South Pender Island Local Trust Committee special meeting, April 26, 2024

[0:00:09] Voice 7: all right everybody

[0:00:10] Voice 5: thank you very much for joining us today um just by introduction in

[0:00:17] Voice 5: case you don't know who i am or why i'm here i'm david modern from trust executives um i'm

[0:00:25] Voice 7: subbing in for uh vice chair elliot who can't attend today although i do see she is attending

[0:00:32] Voice 7: on zoom so her presence is here so don't say anything mean about it um hey i'll start with

[0:00:38] Voice 7: the formalities good morning thank you

[0:00:40] Voice 7: for joining us today for this uh special meeting of the

[0:00:42] Voice 7: local trust i want to begin today by the meeting by acknowledging that we're fortunate to be able

[0:00:49] Voice 7: to gather today locations across territory of post-salish people i'm david maude i'm elected

[0:00:55] Voice 7: on the main island and um the interim chair of the south pender folks trust to meet with today's

[0:01:00] Voice 7: meeting um i'm joined today by dave ball you're one trustee and christina evans who's your other

[0:01:08] Voice 7: trustee um together we make up the south pender island local trust committee today this meeting

[0:01:14] Voice 7: is being live streamed and recorded for those who are unable to attend first today the recording

[0:01:17] Voice 7: will be posted to the house trust website for future viewing we have some staff members joining

[0:01:22] Voice 7: us today um we have robert kojima who's regional planning manager um who is subbing in for um

[0:01:29] Voice 7: planner's doctor who is online uh uh planet's doctors a little bit under the weather today so

[0:01:36] Voice 7: she's just attending via zoom um we have uh carly um who is going to be a reporting secretary

[0:01:43] Voice 7: Terry,

[0:01:43] Voice 5: Emily Bryant, who is our wonderful administrator for

[0:01:49] Voice 7: the web part of Zoom part

[0:01:50] Voice 7: of things, which is very much appreciated because it's not an easy job.

[0:01:54] Voice 7: And from there, we will continue.

[0:01:59] Voice 7: So this meeting is an official forum for local trust to make decisions about land use planning

[0:02:03] Voice 7: matters and discuss relevant business.

[0:02:05] Voice 7: I want to add this is a place of employment, despite the fact that many staff are in their

[0:02:08] Voice 7: own homes, our staff have the right to a safe and respectful workplace.

[0:02:11] Voice 7: place so we have a very simple agenda before us we only have one um basic topic and i think i'll

[0:02:19] Voice 7: just head over to trustee evans to sort of lay out the expectations of the morning okay

[0:02:26] Voice 8: um so i think

[0:02:29] Voice 8: we're going to start well first of all um we just had to make a little announcement for those that

[0:02:34] Voice 8: aren't aware the um the orca calf that was trapped in the lagoon um just swam free this morning

[0:02:42] Voice 8: so i just wanted to share that with everybody um so back to this meeting um i thought we'd start by

[0:02:51] Voice 8: talking about the setbacks first and we'll dedicate an hour to the setbacks at which point

[0:02:59] Voice 8: we can have a two-minute break and then have another hour set aside to talk about health

[0:03:04] Voice 8: sizes and then we can come back if we need to to talk about setbacks and or health sizes again or

[0:03:12] Voice 8: however we want to run it at that point so we've got uh we're on north pender for the next four

[0:03:18] Voice 8: hours whether we like it or not so we can make the most of our time and we're just going to open

[0:03:25] Voice 8: at the floor to uh your comments your questions we'll answer as much as we can um but this is

[0:03:34] Voice 8: this is for you guys and there's not going to be any time limit on people speaking you can speak

[0:03:40] Voice 8: as many times as you'd like we will ask that you be respectful of the fact that this is still an

[0:03:47] Voice 8: official um meeting and that you direct your questions up to the panel and not to other

[0:03:53] Voice 8: members in the audience so if you want to direct a question to somebody in the audience ask it to

[0:03:58] Voice 8: us and then we'll advise whether or not it's appropriate depending on the tone of the room

[0:04:06] Voice 8: and how comfortable people are feeling so that we still get to manage how that goes does that

[0:04:11] Voice 8: to everyone yeah okay anything

[0:04:16] Voice 7: yeah thank you you're done yeah

[0:04:20] Voice 8: i just had one more thing to add

[0:04:21] Voice 7: and

[0:04:22] Voice 8: i think and i'm going to look at you when i'm asking this question so i believe that we're on

[0:04:28] Voice 8: the same page that we're not looking to go back to where we were on the subject of um the house sizes

[0:04:39] Voice 8: and the setbacks necessarily we're not looking to stay where we are we're trying to find something

[0:04:46] Voice 8: that we can that we can get the community on consensus with and consensus meaning that it is

[0:04:52] Voice 8: something that we can all agree we can live with we might not necessarily be rah rah rah for it

[0:04:57] Voice 8: but we can agree that we can all live with it as a whole community this is i don't want this to be

[0:05:03] Voice 8: you know one group really really really wants this one group really really wants that

[0:05:09] Voice 8: and i don't want just part of the community happy i want the whole community to find and reach a

[0:05:15] Voice 8: place where we can agree that yes this is the solution that works for us we might not be the

[0:05:21] Voice 8: happiest about it but it works we can live with it that's that's the work that we're doing here

[0:05:27] Voice 8: i know we get a lot of questions so let's not go any further let's pick something else we're happy

[0:05:32] Voice 8: where we are but the whole community isn't happy so that's that's the purpose of this

[0:05:40] Voice 8: does that make sense to everyone yes okay

[0:05:44] Voice 3: all right now i'm done all right

[0:05:47] Voice 3: uh yeah i uh just wanted to say i i've been um told that there is some concern

[0:05:55] Voice 3: with the meeting in place being on north pender and that there's another you know similar concern

[0:06:01] Voice 3: that it's difficult to get here because of the dip and there was an indication that many people

[0:06:08] Voice 3: wouldn't be coming for that reason so I thought I just want to address that and you know we I think

[0:06:16] Voice 3: the scheduling was pressured by many different angles to come up with this time and place

[0:06:24] Voice 3: and I was not part of that but you know I understand what went into that and it's not

[0:06:30] Voice 3: perfect but what i wanted to hear from you and of course you didn't have a problem getting here

[0:06:34] Voice 3: because you're here so maybe you're not the best people to ask but if you know people that didn't

[0:06:40] Voice 3: come because of where it is or if you are concerned even though you came if you're concerned let us

[0:06:46] Voice 3: know now maybe you can just speak up and say here's my concern we shouldn't have it here

[0:06:52] Voice 3: if that is your concern and then we'll just kind of take note of that for future planning so we can

[0:06:57] Voice 3: through this better and we will i think we should or will uh address this if it turns out you know

[0:07:05] Voice 3: we had twice the crowd for the last meeting this is more than twice as important as the last meeting

[0:07:11] Voice 3: in my view so that's a little alarming to me so we we may have further discussions about further

[0:07:18] Voice 3: meetings in the future just so you know we're thinking about that okay yeah

[0:07:21] Voice 8: this this does not

[0:07:22] Voice 8: have to be the one and only and it's

[0:07:24] Voice 3: not yeah and the only other thing i wanted to do is i'm

[0:07:28] Voice 3: going to pass around this sign up sheet for those of you who want to be on an email list from me

[0:07:36] Voice 3: i have to use my personal email in order to communicate directly with you

[0:07:42] Voice 3: i was informed that took a little while to get straight on this but it turns out that the uh

[0:07:48] Voice 3: the email that is managed by Isles Trust for each island and there's like 200 people on that list

[0:07:57] Voice 3: I believe and I cannot send an email to you about anything other than information

[0:08:04] Voice 3: or like announcements sorry that is by policy that's reserved for announcements and so

[0:08:12] Voice 3: So communication from your trustee cannot come through that email.

[0:08:16] Voice 3: So I have to email you directly.

[0:08:19] Voice 3: But in order for me to do that, I have to have your permission.

[0:08:21] Voice 3: Well, this is just a permission request.

[0:08:24] Voice 3: So if you

[0:08:25] Voice 8: sign up here.

[0:08:26] Voice 8: Can I ask?

[0:08:27] Voice 8: Go ahead.

[0:08:28] Voice 8: This sounds a bit odd to me.

[0:08:30] Voice 8: I don't understand where you're getting this information from.

[0:08:34] Voice 3: From Morgana, who's our communication specialist.

[0:08:37] Voice 8: I think we need to talk to David Mahler.

[0:08:39] Voice 3: He was the one who informed her.

[0:08:40] Voice 3: uh

[0:08:41] Voice 8: yeah this i'm just fine okay so are you talking like this this just this just seems

[0:08:49] Voice 8: really weird uh why can't you use your island's trust email why does it have to be your personal

[0:08:53] Voice 8: email it

[0:08:53] Voice 3: doesn't have to be my personal email i want it to be my personal email

[0:08:57] Voice 8: okay anyway

[0:09:04] Voice 3: when you write on it please write very clearly because i had a hard time last time

[0:09:11] Voice 3: and if you've already signed up then don't don't sign up here all right all right so

[0:09:18] Voice 7: normal

[0:09:18] Voice 5: public meeting procedures if you want to be recognized and there it helps if you give your

[0:09:25] Voice 5: name just for familiarity and we'll just we will

[0:09:30] Voice 7: go around the room as required so the first

[0:09:35] Voice 7: Okay, so exciting

[0:09:37] Voice 7: setbacks, go ahead.

[0:09:38] Voice 7: Sorry, my name's Jane Birch.

[0:09:41] Voice 7: I'm not going to go setbacks yet.

[0:09:42] Voice 7: I just had an administrative issue that I

[0:09:44] Voice 6: wanted to address.

[0:09:45] Voice 1: Certainly.

[0:09:46] Voice 6: So in talking to one of the trustees, I've been trying to sort of follow as things are

[0:09:52] Voice 6: happening whatever's on the trust website.

[0:09:55] Voice 6: I did know that there were some meetings in workshops, I guess they were, each of the

[0:10:01] Voice 6: the trustees that too. And I was trying to find what happened

[0:10:05] Voice 6: with those workshops. So I looked on the website, I didn't

[0:10:08] Voice 6: see anything on the website, then I did see something under

[0:10:12] Voice 6: under the project, but then under,

[0:10:15] Voice 7: I think, I forgot, not

[0:10:18] Voice 7: not not. I did find

[0:10:20] Voice 6: two things there on one on one of the

[0:10:24] Voice 6: topics, I think was set back, but the other I couldn't find

[0:10:27] Voice 6: anywhere. And talking to the trustee, he informed me, oh, well, you have to go look in the

[0:10:33] Voice 6: trustee's corner. And I'm thinking, well, this makes no sense to me, because who would

[0:10:38] Voice 6: even know that something dealing with a project that we're working on is in a trustee's

[0:10:43] Voice 6: corner? I'm asking if that could be corrected so that all the information dealing with the

[0:10:50] Voice 6: project is in a spot where we at least would know to look at it. Most of us have difficulty

[0:10:54] Voice 6: as it is with the trust website this is the complication we actually don't need i think it's

[0:10:59] Voice 6: readily addressed and and then the second thing i'm hearing and i just wanted to get

[0:11:05] Voice 6: clarification i know sometimes we're supposed to if we're going to do writing there's either

[0:11:10] Voice 6: you're writing to inform there's two different either the ltc committee or the other the other

[0:11:17] Voice 6: adjacent from what i understand the other one after about what is it

[0:11:21] Voice 7: that

[0:11:21] Voice 6: i understand doesn't go to the trustees directly it goes to the staff who eventually

[0:11:32] Voice 6: submitted to the trustees and sometimes i'm very not so timely so i'm wondering why that is and

[0:11:38] Voice 6: why we need to have two and why couldn't we just have the local trust committee directly that

[0:11:43] Voice 6: that's who we correspond so they see it immediately still goes to staff so it's just an administrative

[0:11:48] Voice 6: thing and i think i'm understanding the same thing's happening with correspondence because

[0:11:52] Voice 6: if you send it there it doesn't get posted for a long time so i know there was first one been sent

[0:11:58] Voice 6: and it's not being posted in a timely manner so i'm

[0:12:02] Voice 7: just hoping that maybe that's something that

[0:12:04] Voice 7: so i was going to say quickly i think the south the

[0:12:08] Voice 8: south implement is for the southern

[0:12:10] Voice 8: the Southern Gulf Islands, it's not just the South Panda.

[0:12:13] Voice 8: So we don't have any authority over that.

[0:12:18] Voice 8: So that would be up to the constituents here,

[0:12:20] Voice 8: which one you choose to send it to.

[0:12:23] Voice 8: I recommend that you send it directly

[0:12:24] Voice 8: to your local trust committee email,

[0:12:28] Voice 8: versus the South Langboe.

[0:12:30] Voice 8: So that, but we can't stay to discontinue that

[0:12:34] Voice 7: because it's used for all the Southern Gulf Islands.

[0:12:36] Voice 7: So when we have something specific to South Panda,

[0:12:38] Voice 7: like the meeting coming up

[0:12:39] Voice 7: or something that we want to submit correspondence,

[0:12:42] Voice 7: it's due to that to send to.

[0:12:44] Voice 7: So, you know, I was under the impression

[0:12:45] Voice 7: that's where all this is going now,

[0:12:47] Voice 7: as opposed to right now.

[0:12:50] Voice 6: So it's confusing.

[0:12:52] Voice 6: So, I mean, I don't know why we're not dealing

[0:12:54] Voice 6: directly with the trustees

[0:12:55] Voice 6: and why do we even need to mention the second one

[0:12:57] Voice 6: unless it's something that affects

[0:13:00] Voice 7: all islands.

[0:13:02] Voice 2: So what we

[0:13:03] Voice 8: could say is in future correspondence

[0:13:05] Voice 8: going out that you just,

[0:13:07] Voice 8: we just provide our email address like the uh but the self info one that is being meant by

[0:13:16] Voice 8: by people they're getting they're getting emails from all of the southern gulf islands so it takes

[0:13:20] Voice 8: longer to work through it because it's going to have a much fuller inbox so again it's your

[0:13:29] Voice 8: choice if you want to send information there if that option is open to you but if you want it to

[0:13:34] Voice 8: be um if you want us to see it faster just just use the local trust committee email and what we

[0:13:42] Voice 8: can ask is that in future correspondence that it does that we just have that instead of the option

[0:13:48] Voice 8: of both but i know that should something happen to to that email address because sometimes there

[0:13:53] Voice 8: are glitches you have a second option so again it would just be personal reference of the people

[0:14:01] Voice 8: sending it out so

[0:14:04] Voice 7: let me just pass over to reach a time management stream and just to outline

[0:14:09] Voice 7: why things are to play around the website and why reason what email addresses that we're using

[0:14:14] Voice 7: so things related to the project is the project website things directly related to the paper

[0:14:19] Voice 7: that was posted there i understand you know there's the trustee corner and i think that's

[0:14:23] Voice 7: the focus because this is a video that you're posting there you wanted

[0:14:27] Voice 3: to post there yeah

[0:14:27] Voice 3: which is specific to the department yeah

[0:14:30] Voice 7: um so there's those alternative spots

[0:14:35] Voice 7: um so with respect to the email like um trustee evan said the south info email is for

[0:14:41] Voice 7: many email correspondence that

[0:14:43] Voice 3: comes in some trustee business

[0:14:46] Voice 7: related some is from other

[0:14:49] Voice 7: agencies sending referrals it's just a central email box we want to

[0:14:53] Voice 7: avoid a proliferation of

[0:14:54] Voice 7: different email layouts to the equipment and admin staff and we don't have anyone whose full-time job

[0:15:01] Voice 7: is to check email uh email box it's just one part of one person's job so try and make things as

[0:15:07] Voice 7: simple and efficient as possible and like christy evan said the trustees have their their individual

[0:15:14] Voice 7: email and that's the primary way to communicate with directly with the trustees i

[0:15:21] Voice 6: think besides

[0:15:22] Voice 6: Besides the video, I think, of Dags, there's also his record of the workshop posted on terms of house size.

[0:15:32] Voice 6: So that's under the trustee corner.

[0:15:34] Voice 6: So that doesn't make sense.

[0:15:35] Voice 7: Yeah, I'll look at that.

[0:15:38] We're on it.

[0:15:40] Voice 7: Great, thank you.

[0:15:41] Voice 7: Sir?

[0:15:41] Voice 7: Sorry, I just have the email sign-in sheet here.

[0:15:45] Voice 7: I'm a little uncomfortable with communicating via a non

[0:15:50] Voice 5: -Islands Trust email, because those

[0:15:54] Voice 5: would be communication with my representative, they'd be on the record, they'd be discoverable

[0:15:58] Voice 5: in the hands of a server that's under the control of the Islands Trust.

[0:16:03] Voice 5: And so

[0:16:04] Voice 7: I'm not really comfortable signing up on that, and I think, I don't think it's

[0:16:08] Voice 7: a wise choice, that's my opinion as a citizen.

[0:16:10] Voice 7: And I think it's an opportunity for back-channel communication.

[0:16:15] Voice 7: You can also rally, you can also have a back-channel group

[0:16:17] Voice 7: that you're communicating with outside of the IDIS Trust

[0:16:23] Voice 7: official channels.

[0:16:24] Voice 7: And I would rather have it just on the up-and-up

[0:16:27] Voice 7: use your regular IDIS Trust email for IDIS Trust business.

[0:16:30] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:16:32] Voice 4: This is David Ramos.

[0:16:34] Voice 4: So it was very confusing.

[0:16:36] Voice 4: could you explain again why we have to give you this email and why what is the main problem what

[0:16:46] Voice 4: is the main issue with the email through the islands trust i

[0:16:55] Voice 3: i can't send an email to you

[0:16:57] Voice 3: through islands trust or personally unless we have your permission the the list that has about

[0:17:04] Voice 3: 200 names on it right now is very outdated and many people have moved off that move without

[0:17:11] Voice 3: the islands if that list was maintained and i'm um the policy internal policy i'm told

[0:17:18] Voice 3: doesn't allow trustees to use that to communicate with our you know with you

[0:17:26] Voice 3: so that's the problem because i want to communicate to you

[0:17:29] Voice 4: so if i send you an email and

[0:17:33] Voice 4: and you need to communicate back to me,

[0:17:35] Voice 4: it will come from your personal email?

[0:17:37] Voice 3: That's my choice.

[0:17:38] Voice 3: If you send it to me on my Islands Trust email,

[0:17:41] Voice 3: I'll probably reply there because that's easy, right?

[0:17:45] Voice 3: But many people contact me on my personal email

[0:17:49] Voice 3: because I, well, not because,

[0:17:52] Voice 3: but I find the email that we have for Islands Trust

[0:17:56] Voice 3: very, very difficult to maintain the,

[0:18:01] Voice 3: like searching the emails.

[0:18:03] Voice 3: and categorizing them and so on finding an email from the past from everything that i've tried i

[0:18:09] Voice 3: cannot find a way to put in a search term like your name and say i want to pull up all the emails

[0:18:14] Voice 3: you may have sent me in the past that function isn't there so therefore my personal email has

[0:18:21] Voice 3: all of that and i can find anything that's happened through my personal email so that's

[0:18:28] Voice 3: why i like to use that okay

[0:18:30] Voice 8: can i interject there is a search function because i use it all the time

[0:18:34] Voice 8: okay um so i can show you how to do that and i was going to say any trustee related work should

[0:18:41] Voice 8: be flowed through your trustee's email once you take it online you should only you shouldn't be

[0:18:47] Voice 8: talking as a trustee um because anything that you do as a trustee should be ever liable it is even

[0:18:56] Voice 3: it's my personal email it's just that it would have to be through my personal email which that

[0:19:01] Voice 3: risk is one that i've been willing to take okay

[0:19:03] Voice 8: so i actually feel i feel very uncomfortable with

[0:19:06] Voice 8: you doing that that's my discomfort as well um but if this is your choice this is your choice

[0:19:13] Voice 8: and as far as a subscriber list goes um is that what you're talking about the islands

[0:19:19] Voice 8: trust subscriber list is out of date um yeah so i mean that's that's up to these people here if

[0:19:26] Voice 8: they want to subscribe up to that um and if they're already on the subscriber list

[0:19:31] Voice 8: then i think that's okay well

[0:19:34] Voice 7: i can't send you no no

[0:19:35] Voice 8: you not not not yeah i i feel very

[0:19:39] Voice 8: uncomfortable with this so

[0:19:41] Voice 7: so just just like for clarity about the terminology there's subscriber

[0:19:47] Voice 7: email, so many of you may have signed up to subscriber email, that's what individual trustees

[0:19:56] Voice 7: should not be using to communicate directly with people. Really, they should be using

[0:20:00] Voice 7: their items trust email, not that personally. It's the subscriber email that is, I think,

[0:20:08] Voice 7: the issue in this circumstance.

[0:20:10] Voice 8: Yeah, we don't have direct access

[0:20:12] Voice 7: to the subscriber email.

[0:20:13] Voice 7: And that's where there's limits. People sign up for a particular purpose, to receive information,

[0:20:18] Voice 7: like an immediate speech, like that, notifications, or trustee-related

[0:20:29] Voice 7: conversations by email or distributions by email, like by individual trustees,

[0:20:33] Voice 7: that shouldn't be on, that's not the purpose of the subscribe, you know.

