Gambier Island Local Trust Committee special meeting, May 14, 2024

[0:00:02] Voice 5: So good morning, everyone. Welcome to the recessed meeting of the Gamber Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:13] Voice 5: And yeah, so thank you for joining us.

[0:00:19] Voice 5: If you've had the opportunity to today and you've seen the previous discussion, we're talking about the major project on our list.

[0:00:31] Voice 5: And I'm just going to continue the conversation where we left off when we recessed this, hard to believe, 10 days ago, I guess that was, maybe a bit more.

[0:00:40] Voice 5: Anyway, I want to acknowledge that we're meeting broadly across Coastal Territory here.

[0:00:46] Voice 5: It looks like summer has begun, and certainly this would be a great time of celebration and travel across the Salish Sea to meet family and friends historically since time immemorial.

[0:01:05] Voice 5: And I just always want to realize where I live and the small part that I play in the history of this place and the big part that the nations that have been here do play.

[0:01:19] Voice 5: and we certainly are cognizant of the past

[0:01:23] Voice 5: and certainly there's some bad things that have happened

[0:01:27] Voice 5: as well as some good things

[0:01:29] Voice 5: and we're striving towards the good at the Allen's Trust,

[0:01:31] Voice 5: working towards reconciliation and understanding

[0:01:34] Voice 5: and knowing the history and paving a path for the future.

[0:01:38] Voice 5: So grateful to be here

[0:01:39] Voice 5: and grateful to have that opportunity.

[0:01:41] Voice 5: So just to introduce or provide opportunity

[0:01:44] Voice 5: for our trustees to introduce themselves

[0:01:46] Voice 5: and I see Trustee Bernardi, you've got your video on.

[0:01:48] Voice 5: Good morning, sir.

[0:01:49] Voice 4: Hi there.

[0:01:53] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:01:54] Voice 5: And so Trustee Stamford, also Director of Stamford.

[0:02:01] Trustee Stamford: I'm having some connection issues, Chair Luckham,

[0:02:05] Trustee Stamford: so I'll probably keep my video off.

[0:02:07] Trustee Stamford: But happy to be calling in from the territory of the Shishelt,

[0:02:13] Trustee Stamford: the Swia of the Shishelt Nation today.

[0:02:17] Voice 5: Okay, very good.

[0:02:18] Voice 5: And we've got Marlis McCarver with us today.

[0:02:23] Voice 5: Thank you for rejoining us in this meeting, and hopefully we'll advance the work today.

[0:02:30] Voice 5: And we've also got Lisa Millard, our recorder and technology support, administrative support

[0:02:37] Voice 5: person here today.

[0:02:39] Voice 5: So thank you.

[0:02:39] Voice 5: Are we anticipating Sonia, is she online or not today?

[0:02:43] Voice 5: No.

[0:02:43] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:02:44] Voice 5: So I just wanted to make sure.

[0:02:46] Voice 5: I think I saw her on an email message.

[0:02:52] Voice 5: I'm still not getting my agenda package, and so perhaps you have the agenda item number

[0:02:57] Voice 5: there that we're at, Lisa, and maybe just toss that up on the screen to help me out

[0:03:04] Voice 5: if you can.

[0:03:05] Voice 5: I'm not sure why I don't have this in my folder here, which just seems odd.

[0:03:10] Voice 5: Special meeting January 9th, that's the only one I have.

[0:03:15] Voice 5: Chair, I'll commit is item 16.1, the minor project Keech shoreline protection project.

[0:03:21] Voice 5: Okay. Thank you very much. So thank you for that detail. And so let us start off as we would

[0:03:28] Voice 5: normally. I want to acknowledge Trustee Bernardo. Thank you very much for your very thorough

[0:03:36] Voice 5: briefing that you circulated to Trustee Stamford and myself and staff. That's certainly helpful and

[0:03:42] Voice 5: And also brings clarity to the document in my mind.

[0:03:46] Voice 5: And so we'll discuss that as we go through.

[0:03:48] Voice 5: But let's start off with Marlis McCarger introducing the project itself.

[0:03:54] Voice 5: And then any suggestions about how we might manage this.

[0:03:59] Voice 5: But ideally cover off issues that seem to exist prior to Trustee Bernardo's document and then Trustee Bernardo's document.

[0:04:08] Voice 5: It would be lovely to get this advanced at this meeting.

[0:04:11] Voice 5: So let us go to Marlis McCarter.

[0:04:14] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:04:15] Planner McCargar: I just wanted to acknowledge for anyone who's watching this online now or in the future

[0:04:22] Planner McCargar: that the memo that Chair Luckham is referencing has been added as a late item.

[0:04:29] Planner McCargar: So just added this morning as a late addendum to the agenda.

[0:04:34] Planner McCargar: And that can be viewed on the website under meetings and events.

[0:04:38] Planner McCargar: If you click on this meeting, you'll see that it's added there for anyone who wants to follow along with today's meeting.

[0:04:46] Planner McCargar: I don't have much to add, just that staff are recommending that the LTC proceed with the recommendations as shown on page one of the staff report.

[0:04:57] Planner McCargar: Same as two weeks ago, there's been no changes there.

[0:05:01] Planner McCargar: So really just looking to the LTC today for some direction on how to proceed.

[0:05:08] Voice 5: Excellent. Thank you very much. So, let us start off then, trustees. What are your thoughts at this time and how do you want to proceed? I'm screening you again. So, Trustee Barnardo, over to you.

[0:05:27] Voice 5: uh

[0:05:28] Voice 4: well this meeting is taking place because i asked for it uh and it's uh singularly focused

[0:05:33] Voice 4: on uh amendments or more accurately singularly focused on um the question about whether or not

[0:05:43] Voice 4: the now revised proposed bylaw 154 should receive another second reading and then proceed to public

[0:05:50] Voice 4: hearing and where we had left it back in late 2023 before we had the keith broadband issue

[0:06:00] Voice 4: interrupted everything um we had done we had made quite a bit of progress in terms of at least in

[0:06:07] Voice 4: my mind uh in terms of revising um the existing draft bylaw to make it a better uh instrument

[0:06:15] Voice 4: and we had run out of time then and there were a couple of there were a few outstanding issues

[0:06:20] Voice 4: And that's really the remaining thing to be dealt with for the proposed bylaws. And the memo I circulated a few days ago really encapsulates the very last of my issues.

[0:06:36] Voice 4: issues. I've reviewed the revised draft, and it faithfully reflects the discussions that we had

[0:06:47] Voice 4: back in late 2023. But I did discover there's, frankly, typos and just little things that could

[0:06:56] Voice 4: be tightened up, and that's how I introduced the memo. That's basically housekeeping.

[0:07:01] Voice 4: keeping. And then there's the two material outstanding issues. One was staff had proposed

[0:07:12] Voice 4: changing the language to a guideline. And I see problems with that recommendation on that

[0:07:23] Voice 4: specific guideline. And I, in the memo, propose other language to address it. That language,

[0:07:30] Voice 4: in my view doesn't change the substance of the original guideline in the draft that is currently

[0:07:37] Voice 4: the draft that has received second reading. I think it just makes it clearer, whereas in my

[0:07:43] Voice 4: view, the language proposed by the staff would change the meaning. Anyhow, we can deal with that

[0:07:49] Voice 4: when we get to it. And finally, I'm proposing two exemptions to the DP, the development permit

[0:07:57] Voice 4: requirement uh that's the overview of it and i think i would suggest if it's amenable to

[0:08:04] Voice 4: everybody else that we um simply take the things in order basically going from the easiest to the

[0:08:08] Voice 4: hardest um take care of the housekeeping stuff take care of the you know wrestle down the language

[0:08:16] Voice 4: for that guideline uh and then get into the substantive discussion uh which really engages

[0:08:22] Voice 4: the deep policy question of where this bylaw should go.

[0:08:30] Voice 4: And that is going to be the harder discussion, no doubt.

[0:08:33] Voice 4: So that's my suggestion.

[0:08:34] Voice 4: Start at the beginning and work our way to the bottom.

[0:08:43] Voice 5: Okay, thank you.

[0:08:44] Voice 5: Joe, do you have, Trustee Stamford,

[0:08:46] Voice 5: do you have any opening remarks?

[0:08:50] Trustee Stamford: No, I'm interested.

[0:08:52] Trustee Stamford: I have a couple of questions for staff,

[0:08:55] Trustee Stamford: but yes, let's get started on the point,

[0:08:58] Trustee Stamford: the beginning of the points, as Trustee Bernardo suggested.

[0:09:05] Voice 5: Okay. Well, then that's great. So, yeah, there's three recommendations in the original

[0:09:12] Voice 5: agenda, which essentially starts with advancing an amended bylaw. So, let us begin, as you've

[0:09:21] Voice 5: suggested there, Joe. It seems to me that the minor edits and clarity for consistency in your

[0:09:27] Voice 5: your first item there at 9.83 B, 9.83 E, F and 9.35 F

[0:09:37] Voice 5: subsection four, I think what you've captured there,

[0:09:44] Voice 5: written there captures the essence of it.

[0:09:47] Voice 5: Trustee Stamford, do you have any concerns about that?

[0:09:50] Voice 5: And then I'd like to see for technical perspective

[0:09:53] Voice 5: perspective that the language that is being used is appropriate with the staff just because

[0:10:00] Voice 5: ultimately we need to get some legal review on the wording but it certainly looks okay to me

[0:10:04] Voice 5: Trustee Stanford.

[0:10:05] Trustee Stamford: Yeah so just to be clear is this switch from shall to should is to keep it

[0:10:10] Trustee Stamford: consistent with the rest of the document?

