29:57] Voice 3: the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee

[3:29:59] Voice 3: schedule it's regular.

[3:30:00] Voice 3: business meetings on the following dates in 2024 march 4th may 6th june 15th sorry july 15th

[3:30:08] Voice 3: october 21st and december

[3:30:11] Voice 8: 16th i'll second that any further discussion all those in favor

[3:30:23] Voice 8: Aye. Aye. Excellent. That is carried.

[3:30:31] Voice 15: Okay. We are almost through our business. The active

[3:30:38] Voice 15: projects report is there. That list is finished. And our future projects report will be updated

[3:30:48] Voice 15: appropriately.

[3:30:53] Voice 14: Okay.

[3:30:54] Voice 8: So we do have an in-camera section.

[3:31:05] Voice 15: and so we'll probably sorry the next regular meeting will be the march sorry what was that

[3:31:12] Voice 15: date i've lost my page fourth memory

[3:31:19] Voice 8: serves and if somebody could uh move the motion to close the

[3:31:23] Voice 8: meeting i move that the meeting be closed to

[3:31:31] Voice 3: the public in accordance with the community charter

[3:31:33] Voice 3: part four division four section 91 f for the purpose of considering f by law enforcement

[3:31:41] Voice 3: if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of

[3:31:46] Voice 3: an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment and that the recorder and staff

[3:31:52] Voice 3: attend the meeting

[3:31:54] Voice 15: excellent i'll second that second

[3:31:57] Voice 15: oh thanks trustee laroney all those in

[3:32:00] Voice 15: favor aye okay that is carried so we may do a ryzen report after so um we'll stop the recording

[3:32:09] Voice 15: and live streaming