[0:20:36] Voice 8: No, like if you're going to, but if you're going to send out, like, and I've done this,

[0:20:39] Voice 8: if i'm going to send out a community-wide communication then i write that out and i

[0:20:44] Voice 8: give that to staff and they release it if i want to have a one-on-one conversation with a constituent

[0:20:50] Voice 8: then as long as that constituent has reached out to me i can talk on my um on my trustee email back

[0:20:58] Voice 8: to them but if i want to reach out to someone who's not spoken to me then i would call them

[0:21:05] Voice 8: up on the phone or go and go and find them in the community but i don't see why i would do

[0:21:11] Voice 7: that if i hadn't had a question so i'm just saying that the former trust we're doing exactly what

[0:21:16] Voice 7: what is doing yes i've

[0:21:18] Voice 7: received many emails from one of them

[0:21:24] Voice 7: oh

[0:21:25] Voice 6: yeah i wanted to say is that i think daniel wants to have a use his personal email and no

[0:21:30] Voice 6: problem with that it's up to us to decide whether what we're comfortable with and it has been

[0:21:37] Voice 6: forever thus that we've dealt personally with personal emails with the trustees so i don't

[0:21:42] Voice 7: know why we're taking up all this time with that i think it's up to us to decide where our comfort

[0:21:48] Voice 7: is okay well yeah two quick

[0:21:54] Voice 4: points uh one is um it's pretty simple to make sure trustees get a

[0:21:59] Voice 4: the copy of any letter that you send in

[0:22:02] Voice 7: simply by copying the trustee on their trust email and

[0:22:07] Voice 7: that's what i do and i also include both south and the more recent emails so that

[0:22:14] Voice 7: there should be no problem there i also agree with trustee evans about the importance of keeping

[0:22:22] Voice 7: keeping a public record. To me, as a member of the APC, I will be relying on the public

[0:22:29] Voice 7: record as important input. So, I encourage the trustees to maintain the public record

[0:22:37] Voice 7: with integrity. That's, to me, very important. So, anyway, I'll leave it there.

[0:22:43] Voice 7: Thank you. All right. So, shall we get on to siting?

[0:22:47] Voice 5: Get

[0:22:47] Voice 8: on to business. Yeah.

[0:22:49] Voice 5: So, does anybody have any thing to

[0:22:52] Voice 5: to ask or comment on on this topic i was told it was controversial so i'm expecting lots of hands

[0:23:03] Voice 7: well i'm going to start and i'm sure i'll get some backlash about it but um i wrote a letter

[0:23:08] Voice 7: yesterday but this is just my opinion so i'll just start to follow it interior setbacks uh

[0:23:18] Voice 7: should refer to 10 feet for Rural Route 1 and Rural Route 2 categories.

[0:23:24] Voice 7: Rural Route 3 is a different category.

[0:23:25] Voice 7: It's much larger properties.

[0:23:27] Voice 7: Of the major southern Gulf Islands, Salt Spring, North Pender,

[0:23:31] Voice 6: South Pender, Maine, Saturna, and Galliano,

[0:23:34] Voice 6: South Pender, with the passage of the revised Bylaw

[0:23:37] Voice 7: 114,

[0:23:39] Voice 7: is the only island to have 20-foot inferior setbacks for dwellings

[0:23:43] Voice 7: for properties that resemble our Rural Route 1 and Rural Route 2 categories.

[0:23:48] Voice 7: Galeano has 20-foot interior set bookbacks for their Rural Route 1 and Rural Route 2 properties,

[0:23:54] Voice 7: but those categories differ greatly in required lot size for subdivision and in other criteria.

[0:24:02] Voice 7: Their village residential categories most resemble South Panthers, Rural Route 1 and Rural Route 2 categories,

[0:24:07] Voice 7: and interior setbacks there are 20 feet for property and units.

[0:24:11] Voice 7: Oh, that's not fast.

[0:24:13] Voice 2: We're going to get the message.

[0:24:16] Voice 7: Am I going too fast for everyone?

[0:24:18] Voice 7: little i think you're rattling it off and i think it's important and i'd like to hear and understand

[0:24:23] Voice 7: so while some people have mentioned that wells and septic systems can be located in 20 foot

[0:24:34] Voice 7: interior setbacks that demonstrates a misunderstanding of distances that are

[0:24:39] Voice 7: required by crd between wells and septic systems not only on one property but also on the neighboring

[0:24:47] Voice 7: green properties. Also, well drillers only want to drill in easily accessible locations

[0:24:53] Voice 7: and septic systems can only be located in CRD-approved areas based on personal achievements. This

[0:25:00] Voice 7: is not something that owners can decide by themselves. There has been mentioned by some

[0:25:06] Voice 7: of greater noise levels between built 10 feet versus 20 feet from the property line, but

[0:25:13] Voice 7: but the actual noise difference is insignificant

[0:25:15] Voice 7: and other writers to the trustees have mentioned

[0:25:18] Voice 7: those finer differences.

[0:25:19] Voice 7: This is the bill online.

[0:25:21] Voice 7: Sorry, I don't have it there.

[0:25:24] Voice 7: Privacy has also been cited as a major concern

[0:25:27] Voice 7: between 10 versus 20 feet.

[0:25:29] Voice 7: But again, the difference is insignificant.

[0:25:32] Voice 7: If one stands at their fence or their property line

[0:25:35] Voice 7: and imagines that difference,

[0:25:36] Voice 7: if they cannot readily view a home

[0:25:38] Voice 7: or other buildings from the property line um sorry um the the minor difference will be apparent

[0:25:50] Voice 7: nobody wants a building built even 30 feet from the property line of their of their property but

[0:25:55] Voice 7: the adjacent property is not my property and i should be prepared to accept that a neighbor might

[0:26:01] Voice 7: build something i do not completely like it seems hypocritical that some of the people complaining

[0:26:08] Voice 7: complaining about the possibility of returning to the previous interior setback themselves have dwellings, let alone accessory buildings, which are not generally occupied for long periods that are less than 20 feet from the interior property line, some at the 10-foot level or even closer, and that is information that's been drawn from mapping.

[0:26:27] Voice 7: owners of properties can and do take mitigating measures to reduce the impact of a closed building

[0:26:34] Voice 7: or even a closed outdoor seating area without having to resort to more restrictive bylaws

[0:26:40] Voice 7: that's my favorite thank you um okay um

[0:26:48] Voice 6: setbacks um i have written about this before but um

[0:26:51] Voice 6: it's a it's a very added thing so i'm going to do an example of my own property so it's just

[0:26:58] Voice 6: it's over just over

[0:26:59] Voice 7: in the third um besides the setbacks when we built that we have to take into

[0:27:04] Voice 7: consideration there was the separation requirements from the wellness that

[0:27:07] Voice 6: existed there were top

[0:27:09] Voice 6: of graphical considerations that we have to take into consideration and on top

[0:27:13] Voice 6: of that there was a

[0:27:14] Voice 6: restrictive covenant where we could not put any habitable dwelling on that restrictive covenant

[0:27:21] Voice 6: is 0.4 of my property so that is a substantial amount of property that is already taken out of

[0:27:27] Voice 6: use and I know along canal road there are many properties that have a restrictive covenant where

[0:27:34] Voice 6: they cannot go so if there was going to be any consideration for changing though what we what

[0:27:40] Voice 6: well I would like to go back to what we had because again making non-conforming should not

[0:27:46] Voice 6: be a means of planning and that's kind of what we're doing now using non-conforming and development

[0:27:51] Voice 6: invariance premise to to try and to to to try and keep our our community together with something but

[0:28:00] Voice 6: that's not you know we should we shouldn't always um in my view um non-conforming is it is not it

[0:28:09] Voice 6: should be the exception rather than the norm right now the way we have setbacks if we're going to

[0:28:15] Voice 6: keep them there's a number of people who may who remain non-conforming and i know that's going to

[0:28:20] Voice 6: be a big discussion again but um again it's not the way to plan so i'm not sure how we can come

[0:28:26] Voice 6: to your point about bringing us all together on that point i'm not sure maybe house dwelling size

[0:28:32] Voice 6: maybe there's some legal room setbacks i'm not sure because there's some other complications

[0:28:36] Voice 6: and i think if you're going to look at setbacks i think you should also look at where where how many

[0:28:42] Voice 6: where are the problems and i didn't even know what the issue was when they when we had the setback

[0:28:47] Voice 6: change? Because there was no discussion in the last

[0:28:49] Voice 6: term. And was it noise?

[0:28:51] Voice 6: Was it privacy?

[0:28:53] Voice 6: I didn't really know

[0:28:54] Voice 6: what the issue was.

[0:28:55] Voice 7: And especially when most of the properties

[0:28:57] Voice 7: are already built on. So it was

[0:28:58] Voice 7: very difficult to

[0:29:01] Voice 7: retroactively try and fix something that's already

[0:29:03] Voice 7: there. And then what is it that you're actually fixing

[0:29:05] Voice 7: if it's noise? Well, nobody's going to

[0:29:07] Voice 7: move their

[0:29:07] Voice 7: building. So

[0:29:08] Voice 7: that one really troubles me.

[0:29:11] Voice 6: And I just think if you're going to look at that,

[0:29:13] Voice 6: maybe you also need to map out

[0:29:15] Voice 6: where buildings are and also

[0:29:16] Voice 6: So where are all those covenants that restrict what people can do on their property and how

[0:29:21] Voice 7: severely are you affecting them?

[0:29:25] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:29:27] Voice 7: Anybody else?

[0:29:29] Voice 7: I'd like to speak to the setback issue of the 50 feet from the boundary of the sea.

[0:29:39] Voice 7: I view that as a very important change for our community.

[0:29:44] Voice 7: I think that if we look at the map in Schedule B of the properties around the island, you see most of the properties really are along the shoreline, either the northeast or the south.

[0:30:00] Voice 7: west shorelines a lot of those properties are small the 50 foot setback provides a degree of

[0:30:08] Voice 7: protection for the sensitive ecosystems along the shoreline uh i think that that is a key

[0:30:15] Voice 7: consideration there and strongly support the 50 foot setback from the boundary of the sea

[0:30:21] Voice 7: thank you anybody else

[0:30:26] Voice 2: you could

[0:30:27] Voice 7: just explain that um the 50-foot setback i don't know what

[0:30:33] Voice 7: the answer is to setbacks but how does that protect the um the ecological

[0:30:43] Voice 6: environment

[0:30:43] Voice 6: i just like to know that so maybe i can answer

[0:30:48] Voice 7: that like how does it protect it

[0:30:49] Voice 6: the

[0:30:50] Voice 7: setback of 15.

[0:30:51] Voice 7: Rachel, can I manage your camera because that's his wheelhouse.

[0:30:54] Voice 1: Sure.

[0:30:54] Voice 7: Thank you, Jeremy.

[0:30:56] Voice 7: So generally,

[0:30:58] Voice 7: setbacks, a greater

[0:30:59] Voice 7: setback from what's called a natural

[0:31:01] Voice 7: boundary of the sea, which is usually the high tide

[0:31:03] Voice 7: mark. The further back

[0:31:05] Voice 7: your development is, the

[0:31:07] Voice 7: less impact it will have on

[0:31:10] Voice 7: the vegetation right along the

[0:31:11] Voice 7: shoreline, what's called the near shore

[0:31:13] Voice 7: vegetation, which can be

[0:31:15] Voice 7: sensitive, a very sensitive area.

[0:31:17] Voice 7: and also mitigate or minimize impacts onto the actual marine environment from development being really close to the natural boundary.

[0:31:31] Voice 7: And there's also potential visual impacts, building closer to the shoreline,

[0:31:41] Voice 7: you know, new construction seen from the sea or seen from other lots. There's also protection

[0:31:50] Voice 7: of the development from hazards. So with erosion, more storm surges, sea level rise impacts,

[0:32:01] Voice 7: building back further from the natural boundary protects development from hazards. So those

[0:32:09] Voice 7: are kind of the main sort of principles around why you would have a setback from a feature like the

[0:32:16] Voice 7: ocean i

[0:32:17] Voice 6: certainly understand about their voting issue but when you talk about like the the island

[0:32:22] Voice 6: it's it varies so much the topography north and south um so when they're all the cliffs which we

[0:32:31] Voice 6: have southwest i don't know about the 50 feet by

[0:32:37] Voice 7: its nature zoning applies broadly right and so

[0:32:41] Voice 7: uh there are

[0:32:42] Voice 3: you know mechanisms like a variance if it makes sense to build closer

[0:32:48] Voice 3: some local trust committees some local governments manage development around the shoreline

[0:32:53] Voice 3: through other tools like

[0:32:54] Voice 7: development permits where it's a more discretionary case-by-case

[0:33:00] Voice 7: review based on professional

[0:33:02] Voice 7: impacts on the natural

[0:33:05] Voice 7: environment or

[0:33:06] Voice 7: hazards to development.

[0:33:07] Voice 6: I think one problem

[0:33:10] Voice 6: is cantilevering, which in my opinion is cheating

[0:33:14] Voice 6: when you cantilever over a cliff.

[0:33:19] Voice 7: Cheating.

[0:33:19] Voice 6: In that

[0:33:20] Voice 8: you can build well within

[0:33:22] Voice 8: the 20 feet.

[0:33:24] Voice 7: No. So a setback is measured

[0:33:26] Voice 7: to the closest portion of the building not to the foundation necessarily it's the closest portion of

[0:33:33] Voice 7: the building to the feature that has to be set back but that's the cantilever is not flooded

[0:33:40] Voice 7: pardon me yes so it gives me an example of a candidate yeah we're talking about

[0:33:48] Voice 7: so that is different from the cantilever in the building with that okay so but it is still

[0:33:54] Voice 3: a feature and setbacks from lot lines might have

[0:33:58] Voice 3: they might be reduced for features like decks

[0:34:03] Voice 7: usually the setback from the sea is more prescriptive it includes decks and that's being

[0:34:11] Voice 7: permitted in the setback and other temperatures well

[0:34:16] Voice 6: I don't understand that because this particular

[0:34:17] Voice 6: property that we're talking about has a deck that cantilevers over the sea and if you kayak

[0:34:23] Voice 6: at under the cliff so you can

[0:34:25] Voice 7: see the deck yeah i'm not going to go okay well that's who knows

[0:34:30] Voice 7: how i got there who knows how long it's been there we've got a variance perspective issue

[0:34:36] Voice 7: i

[0:34:36] Voice 6: don't want to argue it's brand new but i think about what we don't want so you look at something

[0:34:42] Voice 6: and think well i don't think that's appropriate so i'm addressing that issue that it projects over

[0:34:49] Voice 6: the cliff and there was dynamite a lot of dynamiting blasting done to bring down the

[0:34:55] Voice 6: rock face i don't think we should have that either i don't think that's appropriate at all

[0:35:02] Voice 6: so

[0:35:02] Voice 7: i'm just looking at on that particular section of south pender island where there are high cliffs

[0:35:08] Voice 7: and the sea is right at the base of the cliff those are problems i'm not sure what you're

[0:35:15] Voice 7: asking or are you directing your comments a little for custody or hey you've

[0:35:21] Voice 5: stimulated lots of hands

[0:35:22] Voice 5: up so uh so gentlemen just behind there and then we have the gentleman's beside then we have the

[0:35:27] Voice 5: man with the back so you first yes sir oh

[0:35:30] Voice 3: gordon um i am in favor of the interior

[0:35:34] Voice 7: setbacks for sure

[0:35:35] Voice 7: going back to 10 feet the reminder is that we've already developed 80 of the lots so therefore the

[0:35:45] Voice 7: the dwellings and stuff are already there.

[0:35:48] Voice 7: So there's no benefit to imposing

[0:35:54] Voice 7: a 20 foot setback for those properties.

[0:35:59] Voice 7: In terms of the number of properties that were captured

[0:36:04] Voice 3: with the changes made by bylaw 122 with respect to setbacks,

[0:36:10] Voice 7: there's about 52 properties were captured, 30 of them being within the interior setback

[0:36:20] Voice 7: and 22 from the seaside setback. And how did I get that? Using MAPA. So I'll ask

[0:36:29] Voice 7: Tanner Fujima if MAPA is reasonably accurate and I would feel quite comfortable if those

[0:36:36] Voice 7: those numbers are accurate. It's got an associated with it has

[0:36:43] Voice 7: errors associated with it. It's

[0:36:45] Voice 7: not like a survey. Well, it's not

[0:36:46] Voice 7: like the errors associated. I wouldn't rely on it as

[0:36:56] Voice 7: an objective measure. No, but it's reasonably accurate. You would say nothing within five

[0:37:03] Voice 7: to ten percent probably yeah a couple of years ago i think those numbers are very fairly valid

[0:37:09] Voice 7: so that that shows the number of homes that were captured there and then so we turn around and

[0:37:16] Voice 7: write an exemption clause to absolve them being non-conforming doesn't quite make sense if we

[0:37:25] Voice 7: want to consider maybe new properties or undeveloped properties and maybe a 50 foot

[0:37:31] Voice 7: on the sea or whatever that's a possibility but i don't think there's any logic in making a blanket

[0:37:39] Voice 7: 20 feet where the only delphi was already been mentioned out pender or north pender just went

[0:37:46] Voice 7: through the land right now bylaw renewal magic lake they're still 10 foot you know so we're the

[0:37:53] Voice 7: only ones we have like 30 properties that are under an acre so it's a really small number

[0:38:04] Voice 7: and again the big thing is they're all the stuff they're already here the properties are already

[0:38:09] Voice 7: developed thanks okay thank you so we have the three gentlemen in the back so one in the middle

[0:38:16] Voice 7: and then the two sides can fight over it so yeah so we're not fighting

[0:38:27] Voice 7: the one state of washington has a really good section under state legislation on shoreline

[0:38:35] Voice 7: protection where they they missed some of the evidences why should be protected and why set

[0:38:40] Voice 7: that should be quite uh quite extensive some of those issues some of those features are

[0:38:48] Voice 7: erosion the damage is caused by construction uh which include blasting and also the

[0:38:54] Voice 7: disruption to vegetation uh they also include the nutrient flow to and from the sea uh as a

[0:39:04] Voice 7: a very important feature also um coast the cliff environment reason why we should protect uh and

[0:39:12] Voice 7: increase our sandbox is that the cliff environment which is a bunch of our shorelines cliff environment

[0:39:18] Voice 7: many of our our shorelines are cliff environments is the most threatened ecosystem on the gulf

[0:39:23] Voice 7: islands uh and we should be respectful of the water flow uh the interruptions without the

[0:39:30] Voice 7: the nutrient flow uh the air fed the way the birds and and creatures move across the landscape

[0:39:36] Voice 7: i think those are all pretty good reasons to increase that detection uh the many the the

[0:39:41] Voice 7: guidelines for um impacts due to climate change in british columbia currently recommend

[0:39:48] Voice 5: a minimum

[0:39:49] Voice 5: setback to 50 feet and the government the provincial government is set to legislate on that

[0:39:55] Voice 5: at in

[0:39:56] Voice 7: the near term upcoming so that in general coastal their plan is to have coastal shorelines

[0:40:04] Voice 7: protected by a minimum of a 50-foot setback so I think that there's really really good strong

[0:40:09] Voice 7: reasons for us to increase our setbacks from the sea as for the side yard setbacks I do favor

[0:40:15] Voice 7: for ecological purposes it is better to have broader corridors joining the seaside environment

[0:40:24] Voice 7: environment, with the interior environment, and therefore I think from an analogical standpoint

[0:40:29] Voice 7: it is a good practice to make maximum corridors, in other words, keep the 20 foot setbacks.

[0:40:39] Voice 7: Great, thank you.

[0:40:40] Voice 7: So

[0:40:41] Voice 5: to add on to that, the ecosystem also threatens species, so here not only do we have certain

[0:40:49] Voice 5: in the Chub Chub state, for example,

[0:40:51] Voice 5: and there are other species that are threatened

[0:40:54] Voice 5: in that environment.

[0:40:55] Voice 5: So providing more distance from them

[0:40:57] Voice 5: allows them a better chance of survival.

[0:41:02] Voice 5: The conditions in

[0:41:04] Voice 7: Washington state and Oregon

[0:41:06] Voice 7: actually are significantly more restricted.

[0:41:09] Voice 7: And some of the research that John did actually

[0:41:14] Voice 7: follows

[0:41:14] Voice 5: that 50 foot setback.

[0:41:16] Voice 5: There's actually a, in Washington State has separate zoning for shorelines.

[0:41:22] Voice 5: In addition to property zoning, they also

[0:41:25] Voice 7: have separate shoreline zoning, each property

[0:41:27] Voice 7: is zoned for shoreline as well as residential.

[0:41:32] Voice 7: And in general, their setbacks are much, much more restrictive than us.

[0:41:37] Voice 7: For instance, in Klamath County, they're over 150 feet in general in most of the zones,

[0:41:43] Voice 7: zones, except for in the urban

[0:41:44] Voice 5: areas like Port Townsend.

[0:41:47] Voice 5: All of the other counties are different,

[0:41:49] Voice 5: but they all have a separate zoning for coastal versus

[0:41:54] Voice 5: interior, sorry,

[0:41:56] Voice 7: coastal versus residential.

[0:41:59] Voice 7: And they are almost all much more restricted.

[0:42:03] Voice 7: So what that would look like is a 20 or 30-foot

[0:42:07] Voice 5: sensitive

[0:42:13] Voice 5: So they're, they're doing a

[0:42:15] Voice 7: restriction for protection of the ecosystem and they're keeping the building. I wouldn't generalize, because the county county was different, which has one when we deal with the state, perhaps, they were setting examples of other areas,

[0:42:32] Voice 5: but these are also various systems.

[0:42:36] Voice 7: uh across the border

[0:42:39] Voice 7: so we just have one speaker at a time go into conversations please because we've got to sort

[0:42:47] Voice 7: of keep this on the record and if everybody's speaking the camera doesn't catch it so

[0:42:53] Voice 7: um

[0:42:54] Voice 5: one of the uh one of the other important considerations that we set back uh distance

[0:43:02] Voice 5: is also sort of respecting adjacent properties

[0:43:07] Voice 5: and their view corridors, their sight lines, and so forth.

[0:43:11] Voice 5: And it's often cited that because properties are reconstructed,

[0:43:18] Voice 5: that they're not going to change.

[0:43:19] Voice 5: We have examples already where things are being constructed

[0:43:23] Voice 5: in places that people didn't anticipate.