[0:10:13] Voice 4: Yes it's a point that I had brought up before when we

[0:10:16] Voice 4: discussed this in late 2023 which is that guidelines are guidelines they're not prescriptive

[0:10:23] Voice 4: um so shall is prescriptive should is not and we had in fact changed where shall was

[0:10:30] Voice 4: littered throughout the guidelines uh we had changed that to should before and these two we

[0:10:36] Voice 4: missed so okay

[0:10:37] Trustee Stamford: no that's fine so

[0:10:46] Voice 4: uh what do i do about these things i mean uh is there any question

[0:10:50] Voice 4: about 9.3.5 f4 i'm

[0:10:54] Trustee Stamford: just looking at it again sure

[0:10:56] Voice 4: if

[0:10:56] Trustee Stamford: i can oh no okay i'm gonna do it this way

[0:11:11] Trustee Stamford: does staff agree with the self-contradictory um nature of the language does that make sense

[0:11:20] Planner McCargar: so through the chair i just received this uh this morning i i wasn't at work yesterday um so i have

[0:11:29] Planner McCargar: I've had a very, very limited time to quickly read through it.

[0:11:34] Planner McCargar: And I don't feel comfortable providing any kind of analysis at this stage.

[0:11:37] Planner McCargar: I can try and answer questions as best as we can,

[0:11:40] Planner McCargar: but this will all go through a legal review. So,

[0:11:45] Planner McCargar: and staff will be able to take a little bit more time with it and then bring it

[0:11:50] Planner McCargar: back to a future meeting.

[0:11:54] Trustee Stamford: I mean, I, I don't feel qualified to say yay or nay on whether the language

[0:12:01] Trustee Stamford: which is self-contradictory, but if it is not hugely material,

[0:12:07] Trustee Stamford: I don't have an issue with deleting it for Section 9.3.5.

[0:12:16] Voice 4: Yeah, I mean, I can't really add much to what I've said in this little memo,

[0:12:21] Voice 4: but I mean, if you just read it

[0:12:25] Voice 6: as

[0:12:26] Voice 4: it stands right now by itself,

[0:12:32] Voice 4: it's hard to see what it advances, you know?

[0:12:36] Trustee Stamford: yeah so i don't have an issue with that as far as i can tell um when i look at the language

[0:12:43] Trustee Stamford: all

[0:12:44] Voice 6: right um

[0:12:46] Trustee Stamford: you're on you're on um mute chair lookum well

[0:12:51] Voice 5: that's a good thing sometimes um so

[0:12:53] Voice 5: we can advance this um uh we have no objections in principle and uh we can live with it so to

[0:13:01] Voice 5: speak so we can advance these amendments to uh the second reading document do we do that

[0:13:08] Voice 4: do we

[0:13:09] Voice 5: need

[0:13:09] Voice 4: a resolution for that or do we do it but well

[0:13:10] Voice 5: i think i think we do and i to make it simpler i

[0:13:15] Voice 5: would maybe ask for staff advice on um uh on the on to suggest that the ltc would make the

[0:13:24] Voice 5: amendments as indicated um in the mem in the memorandum from a trustee bernardo associated

[0:13:30] Voice 5: you have is section 9.33 BEF and 5F4. Would that be sufficient for your record?

[0:13:39] Planner McCargar: Through the chair, my recommendation is I will keep track of these changes as we're going through,

[0:13:46] Planner McCargar: and then I would like to take a five to 10 minute recess if that's amenable, and I would craft

[0:13:52] Planner McCargar: a resolution with the changes and put that up on the screen and see if the LTC,

[0:13:57] Planner McCargar: see if that captures what the LTC was thinking. I think it's good if we can just capture all the

[0:14:04] Planner McCargar: changes in one resolution at the end of the meeting.

[0:14:08] Voice 5: Okay, so that's great. Thank you for

[0:14:10] Voice 5: that help. So then I'm just going to assume then that all of what was captured in that first section

[0:14:16] Voice 5: we're going to provide as an amendment. So let's go to doc materials. I think it's the next item.

[0:14:22] Voice 5: Yeah. I'll get you to scroll up there, Lisa. The public can see it as well. Perfect.

[0:14:38] Voice 5: Yeah. So do you have any additional remarks there, Trustee Bernardo?

[0:14:44] Voice 4: Yes, briefly. This issue came up. This was not when I did my line by line review of the bylaw

[0:14:55] Voice 4: and tried to identify the things that I thought could be changed to improve it.

[0:14:58] Voice 4: But this wasn't one of them. This was one of the changes that the staff, you'll recall, the staff went through the bylaw itself and did put a few changes in terms of changing the grammar and organization and tweaking things for sake of consistency and that sort of thing.

[0:15:13] Voice 4: And this was one of the guidelines that staff elected to rewrite, I think, for the sake of clarity. Staff can explain it better than I can. It was their idea.

[0:15:25] Voice 4: but as it exists now it is kind of wordy and um it's a little wordy and uh a little uncertain it's

[0:15:37] Voice 4: it's it's it's not as precise as it could be it's a bit on the vague side uh and so um i appreciate

[0:15:45] Voice 4: where staff is coming from their version of it there is is tight it's crisp my difficulty with

[0:15:51] Voice 4: it is that it just actually changes the meeting meaning of it and i won't repeat what i say in

[0:15:56] Voice 4: the memo but i don't think we should be changing the meaning of it uh because i don't think it's

[0:16:01] Voice 4: feasible i mean you can't build docks of biodegradable materials it's not how it works

[0:16:05] Voice 4: so uh that's why i had suggested some of the language before trustee stamford wasn't comfortable

[0:16:13] Voice 4: with it she thought it was again a little on the weak side because of that term water quality

[0:16:20] Voice 4: and for that reason i've amended my alternative language so that it says dock should be

[0:16:26] Voice 4: reconstructed and stable materials that do not have the potential to degrade the marine ecosystem

[0:16:32] Voice 4: or the ecology of the foreshore over time. Specifically, docked floats should not use

[0:16:37] Voice 4: unenclosed plastic, foam, or creosote-treated pilings. This language captures the original

[0:16:42] Voice 4: intent, but it's just tighter and less ambiguous about the scope of the standards that those

[0:16:52] Voice 4: materials should meet which is to say not just water quality which is a pretty vague term but

[0:16:58] Voice 4: you know get to the heart of it it can't degrade the marine ecosystem or have some sort of knock-on

[0:17:04] Voice 4: effect to the to the foreshore when i was going through this i noticed that that term water

[0:17:12] Voice 4: quality is used in a few other places and trustee stamford's observation and and objection to it

[0:17:21] Voice 4: that applies equally to three other sections,

[0:17:24] Voice 4: which is why in the memo,

[0:17:25] Voice 4: I'm recommending that in asking that we change,

[0:17:28] Voice 4: replace that term water quality

[0:17:30] Voice 4: in those other sections as well.

[0:17:37] Voice 5: Chair Greene.

[0:17:39] Trustee Stamford: Yes, thank you, Chair.

[0:17:41] Trustee Stamford: I do prefer the proposed language

[0:17:47] Trustee Stamford: that Trustee Bernardo has provided in his memo,

[0:17:52] Trustee Stamford: but first I would like to understand a bit more

[0:17:54] Trustee Stamford: from the planners um why why that specific reference to water quality versus marine

[0:18:04] Trustee Stamford: ecosystem because you have suggested that you want to keep the language the same and then i

[0:18:10] Trustee Stamford: also have a question to trustee bernardo afterwards sorry

[0:18:19] Planner McCargar: i don't have a specific

[0:18:21] Planner McCargar: answer for that at this time i could get back to you if okay yeah

[0:18:26] Planner McCargar: i would have to look into

[0:18:27] Planner McCargar: to the history of of this and this term but i'm not too sure off the top why it was

[0:18:32] Planner McCargar: used yeah so

[0:18:33] Trustee Stamford: so the reason um to me the water the use of the word water quality is is just too specific that

[0:18:42] Trustee Stamford: it the impacts of um the materials used on docks affects more than the water it affects the the

[0:18:51] Trustee Stamford: undersea land it affects the foreshore so that's why i'm more comfortable with the

[0:18:56] Trustee Stamford: using the terms marine ecosystem and ecology um so i would be happy with that um i continue to

[0:19:07] Trustee Stamford: struggle with um using unenclosed plastic foam i recognize there's not a lot of options out there

[0:19:16] Trustee Stamford: and um but i hope there will be i i would like eventually to come to a point where we're not

[0:19:23] Trustee Stamford: not using styrofoam anywhere because it just takes one log to go through

[0:19:30] Trustee Stamford: that, that encasement. And then, you know,

[0:19:34] Trustee Stamford: the otters get in and we're right back to square woman.

[0:19:37] Trustee Stamford: So my question to trustee Bernard is we often clash on the use of best

[0:19:44] Trustee Stamford: practices. And for me,

[0:19:46] Trustee Stamford: i would like to acknowledge that this technology is evolving and that there are that those best

[0:19:57] Trustee Stamford: practices change um and is there any advantage to using the term best practices in this particular

[0:20:05] Trustee Stamford: case because two or three years from now we could have a different kind of technology that makes

[0:20:11] Trustee Stamford: unenclosed plastic unnecessary in the area so for that reason i'm just wondering trustee bernardo if

[0:20:19] Trustee Stamford: you could just clarify your concern with the use of the term best practices uh

[0:20:25] Voice 4: yeah as i've said

[0:20:28] Voice 4: a number of times i i don't like the term and i'll explain why i i wouldn't have i wouldn't

[0:20:35] Voice 4: want to see it introduced here or anywhere for that matter uh best practice um is not an

[0:20:41] Voice 4: an explanation of anything it's just a it's a label and it's a label that carries with it

[0:20:47] Voice 4: kind of an expression of authority it's like okay i call a thing a best practice that's like that

[0:20:52] Voice 4: should be the end of the discussion it's like it's not doesn't explain anything now if you put it into

[0:20:58] Voice 4: some legislation like say you know um say a guideline that says you know should follow

[0:21:03] Voice 4: best practices of this or that well that's actually ends up becoming a subjective term

[0:21:09] Voice 4: that has to be interpreted by somebody uh and in the event it's we all know that it's going to end

[0:21:16] Voice 4: up becoming interpreted by the staff that's in a sense legislation by delegation and i'm not

[0:21:23] Voice 4: comfortable with that because as you pointed out these different technologies are they're always

[0:21:29] Voice 4: changing they're always in transition and you could have um a new practice that's introduced

[0:21:37] Voice 4: is that's actually the best thing ever but it's not yet a best practice a best practice is like

[0:21:43] Voice 4: actually something that's five years at a date because that's what everybody agrees it is or

[0:21:47] Voice 4: that's what the consensus is that judgment ends up falling to the hands of a planner and uh i don't

[0:21:56] Voice 4: think it should be it it um legislation by its nature has to be general and i think but to say

[0:22:06] Voice 4: they best practice to dedicate the judgment to the staff about the appropriateness of something

[0:22:12] Voice 4: uh i don't think we should be doing that uh i think we should be working to get to the same

[0:22:18] Voice 4: place in a different way and i think this language does it in the sense that and in similar attempts

[0:22:26] Voice 4: to use similar type of language when we when it says things like dogs should be constructed of

[0:22:30] Voice 4: stable materials that do not have do not have the potential to degrade the marine ecosystem or the

[0:22:35] Voice 4: ecology of the foreshore over time that actually gives staff a specific direction when it's

[0:22:40] Voice 4: applying the guideline whether a thing is best practice or not they get to look at the technology

[0:22:46] Voice 4: do some research and if they reach the conclusion that it has this material that is proposed has

[0:22:53] Voice 4: the potential to degrade the ecosystem then they can apply that judgment but just saying

[0:22:59] Voice 4: of best practice does not give staff sufficient direction okay

[0:23:02] Trustee Stamford: can i respond with further

[0:23:06] Trustee Stamford: thoughts chair so i'm wondering even if this um that that second sentence specifically

[0:23:13] Trustee Stamford: is required at all then because the way i'm reading that is um it's it's focusing on

[0:23:23] Trustee Stamford: on specific materials, unenclosed plastic, anything other than creosote treated pylons.

[0:23:31] Trustee Stamford: Right now, I don't have a concern with the not using creosote treated pylons. That's a great,

[0:23:36] Trustee Stamford: that's great. And it gives a wide area of other materials to work with. But given that there's

[0:23:45] Trustee Stamford: not a lot of, there's a few options, but not a lot to focus on an enclosed plastic foam is what

[0:23:51] Trustee Stamford: I'm having concern from because it will um it will have the potential to degrade the ecosystem over

[0:23:59] Trustee Stamford: time it's the nature of the beast so I'm not really that's the part I don't I'm not entirely

[0:24:04] Trustee Stamford: comfortable with

[0:24:05] Voice 4: and uh just to if I may um ask a clarifying question trustee Stanford I take it

[0:24:12] Voice 4: you're uncomfortable with the phrase should not use unenclosed plastic foam because it implies

[0:24:19] Voice 4: that enclosed plastic foam is okay and you want to keep options open in the future when we get

[0:24:25] Voice 4: better technology that enclosed plastic foam will get rejected. I

[0:24:31] Voice 4: can tell you that the reason I put

[0:24:34] Voice 4: in that sentence was because I didn't want to tinker with the specific interdictions that were

[0:24:42] Voice 4: in there because, I don't know, they seem to have a history and these are specific environmental

[0:24:48] Voice 4: environmental protections but i

[0:24:49] Voice 4: agree with you that that second sentence is in fact subsumed

[0:24:52] Voice 4: under the first one and uh you take out that second sentence with that guideline staff still

[0:25:00] Voice 4: has the discretion to say forget it you're not putting in creosoted pilings uh

[0:25:05] Voice 7: and

[0:25:06] Voice 4: if somebody

[0:25:07] Voice 4: put an application tomorrow as you say they don't have much choice they are going to have to use

[0:25:12] Voice 4: on a class unenclosed or sorry enclosed plastic foam in many cases but equally in three or four

[0:25:19] Voice 4: or five years uh if there's a better technology then staff can uh you know uh use this judgment

[0:25:27] Voice 4: at that level and say well no you know enclosed plastic foam was acceptable three years ago it

[0:25:33] Voice 4: isn't anymore because there's a superior product etc etc so if if you're fine with this language

[0:25:39] Voice 4: except you would like to drop that last sentence i'm fine with that also

[0:25:43] Trustee Stamford: okay um so um i would like

[0:25:48] Trustee Stamford: to recommend that if there's no other concerns about it um that we drop we adopt the language

[0:25:55] Trustee Stamford: as per trustee bernardo's suggestion here and that we uh take out the last sentence

[0:26:08] Voice 6: Which now brings

[0:26:09] Voice 5: us to the other three

[0:26:11] Voice 4: consequential edits that I had in mind.

[0:26:26] Voice 4: Just before

[0:26:27] Voice 5: we move on, I would like to make a remark. I'm inclined to actually keep that last sentence because it sets, admittedly, it may not be significant in the future because of changes in technology.

[0:26:46] Voice 5: And I'll just mention that, speak to that in a minute.

[0:26:49] Voice 5: But it sets a landmark that says, essentially, by saying no unenclosed plastic foam, it identifies what the most current issue is associated with docks.

[0:27:03] Voice 5: And then, of course, the creosote treated pilings is also the most obvious thing to do in 2024.

[0:27:11] Voice 5: And admittedly, this could have been done five years ago, let alone today.

[0:27:16] Voice 5: But in another five years, indeed, there might be different technology.

[0:27:20] Voice 5: And what's interesting about these kinds of things is industry actually often paves the way because they are forced into better practices associated.

[0:27:27] Voice 5: And I didn't use best practices, better practices by government to meet new higher standards.

[0:27:35] Voice 5: And so some of this foam product won't even be available to the consumer.

[0:27:39] Voice 5: And certainly I don't think any professional would likely use it today, but that may not be the case.

[0:27:47] Voice 5: So I didn't have any real objections, and I thought it named what was important is don't let foam into the water and don't let creosote into the water.

[0:27:55] Voice 5: But if you want to cut that out and change it, then I'll stand behind you as well.

[0:28:02] Trustee Stamford: Speaking to that, Chair, I think I am more comfortable keeping it out.

[0:28:07] Trustee Stamford: It just focuses on unenclosed plastic foam as an acceptable form.

[0:28:14] Trustee Stamford: and um i i think that's too specific okay

[0:28:22] Voice 5: so then let's uh let's fix that on the on the document

[0:28:29] Voice 5: there and let's move as you've suggested uh trustee bernardo to the next two items right

[0:28:37] Voice 4: i mean these are just basically following the direction that um you know where trustee sanford

[0:28:43] Voice 4: was leading us last time and so it's basically just cleaning it up and i hope people have had

[0:28:50] Voice 4: a chance to have a quick look at those sections in the existing draft so that they can see what

[0:28:56] Voice 4: the effect of the change is. Trustee Stanford?

[0:29:08] Voice 5: Do we still have you there, Trustee Stanford?

[0:29:10] Voice 6: Yep.

[0:29:11] Voice 5: Yep. No, it's good with me.

[0:29:23] Voice 4: Did I hear, Trustee Stanford, that she was good with these

[0:29:25] Voice 4: changes?

[0:29:26] Trustee Stamford: Yes. Sorry. I didn't realize you couldn't hear me. Yeah. I'm fine. Yeah.

[0:29:30] Voice 5: Yeah. So, okay. So

[0:29:31] Voice 5: you're satisfied with those? Yeah. I agree completely. Thank you for the constructive

[0:29:35] Voice 5: addition to the wording, Joe. So let us then move to, if that's all right, construction within

[0:29:40] Voice 5: DPA 3. And let's just follow this plan we've got going here. And Trustee Bernardo, you want to

[0:29:46] Voice 5: make additional remarks to your written input there?

[0:29:49] Voice 4: Yeah. It's like this is now the heavy

[0:29:55] Voice 4: heavy lifting. Yeah. Yeah. This is, uh,

[0:30:02] Voice 4: Let me collect my thoughts here.

[0:30:07] Voice 4: The scope of the DPA requirement, as it's expressed in 9.3.1, and I've made this point before, you know, and quite specifically last fall,

[0:30:23] Voice 4: all uh it's that my trouble with it is that it it it throws a blanket over uh the ability of

[0:30:34] Voice 4: property owners uh to do normal course work and frankly normal course enjoyment of their properties

[0:30:42] Voice 4: uh and the issue i am stuck on is that there are many um cabins and residences on keats island

[0:30:54] Voice 4: that uh encroach into what will become dp3 we've had the do nothing rule for 7.5 meters

[0:31:05] Voice 4: back from the foreshore and we now have the idea of creating a dp3 which will take us back 15 meters

[0:31:15] Voice 4: the way the bylaw is phrased it contemplates that some development may occur between the 15 meter

[0:31:27] Voice 4: and 7.5 meter boundaries but that will require a development permit and that makes sense when

[0:31:35] Voice 4: we're talking about undeveloped land but if we think about for example the leaseholders who at

[0:31:43] Voice 4: some point are going to become freehold owners over at keats camp some 100 or so places many

[0:31:51] Voice 4: of them if not most of them are very close to the water uh many of those houses and their

[0:31:57] Voice 4: from parts of the properties that use that they use the decks and whatever

[0:32:03] Voice 4: are going to be within in fact some of them historically are actually within that 7.5 meters

[0:32:08] Voice 4: that is what it is but i'm only talking about the area between the 7.5 and the 15

[0:32:15] Voice 4: you've got cabins and properties and things that have had active usage for decades that are that

[0:32:21] Voice 4: will be within the boundaries of dp3 so when i look at way 9.3.1 is currently drafted

[0:32:31] Voice 4: that will require those people to get the development permit for any addition or alteration

[0:32:41] Voice 4: to their pre-existing habits it would also require them to get a development permit to do any kind of

[0:32:50] Voice 4: land alteration including it says your vegetation removal and disturbance of soils without any

[0:32:55] Voice 4: qualification that includes their lawn and i know it sounds absurd and it's people are inclined to

[0:33:04] Voice 4: wave it off as not taking it seriously but as if not being a serious criticism but you know which

[0:33:10] Voice 4: which is it required development of permit for land alteration,

[0:33:13] Voice 4: including vegetation removal and disturbance of soils.