[0:43:26] Voice 5: and uh we're um to cite a previous document that i i did some work on and submitted

[0:43:37] Voice 5: looking at the actual imap and i appreciate the the uh inaccuracy of it but generally what it

[0:43:46] Voice 5: shows is that the vast majority of constructed properties here exceed the previous model

[0:43:52] Voice 5: all requirements relative to setback from front yards and rear yards in many cases from side yards

[0:44:00] Voice 5: and so people generally in the past would often site their home based on a conversation they had

[0:44:08] Voice 5: with their neighbors and well that that works when there's not a lot of development as things change

[0:44:14] Voice 5: that starts to fall apart so there's a big push to revert to a 25 foot setback or what we had

[0:44:22] Voice 5: before but actually what's constructed here is largely 50 to 85 feet back and so it's a really

[0:44:30] Voice 5: curious argument but I keep hearing it over and over again I'm really puzzled by it what my

[0:44:36] Voice 5: question would be is for anybody advocating a 10 foot side yard setback and if they've been to

[0:44:45] Voice 5: property adjacent to that on one of our smaller lots and we're now getting into one acre lots

[0:44:50] Voice 5: and so forth if they've actually seen what that looks like because it has a significant impact

[0:44:55] Voice 5: on adjacent properties depending on department and everything else and so if we're keeping if

[0:45:02] Voice 5: we're keeping variances as part of consideration uh to start from a position of saying it should

[0:45:09] Voice 5: be more and you can if you can't build your own in that area do these other considerations we would

[0:45:16] Voice 5: consider looking at making an alteration to that it allows more flexibility in terms of sighting

[0:45:25] Voice 5: rather than a kind of one rule fits all properties so maybe to frame that in a question is there any

[0:45:32] Voice 5: consideration being given to looking at different setbacks for lots of a certain size or a certain

[0:45:40] Voice 5: width because maybe that eliminates some of the contention because on a large land

[0:45:46] Voice 5: we have a

[0:45:47] Voice 7: lot of opportunity where we have a lot of funding you can site your own

[0:45:51] Voice 7: much more immensely than you can on a narrow lot maybe an

[0:45:59] Voice 5: acre but more and more it's in the front

[0:46:00] Voice 5: in the

[0:46:00] Voice 7: back and whose side you

[0:46:02] Voice 7: are as a very concerned so is there any consideration given to

[0:46:05] Voice 7: looking at more zoning for different plot sizes um

[0:46:11] Voice 8: during the workshop that uh that i led on the

[0:46:16] Voice 8: size and setbacks and i can't remember if

[0:46:18] Voice 8: you were there or not that was actually something

[0:46:21] Voice 8: that was brought up and the consensus in the room was that was actually a good idea so that

[0:46:30] Voice 8: all of the ideas are for them to consider we had somebody that had come over from boundary pass

[0:46:35] Voice 8: that was stating that the lots along boundary pass tend to be rather narrowed from the road

[0:46:41] Voice 8: to the sea so having your setback from the road and the setback from the sea

[0:46:48] Voice 8: for some lots meant that there was nowhere to build so and and uh that that that was sort of

[0:46:56] Voice 8: generally agree that that strip perhaps could be a separate zoning and I look to Robert to say

[0:47:03] Voice 8: whether or not we can make a subzone so and I believe that we can seeing it in other in other

[0:47:10] Voice 8: bylaws in other islands so yes that is definitely a consideration and I think from the feedback that

[0:47:17] Voice 8: we got at that rather well attended workshop that that might be a really good proposition to make

[0:47:23] Voice 8: and feel good to even see to see what their recommendations are coming back to us afterwards

[0:47:29] Voice 8: so for sure

[0:47:29] Voice 7: okay concurrent uh

[0:47:33] Voice 3: yeah yeah well that sounds like something i should explore

[0:47:37] Voice 3: very much so we'll

[0:47:39] Voice 4: sort of evaluate it sure thank you again my name is david ramos so um going back

[0:47:45] Voice 4: Back to Shelly's example, just to clarify that, because it's the next door neighbor.

[0:47:52] Voice 4: My understanding is that the foundations of the new house are at 25 feet.

[0:47:59] Voice 4: So they didn't do anything illegal, but their deck cantilevers almost to the sea.

[0:48:09] Voice 4: So I think that's what Shelly was referring to.

[0:48:13] Voice 4: it's like, it feels like a she, she, so, and it doesn't look good, I agree, so if we would have

[0:48:20] Voice 4: had 50 feet, if we would have had that setback in place, that situation wouldn't, it would not

[0:48:29] Voice 4: have happened, so I agree with the 50 feet setback from the sea, on the same token, the 20

[0:48:39] Voice 4: fitted back on the sides i find that somewhat intrusive especially for

[0:48:46] Voice 4: narrow lots so if that could be revised somewhat um i i would i i would support that great thank

[0:48:56] Voice 4: you i'm

[0:48:57] Voice 8: just going to okay yeah i'm

[0:48:58] Voice 8: just going to also say i've had a lot of feedback from

[0:49:01] Voice 8: again there's another section where there's a lot of very long very narrow lots so again

[0:49:08] Voice 8: Looking at separate zonings might be an option.

[0:49:14] Voice 8: So thank you for your comment.

[0:49:15] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:49:16] Voice 7: So we have a man on the back, and we have two gentlemen on the side.

[0:49:19] Voice 7: Two comments.

[0:49:21] Voice 7: As far as the cantilever deck, just having gone through building a building,

[0:49:28] Voice 7: I'm well aware from building before that if you build a deck, a normal deck,

[0:49:35] Voice 7: You can go, I think, well, whatever three feet is, it used to be three feet, now it's saying one meter or something.

[0:49:42] Voice 7: You can go that far into the setback, and it's legal.

[0:49:47] Voice 7: This would be simple with a change in wording about that three-foot allowance for decks or whatever those other allowances are to include cancellations for decks.

[0:50:00] Voice 7: that would be a simple fix for that one and they would not have been able to deal with

[0:50:05] Voice 7: that kind of thing for that the way that they did with everybody obviously whereas um my other

[0:50:12] Voice 7: comment again and i'm going to say this again and point out to people that we've had this law

[0:50:19] Voice 7: or the ruling that can put setbacks always as have as i pointed out every other gulf island

[0:50:27] Voice 7: in our area my property is my property my neighbor's property is their property they

[0:50:34] Voice 7: should not have that much say over what i do on my property provided that i am within the bylaws

[0:50:40] Voice 7: maybe some people don't seem to want anybody there who does i mean they're going to go come

[0:50:46] Voice 7: on this is my property i wouldn't have you know five acres around me but nobody able to see into

[0:50:51] Voice 7: my daughter to do anything we live in rural residential areas we don't live in our own

[0:50:59] Voice 7: little oasis where nobody's going to be around us the 10 foot setbacks have been there for years

[0:51:05] Voice 7: anybody who moves into a property should realize that's what it is we have deer coming through our

[0:51:11] Voice 7: property they go wherever they can get through right so i mean i don't understand why we need a

[0:51:17] Voice 7: 40 foot corridor for the for them or for the butterflies or whatever we get to me it's just

[0:51:25] Voice 7: it's going too far for south pender island just this little island to be so different

[0:51:30] Voice 7: want to have everything that way to me it's too much i think you should just be where we are and

[0:51:39] Voice 7: not have to move around two more ahead of you so you were next sir yeah i just want to support the

[0:51:48] Voice 7: the changes that have occurred that have increased the setbacks both

[0:51:53] Voice 7: sidewalk on and from the ocean or you know environmental concerns and

[0:52:00] Voice 7: ecological concerns and um that are real uh in spite of what's happening on other islands i

[0:52:08] Voice 7: think south pender island is being progressive and i don't think there's anything wrong with that it's

[0:52:13] Voice 7: It's, I'm seeing more and more development

[0:52:18] Voice 7: and the results of those,

[0:52:22] Voice 7: a lot of that development is absolutely degrading

[0:52:26] Voice 7: the quality of our natural environment,

[0:52:29] Voice 7: which is very important, I think.

[0:52:32] Voice 7: And we should make every effort possible

[0:52:35] Voice 7: to try and work around that

[0:52:36] Voice 7: instead of pushing it aside

[0:52:39] Voice 7: and giving it slivers of,

[0:52:41] Voice 7: well, we've addressed nature,

[0:52:43] Voice 7: sure we have a 10 foot strip that to me isn't good enough i think we can do better um as far as the

[0:52:51] Voice 7: you know the controversial house on sultan's drive that has the cantilever deck it's um it's

[0:52:57] Voice 7: pretty outrageous and i think greater setbacks would have helped to avoid the impact that that

[0:53:02] Voice 7: house has created that house kind of represents the demographic that's occurring on the islands

[0:53:10] Voice 7: these days where there's a certain there's excessive money there's people that are like

[0:53:14] Voice 7: they're multiple up there they're building i've seen a lot of houses that are their people's

[0:53:20] Voice 7: third houses and their mansions and they're being built and money's no object um and in that case

[0:53:27] Voice 7: they you know encroached on the the steep slope cliff uh sensitive ecosystem they pantolivered out

[0:53:35] Voice 7: out of over, I think, one of the most beautiful cliff shorelines on South Pender Island.

[0:53:43] Voice 7: And it's not just for the neighbors to see, it's for others from the ocean to be.

[0:53:49] Voice 7: The visual impact to me is, I find, disturbing.

[0:53:53] Voice 7: And I don't know, I just like to relay my support.

[0:53:58] Voice 7: I think we should make more effort to try and protect what we have, which is unique.

[0:54:03] Voice 7: um and and yeah there you go thank you gentlemen well i just want to talk about an example from

[0:54:15] Voice 7: data from the project 50 to 20 years ago i wasn't here at that time but we had a cave and we went

[0:54:21] Voice 7: back about 15 to 20 feet on the shoreline and i realized that we were though we're about 65 to 70

[0:54:30] Voice 7: feedback and if we were there we might be naturally canceled even by now so in terms of being

[0:54:36] Voice 7: terrible infrastructure and the

[0:54:38] Voice 7: environmental concern that could have impacted at that time

[0:54:41] Voice 7: it's i totally agree with protecting them thank you so we've been listening and then okay yeah

[0:54:52] Voice 7: quickly sure

[0:54:54] Voice 2: i

[0:54:56] Voice 6: wanted to say is that when i asked the question about what is the ecological

[0:55:00] Voice 6: environmental benefit

[0:55:02] Voice 7: of the 50 foot my impression was from everybody's oh she's against that i

[0:55:08] Voice 7: wanted the information i never got information at the

[0:55:11] Voice 6: other meetings at all like why why are we

[0:55:15] Voice 6: doing this and so don't push back when somebody asks the question or feel threatened oh she's

[0:55:21] Voice 6: against it i want to know i'm curious so just tell me why it's important as opposed to sitting

[0:55:28] Voice 6: back thinking oh well she's against it you

[0:55:31] Voice 7: know i uh

[0:55:33] Voice 7: i can see a greater setback from the sea

[0:55:40] Voice 7: one thing i'd like to point out as well if people

[0:55:43] Voice 6: build at 10 feet they have like a small property

[0:55:46] Voice 6: they build at 10 feet doesn't that mean that on the other side of their house there's a bigger

[0:55:51] Voice 6: corridor so

[0:55:53] Voice 7: i wonder if you look at the um nutrition nutrient flow that that makes up for

[0:56:01] Voice 7: a bit i mean i do people really want to build cheap to gel except for again this one house

[0:56:07] Voice 7: that we're talking about for the cantilever which is shocking really how close it is to the other

[0:56:12] Voice 7: property um but anyway i just wanted to point that out if you build it 10 feet then the other

[0:56:19] Voice 7: the other side should be a bigger corner.

[0:56:21] Voice 7: But I'm not saying that I'd put them 10 feet.

[0:56:24] Voice 7: I'm just saying that's just that.

[0:56:26] Voice 7: Okay, thank you very much.

[0:56:29] Voice 7: Just a couple of things that's come up in the session

[0:56:31] Voice 6: and a special zone.

[0:56:34] Voice 6: I think that's something that really should be considered.

[0:56:36] Voice 6: I know Golan Point is a special area.

[0:56:38] Voice 6: That area was developed before there were bylaws in place

[0:56:42] Voice 6: for width to depth ratios.

[0:56:44] Voice 6: And so you have some very long, narrow lots

[0:56:47] Voice 6: and yes, your neighbors are very close.

[0:56:48] Voice 6: it's it's unusual and maybe it deserves some special consideration as to what happens there

[0:56:54] Voice 6: so often to me i think that makes sense as a way of dealing with this where the where the problems

[0:56:59] Voice 6: exist and not on the whole island so that makes sense to me um then uh the the thing about us

[0:57:06] Voice 6: that the setbacks the more you set back there is a tendency especially if you have a view

[0:57:11] Voice 6: you have a 50 foot setback you're going to clear to get that view so i know

[0:57:16] Voice 6: people say but if

[0:57:18] Voice 6: there's no restriction on how much you can clear and even on the side cutbacks so you you might be

[0:57:23] Voice 6: you're saying you're protecting but you may not be protecting because you're not there is no

[0:57:26] Voice 6: restriction against people clearing their land they may do it building-wise but you're not doing

[0:57:31] Voice 6: it clearing-wise so that's another consideration to um take in um and then the other thing um

[0:57:38] Voice 6: talking about erosion well there actually is a lot of erosion happening from the sea

[0:57:43] Voice 6: I'm not debating that, but I think we've talked about this during the last term and this sort

[0:57:49] Voice 6: of started to come up.

[0:57:50] Voice 6: And some of the views voiced at that time said there should be some kind of mitigation

[0:57:55] Voice 6: to help stop the erosion from the seed and the trees that we're losing because of the

[0:58:00] Voice 6: erosion and the other undercutting.

[0:58:02] Voice 6: Rather, the 50-foot setback is not going to help that.

[0:58:04] Voice 6: So the erosion is something we should maybe address in terms of, I know people don't like

[0:58:11] Voice 6: to talk about you know trying to deal with the messing with the natural actions but and in fact

[0:58:18] Voice 6: it's causing damage as well so there could be some mitigation measures maybe there as well

[0:58:25] Voice 1: thank you

[0:58:26] Voice 3: um something i forgot to mention uh past and in turn to going back to the 10 foot

[0:58:34] Voice 3: lot lines. I trust everybody realizes that the 20 foot lot lines only apply to out dwellings

[0:58:43] Voice 3: and cottages. So one can build a 1500 square foot accessory building at 10 foot. So it's

[0:58:51] Voice 3: just illogical to have 20 for the houses and 10 for a building that can generate as much

[0:59:01] Voice 3: noise

[0:59:01] Voice 7: will take down the corridor the natural environmental corridor and go

[0:59:09] Voice 7: ahead and do that it's just an illogical reason leave it at 10 because all the

[0:59:16] Voice 7: sight lines are already established for the large majority of properties because

[0:59:21] Voice 7: we're already developed again I guess we want to consider the undeveloped

[0:59:28] Voice 7: properties that may be a different uh a different possibility but to impose that on already existing

[0:59:38] Voice 7: properties makes no sense thank you for that

[0:59:44] Voice 7: yeah so we're back then you can but you're coming back again i just want to come into um about the

[0:59:51] Voice 7: 10 foot setback from the side bloodline as well i know in the good gallon point area oxbow ridge

[1:00:00] Voice 7: castle road area um i know a lot of people on this island and i know of a lot of joy and revelry i

[1:00:07] Voice 7: also know a lot of bitter bitterness and anger about activities because there's as people get

[1:00:14] Voice 7: closer um these kind this kind of tension um it happens like there's some serious risks on some

[1:00:24] Voice 7: of these bridges um and i think it's because people are too close so that that again would

[1:00:32] Voice 7: help mitigate that um create more of a buffer between people people like living communities

[1:00:39] Voice 7: but they need to be separated so down

[1:00:43] Voice 4: with the back yeah yeah um i just want to say that uh if

[1:00:49] Voice 4: The fear of legal non-conforming should be,

[1:00:53] Voice 4: and somebody said that already, but I would like to repeat it.

[1:00:56] Voice 4: It should be something that is used sporadically.

[1:00:59] Voice 4: And it's a rare, it should be rare.

[1:01:02] Voice 4: If we start using it, blanketing everybody with legal non-conforming,

[1:01:08] Voice 4: then we have an issue and we should revise that.

[1:01:10] Voice 4: We need to, or think about how to proceed because it is not normal

[1:01:18] Voice 4: and it should be very rare so that's my point

[1:01:24] Voice 7: we agree with you on that thank you

[1:01:26] Voice 7: yes so

[1:01:27] Voice 7: having participated in 30 meetings like this

[1:01:32] Voice 5: uh about the same topics over and over and over again

[1:01:37] Voice 5: hearing the same arguments being put forward over and over and over again

[1:01:41] Voice 5: um it's very clear uh there are some people that are opposed to any change there's some people that

[1:01:53] Voice 5: totally support change and there are a lot of other people that are open and willing to listen

[1:01:59] Voice 5: to why change my view um what i've heard repeatedly for four years three years is

[1:02:08] Voice 5: is, and I've even used this argument to a certain extent myself, is we look at, we look

[1:02:14] Voice 5: in the rear view mirror at what is here, and we often use that to determine what we think

[1:02:23] Voice 7: it should be, but I want to be really clear and

[1:02:28] Voice 5: kind of remove any sort of clouds in people's

[1:02:30] Voice 5: eyes.

[1:02:31] Voice 5: Things are changing.

[1:02:34] Voice 5: People have more money.

[1:02:36] Voice 5: People are prepared.

[1:02:37] Voice 5: They have technologies that they can build in areas that they couldn't, that can do forms

[1:02:42] Voice 5: of construction that allow them to build in ways that they couldn't before.

[1:02:47] Voice 5: Where there are many, many lots that have been built on, any lot here that's zoned residential

[1:02:54] Voice 5: is an opportunity for a new house or an expansion or whatever.

[1:02:58] Voice 5: People can

[1:02:58] Voice 5: do things that they couldn't do before, now they have the money to do that.

[1:03:01] Voice 5: so my caution my urging is instead of looking in the rearview mirror we need to look forward

[1:03:09] Voice 5: because what what is here and what is so special is already at the risk of disappearing and it's

[1:03:17] Voice 5: happening around us and we're going to get there in a couple of years and we're going to go oh

[1:03:22] Voice 5: gee i didn't see that coming i can tell you that it's something that's property by property

[1:03:28] Voice 5: and very soon you won't recognize the way that it was here 23 years ago

[1:03:33] Voice 5: because it

[1:03:34] Voice 7: will be your work that will change.

[1:03:36] Voice 7: So you have an opportunity to be forward-looking

[1:03:42] Voice 7: and

[1:03:43] Voice 5: understand that maybe the way that it was applied before

[1:03:48] Voice 5: because it was a different environment,

[1:03:51] Voice 5: I need to tell you that's not the way that it's going to be.

[1:03:55] Voice 5: I was struck by an example just today, as a matter of fact.

[1:04:00] Voice 5: A partner is from Revelstoke, and we participated

[1:04:03] Voice 7: in a meeting many years ago where they were talking about the zoning for the Revelstoke Mountain Resort.

[1:04:11] Voice 7: It seemed like a really illogical kind of

[1:04:14] Voice 5: thing and weird place and there's no population and whatever else.

[1:04:18] Voice 5: uh i picked up a magazine today and the first first thing that i saw was a new development

[1:04:26] Voice 5: there where the properties start at four and a half million dollars i'm aware of a house under

[1:04:32] Voice 5: construction there that is 17 million dollars construction value we

[1:04:37] Voice 7: sat in a room in the town

[1:04:41] Voice 7: And someone from Planner came and said, I need to say to you, be cautious, be aware of forces.

[1:04:51] Voice 7: This is a marvelous place. Capital is mobile. People are mobile.

[1:04:57] Voice 7: They're going to come here and

[1:04:59] Voice 5: they're going to change it unless you pay attention.

[1:05:02] Voice 5: And it's already happening here. So we can look in the past and think that it's just let's keep it the way that it was because it was marvelous.

[1:05:11] Voice 5: list people we have an example right next door

[1:05:17] Voice 7: to us two doors down from us built under the existing

[1:05:20] Voice 7: zoning and not only does that impact everything because it hangs over the cliff it

[1:05:27] Voice 5: impacts the

[1:05:28] Voice 5: neighbors on either side one that wasn't expecting to be looking into the dining room window

[1:05:33] Voice 5: and the other now they had to put up a big fence because that house is built 10 feet from the side

[1:05:39] Voice 5: it looks right down on top of it and the

[1:05:43] Voice 7: owner they're absolutely justified in doing what they

[1:05:47] Voice 7: were doing it's something so many limitations in terms of our insight and everything else

[1:05:52] Voice 7: they can do that what i'm saying is if you can do it and find a way to do it someone's going to do

[1:05:59] Voice 7: it so

[1:06:01] Voice 5: don't make it less

[1:06:02] Voice 7: restrictive so

[1:06:04] Voice 8: i'm listening to what you're saying um and it is

[1:06:09] Voice 8: very much in line with what we're going to be charged with uh coming up uh governmentally we

[1:06:15] Voice 8: have to come up with a 20-year plan it used to be a five-year plan it is now a 20-year plan

[1:06:21] Voice 8: and this is one of the big reasons why we're all here and why why i opened the meeting

[1:06:28] Voice 8: we've got um on these topics we have two very distinct options neither of which

[1:06:36] Voice 8: are that the room is not in consensus on either of those options this is a good opportunity for

[1:06:42] Voice 8: us to sit down take a look at our bylaws and say let's start planning let's stop reacting let's

[1:06:51] Voice 8: start planning but let's start planning in a fair manner fair manner to the environment a fair manner

[1:06:56] Voice 8: to our residents a fair manner to everything so as we're sitting here and we're having these topics

[1:07:05] Voice 8: topics yes now we are aware that having a cantilever deck is something that we should

[1:07:13] Voice 8: maybe address right what else can we come up with that that we should address and let's let's start

[1:07:21] Voice 8: having those conversations let's start looking at where we need to be and where we are how do

[1:07:28] Voice 8: we get there and how do we all agree to get there so this is why i keep saying we need ideas coming

[1:07:35] Voice 8: coming from the community and rather than just saying i like where i am i like where we were

[1:07:40] Voice 8: let's start working together and come up with ideas that will protect what we've got

[1:07:49] Voice 8: and there are ideas out there and i've heard in various conversations are good ideas out there

[1:07:55] Voice 8: let's start bringing them to these forums let's start having these discussions here

[1:07:59] Voice 7: year okay

[1:08:02] Voice 7: yeah

[1:08:03] Voice 3: along the same similar lines um this change that we're all living basically and

[1:08:14] Voice 3: facing in the future is definitely the concern that we're all dealing with right and it's it's

[1:08:21] Voice 3: i guess we can see it as a threat potential threat at least and what i'm interested in

[1:08:28] Voice 3: is understanding how we can best protect against the negative effects of such change

[1:08:36] Voice 3: and that is the key here is like what is the best way to protect against that and I think that's

[1:08:43] Voice 3: what I'm wrestling with all the time is is this the best way or is that the best way and I

[1:08:50] Voice 3: I find that there's I believe it seems to me that there's more opportunity to do better

[1:08:58] Voice 3: than we are doing currently with what we have to address those things.