[0:33:16] Voice 4: It literally means you cannot put a horseshoe pitch in your lawn without

[0:33:20] Voice 4: getting development permit.

[0:33:24] Voice 4: And enforcement, we all know,

[0:33:26] Voice 4: takes the words of our bylaws literally.

[0:33:30] Voice 4: So if you've got some cranky neighbor who complains about,

[0:33:33] Voice 4: who doesn't like their neighbor and sort of rats them out for putting in a

[0:33:38] Voice 4: fire pit or a horseshoe pit on their front yard,

[0:33:41] Voice 4: and it happens to be in DP3,

[0:33:43] Voice 4: that person is headed towards a bylaw infraction notice.

[0:33:47] Voice 4: That's just not reasonable.

[0:33:52] Voice 4: There has to be some level of accounting

[0:33:54] Voice 4: for the fact that people have been,

[0:33:59] Voice 4: this bylaw is going to cover the activities

[0:34:03] Voice 4: over areas that people have actually actively used

[0:34:08] Voice 4: for decades and going forward protecting the undisturbed ecosystem is important it's valuable

[0:34:16] Voice 4: and it's fine but we have to be realistic about not making life miserable for the people who

[0:34:23] Voice 4: actually have cabins that encroach in what will be dp3 in terms of overly interfering with their

[0:34:30] Voice 4: ability to maintain, to alter, to just use their property as they see fit. Because you're changing

[0:34:44] Voice 4: a pre-existing right. You're changing an ability that they had in the past. So what I'm talking

[0:34:49] Voice 4: about here is trying to strike a different balance here. Instead of hanging a blanket prohibition

[0:34:53] Voice 4: that requires you to getting a development permit for even trivial things, I don't think it should

[0:35:01] Voice 4: To be up to the staff or to have to exercise judgment over certain areas of activities that homeowners are doing on their own properties, on their own homes.

[0:35:13] Voice 4: Again, if we're talking about undisturbed natural land, an ecosystem that hasn't been interfered with, that's a whole different thing.

[0:35:27] Voice 4: That's actually the logic of the bylaw is to protect that stuff.

[0:35:31] Voice 4: But I don't think the logic of the bylaw is to prohibit normal usages.

[0:35:41] Voice 4: So when I made this, when I thought about this before last fall, I had a single exemption in mind.

[0:35:48] Voice 4: But the more I've thought about it, it's an alteration and additions are different concepts.

[0:35:55] Voice 4: And so that's why I've separated this out into two proposed exemptions.

[0:35:59] Voice 4: One is the alteration one. And, you know, I could go through the memo and I could repeat the various things that are in the memo.

[0:36:08] Voice 4: I don't think I will. I mean, that's the argument there, which is it's just entirely reasonable to allow people to engage in alterations of their houses and their land if it is strictly within the footprint of what's already been disturbed or what it's already been built.

[0:36:27] Voice 4: And then there's the same reasoning, I argue, would apply to allowing additions when you have a house that encroaches on what will be DP3 and the addition that's contemplated is going to be encroaching on to, say, a pre-existing garden or a yard or a patio or building out what used to be a deck and adding a room, that kind of thing.

[0:36:55] Voice 4: These are normal things that people who own cabins traditionally do without too much trouble.

[0:37:02] Voice 4: Often what we're talking about additions are so small that they don't even require a building permit.

[0:37:06] Voice 4: I don't think people should be restricted from being able to do that normal core stuff when it will have no effect on the environment.

[0:37:14] Voice 4: It's not going to add to degradation of the environment.

[0:37:20] Voice 4: It's simply just substituting one use of developed land for another one.

[0:37:26] Voice 4: so that's uh that's the overview thanks uh for letting me take the time there

[0:37:44] Trustee Stamford: chair welcome you're on mute yeah

[0:37:46] Voice 5: i'm just trying to unmute it yeah um so thank you trustee bernard

[0:37:49] Voice 5: we've got two sections here alterations and additions and uh so and i'm assuming the

[0:37:55] Voice 5: highlighted text is what you're uh proposing to add to the bylaws so trustee stamford over to you

[0:38:01] Voice 5: any remarks

[0:38:02] Trustee Stamford: i'd like to hear from staff too because they had their hand up oh

[0:38:07] Voice 5: i i'm sorry

[0:38:07] Voice 5: Oh, yeah, I can't see that, just the way it's working for me.

[0:38:11] Voice 5: But go ahead, Marlis.

[0:38:15] Planner McCargar: Thanks.

[0:38:16] Planner McCargar: Yeah, I raised my hand and then just lowered it because I thought I'd wait to hear what

[0:38:20] Planner McCargar: Trustee Sanford had to say.

[0:38:21] Planner McCargar: But I just wanted to remind the LTC that there is an exhaustive exemption list.

[0:38:28] Planner McCargar: And just to make sure that we aren't sort of exempting things that are already exempt.

[0:38:36] Planner McCargar: And I know we've had a lot of discourse around exemption point 2A, which is repair and maintenance of lawful buildings or structures.

[0:38:44] Planner McCargar: So that is included as an exemption.

[0:38:47] Planner McCargar: So any renovations, you know, replacing windows, you know, rebuilding a sun deck in the original footings, that that would be included under repair and maintenance.

[0:39:01] Planner McCargar: And then I also just wanted to draw attention to another exemption, which is gardening and property maintenance activities. And that would include adding, you know, vegetation planting, minor soil disturbances that do not alter the general contours of the land, shrubs, that type of thing. So that is also included under the exemption. And I just wanted to be clear on that.

[0:39:31] Voice 5: right um okay so uh perhaps uh trustee stanford and then maybe we'll go back to trustee bernardo

[0:39:40] Voice 5: uh as well with respect to the commission staff there yeah

[0:39:45] Trustee Stamford: i was aware of those exemptions

[0:39:48] Trustee Stamford: and i was looking at other uh lubs which generally follow that um exemptions basic work

[0:39:59] Trustee Stamford: uh anything done within the the envelope of the original building i guess um how i see it is i'm

[0:40:07] Trustee Stamford: coming from a different angle on on the purpose of of the dps is recognizing that these areas

[0:40:19] Trustee Stamford: have a special connotation meaning they're in the foreshore they have um areas that even though they

[0:40:28] Trustee Stamford: may have been disturbed, they're still ecosystems of themselves. I would be hard-pressed to find

[0:40:35] Trustee Stamford: a pristine ecosystem around the Keats foreshore, which then begs the question how much

[0:40:43] Trustee Stamford: disturbance are we talking about? Do we have to define those disturbances? I understand

[0:40:51] Trustee Stamford: understand that there's there's many small dwellings that are entirely within the 15 meter

[0:40:56] Trustee Stamford: um but i'm also looking on the mainland and there's many houses that are also entirely within

[0:41:04] Trustee Stamford: the um the setbacks that have been provided uh very close together um and and they're

[0:41:12] Trustee Stamford: they don't have an exemption beyond what is sort of basic common work um if they want to put a

[0:41:21] Trustee Stamford: a new addition on or a new deck it has to go through the the dp process um there will be many

[0:41:30] Trustee Stamford: um construction options that are entirely reasonable and they just it's a it's a check

[0:41:38] Trustee Stamford: off and it's like yeah you've followed everything through let's move on but there are going to be

[0:41:46] Trustee Stamford: be some that are not useful and could degrade that we're not experts to say whether it degrades

[0:41:55] Trustee Stamford: or doesn't degrade. I cannot say, oh, well, that person digging a fire pit is not degrading the

[0:42:02] Trustee Stamford: environment. It's not my ability to make that determination. So I'm not in support of expanding

[0:42:15] Trustee Stamford: any exemptions out because I think they're especially with the additions I think that

[0:42:22] Trustee Stamford: is entirely reasonable to have a DP on those those particular activities this is a fragile

[0:42:31] Trustee Stamford: area whether it's being disturbed or not is irrelevant some of these areas some of these

[0:42:36] Trustee Stamford: properties are entirely disturbed many of them are so does that mean the DP doesn't

[0:42:43] Trustee Stamford: apply to them that's sort of where i feel we're going with this um and in which case

[0:42:50] Trustee Stamford: that sort of makes the whole process ineffective so for those reasons i i just i i feel that we

[0:43:01] Trustee Stamford: are striking a balance that this will make um people's ability to live and protect

[0:43:09] Trustee Stamford: protect the area, not just for the environment, but for their own protection as we move forward

[0:43:16] Trustee Stamford: into potentially more warmer weather, greater storms, et cetera, like that. I feel this is

[0:43:24] Trustee Stamford: striking balance between them. So at this point, using the rationale as described by Trustee

[0:43:32] Trustee Stamford: trustee Bernardo I'm not inclined to support this these changes you're on mute you're on mute you

[0:43:48] Trustee Stamford: uh

[0:43:50] Voice 5: we heard from trustee uh uh or sorry we heard from staff that some of these uh exemptions may

[0:43:55] Voice 5: already be included in the draft and so trustee Bernardo um both uh staffs and uh trustee

[0:44:05] Voice 5: Stanford's remarks. Do you have any additional information there? Well,

[0:44:11] Voice 4: I do have some comments.

[0:44:13] Voice 4: I do recognize that the alteration exemption I'm proposing is to some extent duplicative of

[0:44:20] Voice 4: the repair and replacement maintenance thing and the gardening exemptions that are already in place.

[0:44:29] Voice 4: my preoccupation is that the language of 9.3.1 is so sweeping that i wanted to make sure that

[0:44:35] Voice 4: we captured all of those things that weren't like the planner mccarter mentioned renovations well

[0:44:43] Voice 4: the exemption is repair and maintenance and the other one's gardening there are things that

[0:44:50] Voice 4: involve alterations to a house that aren't repair aren't really maintenance they're improvements

[0:44:56] Voice 4: improvements that involve alterations those aren't covered by the pre-existing exemptions

[0:45:06] Voice 4: so the sweeping nature of 9.3.1 i think requires us to sort of take that into account i mean

[0:45:12] Voice 4: that list of items that i put in the memo

[0:45:18] Voice 4: for example if somebody is going to replace their windows or install solar panels

[0:45:28] Voice 4: that's not necessarily maintenance that is an improvement and and that's you know i'm not

[0:45:39] Voice 4: indulging in fine parsing of language that's what those words mean and you know my experience so far

[0:45:47] Voice 4: the island's trust is that our application of the bylaws is fairly literal it certainly looks

[0:45:53] Voice 4: that way when the enforcement gets its hands on something so that's why i certainly think the

[0:45:58] Voice 4: alteration exemption is necessary for example if somebody wants to put solar panels on their roof

[0:46:05] Voice 4: they ought to be able to do it without having to go cap in hand to and pay a development permit fee

[0:46:12] Voice 4: coming to the planners and then get into line waiting for the usual processes you know their

[0:46:18] Voice 4: tremendous workload they've got to work through that it just adds unnecessary weight to the system

[0:46:25] Voice 4: unnecessary work when somebody just wants to do something that's very reasonable that is going

[0:46:29] Voice 4: to have zero negative impact on the environment so uh and when we talked about fire pits it's

[0:46:36] Voice 4: you know so that's i i think that should be not controversial the idea that somebody ought not

[0:46:42] Voice 4: to have to get a permit to put on some solar panels now when trustee stanford talks about well

[0:46:48] Voice 4: she's not an expert none of us are experts about environmental degradation well

[0:46:53] Voice 4: neither are the planners who would be in charge of reviewing these development projects

[0:46:59] Voice 4: they're going to have to rely on expert advice where does that come from it comes from an expert

[0:47:04] Voice 4: opinion which is going to be have to come from somebody that the property owner has hired in

[0:47:11] Voice 4: order to satisfy the staff and we're starting to run up costs because somebody wants to put in a

[0:47:18] Voice 4: fire pit uh please bear with me sorry i've got an interruption here i've got to deal with

[0:47:32] Trustee Stamford: okay

[0:47:33] Trustee Stamford: okay um

[0:47:36] Voice 6: sorry about that oh okay i'm glad you're back i was going to suggest

[0:47:43] Voice 6: sorry

[0:47:44] Voice 4: no sorry it was just uh i will i won't worry with the details okay um

[0:47:49] Voice 5: so we don't need

[0:47:49] Voice 5: to recess everything so we

[0:47:51] Voice 4: do not we do not uh so uh in fact if i can capture my train of thought

[0:47:56] Voice 4: thought um the idea that uh something like a fire pit ought to be subjected to scrutiny by the staff

[0:48:12] Voice 4: uh and it needs to be reviewed and considered uh i'm troubled by that because what it amounts to

[0:48:25] Voice 4: is is saying that once we put gp3 into place anything the homeowner does within that area

[0:48:35] Voice 4: any kind of real change they're going to do ought to be subjected to monitoring

[0:48:39] Voice 4: by the staff because that's effectively what the development permit requirement does and

[0:48:46] Voice 4: i think it's unreasonable it's overbroad i mean i do recognize that uh you know larger

[0:48:56] Voice 4: i'll be honest that the challenge you know the way i heard trustee stamford's objections are

[0:49:02] Voice 4: are that they apply equally to both exemptions.

[0:49:06] Voice 4: I think her points are probably have greater force

[0:49:09] Voice 4: with respect to the additions issue

[0:49:11] Voice 4: because that is more complicated.

[0:49:15] Voice 4: But with alterations, I really don't see the value

[0:49:21] Voice 4: of putting in what is a fairly strict monitoring regime

[0:49:25] Voice 4: on property owners that will in fact interfere

[0:49:28] Voice 4: with their ability to do things

[0:49:30] Voice 4: that they've done for generations.

[0:49:32] Voice 4: And a point I've made before, this thing that we all want to preserve exists by virtue of what these people who have been on the foreshore lived on the waterfront.

[0:49:46] Voice 4: What this bylaw is seeking to protect is the amenities that they have fostered themselves.

[0:49:56] Voice 4: themselves. I mean, to the extent that the foreshore is something that's worth preserving

[0:50:01] Voice 4: and admiring, that's in large part due to the stewardship of the people who've been there.

[0:50:05] Voice 4: And to say that now going forward, their discretion, which has proved to be pretty

[0:50:15] Voice 4: reasonable over the years, isn't to be trusted. It's a little offensive. And I understand the

[0:50:23] Voice 4: need to protect against aggressive development in the future that would encroach into sort of

[0:50:30] Voice 4: undisturbed barriers you know chopping down a bunch of trees that are within the dp3 that

[0:50:35] Voice 4: kind of thing no we're on that we're on the same page there but there's a big difference between

[0:50:40] Voice 4: saying look you can't go around whacking down a bunch of trees that are within dp3 and disturbing

[0:50:47] Voice 4: the native vegetation and messing around that way because you want to put in a tennis court

[0:50:53] Voice 4: versus somebody wanting to put in a fire pit or whatever you know a horseshoe pitch

[0:50:59] Voice 4: on their lawn i mean these are these are i mean we should be able to draw some distinctions here

[0:51:05] Voice 4: so you know um i'd like us to deal with the merits of these two exemptions separately and

[0:51:13] Voice 4: not sort of lumped into one category because i do think there's

[0:51:16] Voice 4: considerations here

[0:51:17] Trustee Stamford: yeah but

[0:51:18] Trustee Stamford: but you've been talking about them together.

[0:51:20] Trustee Stamford: So let's separate them out.

[0:51:23] Trustee Stamford: And I'm very happy to do that.

[0:51:28] Trustee Stamford: We've been talking about putting on solar panels,

[0:51:33] Trustee Stamford: upgrading the windows.

[0:51:35] Trustee Stamford: Well, looking at the exemption,

[0:51:37] Trustee Stamford: those are entirely within the footprint of the building.

[0:51:42] Trustee Stamford: So I feel that those fit perfectly fine

[0:51:46] Trustee Stamford: within those exemptions. When we're talking about fire pits, I don't want to get into the whole

[0:51:54] Trustee Stamford: idea that if you're on a property that is so small, that your whole property is within the

[0:52:02] Trustee Stamford: DPA area, which means there's a whole fire issue that, you know, that's a whole other conversation

[0:52:08] Trustee Stamford: that maybe you shouldn't be putting in a fire pit because of its closeness to your neighbors and

[0:52:14] Trustee Stamford: everything else um i consider it reasonable um given the i yeah i totally agree the the stewardship

[0:52:25] Trustee Stamford: on keats uh has been generally amazing and this is not what these bylaws are for they're for the

[0:52:35] Trustee Stamford: other examples where the stewardship is not good and that's generally going forward

[0:52:41] Trustee Stamford: Yes, it does impact current owners, but it impacts new owners and new development far more.

[0:52:51] Trustee Stamford: And that's where the bylaws come into effect that really impact people's abilities is there has been egregious examples.

[0:53:02] Trustee Stamford: examples and unless we provide guidelines to provide to to be able to move forward for instance

[0:53:10] Trustee Stamford: there's a fire pit and then there's a fire pit there's you know there's some giant fire pits out

[0:53:16] Trustee Stamford: there um that has a different impact on the environment and when we're talking about who

[0:53:22] Trustee Stamford: are the experts well the the tp process requires an environmental um expert to come in and look

[0:53:31] Trustee Stamford: and that's where the objectivity comes in i i agree there's there's a sublime and ridiculous

[0:53:40] Trustee Stamford: potential through here um but i also agree i also consider that people on keats know the difference

[0:53:49] Trustee Stamford: um there's always going to be the occasional neighbor that takes things to the nth degree

[0:53:56] Trustee Stamford: Do we then put all our bylaws within that kind of framework that there's going to be one person that's going to nitpick on every single thing, in which case we have to go back and look at all our bylaws again?

[0:54:11] Trustee Stamford: I think there's a level of reasonableness here that would allow someone to put in a small fire pit without being able to put in a giant barbecue structure on a small property.

[0:54:28] Trustee Stamford: I just think it is striking the balance

[0:54:31] Trustee Stamford: that I'm looking for

[0:54:32] Trustee Stamford: and that the exemptions that are already in there

[0:54:35] Trustee Stamford: generally do cover most of the issues

[0:54:38] Trustee Stamford: that you're concerned about.

[0:54:39] Trustee Stamford: And that's just on the alterations.

[0:54:41] Trustee Stamford: Well,

[0:54:47] Voice 4: I'm struggling here

[0:54:51] Voice 4: because with all due respect,

[0:54:56] Voice 4: I mean, what I'm hearing from Trustee Stamford

[0:54:58] Voice 4: is we ought to be with this sweeping application

[0:55:03] Voice 4: of requiring any alteration in any addition

[0:55:09] Voice 4: and that it requires the development permit,

[0:55:12] Voice 4: the reasoning here seems to be that the majority of the people

[0:55:18] Voice 4: ought to be burdened with the cost and trouble

[0:55:20] Voice 4: of having to get a development permit for ridiculous things

[0:55:25] Voice 4: because there is the possibility of outliers who will abuse,

[0:55:30] Voice 4: there's a risk that they're going to abuse the exemption.