[1:09:04] Voice 3: And just to use one example, somebody brought up,

[1:09:11] Voice 3: if people cut trees down closer to the fur line,

[1:09:16] Voice 3: because there's houses set back further,

[1:09:19] Voice 3: that sensitive ecosystem may have had a forest on it.

[1:09:24] Voice 3: if it gets clear cut basically you know from edge to edge of the of the property in order to provide

[1:09:32] Voice 3: that view what i'm interested in understanding and we probably don't have the answers yet or

[1:09:38] Voice 3: maybe we do not yet how does the the negative effect on the on the sensitive environment

[1:09:48] Voice 3: differ between a house being built on it versus all the trees that used to be there are cut

[1:09:57] Voice 3: cut. Now, if I had some kind of science telling me that it's clear, you know, cutting trees,

[1:10:04] Voice 3: that's no big deal, they grow back or something like that, then that would be an easier decision

[1:10:09] Voice 3: for me to make. But not knowing the answer to that, I'm not really comfortable saying, well,

[1:10:16] Voice 3: this is the solution. It's a great solution. We're just going to do that. That's protecting

[1:10:20] Voice 3: the environment. I'm just not there yet. That's why we're having these discussions. So I can get

[1:10:25] Voice 3: more clear all of us probably can get more clear um you know what is the best way to do that because

[1:10:30] Voice 3: i'm just as concerned as you about the change absolutely we're on the same page

[1:10:38] Voice 3: so we have to kind of bring it back to how do we know what the best way to protect our environment

[1:10:45] Voice 3: is i've seen and so it's outside of in some ways a little outside of the scope of what we're

[1:10:52] Voice 3: talking about the setbacks but when i hear a very strong argument being put forward is that we need

[1:10:59] Voice 3: to retain that setback and i'm not for or against anything by the way so far i'm i haven't made my

[1:11:04] Voice 3: mind up about virtually anything except the uh anyway the one thing i don't want to make the

[1:11:19] Voice 3: I think what

[1:11:22] Voice 8: we're both sitting up here saying is we're trying to work with you to come up with

[1:11:26] Voice 8: a solution that is going to benefit this community and the environment and protect the island and our

[1:11:33] Voice 8: way of life I

[1:11:35] Voice 3: know what I you know to me I've seen several properties that have literally been

[1:11:40] Voice 3: in clear-cut, almost boundary-to-boundary, fairly recently.

[1:11:45] Voice 3: And we have no way of addressing that, no way of addressing that at all.

[1:11:49] Voice 3: And I know we have people concerned about having too much regulation.

[1:11:54] Voice 3: You know, we don't want to have to have a permit cut down on any tree type of thing.

[1:11:59] Voice 3: That would be too much.

[1:12:00] Voice 3: So there's that concern.

[1:12:02] Voice 3: But for me also, there's a concern that we don't have a single tool

[1:12:07] Voice 3: to address clear-cut lots.

[1:12:09] Voice 3: and i'm seeing it if i wasn't seeing it i you know whatever the change that you're talking about

[1:12:14] Voice 3: is here is happening and we can sit here for the 30th and 34th meeting whatever

[1:12:22] Voice 3: and discuss the setbacks and say well we're going to protect we're going to protect we're

[1:12:25] Voice 3: going to protect this the other thing meanwhile the trees are could be cut down and that's much

[1:12:31] Voice 3: more severe of a change and a threat to the environment we are not talking about that and i

[1:12:38] Voice 3: I have a little bit of a distrust to why we're saying we're going to protect it in this way.

[1:12:45] Voice 3: And that's really, really important.

[1:12:47] Voice 3: And you have to understand that, you know, all of this energy going into saying this is the argument.

[1:12:52] Voice 3: And then, but I don't even want to talk about this other threat to the very same environment.

[1:12:57] Voice 3: We're not even bringing it up.

[1:12:59] Voice 3: So that is a concern to me because I'm actually looking for the best way to protect the environment.

[1:13:05] Voice 3: That's what I'm about.

[1:13:08] Voice 7: Okay, so we have many hands up, so gentleman there, man on the side, back to the side,

[1:13:14] Voice 7: so.

[1:13:16] Voice 7: Just recalling the previous community members' comments about taking the long view forward,

[1:13:23] Voice 7: I'd really like to reinforce that, I thought that was well articulated, and that is important

[1:13:29] important for

[1:13:29] Voice 7: the focus here um um uh maintaining the verbal character of self-pandering is a key

[1:13:39] Voice 7: goal and that uh those insights really speak to that uh that character is under threat now

[1:13:49] Voice 7: I believe because of uh the changes that are occurring socially and uh so I think protecting

[1:13:56] Voice 7: against that for the future is important but I wanted to comment quickly on is the idea that

[1:14:02] Voice 7: the 50-foot setback leaves some properties legally non-conforming. I think that with the recent staff

[1:14:10] Voice 7: report on that, those properties are now deemed legally conforming. That's up September 15, 2022.

[1:14:19] Voice 7: 22 um they can be replaced where they are uh if if there's a damage or um burn down or whatever

[1:14:30] Voice 7: destruction happens so i i think there's protection for people there but i do think

[1:14:36] that taking the long view and

[1:14:37] Voice 7: protecting that corridor is fundamentally important so i just

[1:14:41] Voice 7: wanted to thank you um just one thing that i would like to address myself that um you know i i hear

[1:14:53] Voice 7: that we don't that some people in the room don't want to change i really don't think there's anybody

[1:15:00] Voice 7: who doesn't understand that we are in an environmental problem no doubt nobody can

[1:15:07] Voice 7: not be used or be aware of anything around them and not know that but i'm very much concerned

[1:15:15] Voice 7: about the hyperbole that's being thrown around 17 million dollar homes will not be built here

[1:15:21] Voice 7: without and without a variance that would probably never ever be approved before the um

[1:15:28] Voice 7: The bylaw 122 changes in 114 had been reduced and we were able to build 10% of our property.

[1:15:43] Voice 7: What was as far as I remember, we were allowed to build 10% of your property size for your

[1:15:50] Voice 7: lot coverage.

[1:15:51] Voice 7: That could be a house if that's all you wanted to build.

[1:15:53] Voice 7: then the bylaw or bylaw 114 sizes came down to whatever they were and i'm not in any great need

[1:16:04] Voice 7: to go completely back to what they were but if somebody applied for a variance i've seen pictures

[1:16:11] Voice 7: of posted of these mega mansions that are would never have been approved under the previous bylaw

[1:16:19] Voice 7: law 114 and yet we're being told well this is what could happen here this is what could happen here

[1:16:24] Voice 7: no one could not have happened here it's not going to happen here again without a huge variance and

[1:16:32] Voice 7: nobody would approve that variance so i think there's just too much of this being passed around

[1:16:37] Voice 7: and fear-mongering about what could possibly happen i don't think that that could ever

[1:16:43] Voice 7: possibly happen here because the Americans wouldn't have been allowed on

[1:16:48] Voice 7: first base. I think we need an adjustment. We'll talk about that a little bit later but I just want to

[1:16:53] Voice 7: address hyperbole. It needs to stop. Thank you very much and we're watching the

[1:16:59] Voice 7: clock as we've set an hour for the for the first part of the discussion so

[1:17:02] Voice 7: we'll try and wrap this up a little bit sooner. Just in regards to what Dag said about

[1:17:08] Voice 7: you know we're focusing on one thing when we possibly should be talking about other like

[1:17:16] Voice 7: um you know clear cutting of lots or cutting trees within sensitive ecosystems on the waterfront well

[1:17:25] Voice 7: i'm not here to for any other reason than to defend um what the previous trustees

[1:17:35] Voice 7: brought forward. I honestly feel that that was progressive and what the route that we need to be

[1:17:41] Voice 7: taking. And I would like to have been spending this time now preparing, having public meetings

[1:17:48] Voice 7: about how we can protect the waterfront even further with DPAs or development. I guess that's

[1:17:55] Voice 7: one thing that Southenders is lacking. Are those protections, you know, definitive protections of

[1:18:04] Voice 7: of specific natural areas on the island.

[1:18:08] Voice 7: So I'm here and it's being defensive.

[1:18:11] Voice 7: I'm not here to, I feel like I'm wasting a lot of my time.

[1:18:15] Voice 7: I'm very busy, but I also feel it's important

[1:18:21] Voice 7: for me to show up as a person

[1:18:23] Voice 7: and like long-term residents of New Island

[1:18:26] Voice 7: to let you guys know that I'm here and that's my position.

[1:18:35] Voice 5: So the

[1:18:36] Voice 7: constraints of this process was to talk about changes to bylaw 1.4 and I've been

[1:18:43] Voice 7: very very clear in previous comments and I just want to reiterate that I felt that we

[1:18:49] Voice 7: are completely focused on these

[1:18:52] Voice 5: changes that are largely to do with property rights when

[1:18:56] Voice 5: The much bigger issues surrounding us are the actual mission

[1:19:01] Voice 7: and landing of Ground Trust,

[1:19:02] Voice 7: which is to protect the environment and the amenities of South Pendler Island.

[1:19:05] Voice 7: It would be lovely

[1:19:06] Voice 5: to be able to get into the next process where we talk about those

[1:19:09] Voice 5: things.

[1:19:10] Voice 5: Of the local surrounding jurisdictions, only Saturne and Maine and South Pendler have no

[1:19:20] Voice 5: restrictions on shoreline vegetation, what you can and can't do with shoreline vegetation

[1:19:25] Voice 5: vegetation, etc. It isn't an either-or

[1:19:28] Voice 7: scenario. You don't move the setback from 25 to 50 foot

[1:19:34] Voice 7: and all the trees get removed. That seems to be what we're saying. You're going to move

[1:19:39] Voice 7: this setback and then everybody's going to remove all the trees. Most people like the

[1:19:43] Voice 7: trees. Most people live with trees in front of them. We live with trees in front of us.

[1:19:47] Voice 7: It's great. The actual view angles aren't much changed between 25 and 50 feet. You don't

[1:19:54] Voice 7: You don't have this clear-cut side-to-side to get review back.

[1:19:58] Voice 7: There are many, many, you know,

[1:20:00] Voice 7: it doesn't automatically mean that the cheese are going to be cut down.

[1:20:03] Voice 7: However, it would be lovely to be able to get to a point

[1:20:05] Voice 7: where we can discuss what is good practice

[1:20:08] Voice 7: in terms of shoreline management,

[1:20:10] Voice 7: protection of the Arbutus and the Gary Oak,

[1:20:12] Voice 7: which are shoreline preferred species,

[1:20:16] Voice 7: and they're also heavily under threat,

[1:20:19] Voice 7: and they're environmental, developmental, et cetera.

[1:20:23] Voice 7: it would be lovely to be able to get to those topics and have something where we can move

[1:20:28] Voice 7: beyond the fact that we are one of the only three jurisdictions that doesn't say something

[1:20:32] Voice 7: about what you can

[1:20:33] Voice 7: and can't do with those environments. Thank you. So I want to address

[1:20:38] Voice 7: the comments made that I was using. I'm not. There's a house for sale on North

[1:20:48] Voice 7: fender right now that is i think sixty and a half million dollars um

[1:20:52] Voice 5: if you talk to our local uh

[1:20:54] Voice 5: building inspector chris watson he'll tell you i grew up here i never thought i'd see the day when

[1:21:01] Voice 5: i was working on houses that are seven and ten thousand square feet i can tell you that uh

[1:21:07] Voice 5: building costs to build a custom home today on pender is seven hundred to a thousand dollars

[1:21:14] Voice 7: a square foot

[1:21:14] Voice 5: um

[1:21:15] Voice 7: i can tell you that um uh there are many other examples of homes that are

[1:21:23] Voice 5: um well in excess

[1:21:25] Voice 5: of five million dollars um i know of one for example that the same building

[1:21:29] Voice 5: that i'm working with on razor black road took seven years to build and it

[1:21:34] Voice 7: cost on the order

[1:21:35] Voice 7: of seven hundred dollars a square foot um it's 90 to think that that's not going to happen here

[1:21:44] Voice 7: little world of cottages. The example that we've cited time and

[1:21:51] Voice 7: time again about the house on Southlands, I would think, I

[1:21:55] Voice 7: believe that their

[1:21:56] Voice 5: construction cost is probably somewhere

[1:21:59] Voice 5: between two and a half to $3 million construction costs. So

[1:22:04] Voice 5: that's here, I'm not using, I'm using real world examples. Our

[1:22:13] Voice 5: they can't take on network and they're not building for

[1:22:17] Voice 7: they're not building little houses

[1:22:18] Voice 7: they're building big houses so that's just the reality thank you i just wanted to get back to

[1:22:26] Voice 7: setbacks because

[1:22:26] Voice 6: we're still on setbacks right and this is like a small little point but um

[1:22:32] Voice 6: i think that stalling road is changing and i think setbacks um are super important to be

[1:22:40] Voice 6: written in stone

[1:22:41] Voice 7: and not subject to um variation um and that's why it's really important that they

[1:22:49] Voice 7: are reasonable and i applaud you for trying to get something that is going to work for everybody

[1:22:54] Voice 7: as best it can and then i thought the value-based decision making um video that you have was really

[1:23:01] Voice 7: good and very helpful

[1:23:02] Voice 6: but what i wanted to say is that you know right now what's happening on

[1:23:07] Voice 6: that road is there is building going on within the setbacks there's two great huge water tanks

[1:23:13] Voice 6: trees have come down a big building is made i do not understand why any of that was allowed

[1:23:20] Voice 6: and i think it's really really important that when you do decide on the setbacks

[1:23:25] Voice 6: that

[1:23:26] Voice 7: they are written in stone and it's going to be extraordinary to have a change made through

[1:23:33] Voice 7: variation process okay thank you so do you guys want to move on to these let's give them a quick

[1:23:41] Voice 7: five minute yeah okay and then we'll come back all right so everybody wants to come back at 11 30.

[1:23:47] Voice 7: and we'll move on

[1:35:12] Voice 2: if we get that together yeah right

[1:35:16] Voice 7: so we're working towards the next part

[1:35:21] Voice 7: um which is residential floor area any trustees want to start an intro to that

[1:35:25] Voice 7: no

[1:35:26] Voice 5: all right so i'm assuming everybody

[1:35:31] Voice 7: understands what's before us so does anybody have any comments

[1:35:33] Voice 7: on the residential portal area okay um

[1:35:37] Voice 8: so at the last community information meeting when we're

[1:35:40] Voice 8: talk about house height we said this might be something that could be incorporated into this

[1:35:46] Voice 8: discussion as well because i think those two might actually fit well together go ahead oh

[1:35:53] Voice 6: where's the hot coffee

[1:36:06] Voice 7: okay we disappointed the constituents

[1:36:11] Voice 2: i'll

[1:36:12] Voice 7: try and do better next time thank you thank you

[1:36:15] Voice 7: bring you some main island coffee there's nothing better i can assure you

[1:36:21] Voice 7: all right down on the back um this actually just came from the slide discussion and i don't think

[1:36:26] Voice 7: was mentioned before if i just didn't put it out there um i know the pulling made a comment at the

[1:36:32] Voice 7: last meeting um one of the this is my research expert here who does keep dyes and tends to go

[1:36:42] Voice 7: down gravel walls and uh we uh have had lots of discussion about looking at zoning uh constructs

[1:36:52] in other places one thing that did come through that i haven't heard particularly

[1:36:58] Voice 7: was a requirement

[1:37:00] Voice 7: that's explicit in zoning that you can't block the neighbors view and so we're we're for uh we

[1:37:10] Voice 7: could count on moral suasion we can count on neighborliness we could get together and they'd

[1:37:14] Voice 7: say hey i built a house on this lawn um but the worst i put it whatever like you see places where

[1:37:22] Voice 7: the houses are way far back like 75 feet or whatever

[1:37:27] Voice 7: despite the fact that the setback is 25 feet but the neighbors got

[1:37:31] Voice 7: together and they decided

[1:37:32] Voice 7: um if you're considering making changes and maybe one way to consider is to include something that

[1:37:46] like that in zoning, where typically it says you cannot walk when it is viewed.

[1:37:51] Voice 7: You would have to apply for a variant for a variance if you do, which requires an engagement.

[1:37:57] Voice 7: So it's a pain in the battle, perhaps, but it's another tool that you might have in your kit of tools to try and shape

[1:38:06] Voice 7: outcomes without the zoning balance that we're used to.

[1:38:10] Voice 7: Thank you. I do want to say that we are trying to avoid situations forcing people into variances.

[1:38:20] Voice 8: because um and i know this has been raised before it's not just the cost associated with the

[1:38:24] Voice 8: variance itself but it's the delay to um production and which sometimes can actually result in people

[1:38:31] Voice 8: being not able to finish yeah i've

[1:38:34] Voice 7: heard that said right i'm for building on south pender today

[1:38:40] Voice 7: uh they know a few of the builders you can't get a fixed price contract to build a residential

[1:38:49] Voice 7: structure fixed price contract today again to bring in all five of the person a fixed price

[1:38:57] Voice 7: contract yeah um well i know an island contractor that's building cheap properties now also not

[1:39:07] fixed price

[1:39:07] Voice 7: contracts so maybe there is someone who can do that to do that we're in an environment

[1:39:12] Voice 7: where construction parts part of that has been talking at length we're in an environment where

[1:39:16] Voice 7: construction costs have ratcheted up to an extreme point and they're not coming down

[1:39:22] and in a very short period of time we're seeing things

[1:39:24] Voice 7: like cost of concrete double

[1:39:26] Voice 7: you know so forth um that's that's just the reality of having uh the opportunity for there to

[1:39:38] Voice 7: be variances allows for there to be a discussion to perhaps can't

[1:39:44] Voice 5: come up with one

[1:39:45] Voice 7: size fits all

[1:39:47] Voice 7: it's not really

[1:39:48] Voice 5: because you can't please everybody you can't respect every law

[1:39:52] Voice 7: understand every law consideration every lot's different analog and wide a lot lots of lots of

[1:39:59] Voice 7: topography and department whatever so at least the variance allows you to have some conversation

[1:40:06] Voice 7: the fact is the last four years of construction cost example that cited about you know i could

[1:40:15] Voice 7: have taken advantage of the contract and it cost me less less hundreds of thousands of dollars

[1:40:21] Voice 7: maybe but i can tell you that the cost since then continued to escalate so it's not that might be

[1:40:29] Voice 7: one long time um if you're building today and you're you're spending 700 to a thousand dollars

[1:40:40] workload

[1:40:40] Voice 7: which is the growing rate for a new construction a 1900 variance fee is not

[1:40:47] Voice 7: partnership i'm sorry no i'm sorry i

[1:40:50] Voice 8: was i was absolutely saying that the 1900 is not the issue

[1:40:54] Voice 8: the issue is the delay in the project going through the variance process especially when

[1:41:00] Voice 8: the rates are going up so rapidly so something that you so while it might be 702 000 square foot

[1:41:06] Voice 8: today six months down the road it could be another hundred dollars more so that

[1:41:10] Voice 8: that is part of and

[1:41:12] Voice 8: and what i'm trying to say here is by having a blanket variance that a process for people to

[1:41:19] Voice 8: go through is to me isn't good what

[1:41:23] Voice 7: i'm trying to say is that was a moment of time i can i can cite

[1:41:27] you the cost of concrete that we paid that is different from over a period of three years

[1:41:33] and cost of lumber that was different over four years and not

[1:41:39] Voice 7: only did it go up but it came down

[1:41:42] Voice 7: at one point lumber if you would have bought lumber construction would pay twice

[1:41:50] you it's not that anymore it came down so it's a it's a false equivalency uh as

[1:41:58] Voice 7: i say unless

[1:41:58] Voice 7: you're getting a fixed price contract and build a house and i don't know any custom house builder

[1:42:03] Voice 7: today in this environment that would guarantee you would be set from his

[1:42:08] Voice 7: things go up things come down that's just the reality so to not uh to use that as the basis

[1:42:17] Voice 7: to not have any variances okay so i'm just i'm going to say i am not comfortable with your

[1:42:24] Voice 7: trustee to come up with uh or to approve a bible that is going to result in the majority of

[1:42:31] Voice 7: buildings having to go through a variance process i don't feel comfortable doing that

[1:42:37] Voice 3: I want to mention the one thing that I have made up my mind about is that I do not think that planning a process where variances are a solution is not good planning to my view.

[1:42:51] Voice 3: i think variances should be they should be rare and there should be the availability of a variance

[1:42:58] Voice 3: in a process because this can't be 100 right but to plan that all the issues that come up

[1:43:06] Voice 3: that we know are going to are going to be resolved to a variance process i do not think that's

[1:43:13] Voice 3: good planning i would not be taking my responsibility very seriously if i did that

[1:43:18] Voice 3: because it's sloppy. Because the hard work, I believe, that we have to do to tailor

[1:43:27] Voice 3: bioplasts so that we don't have to use so many variances, not rely on them, that's the work that

[1:43:34] Voice 3: we are here to do. And if we track that work by using variances, that's what I think it is.

[1:43:44] Voice 3: We haven't

[1:43:45] Voice 1: done our work.