[0:55:34] Voice 4: That's what enforcement is for.

[0:55:37] Voice 4: I mean, if I mean, we have to have a certain level of confidence in our constituents and I might take a different I'll be honest, I might well have taken a different approach if the history of Keech Island was different.

[0:55:55] Voice 4: and this comes back to a point that i'm always making we ought not to be making bylaws out of

[0:56:03] Voice 4: because we're trying to follow some abstract principle and like we're being guided wholly

[0:56:09] Voice 4: by the principle the principle is the reason to start doing the work but when you actually do the

[0:56:14] Voice 4: work you've got to park the principle and look at the actual facts and the actual circumstances

[0:56:20] Voice 4: I would not be arguing so strenuously in favor of these exemptions if if the history of Keats Island was one of untrammeled development where it's reckless, where you've got, you know, where you where you pull by your boat, what you see in the foreshore isn't just a dock, but you've just seen everything between the cabin and and the beach is just covered in junk or patios.

[0:56:50] Voice 4: and it's just like just completely crowded such that the whole natural environment has been

[0:56:54] Voice 4: squeezed out in those type of circumstances yeah you want to be uh more strenuous about it and an

[0:57:02] Voice 4: example that trustee sanford brought up before about the restrictions uh in other communities

[0:57:07] Voice 4: yeah that makes sense possibly to require permits when you're doing things like in an urban

[0:57:12] Voice 4: environment but this isn't it it's not an urban environment and the history of ketan it has been

[0:57:17] Voice 4: a fairly responsible development and uh the things that trustee samford is worried about

[0:57:29] Voice 4: let's be honest most acutely apply to development of un um disturbed land of the stuff that's of

[0:57:40] Voice 4: the part of the island or part of the foreshore area that is still undisturbed that still has

[0:57:47] Voice 4: you know a preponderance of if the natural habitat is still there that all makes perfect sense but

[0:57:53] Voice 4: um this distrust of the people who are already there it bothers me quite a bit

[0:58:06] Trustee Stamford: i'd like to respond to this uh interpretation that i distrust keats islanders that is a big

[0:58:15] Trustee Stamford: jump i absolutely trust keats islanders that i mean i'm i'm kind of offended that you're taking

[0:58:23] Trustee Stamford: that tact it's not about um our friends and neighbors that are taking care of their property

[0:58:31] Trustee Stamford: this is about the ability going forward and a trend in development not just on keats but on

[0:58:40] Trustee Stamford: other islands too and on the mainland where there's a perception with a small piece of property

[0:58:47] Trustee Stamford: that anything can go and that there are structures being developed and that there are people and

[0:58:56] Trustee Stamford: owners and especially newer owners as they come in they have different expectations

[0:59:01] Trustee Stamford: and what we're trying to do is mitigate those expectations to the point where in a way the

[0:59:10] Trustee Stamford: the keats island we all know and love continues to to be that island it's i do not find the

[0:59:22] Trustee Stamford: restrictions to be over and above what would be considered normal within this this area which is

[0:59:32] Trustee Stamford: it is very sensitive it's an area whether it's disturbed or not it's still got value and it's

[0:59:41] Trustee Stamford: It's one of the reasons people come to Keats is because you've got areas that, yes, they may have a lawn on it, but we don't want anything to disturb.

[0:59:53] Trustee Stamford: There is value. And this is the part I think I'm having concern about is the use of the word.

[1:00:00] Trustee Stamford: disturbed land. Because there's disturbed land everywhere. I'd be hard pressed to find anything

[1:00:06] Trustee Stamford: that is honestly pristine on Keats. These definitions are important. And I think there's

[1:00:16] Trustee Stamford: a variance between those that they may not seem to be disturbed, or they seem to be disturbed,

[1:00:23] Trustee Stamford: and there's value to that and maintaining it. I think this is reasonable.

[1:00:33] Voice 4: Well, just addressing that one point, I mean, you know, you're not comfortable with the term disturbed land.

[1:00:38] Voice 4: Well, take it up with the staff, because that term is original with the drafting of these proposed bylaws in the first instance.

[1:00:48] Voice 4: That's the term of art that's been used throughout.

[1:00:50] Voice 4: That's the concept of drawing the distinction in terms of what's natural and what isn't.

[1:01:03] Voice 4: And, for example, in some of the other exemptions, in terms of permitting usages and forbidding some of them, or sorry, not forbidding them, but requiring a development permit for that distinction between disturbed and not disturbed, that's elsewhere.

[1:01:17] Voice 4: It's not original with me.

[1:01:19] Voice 4: And so, again, there are degrees of that.

[1:01:26] Voice 4: But if you're looking at an area that is, for example, second growth and that is upland of the foreshore up 15 meters, I think at some point, yeah, that is, you know, that is going to be at some point in some cases is going to be a judgment call that will land on the hands of the staff.

[1:01:47] Voice 4: But what really protects us in that respect is that there is the requirement, like the gardening and other exemptions don't allow chopping down of native habitat, native trees.

[1:02:11] Voice 4: And so for areas that, for example, where there's second growth or they're previously disturbed, but are making a comeback, that's covered by this bylaw.

[1:02:19] Voice 4: So that distinction about disturbed being too general, I don't agree.

[1:02:24] Voice 4: But, and I'd like to add that the exemptions I'm proposing, you know, Trustee Sanford mentioned, you know, somebody building a giant barbecue structure.

[1:02:39] Voice 4: The exemptions I'm proposing wouldn't enable that.

[1:02:41] Voice 4: they enable people to sort of do things on their land well you know putting in a fire pit or a

[1:02:49] Voice 4: horseshoe pit is not constructing anything it's altering the land the only construction i'm

[1:02:56] Voice 4: contemplating is is the additions issue uh and i you know that number i put it in square brackets

[1:03:04] Voice 4: because frankly i don't know what the right number is but where i'm coming from there is i just don't

[1:03:10] Voice 4: want to interfere with somebody's ability to sort of say look you know this patch of ratty grass

[1:03:15] Voice 4: that we've had over here that is you know 100 square feet you know we need another sleeping

[1:03:22] Voice 4: area so let's put in a bedroom here that's small enough i think you don't even need a building

[1:03:27] Voice 4: permit from the sunshine coast regional district i don't understand what the impediment is why

[1:03:32] Voice 4: why we need a development permit for something like that again if the circumstances are key

[1:03:39] Voice 4: were different if the if um you know if development had been untrammeled yeah i i'd be more persuaded

[1:03:49] Voice 4: but i don't see it right now i mean um again trustee sanford you're saying that uh it's not

[1:04:00] Voice 4: about you know the people who are there now it's about the future it's about basically trying to

[1:04:05] Voice 4: make sure there's no abuse going forward but i mean we're still talking about the same people

[1:04:11] Voice 4: These places don't turn over at some great pitch.

[1:04:16] Voice 4: So, again, I come back to this point about striking a balance.

[1:04:22] Voice 4: I'm not comfortable with the idea of burdening the majority of people with unnecessary regulatory requirements because we're anxious about the behavior of outliers.

[1:04:36] Like

[1:04:39] Voice 4: I said, that's what enforcement's for.

[1:04:40] Voice 4: I

[1:04:42] Trustee Stamford: feel like we're arguing the same thing from the opposite points, which is fascinating.

[1:04:51] Trustee Stamford: I'm looking at your specific list, and I do feel that within the envelope of the property, of the structure,

[1:05:05] Trustee Stamford: that replacing glazed windows or outdated glazed windows is covered.

[1:05:10] Trustee Stamford: installing solar panels is covered renovating the interior of a cabin is covered changing

[1:05:18] Trustee Stamford: the profile of a roof is covered adding a balcony is not um rebuilding a sun deck on its original

[1:05:27] Trustee Stamford: footings i'm not sure i would like to see if staff consider that um something outside of a

[1:05:40] Trustee Stamford: what is currently considered repairs but if it comes down to altering a lawn to put a fire pit

[1:05:48] Trustee Stamford: or a horseshoe pitch in i'm fine with that because that seems to about what we keep coming around to

[1:05:57] Trustee Stamford: is really that seems to be the one um that's causing the concern so i guess i would then ask

[1:06:04] Trustee Stamford: staff is there's a specific um issue that i haven't thought of that would cause problems with

[1:06:14] Trustee Stamford: that um other than i think it's a fire hazard now i'm worried okay you're on

[1:06:25] Voice 5: yeah he's on he's on

[1:06:28] Voice 5: oh so i'd like to make a couple of marks but i'd also like to suggest we've been at this an hour

[1:06:33] Voice 5: and we've started the heavy lifting part here um and so perhaps we might want to just take a

[1:06:39] Voice 5: a five or ten minute break to reflect on what we've heard and then come back with maybe some

[1:06:45] Voice 5: solutions um but before we do that i just want to remark that you know i i hear both of what you're

[1:06:53] Voice 5: each of you are saying um there is a lot of gray area and nothing to do with the hair that i just

[1:07:00] Voice 5: removed from my head it didn't help but anyway um there's a lot of gray in this whole the word

[1:07:08] Voice 5: interpretation comes up quite often. Discretion comes up quite often. And the interesting part

[1:07:15] Voice 5: of all of this is that also bylaw enforcement's getting a bit of a bad rap, I'll say,

[1:07:22] Voice 5: when in fact, bylaw enforcement typically applies a huge amount of discretion to complaints.

[1:07:31] Voice 5: And I've experienced hundreds of complaints that have come across my desk over the years.

[1:07:37] Voice 5: And I've seen that I think the number is like 75% of complaints are met by achieving compliance, meaning that the landowner is able to continue doing what they were doing with or without any maybe minor changes associated with it.