[1:43:46] Voice 3: And so I just want to make that clear. And you can disagree with me or

[1:43:50] Voice 3: agree with me but that's the one thing that i have made my mind up about okay so yeah i finished

[1:43:55] Voice 3: okay

[1:43:56] Voice 7: i'm sorry um

[1:44:02] Voice 7: there are so many factors that uh can be influenced by zoning and how it looks really

[1:44:08] Voice 7: um you're setting up sort of minimal parameters and uh so you've got that square box and you're

[1:44:17] Voice 7: trying to put that in most municipalities and most most

[1:44:29] Voice 7: zoning constructs, there is the basis for there to be call it a

[1:44:35] variance. You start with a baseline. This is what if you

[1:44:41] don't want to do any variances

[1:44:43] Voice 5: or anything, you get this loss,

[1:44:45] Voice 5: You can

[1:44:46] Voice 7: build this many square

[1:44:46] Voice 5: feet, it's this far back, set it back, it's this high,

[1:44:49] Voice 7: whatever, that's the box.

[1:44:50] Voice 7: You

[1:44:50] Voice 5: want to go beyond

[1:44:51] Voice 7: that, then it's, talk about siting, talk about trees, talk about

[1:44:56] height, talk about setback, you do all those things.

[1:44:59] That's a part of the barriers.

[1:45:01] In most places, Robert is correct, in most places, those exist

[1:45:07] Voice 7: to try to deal with these

[1:45:09] Voice 7: sorts of situations.

[1:45:09] Voice 7: speaking just just have one voting that fits all it's too bland it doesn't it doesn't allow for

[1:45:20] Voice 7: so if i understand you correctly you're saying that variances should be

[1:45:24] Voice 8: few and far between for the exceptions and not the rule and if that's if that's your position

[1:45:29] Voice 8: that's our position because that's what we're trying to to achieve and we understand that

[1:45:34] Voice 8: one solution can't fit all what we are trying to do here is find something that is reasonable

[1:45:40] Voice 8: that is going to be reasonable not just for today but also the future and reasonable for many types

[1:45:46] Voice 8: of families and lifestyles but we understand that we are not going to be able to find a

[1:45:54] Voice 8: one-size-fits-all we're not going to put in something that is so loose and lacks that it

[1:45:58] Voice 8: that it undermines the work that we're trying to do here so

[1:46:01] Voice 7: does that include a mechanism to

[1:46:07] Voice 7: is there some mechanism that you're building in that allows that it's not called variance

[1:46:12] Voice 7: so that you can affect individual property idiosyncrasies and so forth no

[1:46:17] Voice 8: what i'm saying

[1:46:18] Voice 8: is as long as as long as what we're coming up the work that we're doing here is try and find

[1:46:22] Voice 8: something that is going to work um for the majority and that is the exception that has

[1:46:29] Voice 8: go and get the variance not the majority that has to go and get the variance that's what we're

[1:46:36] Voice 8: trying to sort out here so

[1:46:38] Voice 3: the very the variance remains an option but we're not planning for that

[1:46:43] Voice 3: to be a lot you know a lot of use of it it's fine when we do it we use it but we're not planning

[1:46:51] Voice 3: to solve the problems through it that's the difference i don't that's clear but yeah

[1:46:57] Voice 7: else hey thank you um hey

[1:47:02] Voice 6: um house size so um john i'm just going to mention something to you i think

[1:47:07] Voice 6: you ever said you're at 30 to 40 meetings i can tell you i've been 37 years and my feet are

[1:47:12] Voice 6: probably maybe up to a thousand or maybe and i can tell you in the last 12 years we have been talking

[1:47:18] Voice 6: about house size so uh

[1:47:20] Voice 7: this planning process to review on andrew's bylaw started 12 years ago

[1:47:24] Voice 7: votes and we're now at the fourth set of

[1:47:26] Voice 6: trustees and we're still talking about coast facts and

[1:47:28] Voice 6: we went through some controversial times when we started the language bylaw it was um it was a

[1:47:34] Voice 6: comprehensive review bylaw so every section of the bylaw was looked at we had volunteers in the

[1:47:39] Voice 6: community um already i

[1:47:41] Voice 6: think in fall you were both heading workshops uh often and everybody

[1:47:46] Voice 6: was invited to look at certain these meetings and look at sections put your ideas forward

[1:47:52] Voice 6: forward. That didn't get finished in the first term of that, the term of that trustees considered

[1:47:57] Voice 6: and went into the next four years and it took those four years to get us through to that

[1:48:01] Voice 6: language file. And there were actually some very stormy and controversial times there

[1:48:06] Voice 6: as well. So we went from what was mentioned earlier, we went from our restriction before

[1:48:12] Voice 6: was 10% log coverage. And that's what it's been on many of the islands and actually still

[1:48:17] Voice 6: buildings, a number of them, and we went to some maximum dwelling size and maximum lot

[1:48:22] Voice 6: coverage, building coverage.

[1:48:25] Voice 6: So those were major, major changes and major restrictions and were substantial reductions

[1:48:31] Voice 6: into what was committed.

[1:48:33] Voice 6: We weren't all happy, but we came to live with it.

[1:48:36] Voice 6: So then the next term of trustees came along, and I have to say, I was totally surprised

[1:48:41] Voice 6: that, oh, those weren't good enough, and those trustees brought back some more, you

[1:48:46] Voice 6: you know proposed restrictions and even during that time um no science as to why uh that was

[1:48:54] Voice 6: done just we needed to do it for rural character uh it's not keeping with the ocp yet that bible

[1:49:01] Voice 6: we haven't placed certainly went through the ocp approval process in the executive process so it's

[1:49:06] Voice 6: it's not it's not that it wasn't it's just something we felt we needed to be even more

[1:49:10] Voice 6: more restrictive. And so, you know, it was, again, definitely controversial. And it didn't

[1:49:18] Voice 6: really come from the community. It came from the trustees themselves at the time. So now

[1:49:25] Voice 6: we ended up, and we had a controversial time last term as well. We can all remember the

[1:49:31] Voice 6: meetings we've gone to. It

[1:49:31] Voice 6: was heated discussions. And we never, we were, I feel that what we

[1:49:38] Voice 6: have now that was imposed and was not something that we could agree to as a community so i think

[1:49:44] Voice 6: um from what i was hearing from you uh and the election showed that they were

[1:49:47] Voice 7: kind of change

[1:49:48] Voice 7: wanted and we came up with new trustees who were at least willing to listen to what the community

[1:49:54] Voice 7: had to say at least that was

[1:49:56] Voice 6: what uh your election material ran on so here we are and we are

[1:50:01] Voice 6: discussing it so i have to say i was one um and remember we had a petition went through uh 65

[1:50:07] Voice 6: five percent of the community was not in favor of the new house size proposals which was a

[1:50:12] Voice 6: substantial amount of people that uh i'm listening to what you're saying and saying yeah we're not

[1:50:18] Voice 6: not everybody's going to be happy with with whatever we end up so um i'm willing to you

[1:50:24] Voice 6: know have a little look at something that maybe there's some legal move that between what was

[1:50:30] Voice 6: happening last term of what we have now versus what we had before uh could we arrive at some

[1:50:36] Voice 6: kind of house sizes where first of all uh non-conforming is to me is not in the books

[1:50:41] Voice 6: uh i don't want to be dealing with non-conforming justice work just i feel that's the same category

[1:50:47] Voice 6: that variances is

[1:50:49] Voice 7: the exception not environment and non-conforming is not a way that planning

[1:50:54] Voice 7: should be done just the way there it is to stay i think i put that in the same

[1:50:59] Voice 6: category as

[1:50:59] Voice 6: It's, you

[1:51:00] Voice 7: know, we

[1:51:02] Voice 6: arrive at something where you have a zone, everybody knows what it is.

[1:51:06] Voice 6: And now we've got so much development here created by the last bylaw that we have a substantial

[1:51:13] Voice 6: number of people whose houses are not conforming either because of size or because of height

[1:51:20] Voice 6: and in addition to that setback.

[1:51:22] Voice 6: So we need to look at something and I'm prepared to, you know, is there something we could

[1:51:27] Voice 6: give a little, but I

[1:51:28] Voice 7: really don't want us to be dealing with non-conforming people at all.

[1:51:34] Voice 7: So just, I was just going to say for clarity, the house height has made a lot of people

[1:51:39] Voice 7: non-conforming because that paragraph that helps protect the existing properties is not

[1:51:45] Voice 7: applied there. And I would like to take a look at the wording in the paragraph that

[1:51:51] Voice 7: that that helps protect the houses that no

[1:51:56] Voice 8: longer need to be the current bylaw sizes to make sure

[1:52:01] Voice 8: that it's crystal clear because right now there's a lot of questions there's a lot of discussion

[1:52:08] Voice 8: around that paragraph so to me that

[1:52:10] Voice 8: says that that paragraph is not crystal clear and if it's

[1:52:12] Voice 8: not crystal clear to us it's likely not going to be crystal clear by those that need to interpret it

[1:52:17] Voice 8: so that's that's something i would like to add

[1:52:20] Voice 7: on to the books to to look at and work with well

[1:52:24] Voice 6: i'm taking it a little further christine i'd like to see that that paragraph taken out but could we

[1:52:30] Voice 6: arrive at a house size that would be somewhere in between which would keep most of the people

[1:52:37] Voice 6: would not render them non-conform and i think it's possible and

[1:52:41] Voice 7: maybe that's what the goals would be

[1:52:44] Voice 7: Okay. So, Dylan, you had your hand up. Previous or not? Yes. Yes. No? No, yes, don't.

[1:52:52] Voice 7: Anybody.

[1:52:53] Voice 7: Okay. All

[1:52:55] Voice 7: right, so we'll go over here and then we'll go back over there.

[1:52:59] Voice 7: Jane mentioned a petition where 65% of the island commented on housewives.

[1:53:08] Voice 7: Of the people contacted, which was 65% of the people.

[1:53:12] Voice 7: I don't recall that petition I

[1:53:17] Voice 8: don't I came by and you stand that

[1:53:19] Voice 7: petition yes okay yeah I thought

[1:53:22] Voice 7: that was kind of whole I'd like it not to be seen as the consensus of the community because I would

[1:53:30] Voice 7: like to be something that is you can you know you can do it but or to be part of this information

[1:53:39] Voice 7: for this public process I would like it to be more a mutual community driven petition it was

[1:53:47] Voice 7: what what no I mean through the finalist trust oh you want you want do you want an official one

[1:53:53] Voice 7: well I

[1:53:54] Voice 7: mean if you're talking about that being the consensus of the community which is what

[1:53:58] Voice 7: it's winning I'm

[1:54:00] Voice 6: saying it was it was part of the information it was that it was a take on

[1:54:06] Voice 7: but i'm just bringing making that point i don't i don't feel it fairly representative of the community

[1:54:13] Voice 7: and so i was just curious if that was the night you were referring to that was previous term

[1:54:20] Voice 7: so i know there's a lot of people from my camp that were actually a little bit like really where's

[1:54:26] Voice 7: that comes from there okay anyway yeah i just want to say before i do what i'm going to say

[1:54:34] Voice 7: that as far as that or whatever you call it um it was i'm not sure if you were at the the meetings

[1:54:41] Voice 7: um the committee and the nation meetings uh the one that was held at the work school

[1:54:46] Voice 7: but there was a call from christina if uh if it was a such a thing and a call or whatever that

[1:54:55] Voice 7: that could be done would the trustees look at it and they said that they would look at it and that

[1:55:00] Voice 7: was why i started that that poll i and several other people helped her with that poll i went

[1:55:09] Voice 7: around to all the addresses that were collected that i could find and i otherwise tried to contact

[1:55:14] Voice 7: those people and um all the other people as far as i know did the same thing i didn't miss anybody

[1:55:22] Voice 7: I don't think anybody else that was doing this missed anybody deliberately or tried

[1:55:27] Voice 7: to do anything that would confirm what we wanted.

[1:55:30] Voice 7: It was just

[1:55:31] Voice 2: a matter of

[1:55:31] Voice 7: let's get somebody to come in and then whenever I talk to anybody,

[1:55:34] Voice 7: I didn't say it specifically that way, I'm not asking what to say, yes or no, we just

[1:55:43] Voice 7: like to get it.

[1:55:44] Voice 7: but anyway um again i wrote the letter i'm just going to say what about the outcomes

[1:55:50] Voice 7: so i'm saying that we think that the footprint of the home and other buildings on the property

[1:55:57] Voice 7: should take greater significance in floor area most of the present homes and many of the accessory

[1:56:02] Voice 7: buildings also have two levels which is much less less disturbing to the surrounding grounds and i

[1:56:09] Voice 7: might add that if uh two-story buildings would have would mean that there would be probably

[1:56:15] Voice 7: at least one size side that has a greater setback than ten feet um uh some of the homes have

[1:56:23] Voice 7: basements which further reduce square footage of footprint considering that dwellings and accessory

[1:56:29] Voice 7: buildings are all limited by high restrictions um which possibly should go back to what they were

[1:56:34] Voice 7: But nobody can go higher than whatever the restrictions end up being.

[1:56:38] Voice 7: So their home, if they're within a square footage, is going to be less exposed to the

[1:56:49] Voice 7: environment if the footprint is captured.

[1:56:51] Voice 7: But when I invest, we don't really understand that.

[1:56:54] Voice 7: I don't think that any of the other airlines do it yet, but so many of us seem to be doing

[1:57:00] Voice 7: this all day.

[1:57:01] Voice 7: it but that's um something that would be considered uh say that um you can catch more water with a

[1:57:10] Voice 7: larger ring from a one-story building but you know we have a lot of 900 square foot

[1:57:16] Voice 7: that would be easily quite four thousand gallons of rain water and certainly a lot more vaporized

[1:57:23] Voice 7: so um i think that footprint should be playing a much greater significance in whatever numbers

[1:57:30] Voice 7: that we come up with.

[1:57:31] Voice 7: I don't need to go personally back to what we had

[1:57:34] Voice 7: under the previous file on 114.

[1:57:37] Voice 7: In fact, I'd say at 500 square feet,

[1:57:40] Voice 7: I think everybody would probably be happy

[1:57:42] Voice 7: and I think it would make a lot more people

[1:57:46] Voice 7: properties non-conforming or not,

[1:57:48] Voice 7: or failing non-conforming regardless of what the bylaw says.

[1:57:52] Voice 7: So that's the thing I just said.

[1:57:54] Voice 7: It needs to be, needs to be looked at more than any people.

[1:58:00] Voice 7: I hope you can hear me.

[1:58:02] Voice 1: okay thank you i'm

[1:58:04] Voice 8: just going to just uh try to put a conversation to rest here because i know

[1:58:07] Voice 8: that there's a little bit flying back and forth the petition for whatever you want to call it

[1:58:12] Voice 8: that was done in the last term was purely to show that there wasn't consensus we know that there's

[1:58:16] Voice 8: not consensus we don't need to bring up that so much anymore it was just a tool to show that

[1:58:21] Voice 8: there wasn't consensus we are aware of that except that's not let's not dwell on that okay thank you

[1:58:28] Voice 7: gentleman yeah i think i did want to respond to that because of uh

[1:58:33] Voice 7: i think my career is chief operating officer and social science

[1:58:36] Voice 7: and that was not a poll no it was a petition

[1:58:58] Voice 7: well it

[1:58:59] Voice 8: wasn't it wasn't

[1:59:06] Voice 7: responding to these discussions about 60% of people that are supportive, it means we can't.

[1:59:19] Voice 7: As you just said, we're shutting that conversation down.

[1:59:22] Voice 7: Shutting that conversation down. It was not the sense of more than that.

[1:59:31] Voice 2: The thing that

[1:59:36] Voice 7: I wanted to talk about was variance. I think that's a polarized discussion.

[1:59:44] Voice 7: If you're saying we can't have the majority of issues solved by variance, people are saying

[1:59:52] Voice 7: variance is a good tool.

[1:59:54] Voice 7: There is a middle ground.

[1:59:55] Voice 7: It is a good tool, and it can be used in some cases.

[2:00:00] Voice 7: simply in some cases. For instance, the house height problem is a very good example. A house

[2:00:09] Voice 7: height of 30 feet, when that house is sited topographically in a way that dominates another

[2:00:16] Voice 7: property or impinges on somebody's keep in a very dramatic way, that's a different argument

[2:00:24] Voice 7: than if a house is just sitting on a flat plane and is 30 feet above the flat plane,

[2:00:32] Voice 7: no surrounding on a large surrounding property.

[2:00:36] Voice 7: Those are two different things that are not easily solved by a bylaw, by wording in a

[2:00:42] Voice 7: bylaw, but may be easily solved by variance.

[2:00:45] Voice 7: For instance, that house sitting on a cliff might require variance, and that variance

[2:00:52] Voice 7: could be as simple as if neighbors say we don't they can't live with it then there has to be a

[2:00:59] Voice 7: further discussion if no neighbors say they can't live with it then that goes through those are

[2:01:05] Voice 7: really good uses of the variance procedure that could be uh could be effective in solving some

[2:01:16] Voice 7: where a house is dominating another house in terms of looking down on the fact of privacy I do think

[2:01:27] Voice 7: that we should avoid those situations

[2:01:42] Voice 7: bring up a very good

[2:01:44] Voice 8: point so maybe that is something that we can look at and see if there's

[2:01:47] Voice 7: something that we can add into the bylaw to help address those types of situations because we

[2:01:52] Voice 7: certainly have them on this island what with it being a rock and rocks tending to be

[2:01:58] Voice 8: uh

[2:01:59] Voice 8: critical in nature all

[2:02:02] Voice 7: of these we can't have all of these things put into variance

[2:02:09] Voice 7: or another side of the situation people aren't saying that they're saying

[2:02:14] Voice 7: in certain situations, the topography of the island might be such that a variance, a vital

[2:02:21] Voice 7: variance. I think what we're sitting up here saying is we don't want to solve all of our

[2:02:27] Voice 7: problems by just saying a variance will take care of it. We want to look at the problem and see if

[2:02:31] Voice 7: we can find a solution.

[2:02:32] Voice 1: I don't think

[2:02:32] Voice 7: that's what anyone said. There should be a bunch of

[2:02:37] Voice 7: situations that are thrown into the variance, and then maybe there's just some simple solutions.

[2:02:42] Voice 7: If the neighbors complain, okay, we're going to have to process if the neighbors don't complain, no problem.

[2:02:53] Voice 7: Well, we've got a new shiny legal non-conforming fact sheet update, the third one in the last three years.

[2:03:02] Voice 7: So I've got some questions about it, and I'm going to go down to, I guess it's the fourth point.

[2:03:11] Voice 7: that says the floor area of a legal dwelling is the permitted maximum floor area so

[2:03:22] Voice 7: i i would like i'm going to say what i think that tells me and i would hope that

[2:03:30] Voice 7: trustees would tell me whether i'm interpreting that right the way i read that so any dwelling

[2:03:39] Voice 7: and it's already filled like 80 of them if

[2:03:43] Voice 3: anyone one of those properties wants to do an addition

[2:03:46] Voice 7: they will automatically require a gtp visual pattern that makes sense so part of the part

[2:03:58] that you didn't

[2:03:59] Voice 7: say is that they are exceeding or that their addition would result in them exceeding

[2:04:05] let me

[2:04:07] Voice 7: give you an example i'm not sure if i understood that so i have a thousand square

[2:04:12] Voice 7: foot out going to do a 300 as of september 5th or whatever it is september 22. now i want to

[2:04:22] Voice 7: do a 300 foot addition because the interpretation here says the permitted maximum floor was a

[2:04:29] Voice 7: thousand square feet on that day now i have to get a pvp because i want to go to 1300 square feet

[2:04:37] Voice 7: Only if it's exceeding, only if it would exceed per quarter.

[2:04:43] Voice 7: So his example was, if the maximum allowable square foot was 1,000, he's already at 1,000,

[2:04:48] Voice 7: and he wants to add another 100 onto it, that would then exceed.

[2:04:50] Voice 7: But I don't think any of it was 1,000.

[2:04:53] Voice 7: No, he's just using that as an example.

[2:04:55] Voice 7: Okay, so your example is that if the maximum floor area...

[2:05:00] Voice 1: Well, the

[2:05:00] Voice 7: state of my house is 1,000 square feet when the new bylaw was enacted in 22, correct?

[2:05:06] Voice 7: so you say that again my house my theoretical house with a thousand square feet

[2:05:13] Voice 7: when the new bylaw was enacted in september 22. it says here that that becomes my maximum floor area

[2:05:27] Voice 7: that's what it says

[2:05:30] Voice 7: that's not that's not how it would be interpreted so what is it what does it say then uh what does

[2:05:38] Voice 7: it mean so that it's the maximum floor area um of the house so is it a thousand square feet

[2:05:52] Voice 7: in your example

[2:05:54] Voice 7: your house is a thousand but a thousand square foot house does not exceed

[2:06:00] Voice 7: Can you provide an example where it would exceed the maximum tutorial area, or maybe

[2:06:06] Voice 7: an example where it would exceed the maximum tutorial area?

[2:06:08] Voice 7: It doesn't.

[2:06:12] Voice 7: Read underneath that.

[2:06:16] Voice 7: Well, I can't even understand the next point down because it says far restricted maximum

[2:06:22] Voice 7: .

[2:06:22] Voice 7: Don't read it.

[2:06:23] Voice 7: Everybody read it themselves.

[2:06:25] Voice 7: I don't think the language is clear.

[2:06:29] Voice 7: Okay.

[2:06:29] Voice 7: Okay, so if the language isn't clear, then, yeah, we can look at clarifying the language.

[2:06:37] Voice 7: So, back to that 1,000 square feet, then I could actually build a house up to 2,400 square feet without a DVP?

[2:06:59] Voice 7: Well, assuming you're in the lot

[2:07:02] Voice 1: area, picking a lot,

[2:07:04] Voice 7: picking it up or below all those lots.

[2:07:07] Voice 7: Right, yes.

[2:07:08] Voice 7: So

[2:07:12] Voice 8: if you had, let's say you run less than an acre, which I think is now 2,500 square feet is your maximum house size, less

[2:07:20] Voice 7: than an acre.

[2:07:21] Voice 7: Just pick one that will fit a model, and that's why I used 2,400, because it will fit any lot.

[2:07:26] Voice 7: So

[2:07:26] Voice 8: let's say when this Bible came into place you had a 2,500 square foot house on that lot.