[1:08:02] Voice 5: And that I think many of these things, whether it's the discretion of the trustees or staff or bylaw enforcement in this case, is quite a bit broader than the language.

[1:08:12] Voice 5: And then, of course, the language in a bylaw is what the bylaw enforcement uses as their leverage to enforce or achieve compliance.

[1:08:26] Voice 5: And there have been lots of times when egregious things have happened.

[1:08:32] Voice 5: Everybody agrees egregious things are happening, and yet the language is too soft or not enabling

[1:08:39] Voice 5: a strong bylaw enforcement stance.

[1:08:42] Voice 5: And so those egregious things get finished and continue on, and there are scars on the

[1:08:47] Voice 5: landscape in some cases.

[1:08:48] Voice 5: Of course, Keats is different than, let's say, I'm not picking on islands, but say Salt

[1:08:54] Voice 5: Spring Pender and Gabriola, where the densities and development seem to be different. It's much

[1:09:01] Voice 5: more multi-generational in nature, but indeed properties do change owners and perspectives do

[1:09:06] Voice 5: change. And so it's good to have language that is comprehensive and be gray in order to allow

[1:09:14] Voice 5: some discretion. So I just thinking that I could live with or without these because at the end of

[1:09:23] Voice 5: of the day, if there's something that's happened and bylaw enforcement get engaged where they

[1:09:29] Voice 5: haven't applied for a permit, right, and bylaw enforcement gets engaged, and bylaw enforcement

[1:09:33] Voice 5: decides, yes, this should be enforced, they end up coming to the LTC, and the LTC at the end of

[1:09:38] Voice 5: the day says, no, we don't want you to enforce that because we don't consider that to be adequate.

[1:09:43] Voice 5: Admittedly, there might be a little bit of grief involved in between, and it would be good to avoid

[1:09:47] Voice 5: that. But you know, I just want to say, Joe, I really admire the depth to which you've analyzed

[1:09:54] Voice 5: the bylaws and thought about it and thought about the impacts. And it would be lovely if every

[1:09:58] Voice 5: single person on every single island, not just Keats, actually did the same amount of work that

[1:10:03] Voice 5: you're doing to attempt to ensure that they're doing the right thing. Because then we could

[1:10:09] Voice 5: actually just, it could even be grayer if people went to that depth to try to understand what the

[1:10:14] Voice 5: the bylaw means and and simply phoned a planner and said hey i've got a i've got a 36 inch steel

[1:10:21] Voice 5: ring i want to plant in my garden for a fire pit which i agree with uh with kate louise that that

[1:10:27] Voice 5: should be a propane fire pit not a firewood fire pit but nonetheless it's a romantic ideal that

[1:10:33] Voice 5: people have um and that planner can go oh yeah that's not a problem off we go so if that's all

[1:10:39] Voice 5: all right let's have a break for 10 minutes does that sound good and come back and let's try and

[1:10:45] Voice 5: provide some alterations or accommodate each other's points of view in some way

[1:10:49] Voice 5: to advance this uh to the next step and and let's talk

[1:10:54] Voice 5: about let's talk about alterations

[1:10:56] Voice 5: and additions and separate items to keep it

[1:10:58] Voice 4: clear and peter i appreciate the compliment but i think

[1:11:01] Voice 4: if there were uh more trustees with my bent of mind uh we'd probably lose all the planners so

[1:11:07] Voice 4: So, you

[1:11:09] Voice 5: know, that's all OK. It's all good. All right. Let's break for 10.

[1:11:14] Voice 5: Let's come back at 11. Let's call it nine. Let's call it 1120 or 1113.

[1:11:20] Voice 5: So it's going to be what? OK, 1125. Yep.

[1:24:24] Voice 5: OK. Do we have Trustee Stanford? There you are. Perfect.

[1:24:27] Voice 5: Okay, any brilliant thoughts there on our...

[1:24:33] Voice 5: Can

[1:24:34] Trustee Stamford: I just give a heads up?

[1:24:35] Trustee Stamford: I'm really kind of having to be out of here around noon.

[1:24:40] Voice 5: Okay, so let's rock and roll.

[1:24:43] Voice 4: All right, I'll try to be brisk here.

[1:24:50] Voice 4: When Trustee Stamford was going through that shopping list

[1:24:53] Voice 4: of items that I put in the memo,

[1:24:59] Voice 4: I'm not sure if we've got a difference of opinion here

[1:25:01] Voice 4: heard than a different understanding of the facts and uh trustee blackham had mentioned you know

[1:25:09] Voice 4: grief a certain amount of grief that happens when people sort of have to work through the

[1:25:14] Voice 4: enforcement process well that's exactly what i want to prevent unnecessary grief the reason i

[1:25:19] Voice 4: say we're dealing with a different understanding of the facts here is i don't agree that the facts

[1:25:24] Voice 4: that those items are entirely covered by the existing repair and maintenance exemption or

[1:25:29] Voice 4: or the gardening exemption.

[1:25:30] Voice 4: Obviously a horseshoe pitch is not gardening.

[1:25:33] Voice 4: Installing solar panels isn't maintenance, it's improvement.

[1:25:38] Voice 4: Those aren't trivial distinctions.

[1:25:40] Voice 4: The different meanings of words matter

[1:25:42] Voice 4: because after we're out of the picture,

[1:25:45] Voice 4: some planner and some property owner,

[1:25:48] Voice 4: they're gonna be looking at these words as they stand

[1:25:50] Voice 4: and they're gonna be just reading them

[1:25:51] Voice 4: on their plain meaning.

[1:25:52] Voice 4: And they do mean different things.

[1:25:55] Voice 4: And the risk that Trustee Stamford has identified

[1:25:59] Voice 4: about the alteration exemptions, as I've said before,

[1:26:03] Voice 4: I think they're more about outliers, outlying cases.

[1:26:09] Voice 4: And my difficulty with that is the exemption

[1:26:11] Voice 4: as I've drafted, the alteration as I've drafted,

[1:26:15] Voice 4: is specifically crafted to exclude that type of risk.

[1:26:23] Voice 4: And I'd like us to go, if we could, put up on the screen,

[1:26:27] Voice 4: the language that I'm proposing.

[1:26:28] Voice 4: this

[1:26:37] Voice 3: is the alteration exemption okay

[1:26:52] Voice 4: great thank you what it contemplates here is yes alterations

[1:26:59] Voice 4: of previously disturbed land and pre-existing buildings etc etc provided always that the

[1:27:05] Voice 4: alteration takes place entirely within the perimeter of the disturbed land or within the

[1:27:10] Voice 4: footprint of the building doesn't alter or disturb otherwise harm previously undisturbed land or

[1:27:16] Voice 4: native vegetation within the dp3 and here's the kicker does not result in environmental

[1:27:22] Voice 4: degradation of any kind anywhere within dp3 or to the ecology of the foreshore

[1:27:28] Voice 4: what more protection is needed than that i mean that's kind of the point yes let people do

[1:27:36] Voice 4: alterations to their buildings and to their land but on the condition that it can't hurt any part

[1:27:45] Voice 4: of the DP3 in terms of environmental degradation. So I'm struggling here. What else is needed?

[1:27:55] Trustee Stamford: Again, it's the same argument from the opposite point of view. That third bullet to me,

[1:28:04] Trustee Stamford: I'm not qualified to say what is environmental degradation as a land owner. I'm just not.

[1:28:14] Trustee Stamford: So you're putting the onus on the landowner to determine what is environmental degradation in that area.

[1:28:21] Trustee Stamford: And by using the words perimeter of previously disturbed land or within the footprint, the previously disturbed land could be their whole property.

[1:28:34] Trustee Stamford: So the point of the DP is gone.

[1:28:37] Trustee Stamford: and

[1:28:39] Voice 7: so

[1:28:40] Trustee Stamford: i i know that there's a concern with people on keats are good people they are

[1:28:49] Trustee Stamford: there is turnover maybe not in your area but there are new people with new ideas new expectations

[1:28:58] Trustee Stamford: expectations um and i don't think it's clear unless we provide those parameters on what

[1:29:07] Trustee Stamford: they are what the expectations are to maintain the environmental integrity which isn't just

[1:29:14] Trustee Stamford: environmental it's what the social fabric of keats has always had is that rural frontage

[1:29:21] Trustee Stamford: um i go off topic but yeah i just like you cannot determine um the definition of what is a

[1:29:33] Trustee Stamford: an alteration i don't think you can determine what is the definition of uh environmental

[1:29:41] Trustee Stamford: degradation from a um a landholder's point of view well

[1:29:48] Voice 4: it's a it's a it establishes a principle

[1:29:50] Voice 4: principle that, yeah, the onus is on the landowner to exercise some judgment here.

[1:29:56] Voice 4: But there's a risk involved for the landowner if they get it wrong.

[1:30:00] Voice 4: That's the point. And when you say, well, if you say it takes place anywhere entirely within the primitive, previously disturbed land, that could be the whole property and that's it. DP3 is ruined. There's no point to it. Blah, blah, blah. No, because the exemption says it's not going to alter disturbed or otherwise previously undisturbed land or native vegetation anywhere within the DP3.