[2:07:33] Voice 7: You're fine, you're all good,

[2:07:36] Voice 8: but now you want to add then yes you have to go and apply for

[2:07:40] Voice 8: a variance. Let's say you only have a thousand square feet but you're allowed to build up to

[2:07:45] Voice 8: 2,500 because of the new Bible. You can add another 1,000 to 1,500 square feet off your house.

[2:07:51] Voice 7: Well I'd like to think that's the case but I guess I don't read that

[2:07:55] Voice 7: the way that statement makes their that legal department so these are these are just q a's

[2:08:01] Voice 7: that have come in so the q a's may have been written not the best incorrect

[2:08:08] Voice 7: so i think what you're saying is the q a's have to be

[2:08:14] Voice 7: tightened up and rewritten so that they're they're clear and not confusing yeah i mean i've never

[2:08:21] Voice 7: ever seen that before but it causes me a lot of concern for his statement yeah so these are just

[2:08:27] Voice 7: q and a's it's not the interpretation of yeah it's a we'll get that sorted we'll get that

[2:08:32] Voice 7: wrong yeah so well as a gentleman um christina i think they does say that they think that if you

[2:08:41] Voice 7: look at the exception clause that was put in uh in the bylaw if you look at that subset of 5.6

[2:08:48] Voice 7: six it does reference it says we can do all these things alter you can you can construct

[2:08:55] Voice 7: it in an existing building can be reconstructed provided the floor air replacement reconstructed

[2:09:02] Voice 7: the vaulted dwelling does it not exceed story of the dwelling on the lot from september 15

[2:09:09] Voice 7: it doesn't say uh i think this needs correction and an actual fact if you look at the q a

[2:09:18] Voice 7: name i mean i have so many if this was supposed to clarify the previous two i i probably could

[2:09:24] Voice 7: have more questions and that's why i'm totally opposed i don't see the reason we even have to

[2:09:30] Voice 7: get to something before i think we have a better look at those subsiders and we wouldn't have to

[2:09:34] Voice 7: do that to me that would be the easiest solution thank you gentleman in the back yeah um so i i

[2:09:42] Voice 7: believe in the building so my house i had to get a barracks for it and then went a little precise

[2:09:49] Voice 7: I think my answer is support. So would it be equal not conforming to that?

[2:09:55] Voice 7: Not if you've got a variance. If there's a variance, it makes it a vehicle.

[2:10:00] Voice 7: Sorry,

[2:10:09] Voice 6: if I could make another suggestion in terms of dealing with house size, that might help somewhat.

[2:10:14] Voice 6: The way our bylaw reads right now, if you build and have a detached garage, that is considered part of the equivalent size.

[2:10:22] Voice 6: And to me, that's incorrect, so you can detach it and probably have less, if you detach it,

[2:10:29] Voice 6: you're probably touching the land less than if you're building it.

[2:10:32] Voice 6: And so for

[2:10:33] Voice 6: me, I think that would be one way to adjust the figure somewhat.

[2:10:39] Voice 7: Also, if you look at the assessment, they do not include, well, first of all, they don't

[2:10:44] Voice 7: include garages at all, but they would just note them and not put a sign.

[2:10:47] Voice 7: Also,

[2:10:47] Voice 6: they don't include unfinished basement areas.

[2:10:50] Voice 6: And again, so that's another area. And the third thing is we have this slide line, I

[2:10:54] Voice 6: think, but if you have anything over 1.49 meters is considered part of your dwelling

[2:11:01] Voice 6: habitable area. Look, I'm only five feet and that's a crawling space for me. And I don't

[2:11:08] Voice 6: know why we don't get at least an 8

[2:11:10] Voice 7: foot height before you actually start considering those

[2:11:13] Voice 7: kind of areas. So that might be an area where the figures will work out better.

[2:11:18] Voice 7: okay so um i i

[2:11:22] Voice 8: looked into what the bc building code was regarding basement flights what is

[2:11:28] Voice 8: considered the livable space and that's five foot nine not four foot nine so i mean that's

[2:11:35] Voice 8: something that could be looked at um i have

[2:11:39] Voice 7: a question for the planner that's this isn't the

[2:11:43] Voice 7: first time the whole garage thing is there a way to word the bible and i don't know how to do this

[2:11:51] Voice 7: which is why i'm looking at you and if this is even a possibility where the livable space

[2:11:58] Voice 7: is taken out like from from not counting the garage but how do you how would how would you

[2:12:04] Voice 7: include

[2:12:05] Voice 8: that in because it's still it's still taking up lot coverage but we do want to encourage

[2:12:10] Voice 8: people to cluster versus running out across the property because that will have less of an impact

[2:12:16] Voice 8: is is

[2:12:17] Voice 7: there a way has any other island done something similar so it's your question is

[2:12:22] Voice 7: excluding um an attached garage from the floor area from the maximum floor area yeah the actual

[2:12:30] Voice 8: garage space itself not if they've got something above it but the actual space being used to park

[2:12:35] Voice 8: cars because I also know that in the building code like how you build that out is it's not

[2:12:41] Voice 8: livable space it's it's not

[2:12:43] Voice 7: insulated it's like the walls different like everything's different

[2:12:46] Voice 7: in there it's not habitable space yeah you can write that into your bottom line quite

[2:12:51] Voice 7: straightforwardly say you know this this floor excludes garage very specifically or non-habitable

[2:13:00] Voice 7: space generally it's the administration interpretation of that where the devil's okay

[2:13:11] Voice 7: anybody else questions about the floor and pairing for housemates or house site

[2:13:18] Voice 7: sorry i just want to go back to this you know the uh they're being a lot conforming

[2:13:24] Voice 7: frequently asked questions so just going through that question number four

[2:13:31] Voice 7: here. We

[2:13:33] Voice 5: talked about submitting a support kit from

[2:13:37] Voice 7: a fully qualified person in the floor area.

[2:13:40] Voice 7: Okay, you guys all on that? Okay, who is qualifying for a qualified person? Is that anyone who can read the tape measure and multiply?

[2:13:57] Voice 7: So I think that wording was specifically left open, so that it's not overly restrictive.

[2:14:04] Voice 7: So it gives some discretion or some leeway to design building inspectors like that, so

[2:14:15] Voice 7: that it provides a backstop.

[2:14:18] Voice 7: So in a situation where there's a question about what was the floor area of the old house,

[2:14:25] there

[2:14:26] Voice 7: is the ability to have someone with qualifications to review that or provide that

[2:14:35] Voice 7: information but without being highly restrictive okay so how do we find out what the port space

[2:14:42] was previously with this older build house like i've

[2:14:46] Voice 7: lost my mind you know been in the family for

[2:14:48] Voice 7: years yep so so if it um post dates about 1968 it should be the only permit plans um

[2:14:57] Voice 7: uh if it predates that that's what we would get into some it would be like it's trying to determine

[2:15:08] Voice 7: um whatever it's going to be so like the foundation is still there the foundation

[2:15:24] Voice 7: I think the assumption of the local trust committee when they were looking at that was

[2:15:34] Voice 7: that there would be very few any buildings predating them in the 70s that exceed that

[2:15:41] Voice 7: and we're put and we're also in that circumstance okay so it's a very very small percentage

[2:15:55] Voice 7: just from a writing point of view if you're going to be having something like that in there it needs

[2:16:02] Voice 7: to be completely stated what is required not for it's um you know this is basically the

[2:16:08] Voice 7: answer for the certificate i know you explained that a little bit maybe you know we support

[2:16:12] Voice 7: from kind of the building plans but

[2:16:14] Voice 1: it's asking for something

[2:16:15] Voice 7: and if it's not asking there's

[2:16:17] Voice 7: something inside it needs to say the correct one kind of composition but i think the language

[2:16:24] Voice 7: well that could be clearer i don't know i disagree it does have to be but it could be certain

[2:16:37] Voice 7: the nearest way is to strike it okay thank you anybody else

[2:16:51] Voice 7: so currently it's 4.9 does it have to stay there can you bring it up a little bit like you said

[2:16:58] Voice 5: 5

[2:16:58] Voice 7: .9 that's yeah i mean that's a conversation that would have to be had with the community

[2:17:06] Voice 7: be yeah so we couldn't do that i gotta tell you my back and he was like all crazy

[2:17:18] Voice 7: yeah like what i do i think it can easily be corrected and probably you actually think that

[2:17:23] Voice 7: it's the definition of what your floor is i mean all you do is change your definition it can be

[2:17:29] Voice 7: easily it's a simple fix like i said earlier

[2:17:36] Voice 7: it's the interpretation

[2:17:38] Voice 7: administration yeah it would just it would be again that the community decision yeah

[2:17:45] Voice 7: these are just options that we're just throwing out your suggestions exactly i mean i'm also

[2:17:53] Voice 8: looking around the

[2:17:53] Voice 8: room we don't have many 20 year olds in here hopefully we

[2:17:58] Voice 2: will one day

[2:18:00] Voice 8: maybe in 20 years we'll have more 20 year olds but today we don't

[2:18:08] Voice 7: is what's the process from here what is the process for you what are you doing next

[2:18:18] Voice 8: um after this meeting the all the information is being gathered up and given to the apc and the

[2:18:25] Voice 8: apc is going to do their work and then they're going to provide their suggestions back to us

[2:18:31] Voice 8: and one of the suggestions could be more community input so we will wait to hear what

[2:18:36] Voice 8: the suggestions are and then we will there'll be more community information meetings there will be

[2:18:41] Voice 8: more um public

[2:18:43] Voice 7: meetings and we'll continue the process it doesn't end here we continue here

[2:18:48] Voice 7: we're going to have this final what you've done

[2:18:51] Voice 7: i i think that's an overwhelming task for the apc and i remember one of the circle meetings

[2:18:59] Voice 7: that we had when you embarked on this process

[2:19:04] Voice 7: and explained it to us.

[2:19:06] Voice 7: And there was discussion about the APC.

[2:19:10] Voice 7: And you two said, well, you know, we were voted in,

[2:19:13] Voice 7: we're the trustees, we're doing the work.

[2:19:16] Voice 7: And you're the ones that have been to all the meetings,

[2:19:19] Voice 7: conducted the meetings, had the information,

[2:19:22] Voice 7: followed it closely.

[2:19:23] Voice 7: So I don't know how you can just hand this over to APC

[2:19:27] Voice 7: it like all of it like I

[2:19:29] Voice 7: can see bits and pieces of other tanks or something so Stem is going to

[2:19:36] Voice 7: be pulling together a report and they'll

[2:19:38] Voice 8: have the categories and that'll go to the APC all the

[2:19:43] Voice 8: information that is being gathered will go to the APC for

[2:19:46] Voice 7: review and input so a report will be going

[2:19:50] Voice 7: to you from Stem for

[2:19:53] Voice 8: your review it's not we're not just handing the project over to you we're

[2:19:59] Voice 7: handing a report over to you and we're looking for the APC's input on the report and the information

[2:20:05] Voice 7: gathered to date and any suggestions that may have come out to you from that.

[2:20:15] Voice 7: I'd like to get back to the legal non-conforming and the staff

[2:20:21] Voice 7: report that has clarified that. I find that report, that explanation very clear. It tells me

[2:20:30] me

[2:20:30] Voice 7: that as of September 15, 2022, all legally constructed dwellings at that point are legally

[2:20:38] Voice 7: conformant. That is, the designation legally non-conforming for those houses no longer

[2:20:48] Voice 7: exists. They're legally conformant with our bylaw. Why is that important? Well, the issue

[2:20:56] Voice 7: of legally non-conforming really has driven this process this 12-year process that jane described

[2:21:04] Voice 7: and what happened in 2016 was a lot of concern a lot of upset about designation of legally

[2:21:11] Voice 7: non-conforming and the trustees of the day really leaned toward including or designating house size

[2:21:21] Voice 4: based

[2:21:21] Voice 7: on the largest houses in each lot category that is defaulting to the largest houses to avoid

[2:21:28] Voice 7: legally non-conforming it

[2:21:30] Voice 7: seemed like a good idea at the time but what we've seen since then is that

[2:21:38] Voice 7: those those house sizes that avoided legally non-conforming are two and a half times the

[2:21:46] Voice 7: existing house size average house size on the island uh and the trend really moves rapidly

[2:21:55] Voice 7: toward larger houses that will impact the rural character of our island and the trustees in 2022

[2:22:04] looked at that issue looked at the goals in our ocp

[2:22:07] Voice 4: and concluded that what we needed was a more

[2:22:12] Voice 4: more intermediate position between the

[2:22:15] Voice 7: existing house stock, which is approximately

[2:22:17] Voice 7: 1,900 and some odd square feet on average. That's a 2016 measure, but there haven't been that many

[2:22:27] Voice 7: new houses since, so it's probably a bit higher than that, not a whole lot higher.

[2:22:34] Voice 7: And they looked at our OCP goals, and they established increased house sizes

[2:22:42] Voice 7: 75 percent higher than the existing house stock on average so that there's room for growth there's

[2:22:49] Voice 7: room for larger houses and so the the smallest house size for lots under one acre 2500 square

[2:22:58] Voice 7: feet you can build a four-bedroom three-bathroom house within that that footprint and

[2:23:12] Voice 7: And so when I'm looking at this and when I'm asking myself the question, is this sufficient?

[2:23:19] Voice 7: Is this house size sufficient or is this a hardship for people?

[2:23:23] Voice 7: First of all, I would say for small lots, particularly small lots on the waterfront, that very much should be sufficient.

[2:23:34] Voice 7: If for some reason, if there are exceptional circumstances, I agree with Trustee Evans

[2:23:40] Voice 7: that variances apply for exceptional circumstances.

[2:23:44] Voice 7: If somebody had exceptional circumstances, then a variance would be appropriate.

[2:23:50] Voice 7: And I think if those circumstances had merit, you would find adjacent neighbors supporting

[2:23:58] Voice 7: the variance, or at least not opposing it.

[2:24:00] Voice 7: So I see that as a very viable option, and I strongly support the house size at that level for those smaller lots, particularly on the waterfront.

[2:24:14] Voice 7: I think that the issue of garages that has been raised, I think there's a lot of merit in that argument.

[2:24:22] Voice 7: And I think that, as it was laid out in Gordie Duncan's letter that was posted a few days

[2:24:28] Voice 7: ago, the idea of designating attached garages as an accessory building should take care

[2:24:37] Voice 7: of that.

[2:24:37] Voice 7: It's simply an accessory building, it's not counted as livable space in the dwelling.

[2:24:43] Voice 7: And I think that you would find support for that because that does help protect the environment

[2:24:50] Voice 7: by, as you say, not spreading out all over the land.

[2:24:53] Voice 7: So that's a change that I think you'd find a lot of support in the community for.

[2:25:05] Voice 7: The goal of policy in setting house size is to maintain our rural character.

[2:25:13] Voice 7: First and foremost, that's very clear.

[2:25:16] Voice 7: To protect the ecological integrity of the island, that's a trust mandate.

[2:25:22] Voice 7: that's a key goal in our OCP.

[2:25:26] Voice 7: These house sizes that have been established

[2:25:29] Voice 7: better protect the environment than those previous ones.

[2:25:32] Voice 7: So it's an improvement,

[2:25:34] Voice 7: it's more in line with our OCP goals.

[2:25:38] Voice 7: One of the most important goals for me

[2:25:40] Voice 4: is the fact that not only should house size

[2:25:46] Voice 4: protect the rural character,

[2:25:48] Voice 7: but it should also provide for growth

[2:25:50] Voice 7: that is gradual and sustainable and when you look at two and a half times the

[2:25:57] Voice 7: existing housing stock that kind of growth is not gradual and we won't

[2:26:06] sustain our role character if we proceed with that so

[2:26:10] Voice 7: I feel that it's really

[2:26:13] Voice 7: really important that we adhere to our OCP goals. And the final goal that comes up is greenhouse gas

[2:26:22] Voice 7: emissions and our OCP goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where we can. Some people feel that

[2:26:30] Voice 7: house size doesn't impact greenhouse gas emissions very much. The fact is that it does affect

[2:26:38] Voice 7: greenhouse gas emissions over time over space has to be heated it does impact and maybe it won't

[2:26:48] Voice 7: change climate change because you build you set the house size a particular way globally but we

[2:26:56] Voice 7: have an obligation under our OCP goals to address that issue and I think these house sizes do in

[2:27:03] Voice 7: in fact, address that issue. It may not matter to some people, but it will matter to my grandchildren

[2:27:10] Voice 7: in the future. So I think that's really important. Just another word about variances before I

[2:27:19] Voice 7: stop. Having a general policy of application, which is what house sizes are, really gives

[2:27:30] Voice 7: a guidance to the community about what the character of our island is about

[2:27:37] Voice 7: and it's about role character that's that's a consensus issue i believe

[2:27:44] Voice 4: now some people may feel bigger is better other people may feel how much is enough

[2:27:54] Voice 4: there's a balance to be reached and i believe that the um the host size limits that were set

[2:28:01] Voice 4: in 2022 finds that balance uh and but if there are

[2:28:06] Voice 7: exceptional circumstances then it seems to

[2:28:09] Voice 7: be a variance is the appropriate planning tool

[2:28:13] Voice 4: as an established tool um i think that the delay

[2:28:18] Voice 4: issue is something that trustees have some

[2:28:21] Voice 7: control over that is staff availability to deal with those

[2:28:26] Voice 7: is important and making sure that there is sufficient staff but I don't see

[2:28:31] Voice 7: wholesale variances coming in the future and I certainly don't see a majority of

[2:28:38] Voice 7: new houses requiring variances unless the issue is we just want a bigger house

[2:28:45] Voice 7: I think that the existing size limits do provide for adequate housing in a rural

[2:28:53] Voice 7: the rural community so um and some delay is sometimes on the part of the applicant rather

[2:29:01] Voice 7: than the trust and that uh approves to the applicant if there's a delay there so I would

[2:29:08] Voice 7: encourage the trustees to stay with the current house sizes with some areas of what somebody has

[2:29:17] Voice 7: described as wiggle room I think garages is an important area I think the idea of cottages

[2:29:24] Voice 7: for lots, two acres and more.

[2:29:28] Voice 7: If somebody has the option of building a cottage 750 square feet

[2:29:34] Voice 7: or if they would prefer to have that square footage attached

[2:29:38] Voice 7: as a secondary suite in their home for visitors or whatever,

[2:29:44] Voice 7: to me that's an area that the trustees might look at as well.

[2:29:49] Voice 7: That doesn't increase the footprint on the land

[2:29:52] Voice 7: and it does, to some extent, impact the ecological integrity of the land.

[2:30:00] Voice 7: land. So I think that's an area that trustees might want to look

[2:30:04] Voice 7: at. But I would like to say finally that it's the smaller

[2:30:11] Voice 7: lots on the waterfront that I think is really our my key

[2:30:17] Voice 7: concern here is protecting that area with a 50 foot setback and

[2:30:22] Voice 7: house size that is proportionate to those lots. So thank you.

[2:30:26] Voice 7: Thank you.

[2:30:29] Voice 7: just want to address a couple of things um with regards to the uh illegal non-conforming

[2:30:36] Voice 7: paragraph

[2:30:36] Voice 8: that is in there um it's not that all houses are legal if the house oh sorry i beg your

[2:30:45] Voice 8: pardon if the house height is um that's that's where the issue is lying the house height has

[2:30:51] Voice 8: has made properties legal non-conforming and that that has been confirmed so I just wanted to and I

[2:30:57] Voice 7: think that's a good clarification and I actually meant to say that for me the solution to that is

[2:31:03] Voice 7: simply to add a legal conforming provision for height much like you have for house size and

[2:31:10] Voice 7: setback that's a simple solution to put in the bylaw that those those houses that of a certain

[2:31:18] Voice 7: certain height that would be deemed legally non-conforming currently can be legal conforming

[2:31:24] Voice 7: with that clause and if they're they're destroyed they can be rebuilt to that same height so that

[2:31:30] Voice 7: looks after that legal non-conforming in a very straightforward administrative way without going

[2:31:37] Voice 7: through lots of contortions i think so that would be just kind of i'm just going to finish my point

[2:31:42] Voice 8: with regards to that paragraph the paragraph itself isn't clear to people sitting in this room

[2:31:48] Voice 8: um so if it does remain i think it has to be worded um and if and as other people are saying

[2:31:54] Voice 8: let's find solutions that don't require it so we've got we've got some things to consider

[2:32:04] Voice 4: so gentlemen um i gotta go soon but um i just wanted to say something about

[2:32:12] about the general

[2:32:13] Voice 4: tenor of the meeting.

[2:32:15] Voice 4: I really would encourage how, with your first words,

[2:32:21] you talked about compromise,

[2:32:23] and I think that's key for everybody here

[2:32:26] that understand that without compromise,

[2:32:29] we're not going to get 100% of what we want.

[2:32:33] None.

[2:32:34] So none of us.

[2:32:35] So without compromise,

[2:32:37] Voice 4: we're not gonna get any part of that.

[2:32:39] Voice 4: and that's the beauty of living in in canada so um i think that's very encouraging and refreshing

[2:32:47] Voice 4: so thank you

[2:32:48] Voice 7: thank you um i got a little third thing paul said because i and i brought this up

[2:32:56] Voice 7: well her last term with the trustees in terms of what they considered to be the average uh

[2:33:01] Voice 7: size and i know that data was based on uh bc assessment and i said at the time yes it is

[2:33:08] Voice 7: I don't want to argue that, but BC accessible data does

[2:33:14] Voice 6: not include garages and it does

[2:33:17] Voice 6: not include unfinished basements.

[2:33:20] Voice 6: So that data is in fact flawed because we know we have unfinished basements, we know

[2:33:24] Voice 6: we have attached garages, so that figure would be obviously somewhat dodgy based on how the

[2:33:31] Voice 6: the trust and our bylaw interprets

[2:33:34] Voice 7: what's what's the dwelling size which is what assessment has

[2:33:37] Voice 7: the figures we see on our assessment and i and i

[2:33:44] Voice 6: just mentioned to paul i remember when we got to

[2:33:47] Voice 6: bylaw for 114 paul it was uh the figures that we actually finally arrived at after lots of back and

[2:33:53] Voice 6: forth were something that i think were very similar to the submission that you and cameron

[2:33:59] Voice 6: and made this to what the hell it should be and it was pretty it was pretty close so uh and i i

[2:34:05] Voice 6: could appreciate that maybe there's more thinking going on and what's going on in the world that

[2:34:09] Voice 6: maybe these people and i think that's

[2:34:12] Voice 7: where you're coming from thank you over here in the r2 ladies

[2:34:18] Voice 7: so i might say i i will be very brief mainly because um what thomas said seems to me on the

[2:34:30] Voice 7: basis of all the work is put in and understanding these matters to express so much of my own view

[2:34:36] Voice 7: of what the prestige priorities should be next and I think the thing that we have to be wary of

[2:34:46] Voice 7: in seeking a solution that doesn't simply depend on endless variances drummed up almost at will

[2:34:56] Voice 7: Bill is to create a bylaw that lets everything go, removes all the legal difficulties, removes

[2:35:05] Voice 7: all the difficulties about variances by creating a system that is simply so loosely structured

[2:35:13] Voice 7: it's no real restriction on anyone.

[2:35:15] Voice 7: We have to retain within this system and within the democratic system where the trustees have

[2:35:25] Voice 7: been elected to implement this we should retain in my view the centrality of using house sizes as

[2:35:36] Voice 7: fool here for limiting the environmental mental impact which we can all see around us

[2:35:44] Voice 7: as a creeping menace we still have time to do something effective but it must be i think by

[2:35:54] Voice 7: by retaining a bylaw that uses health sciences as a crucial tool, limiting the adverse impact

[2:36:04] Voice 7: on the environment in the future.

[2:36:07] Voice 8: I was just going to respond back to you, absolutely.

[2:36:10] Voice 8: We are not sitting up here saying that we are going to remove all of this, and we are

[2:36:16] Voice 8: not sitting up here saying that we're going to take that tool away.

[2:36:18] Voice 8: way we're trying to find a compromise between where we are now and what what can we do to get

[2:36:26] Voice 8: consensus of the community so a couple of ideas have come out such as removing um the uh the

[2:36:33] Voice 8: garage floor area that would be one and that has been a couple of other suggestions so there's a

[2:36:40] Voice 8: bit more tweaking to to what we've got um so that we can come to consensus as a as a community in a

[2:36:46] Voice 8: democratic manner that is the whole purpose absolutely so thank you very much that is

[2:36:52] Voice 8: exactly what we're trying to do here working with everybody i

[2:36:58] Voice 7: just want to agree with paul

[2:37:02] Voice 7: the possible combination of the hosts and cottage which i had mentioned to you several months ago

[2:37:11] Voice 7: over Christina that I felt was a great idea at all, that those

[2:37:16] Voice 7: things should be able to be decided upon by the homeowner

[2:37:19] Voice 7: whether they want to have that, you know, allow a greater

[2:37:25] Voice 7: size. I'm not sure about saying that it has to be in secondary

[2:37:29] Voice 7: suite, or that might be a great idea, too. But we have to be

[2:37:34] Voice 7: wary of, you know, that great, I think, multi generation homes

[2:37:38] Voice 7: homes and intergenerational homes are a fabulous idea however when one builds a home like that and

[2:37:45] Voice 7: then and then so that it might not be occupied by another multi-generational family uh so there's

[2:37:53] Voice 7: been could have been a very sought for for that but there's no guarantee when you uh get a variance

[2:38:00] Voice 7: that the next person is going to come along and have the same hardships or whatever that be that

[2:38:06] Voice 7: these who originally got back there so that has to be taken seriously but also with regard to

[2:38:14] Voice 7: possibly join the being able to join the two allowances so whatever it ends up being for each

[2:38:21] Voice 7: lot category perhaps we could think that maybe if somebody doesn't want quite such a large home

[2:38:28] Voice 7: that they could maybe add on to a cottage so maybe the cottage could be rather than 750 square feet

[2:38:35] Voice 7: a thousand square feet and I know that apparently that idea came from Paul at one point and I would

[2:38:41] Voice 7: I would agree with with that ability as well you know at least then having grown up in a small home

[2:38:48] Voice 7: I don't wish it on anybody I would like to see that if there were to be a possibility of

[2:38:55] Voice 7: wrenching to a couple of people that they'd be able to have a thousand square feet to test it

[2:39:01] Voice 7: So as we're going around a couple of people into the 750 square feet, which I'm sorry, I don't mind that.

[2:39:11] Voice 1: Thanks for the rap in the back.

[2:39:13] Voice 7: I just

[2:39:14] Voice 7: thought since it's a democratic meeting, I should state my opinion, which is I am cautious.

[2:39:20] And I think that, you know, all these conversations are kind of it's about the future. Right.

[2:39:25] and i'll just say when we bought our property and i thought this might be standard we had to sign

[2:39:32] that we

[2:39:32] Voice 7: read the official community plan and we understood that it was about preserving and

[2:39:38] Voice 7: protecting nature and we as i read it i was like oh this is totally awesome this is the kind of

[2:39:43] Voice 7: place that i want to live and it seems you know it's important as properties are bought and sold

[2:39:50] Voice 7: that people who come from away understand what this island is about

[2:39:55] Voice 7: and what Islands Trust is, you know, prescribed with,

[2:40:01] Voice 7: so that there aren't people who swoop in to build recreational homes

[2:40:07] Voice 7: that are fairly occupied and are large or imposing on the environment.

[2:40:15] Voice 7: So because of all that, I'm very much in favor of changes to the bylaws.

[2:40:19] Voice 7: I think it sounds like these tweaks are going to be helpful to make more people happy.

[2:40:26] Voice 7: But I think it's really important to have rules and regulations because, yeah, we didn't want to live on Salt Spring because of all the big empty houses.

[2:40:37] Voice 7: And in fact, Salt Spring has the worst homeless problem in Canada because there's no rentals available to the people who actually live there.

[2:40:48] Voice 7: So I really not want to live in a community that's full of absentee owners who don't bring anything to the community.

[2:40:57] Voice 7: They don't support community businesses and sort of impose their big, not so aesthetic, or maybe aesthetic, but big homes on us.

[2:41:11] Voice 7: and then i'll just also say i'm self-conscious about big homes because we are in the midst of

[2:41:16] Voice 7: building a big home by by accident almost we are we didn't have to get a variance we came in three

[2:41:22] Voice 7: square feet or something under what was allowed or we have a large property but it is a

[2:41:29] Voice 7: multi-generational dwelling we have six adults and so far one kid are living in four thousand

[2:41:35] Voice 7: square going to live in 4 000 square feet and um we we think that's going to be ample for us and i

[2:41:42] Voice 7: think this there's sort of an inflation of how much space people need for for living in to be

[2:41:49] Voice 7: comfortable and we look forward to we feel like we're going to get quite a bit of privacy each

[2:41:55] Voice 7: each couple has a little sitting room as well as a bedroom and or two bedrooms in the case of the

[2:42:02] Voice 7: the younger generation and um and then we would have a large communal space where we hope to have

[2:42:09] Voice 7: lots of room to gather neighbors and friends um so i feel like the the limitations of the site

[2:42:16] Voice 7: are not harsh because it was our own design that accidentally because we just thought no we're

[2:42:23] Voice 7: designing it to what we need even though we knew these bylaws place and what we need i actually

[2:42:29] Voice 7: think it might be too much but my kids think it's good to be happy so anyway those i just thought i

[2:42:36] Voice 7: would uh express what where what my views are thank you maybe you were next yeah oh um

[2:42:44] Voice 8: yeah

[2:42:46] Voice 8: what i wanted to say was that when the previous trustees gave the house sizes they they i think

[2:42:54] Voice 8: they pretty well admitted

[2:42:55] Voice 6: that they pulled the house size out there was no size between

[2:42:59] Voice 7: for each

[2:43:00] Voice 7: of the numbers and that they said that repeatedly so I think it's always unfortunate when you get

[2:43:06] Voice 7: these goalposts but the goalpost is kind of set on I would say a balding foundation some people

[2:43:13] Voice 7: like small homes little homes some people like bigger homes I think there's some inconsistency

[2:43:20] Voice 7: um um with with what they're trying to do which is for example uh if you want to avoid

[2:43:31] Voice 7: um spreading out buildings and you want to cluster build

[2:43:37] Voice 8: i don't know why

[2:43:38] Voice 7: on a property

[2:43:40] Voice 7: that's 10 acres or more you would allow two houses uh four thousand square feet and two

[2:43:47] Voice 7: two cottages why wouldn't you just have one big house um so i don't understand that and the

[2:43:54] Voice 7: previous trustee himself had no explanation for that so i do think you are starting afresh with

[2:44:02] Voice 7: what is um the best way to go and what we should live with you are starting afresh

[2:44:09] Voice 7: and i think there is a happy medium between you know i i'm very mindful of all the work that was

[2:44:16] Voice 7: what down in 2016 it was very very controversial and i am have not you know been around as long

[2:44:23] Voice 7: as you jane but i've heard about the issues for many years and i am totally fed up with talking

[2:44:30] Voice 7: about upsides and that backside of the year of it i think it's been

[2:44:37] Voice 7: really hard on the community

[2:44:38] Voice 7: i think it continues to be divisive and separates people and puts them in different i mean even here

[2:44:45] Voice 7: you there's reference to your camp and my camp i'm sick of that um so i wish you luck in um getting

[2:44:55] Voice 7: out of this quagmire and making something that we can live with which is reasonable and i think

[2:45:01] Voice 7: that's all we want is something that's reasonable thank you which is what i think

[2:45:11] Voice 7: yeah i just wanted to express agreement with many others here that the

[2:45:18] Voice 7: the changes that uh that were most recently enacted uh really

[2:45:28] Voice 7: are things that we agree with and and uh i i think it comes uh underlies the comments

[2:45:38] Voice 7: comments that many others have made, but I want to say it directly, and that is that

[2:45:45] Voice 7: when you set these size limitations or setback limitations, it's important to recognize that

[2:45:55] Voice 7: you're sending a message about what we see as being kind of default that is acceptable

[2:46:02] Voice 7: in the community, understanding that there are going to be exceptions that can be addressed

[2:46:08] Voice 7: by variances. But also to recognize that in practice they're exceeding what many people

[2:46:18] have elected, but we have no guarantee that that will be the case. In

[2:46:23] Voice 7: fact, I think there

[2:46:24] Voice 7: are certainly indications that people are going to take those as being the starting

[2:46:29] Voice 7: point and apply variances on top of those to build something bigger and supposedly better.

[2:46:37] Voice 7: better. So I'm very happy supporting WADA's starting point and letting variances address

[2:46:46] Voice 7: issues that are created by things that can't be anticipated by blanket regulations. So

[2:46:59] Voice 7: So, I am, through these many discussions, I've tried to ensure that what I'm saying is grounded and valid.

[2:47:09] Voice 7: And that's my opinion. I'll say what's my opinion.

[2:47:13] Voice 7: I guess, with the crisis that I threw up before, I was accused of scare-mongering.

[2:47:20] I want to cite a specific example that is illustrative.

[2:47:25] Voice 7: The house that's directly in front of Heather's is 24 acres, 25 acres.

[2:47:32] Voice 7: and that excludes that we're in three levels one second

[2:47:36] Voice 8: no i'm just going to interrupt i'm going to

[2:47:38] Voice 8: ask that we be careful of what we say about our neighbors

[2:47:42] Voice 7: as long as it's just that's all i want

[2:47:45] Voice 7: based on statistics okay 20

[2:47:49] Voice 5: let's say 25 acres excludes their adjacent properties that are also

[2:47:54] Voice 5: part of that you see assessment authority says that the homeland was

[2:47:58] Voice 7: constructed in 2014 only

[2:48:01] Voice 7: Only the main dwelling on the farm or the cottage

[2:48:05] Voice 5: is 6,300

[2:48:07] Voice 7: square feet.

[2:48:09] Voice 7: At 6,300 square feet, a minimum of $1,000 a square foot doesn't reflect the profitization

[2:48:16] Voice 7: of the property.

[2:48:18] Voice 7: That would put that hard cost at about $6,500 to $7,000.

[2:48:23] The land is assessed at $3,000.

[2:48:41] Voice 7: So very quickly you can see how we get into it tens of millions

[2:48:50] Voice 5: of dollars in terms of

[2:48:52] Voice 5: so i wasn't citing 17 million dollars as being that's hyperbole it is an example

[2:48:58] Voice 5: grounded in something that's actually

[2:49:00] Voice 7: revolving power over houses like that

[2:49:03] Voice 7: so um to say i'm trying to not scare them this is actually this is the real situation okay i'm just

[2:49:14] Voice 7: going to ask um that's that's not 24 acres let's

[2:49:20] Voice 8: stop the the internal discussion here

[2:49:24] Voice 7: i was

[2:49:27] Voice 8: just going to say i i appreciate you bringing the facts forward as as as you've

[2:49:32] Voice 8: shown me you've made it sound kind of specific but i'm also going to say

[2:49:36] Voice 8: that um someone can build a 2 000 square foot house and spend 10 million dollars on the interior

[2:49:44] Voice 8: So, again, I want to be careful of when we're using examples I know that you really like to make sure that you've got your facts and that you brought them forward.

[2:49:56] Voice 8: But I also want to be careful of how we're bringing them forward and why we're bringing them forward.

[2:50:01] Voice 8: I don't, I want to make sure that we're not antagonizing other members in the audience, and judging from their hands flying up during that, that might have.

[2:50:11] Voice 8: um so i just i just want us to be careful i i i like us to be careful when we're discussing

[2:50:18] Voice 8: our neighbors i like us to be careful when we're using neighbors properties as examples

[2:50:23] Voice 8: um and yes properties are getting more expensive yes um that's that's just the way that things go

[2:50:30] Voice 8: we have um we have house limits in place so i think what we're getting at is we're not going

[2:50:40] Voice 8: to wind up with the 10 000 or 20 000 square foot homes and you know there are some very large ones

[2:50:48] Voice 8: on north panda we won't wind up with those on south panda because our house limits have already

[2:50:54] Voice 8: been in place for quite a while we are not taking those house limits away we agree that house size

[2:51:01] Voice 8: limits are important they're important to the future of how we do our planning i would rather

[2:51:07] Voice 8: stay away from you know one person's house cost this much and one person's house cost that much

[2:51:13] Voice 8: it depends on personal preferences and and how they build their house what we are saying is

[2:51:19] Voice 8: these are the limits that we're that we're looking to work within that's the conversation

[2:51:25] Voice 8: that we're trying to have here not how much it's going to cost for someone to do

[2:51:32] Voice 8: I'm sorry. I'm asking that we hold that conversation back. We can have that inside conversation.

[2:51:41] Voice 8: Let's leave it out of this room because that will cause some dissension and upset in this room and

[2:51:48] Voice 8: we're trying very much to work together. I appreciate your comments. I really do.

[2:51:53] Voice 7: My comment is I just kind of say that it looks like

[2:51:56] Voice 7: I probably didn't even scare one of them and say, here's a real one.

[2:52:00] Voice 8: Exactly. And you've already read that two times earlier.

[2:52:04] Voice 8: So if we can drop that and if you want to have a side conversation,

[2:52:08] Voice 8: have a side conversation. Let's take it out of the room now.

[2:52:12] Voice 7: Yeah, but as a member of the public, you know, I had to hear somebody

[2:52:16] Voice 7: make a reference that was very negative and probably not accurate.

[2:52:20] Voice 7: John is commenting on that. That's all.

[2:52:22] Voice 8: And I'm just saying he has already

[2:52:24] Voice 8: already commented twice before and this is not the third comment that he's made on this one comment

[2:52:29] Voice 8: that was made and asking if you're upset let's take it offline and if you're going to address

[2:52:35] Voice 8: it I'm going to ask you not to ask that you drop this conversation

[2:52:38] Voice 7: to one comment there's been

[2:52:42] Voice 7: I'm going to just ask

[2:52:44] Voice 8: that we drop that because if

[2:52:46] Voice 7: you need to take it offline this is not helping

[2:52:49] Voice 7: this conversation okay a little bit well it's

[2:52:54] Voice 3: strange that might kind of fit into this last

[2:52:57] Voice 3: conversation but just to kind of put things in perspective a little bit our otp back in

[2:53:05] Voice 3: 13 years ago when it was last updated talked about 270 lots on south tender as being sufficient to

[2:53:15] Voice 3: see us through the next 10 years is very perceptive we're at maybe less than 280 lots

[2:53:23] Voice 3: today so there hasn't been any significant development in terms of new lots

[2:53:29] Voice 3: we're

[2:53:30] Voice 7: basically in a quiescent state and been that way for the last 13 years so

[2:53:37] Voice 7: the projection that you know we're going to get steam lowered here pretty soon is not really

[2:53:43] Voice 7: holding true. If you go farther, I don't want to take my glasses off, but the average square

[2:53:51] Voice 7: footage on South Pender house size on South Pender is roughly 1,820 square feet. I think

[2:54:03] Voice 7: Cameron Thorne would verify that with the research that he did on it. If you look at

[2:54:10] Voice 7: At the average dwelling size in BC, according to the 2021 census, we're at 1,774 square feet.

[2:54:22] Voice 7: If you look at the rural dwellings size in BC, again, from the 2021 census, it's 1,660 square feet.

[2:54:35] Voice 7: If you look at these urban square sites in BC, sorry to bury with all these numbers, but

[2:54:40] Voice 7: we're at 1,802 square feet. My point here is we're very close to the BC average on square footage

[2:54:49] Voice 7: and I don't think most of that development, our 1,870 square feet, happened in an unregulated

[2:55:03] Voice 7: it and by that i mean the lot coverage was 25 percent uh and there was no setback so i don't

[2:55:12] Voice 7: think that the evidence is really there i mean we can all project what we're going to see in the

[2:55:18] Voice 7: future and i think we all agree we can make steps i just think that we need to take a look at the

[2:55:27] Voice 7: figures and see what they're telling us

[2:55:29] Voice 7: thank you i just wanted to so it's the subject but i just backed my comment earlier about us

[2:55:40] Voice 7: needing to to sign off that we've looked at um the regulations around some better is there any way we

[2:55:47] Voice 7: can ask realtors to behave a bit differently and um require that like i mean is there not

[2:55:54] Voice 7: any kind of bylaw we can enact about about that because that would be one way of built like I've

[2:56:00] Voice 7: heard of another property um that was sold sight unseen you know just by a photograph

[2:56:06] Voice 7: and then when the people arrived to the property oh yeah that ocean view is you know you had to go

[2:56:12] Voice 7: like turn around and see my tree so then their solution was to move a lot of trees into blast

[2:56:18] Voice 7: like crazy to get what was a false photo really uh describing it just seems it's just so unethical

[2:56:28] Voice 7: and unfair that that um realtors operate that way and is there really nothing we can do to to

[2:56:36] Voice 7: progress i'm sure

[2:56:41] Voice 7: the real estate industry regulated there's nothing that we can put in a bible that would impact them

[2:56:49] Voice 7: now. So it would only impact the owner once they bought regarding the existing houses

[2:56:59] Voice 7: on the island, the existing house sizes. I work in the construction industry and I'm

[2:57:05] Voice 7: involved with I'm always involved with some larger project like in most of them nowadays

[2:57:13] Voice 7: days are involved in demolition as a precursor to build to a new

[2:57:19] Voice 7: build. And I speculate within 40 years on South Pender Island,

[2:57:26] Voice 7: almost every house will be torn down and rebuilt. And just from

[2:57:32] Voice 7: what I'm seeing, you know, judging on the age and the

[2:57:35] Voice 7: condition and the size of the houses that make up our rural

[2:57:41] Voice 7: So I'd like to see the existing bylaws stand so that we have a better chance, because given

[2:57:52] Voice 7: the given, we can't just sort of assume that the existing houses are going to stay there.

[2:57:57] Voice 7: They're going to be bought, torn down, and new houses are going to be built to whatever

[2:58:04] Voice 7: maximum size that can be built.

[2:58:06] Voice 7: That's what's happening.

[2:58:08] Voice 7: Like we said, what we're trying to do here is we're trying to find that some

[2:58:11] Voice 7: compromises to work within what what what was put in in the last time well from

[2:58:18] Voice 7: my perspective i

[2:58:20] Voice 7: really don't see the hardship um if the size of the existing houses um barely come close to the

[2:58:31] Voice 7: existing the existing bylaws for maximum house size um with a few exceptions what's what's the

[2:58:38] Voice 7: big deal you know houses larger i i think i'm finding

[2:58:44] Voice 3: that the reference to the average size

[2:58:49] Voice 3: as a guiding some kind of guidepost to go by i find that a little confusing but to me that

[2:58:56] Voice 3: average means there's a bunch of very small houses that are way smaller than most houses and then

[2:59:02] Voice 3: there's some that are larger that's how you get an average right so there's probably i don't know in

[2:59:07] Voice 3: this case how many houses are in within the very close range of the average it could be that there

[2:59:14] Voice 3: isn't could be there's two very strong extremes or whatever okay so i like like the way i think

[2:59:25] Voice 3: about rural character is and and this comes also from from the ocp um it it uh talks about

[2:59:40] Voice 3: about the freedom to express yourself,

[2:59:44] Voice 3: or not express yourself,

[2:59:45] Voice 3: but like it talks about that as part of the role character,

[2:59:49] Voice 3: is that people get to do their own thing.

[2:59:51] Voice 3: Talks about the opportunity to have a farm,

[2:59:54] Voice 3: to have a farm stand by the road,

[2:59:56] Voice 3: and so to me, in a rural...

[3:00:00] Voice 3: Rural, what I would consider rural, some people have a large house, like maybe a very large

[3:00:05] Voice 3: house, and some people live in a cottage, some people live in a trailer, you know, whatever,

[3:00:10] Voice 3: like variety to me describes that.

[3:00:13] Voice 3: And so the average size, if we use that as the guidepost and say, here's the average

[3:00:24] Voice 3: now so we should sort of get closer to that that to me reduces sort of the world character

[3:00:33] Voice 7: and so that's just my perspective well i wasn't saying average i mean average square footage i

[3:00:40] Voice 7: was saying the average house on the island like most houses most houses on salt pender island

[3:00:46] Voice 7: one do not meet the maximum floor i i don't know am i close so just just on the point about average

[3:00:57] Voice 7: housing um when the uh the data

[3:01:01] Voice 4: that was generated to support the house sizes

[3:01:04] Voice 7: that were agreed to

[3:01:06] Voice 7: included not just average but also median size house and the 75 size average so there was some

[3:01:14] Voice 7: analysis around that uh those figures are still available i know gordy did some important work

[3:01:20] Voice 7: on that as did cameron i'd just like to address the comment about consensus um it's it's interesting

[3:01:31] Voice 7: um i think finding general agreement is important in a community for for the peace of the community

[3:01:38] Voice 7: but as trustees, the Local Government Act required that you make your decisions consistent with the OCP.

[3:01:48] Voice 7: And what I'd like to say is that the changes that were brought in in 2022 really moved towards supporting and enhancing the OCP goals.

[3:02:03] Voice 7: And I have supported any changes that I think would improve our commitment to the OCP goals.

[3:02:11] Voice 7: I've expressed some of those today. I have others in my head that I'm examining and trying to suss out and hear other people on.

[3:02:18] Voice 7: But that's the first obligation here.

[3:02:22] Voice 7: And I think that finding a consensus with folks who want something that may not be as consistent with our OCP as what we have now is kind of a false path forward.

[3:02:37] Voice 7: I think that really what we want to do is look at what our OCP goals are and how can we improve our commitment and expression of those goals in our land use bylaws.

[3:02:48] Voice 7: So I would just urge us not to be stuck on consensus, but to really focus on what our OCP goals are and how can we best achieve those goals for this community.

[3:03:00] Voice 8: I'm definitely going to say I'm definitely keeping the OCP in mind, not just one part of it, but I'm looking at the whole of it.

[3:03:09] Voice 8: And part of that is the health of the community and the health of the community has suffered.

[3:03:17] Voice 8: so that is why we're trying to get consensus in the community now and that's why we're looking at

[3:03:24] Voice 8: some some middle ground some wiggle room that was you know some compromise some

[3:03:32] Voice 8: weeks it's not to take away where we are but it's to work with what we've got and in order to

[3:03:40] Voice 8: to help heal and to help move forward it's also to look at the future that's what we're doing now

[3:03:50] Voice 8: it's not just to look at today so there's a lot there's a lot of pieces being put into this pot

[3:03:59] Voice 8: and we have to have careful consideration of what we're doing and we need to have input from

[3:04:06] Voice 8: everyone, all sides, in order to come out with something that is going to be solid,

[3:04:12] Voice 8: something that is going to be better than where we are, and something that is going to help us

[3:04:18] Voice 8: as a community to remain resilient over the next 20 years, not just today, not just tomorrow,

[3:04:23] Voice 8: not just this term.

[3:04:27] Voice 3: We're getting full time, I believe, but I just want to make it really

[3:04:34] Voice 3: clear in case it's not but I totally support the OCP and to me when we use the word like consensus

[3:04:41] Voice 3: it's consensus within the framework of the OCP right it's not it's not like I want something

[3:04:47] Voice 3: that's not on the in the OCP is totally different direction and I'm going to get it because I want

[3:04:51] Voice 3: consensus you know like that that is not my view at all but I'm also very aware that the OCP

[3:04:58] Voice 3: you could take almost anything and fit it in and say the OCP supports this. Let me read you just a few words that are written in the OCP.

[3:05:09] Voice 3: The important protections that are mentioned in there.

[3:05:14] Voice 3: Mixed agriculture, character, low density, relatively unstructured development, comparatively undisturbed natural and varied landscapes,

[3:05:25] Voice 3: landscapes, freedom from disturbance and privacy from neighbors, ecosystems, amenities, property

[3:05:31] Voice 3: owners, land use needs and lifestyle, limited island services, rural home occupations, agritourism

[3:05:40] Voice 3: activities only on active farms, may consider increased setbacks adjacent to agricultural

[3:05:47] Voice 3: lands, may consider TUPs and STBRs, encourage protection, retention and restoration from

[3:05:54] Voice 3: from natural areas as a means of restoring carbon so there's a lot there you know you could

[3:06:05] Voice 3: like there i i don't believe in camps like i'm i'm on all camps

[3:06:11] Voice 3: and i i want to i i don't believe it's a good healthy way to communicate

[3:06:17] Voice 3: to do the us and them thing so i i want to see that we can all find ways of

[3:06:26] Voice 3: of fitting in here and respect.

[3:06:30] Voice 3: The thing that I find is keeping us into the camps

[3:06:34] Voice 3: is that we haven't talked a lot about,

[3:06:37] Voice 3: or sort of evaluated or thought about maybe

[3:06:43] Voice 3: that these OCP goals can be supported

[3:06:47] Voice 3: in what looks to each of us as opposite ways.

[3:06:52] Voice 3: And we have to find a way to respect

[3:06:54] Voice 3: respect that not everybody sees the OCPs and sees the same house, the same size, the same picture.

[3:07:02] Voice 3: We all have our own internal picture of all of these kind of works that I just read off,

[3:07:06] Voice 3: what that looks like. And we shouldn't say, I want the OCP. And so that's what I want. And

[3:07:13] Voice 3: that's what I'm doing. And you're saying you don't want it. That's not true. You have a different

[3:07:17] Voice 3: picture of it, perhaps. Everybody has their own picture of it. And we have to find a way

[3:07:23] Voice 3: to sort of make more allowances for the different viewpoints.

[3:07:29] Voice 3: And I mean, it's even kind of said in here in some of the things,

[3:07:34] Voice 3: relatively unstructured development.

[3:07:38] Voice 3: So property owners, land use needs and lifestyles.

[3:07:43] Voice 3: So that means diversity is what it means.

[3:07:46] Voice 3: Diversity is a very big part to me,

[3:07:48] Voice 3: well, rural character and OCP, the whole thing.

[3:07:52] Voice 3: them so and i don't want to be told that i don't believe that you know and just like nobody else

[3:07:58] Voice 3: wants to be told that the way they see things isn't the way it is we are different we are

[3:08:06] Voice 3: individuals and the the secret to this whole exercise i believe is us learning to respect

[3:08:15] Voice 3: respect each other, and to live together, even though we are all different.

[3:08:25] Voice 7: Yeah, you know, when you think about it, over a third of our island is parkland, and another

[3:08:32] Voice 7: substantial area, I've forgotten the figures, you know, OCP, is in

[3:08:35] Voice 6: farmland and forestry.

[3:08:37] Voice 6: Very little of it is in residential development.

[3:08:39] Voice 6: We should be the happiest people on the island.

[3:08:42] Voice 6: I mean we should all you know everybody would want to be where we are and yet here we are arguing

[3:08:47] Voice 6: over welling size I think what you said um Danny puts yeah the way we look at the OCP we all look

[3:08:55] Voice 6: at it the words are there and how we see it we may see it differently but I I know exactly what

[3:09:01] Voice 6: you're saying I don't know why we're not happy that's we have lots to be happy about um but

[3:09:07] Voice 6: But in closing, I just want to ask, are you still accepting my correspondence or where?

[3:09:13] Voice 6: So, yes. So just

[3:09:13] Voice 8: write exactly where we're at.

[3:09:15] Voice 8: So the correspondence, if it comes in after today, it's not going to be included in the official package to the APC because staff won't have time to incorporate those ideas and suggestions.

[3:09:28] Voice 8: So they'll just be going as standalone correspondence in addition to the package.

[3:09:35] Voice 5: Yeah, I just, you know, we're talking about the OCP, so I just look it up here, I'm looking

[3:09:40] Voice 5: at it, and, you know, people do have a tendency to cherry-pick things, and we have to remember

[3:09:47] Voice 5: this is the OCP embodies the

[3:09:49] Voice 7: consensus of South Fender Island's views about how fast

[3:09:54] Voice 7: we nurture a sustainable economy, environment, and community, blah, blah, blah.

[3:09:58] Voice 7: lot. So let's really focus on that consensus part of it. That's it. Thank you.

[3:10:09] Voice 7: I would like to say

[3:10:17] Voice 4: that I'm happy. Don't worry.

[3:10:20] Voice 4: And I appreciate your references to the OCP, Dag, and the goals of the OCP are quite clear.

[3:10:32] And I'm

[3:10:32] Voice 7: interested in recommended changes, referencing those goals and showing how those

[3:10:41] Voice 7: changes would better achieve those goals than what we have now.

[3:10:45] Voice 7: That's my point.

[3:10:46] Voice 7: Not that people will view that differently.

[3:10:48] Voice 7: Make the argument, use the justification from the OCP, because that more than a poll or

[3:10:56] Voice 7: a vote or something like that is what is intended to drive development in the southern gulf islands

[3:11:02] Voice 7: with the preserve and protect mandate that we have an obligation to respect

[3:11:06] Voice 8: thank you

[3:11:10] Voice 8: and i was going to also add before i had other hands welcome you remember what you're going to

[3:11:15] Voice 8: say um that yeah and the consensus i think we're one of two islands that i think um i wonder who

[3:11:22] Voice 8: the other island was that met the we've got the 30 by 30 gold we've we've exceeded them and there's

[3:11:28] Voice 8: one of the islands that who was that do you remember there's one of the islands that has

[3:11:33] Voice 8: been better than us they're

[3:11:36] Voice 5: better than anybody so

[3:11:40] Voice 7: out of all of the islands we're we're number two in in that so yay

[3:11:47] Voice 7: so i guess it was pointed out before that we should all be happy i want to say i'm happy

[3:11:56] Voice 3: i'm not happy for my branch in

[3:12:00] Voice 7: lots of different ways but i would like us to be leaders

[3:12:04] Voice 7: in ways that can make our grandchildren happy and i don't want to follow other islands that have

[3:12:12] Voice 7: less restrictive regulations, I want us to leave those other islands. So, you know,

[3:12:23] Voice 7: we have to understand that things are changing. We can't compromise with climate change. It holds

[3:12:30] Voice 7: all the cards. We've got to be looking forward and, you know, taking into consideration that

[3:12:40] Voice 7: The change is ahead of us, and we've got to scale back.

[3:12:44] Voice 3: It's not a question of what's going to please us or continue to please us right now, because the ground's moving.

[3:12:56] Voice 7: Thank you.

[3:12:57] Voice 7: Do you remember what your goal was?

[3:13:00] Voice 7: Let it rest.

[3:13:04] Voice 7: So everybody sort of...

[3:13:06] Voice 7: Okay, let's go.

[3:13:08] Voice 3: Just

[3:13:09] Voice 7: a couple of things.

[3:13:11] Voice 7: there was talk about using cottages moving you know changing the square footage and maybe we

[3:13:17] Voice 7: could build a cottage or maybe add it onto the house or something just a quick point there

[3:13:23] Voice 7: you know like 50 of the houses or carbon 50 of the properties can't have cottages in other words

[3:13:31] Voice 7: they're under two acres so that's a solution that would only fit you know a smaller proportion of

[3:13:39] Voice 7: house and i might be speaking on behalf of paul i don't know but as an apc member

[3:13:49] Voice 7: i'm hoping that we're not going to get 250 suggestions

[3:13:56] Voice 7: that you will give us direction on what you want to see okay

[3:14:09] Voice 7: I meant to say it earlier, I'd like to consider some confusion as to the legal conforming versus legal non-conforming as it stands.

[3:14:18] Voice 7: I'd like to make sure that the APC understands fully the legal interpretation of what it means, if they're going to be speaking for the community.

[3:14:31] Voice 7: And if I can ask the trustees to ensure that they understand what that means.

[3:14:37] Voice 7: I think that's what these were.

[3:14:40] Voice 7: well yeah but there's confusion because uh cordy's a member of the apc to really understand so

[3:14:48] Voice 7: just i'd feel more comfortable just to to know that there was an assurance that everybody in

[3:14:53] Voice 7: the abc understood what that meant so we will ask staff to clarify now i think it's really important

[3:15:00] Voice 7: to make it as clear as possible.

[3:15:03] Voice 7: Yeah, okay.

[3:15:04] Voice 7: So, Ben, do I have anything to add?

[3:15:06] Voice 7: Yeah, just give me a comment.

[3:15:07] Voice 7: Oh, was that you?

[3:15:09] Voice 7: Oh, yes, you.

[3:15:11] Voice 7: Just one thought,

[3:15:12] Voice 7: what you were saying about the

[3:15:14] Voice 7: I mentioned

[3:15:15] Voice 7: the possibility of joining

[3:15:19] Voice 7: the cottage and

[3:15:20] Voice 7: the highest

[3:15:22] Voice 7: maximum.

[3:15:24] Voice 7: Maybe it's time to think about

[3:15:28] Voice 7: allowing smaller

[3:15:29] Voice 7: properties to have

[3:15:31] Voice 7: um um accessory speeds or what do you call them

[3:15:34] Voice 7: yeah or whatever in there in whatever allowances i

[3:15:42] Voice 1: think i don't

[3:15:42] Voice 7: hear what that word was secondary

[3:15:44] Voice 7: suite thank you uh in there whatever they're loving it whatever everything comes up with

[3:15:50] Voice 7: that's the apartment or whatever you come up with that's the apartment for their their house size

[3:15:54] Voice 7: maybe that should be something that's thought of now yeah so currently

[3:15:58] Voice 8: our bylaws do not allow for

[3:16:00] Voice 8: secondary students and i think we're one of the few islands that don't commit it yeah i'm not sure

[3:16:06] Voice 7: if we're the only island that doesn't mean maybe not the only one but one of them yeah

[3:16:14] Voice 7: thank you um

[3:16:16] Voice 6: i just had one last comment and that's really about lifestyle because i think

[3:16:21] Voice 6: that that's been kind of minimized and not really discussed and i think there is a lot to be said

[3:16:27] Voice 7: about living a lifestyle that is environmentally friendly and sensitive for example like you always

[3:16:37] Voice 7: have to put your generator on and about what you drive and how many trips you make and your

[3:16:43] Voice 7: activities and things like that I really think lifestyle is really quite important and actually

[3:16:49] Voice 7: never discussed and um i think it's important sorry i think the bible should be a good healthy

[3:17:01] Voice 7: environmentally friendly lifestyle where we'll be able to get you

[3:17:08] Voice 7: i really want

[3:17:09] Voice 2: you to tell me

[3:17:13] Voice 7: we sort of reached a conclusion well thank you everybody it's

[3:17:19] Voice 7: been very educational for me

[3:17:21] Voice 2: good

[3:17:22] Voice 7: stuff it's always it literally it that's one of the the

[3:17:27] Voice 7: nice parts of my role is i get to go to other communities other inputs and see other perspectives

[3:17:32] Voice 7: i i do truly enjoy it and then i i will thank um chair elliott for imposing on me to come here

[3:17:40] Voice 7: because it was indeed

[3:17:41] Voice 5: a treat so good luck getting home you got

[3:17:46] Voice 5: a little bit of a delay but uh

[3:17:48] Voice 5: yeah the bakeries that way so thank you very much thank

[3:17:53] Voice 7: you all

[3:17:56] Voice 5: right so we shall adjourn

[3:17:58] Voice 5: thank you everybody thank you

[3:18:00] Voice 7: emily thank you carly

South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
April 26, 2024 ADOPTED Page 1 of 4 
 
South Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
April 26, 2024 
St. Peter’s Anglican Church Hall, North Pender Island 
 
Members Present: David Maude, Chair  
 Dag Falck, Local Trustee  
 Kristina Evans, Local Trustee  
Tobi Elliott, Local Trustee (electronic) 
  
Staff Present: Robert Kojima, Regional Planning Manager 
Kim Stockdill, Island Planner (electronic) 
Carly Bilney, Recorder (electronic) 
  
Others Present: There were approximately 15 members of the public present. 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Maude called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. He acknowledged that the meeting was 
being held on the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. 
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent, the agenda was approved as presented. 
 
3. BUSINESS ITEMS 
3.1 Residential floor area and setbacks 
Trustee Evans described the meeting as an opportunity to achieve consensus on topics 
discussed. Trustee Falck acknowledged concerns raised about the meeting being held on 
North Pender, and commented on a smaller amount of people attending the present 
meeting compared to the previous Community Information Meeting.  
The first half of the meeting was dedicated to discussion on setbacks. The following 
comments were made: 
 Questions were raised about how best to correspond with the Local Trust 
Committee and administrate emails; Trustees commented that the South 
Pender Local Trust Committee email will be shared in future outgoing 
correspondence 
 It is important to keep a public record, and emails related to Islands Trust work 
should go through an official Trustee’s email rather than a personal one 
A D O P T E D 

  
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
April 26, 2024 ADOPTED Page 2 of 4 
 It should be up to constituents whether or not to email Trustees using their 
personal email address or their work one 
 Legally nonconforming properties should be rare 
 It is unclear what the issues were that led to changing the setbacks, and a map 
should be made to show where buildings are that will be impacted by the 
change, and where covenants are that further restrict some properties 
 Setbacks are measured to the closest feature of the building 
 Support was expressed for a 50-foot setback from the boundary of the sea to 
provide protection for sensitive ecosystems along the shoreline 
 Generally, a greater setback from the natural boundary of the sea (high tide 
line) will decrease the impact of development on the marine environment in the 
nearshore, which is typically a very sensitive area 
 Building further back from the natural boundary of the sea protects 
development from hazards such as erosion, storm surges, sea level rise, and also 
mitigates visual impacts 
 Data from the State of Washington was mentioned as to why setbacks from the 
sea should be increased (for example, erosion, blasting, and disruption to 
vegetation) 
 Support was expressed for increasing the setback from the sea for ecological 
concerns, because cliff environments are threatened ecosystems, and because 
the Province has outlined plans to protect coastal shorelines by implementing a 
minimum setback of 50 feet 
 Support was expressed for a 50-foot setback from the natural boundary of the 
sea to impede property owners that build decks that extend to the sea 
 Increased setbacks from the sea might increase the chances that properties 
owners will clear trees to improve their view 
 Concern was expressed that there is no tool to address clear-cutting 
 A 50-foot setback from the sea will not help to mitigate erosion which is 
something that should be addressed 
 Support was expressed for reverting setbacks to the interior side lot line to 10 
feet for RR1 and RR2 zones because noise and privacy concerns are insignificant 
in a 10-foot setback compared to a 20-foot one, and owners can take measures 
to reduce the impact of buildings without having to resort to more restrictive 
bylaws 
 Support was expressed for 10-foot setbacks to the interior side lot line to 
maintain consistency with other Southern Gulf Islands and since the majority of 
properties have already been developed 
 A 40-foot corridor between properties, made by 20-foot setbacks, is 
unnecessary 
 Support was expressed for keeping 20-foot setbacks to the interior side lot line 
as allowing more distance for threatened species increases their chances of 
survival, and a greater setback improves sightlines between properties 
 As people get closer, rifts arise and a larger buffer between neighbours is good 
 South Pender Island should be progressive and protect the quality of the natural 
environment despite what is happening on other islands 

  
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
April 26, 2024 ADOPTED Page 3 of 4 
 Trustees should consider different setback zones (for example, specific areas of 
the island with narrow properties could have separate zoning with setbacks that 
allow for room to build) 
 It is illogical to have a setback for one kind of building (for example, dwellings 
and cottages) and not for others (for example, accessory buildings) 
 Definitive protection of specific natural barriers on the island is lacking and 
public meeting time should be used to discuss how to protect the waterfront 
 The process of talking about changes to Bylaw No. 114 is constrained to 
discussion of property rights when much bigger issues like protecting the islands 
should be the focus; we should discuss good practice in terms of shoreline 
management such as protecting arbutus and Garry oak ecosystems 
 
A break was held from 11:25 a.m. – 11:37 a.m.  
The second half of the meeting was dedicated to discussion of house size. The following 
comments were made: 
 Perhaps the bylaw should have an explicit requirement that says one cannot 
block a neighbour’s view 
 Planning a process where variances are a solution is not good planning; 
variances should be few and far between for exceptions 
 Variances are a useful tool in certain situations (for example, when height 
restrictions limit a house built on vertical rocks) 
 Having a one size fits all approach to bylaws is too broad 
 Requirements related to house size that are in place now were not agreed to by 
the community 
 Changes to the house height has made a lot of properties non-conforming 
 The footprint of a home should be more significant than the floor area; some 
homes have basements 
 The language in Bylaw No. 122 & Legal Non-Conforming FAQ is confusing and 
needs to be clarified 
 Question No. 4 in Bylaw No. 122 & Legal Non-Conforming FAQ does not specify 
who a “qualified” person may be; the wording was left open so it would not be 
overly restrictive 
 An attached garage should be excluded from a dwelling’s maximum floor area 
 Support was expressed for designating attached garages as accessory buildings 
 Support was expressed for the changes to the bylaw as the house size limits 
provide for adequate housing in a rural community; a maximum floor area of 
232 m² (2500 ft²) for a 1-acre lot is sufficient 
 House size impacts greenhouse gas emissions and it is important that we adhere 
to the goals of the Official Community Plan to reduce emissions when possible.  
 We should retain a bylaw that uses house size as a tool to limit adverse effects 
on the environment 
 A suggestion was made to combine house size allowances for primary dwellings 
and cottages 

  
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
April 26, 2024 ADOPTED Page 4 of 4 
 Support was expressed for allowing for one larger house (cluster building) rather 
than one house and one cottage 
 The average square footage of house size on South Pender is very close to the 
provincial average 
 South Pender might consider allowing smaller properties to have secondary 
suites 
 Decisions must take the goals of the Official Community Plan into account 
 Diversity in housing is a big part of rural character 
 Recommended changes should reference and be justified by the goals in the 
Official Community Plan 
 South Pender should lead other islands and not follow them by having less 
restrictive regulations 
 After this meeting, next steps include creating a staff report and gathering 
information for the Advisory Planning Commission to discuss and then provide 
recommendations to the Local Trust Committee 
 Staff was asked to clarify the meaning of “legal conforming” versus “legal non-
conforming” for members of the Advisory Planning Commission 
 
It was noted that correspondence may still be accepted after this meeting. 
 
4. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 1:19 p.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
David Maude, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
_________________________ 
Carly Bilney, Recorder