[1:30:22] Voice 4: so if you've got a lawn yeah you can mess around with it if however 30 feet behind the lawn you've

[1:30:32] Voice 4: got some second growth trees that are native vegetation not invasive species put down your

[1:30:39] Voice 4: chainsaw you're not cutting it down that's explicit so no i disagree completely with the

[1:30:45] Voice 4: point that by using the term perimeter that that somehow just opens the door to everything no it

[1:30:50] Voice 4: isn't it doesn't it just doesn't do that and when you say environmental degree degradation is like

[1:30:57] Voice 4: well you know it is a general term we don't know what it means specifically let's get real here the

[1:31:03] Voice 4: bylaw is full of these terms and and you know that's what protective legislation at the end

[1:31:10] Voice 4: of the day has to have these kind of sweeping things at the end it is a judgment call but if

[1:31:15] Voice 4: you end up with a homeowner who engages in an activity that results in any kind of environmental

[1:31:20] Voice 4: about the degradation when you talk about the social fabric yeah that's going to get reported

[1:31:26] Voice 4: by their neighbors and enforcement will have a look at it and then you've got an issue but i

[1:31:31] Voice 4: actually think the risk of that's pretty low because of the historical pattern of behavior

[1:31:36] Voice 4: on the island

[1:31:37] Trustee Stamford: okay okay

[1:31:38] Voice 4: go ahead sorry

[1:31:40] Trustee Stamford: i'm saying the exact same thing from the current wording of

[1:31:46] Trustee Stamford: of the document.

[1:31:47] Trustee Stamford: I'm saying all the same stuff

[1:31:51] Trustee Stamford: using the current wording of the document.

[1:31:53] Trustee Stamford: That it is big enough to allow for certain things

[1:31:57] Trustee Stamford: that there is ability to ask for clarification

[1:32:00] Trustee Stamford: without getting your hand slapped.

[1:32:07] Trustee Stamford: So again, it's just the same,

[1:32:11] Trustee Stamford: we're getting to the same result,

[1:32:12] Trustee Stamford: but from a different angle.

[1:32:13] Trustee Stamford: And yeah.

[1:32:14] Trustee Stamford: yeah

[1:32:15] Voice 4: possibly but uh i think we do differ in the idea that i i don't believe that you know you

[1:32:21] Voice 4: talk to you know clarification that somebody's going to pick up the phone and talk to a planner

[1:32:26] Voice 4: at the islands trust about whether or not they can or can't do something um that's guesswork

[1:32:33] Voice 4: as to what the result of that conversation is going to be and i'm not comfortable with the idea

[1:32:37] Voice 4: that um property owners should in a sense go cap in hand to get clarification or permission

[1:32:44] Voice 4: mission, whether it's by way of the development permit or informally for clarification, to do

[1:32:51] Voice 4: things that are just common sense. Why should they? I mean, we could go on, like, as you pointed

[1:32:58] Voice 4: out, you're running out of time here. We could go on forever about this, but I think we've hit a...

[1:33:04] Trustee Stamford: Yeah, we have. We've hit a...

[1:33:05] Voice 4: There's a limit here. And in terms of moving the process forward,

[1:33:09] Voice 4: I think I would like to move this exemption and let the chips fall where they may, see where it goes.

[1:33:20] Voice 5: Well, let's just maybe jump directly to that immediately, because I'm trying to determine where it is that I stand here as well, because obviously, if it comes to a vote, it's a vote.

[1:33:32] Voice 5: So I want to understand a little bit more about the let's just say the proposed exemption from Joe is the highlighted text in the middle of the page on the screen there.

[1:33:44] Voice 5: there. And I sort of heard, Kate, you suggest that the preamble maybe was okay, the first bullet and

[1:33:52] Voice 5: the second bullet were maybe okay, and that really where you ended up hesitating is on

[1:33:59] Voice 5: the third bullet does not result in environmental degradation of any kind.

[1:34:05] Voice 6: No. Is that true

[1:34:08] Voice 6: or false? No. Okay.

[1:34:10] Voice 6: What element of this at all do you agree with?

[1:34:17] Trustee Stamford: So it's the alterations previously disturbed.

[1:34:21] Trustee Stamford: It's giving the exemption from the DPA, expands it out,

[1:34:29] Trustee Stamford: at which point the properties in the – there's so many waterfront properties

[1:34:35] Trustee Stamford: in Keats where they are so small that it basically takes out the DPA in that area

[1:34:45] Trustee Stamford: or a DP in that area.

[1:34:47] Trustee Stamford: you so they've got all disturbed land they've got a lawn in front of them therefore they can

[1:34:55] Trustee Stamford: unless we're looking at specific exemptions they it feels like they're being exempted from the dp

[1:35:07] Trustee Stamford: entirely because they have a lawn and they're that small that they can do that and therefore

[1:35:15] Trustee Stamford: Okay, I

[1:35:16] Voice 5: understand. So what your objection then to is, in fact, in the first sentence, which is alterations of previously disturbed land. You want to

[1:35:30] Voice 5: keep it within the existing footprints of whatever's already there.

[1:35:33] Voice 5: That's correct.

[1:35:36] Trustee Stamford: And I'm more than happy to include altering a lawn in order to put

[1:35:44] Trustee Stamford: a fire pit or horseshoe pitch into the exemptions of the DP. I can't do a sweeping exemption.

[1:35:57] Voice 6: Right. Now I understand.

[1:35:59] Voice 4: Okay. And I don't think it's fruitful to attempt to sort of pick and choose.

[1:36:07] Voice 4: like specific things that we happen to think are inoffensive and just put them in there because

[1:36:11] Voice 4: you're going to miss a whole bunch of things well

[1:36:13] Trustee Stamford: that's what i this is why i think we need to keep

[1:36:15] Trustee Stamford: it wider and not

[1:36:17] Voice 4: put it in yes and the thing with respect trustee sanford that you have not addressed

[1:36:24] Voice 4: is what the effect of that third bullet is it says does not result in environmental

[1:36:30] Voice 4: degradation of any kind anywhere within the dp3 so you've got a small lot somebody's got a lawn

[1:36:38] Voice 4: and they decide that they're going to put some stinky sort of fire pit in there,

[1:36:43] Voice 4: because their passion is to burn plastic, they're going to be in trouble.

[1:36:52] Voice 4: The neighbor's going to hate it.

[1:36:53] Voice 4: They're going to get reported, and enforcement is going to show up and say,

[1:36:55] Voice 4: what part of environmental degradation do you not understand?

[1:36:58] Voice 4: stand

[1:36:59] Trustee Stamford: well and that's

[1:37:01] Voice 4: that and that's where that's where that's where the discretion

[1:37:05] Voice 4: on staff works

[1:37:08] Trustee Stamford: well

[1:37:09] Voice 4: there's a principle that has to be observed and if people aren't observing it

[1:37:13] Voice 4: they get busted and i i don't understand why this protection isn't enough because

[1:37:18] Trustee Stamford: the example you

[1:37:19] Trustee Stamford: just gave was a perfect example we do not cover air quality issues so that we would not be able

[1:37:26] Trustee Stamford: able to do anything in that particular case

[1:37:29] Voice 4: okay in that case but that okay come up with your own

[1:37:35] Voice 4: example where somebody's degrading the environment because they're abusing this exemption they're in

[1:37:40] Voice 4: trouble that's my point so look we're going in circles here yeah we are

[1:37:44] Voice 4: uh i'm gonna move uh

[1:37:47] Voice 4: let

[1:37:47] Voice 5: me just try one let me just ask one more question and then we can go to a vote if that's

[1:37:52] Voice 5: what you want to do okay if if this exemption that is proposed here highlighted deleted the

[1:37:59] Voice 5: first two bullets and it only said the preamble on the last bullet is that satisfactory to either

[1:38:07] Voice 5: of you i

[1:38:09] Voice 4: i don't think that i i couldn't agree to that because i don't i don't i think it would

[1:38:12] Voice 4: be too general i mean

[1:38:15] Voice 4: the the first two bullets are important in terms of i mean the whole point

[1:38:19] Voice 4: of this dp3 is environmental protection that's what the third bullet's all about but the first

[1:38:25] Voice 4: two bullets they're all about that too i mean the whole point i'm trying to do here is enable

[1:38:32] Voice 4: alterations but ensure that the purpose of dp3 is protected which is environmental protection

[1:38:38] Voice 4: i think the language covers it all off trustee sanford disagrees but i don't see any room in

[1:38:45] Voice 4: this exemption for people to to harm the environment of dp3 or affect or in a negative

[1:38:50] Voice 4: way the ecology of the foreshore because it flat out says don't do that but

[1:38:57] Voice 5: using your language

[1:38:59] Voice 5: does not the third bullet say it all and you don't need to prescribe where it takes place and

[1:39:04] Voice 5: what you can do does that not say at all no degradation of

[1:39:08] Voice 5: any kind yes

[1:39:10] Voice 4: it does but the

[1:39:12] Voice 4: other two bullets are instructive i mean it's like they're going to help people understand

[1:39:19] Voice 4: what environmental degradation what that term means so it's like those are specific prescriptive

[1:39:26] Voice 4: requirements that we want to see we want to have observed in every case so i wouldn't want to

[1:39:33] Voice 4: delete them i i i i think that protection is necessary okay

[1:39:39] Voice 5: well i'm not seeing any movement

[1:39:40] Voice 5: here so do you want to table a motion yes

[1:39:45] Voice 4: i do uh um just bear with me here um

[1:39:53] Voice 4: I move that section 9.32 of proposed bylaw 154

[1:40:01] Voice 4: be amended by the addition of the following exemption,

[1:40:05] Voice 4: colon, alterations of previously disturbed land

[1:40:09] Voice 4: into pre-existing building structures and utilities

[1:40:12] Voice 4: located between 7.5 meters and 15 meters

[1:40:15] Voice 4: from the natural boundary of the sea,

[1:40:17] Voice 4: provided always that the alteration takes place entirely

[1:40:23] Voice 4: within the perimeter of previously disturbed land or within the footprint of a pre-existing

[1:40:27] Voice 4: building structure or utility, does not alter, disturb, or otherwise harm previously undisturbed

[1:40:33] Voice 4: land or native vegetation anywhere within DP3, and does not result in environmental degradation

[1:40:40] Voice 4: of any kind anywhere within DP3 or to the ecology of the foreshore, period.

[1:40:47] Voice 4: Yeah,

[1:40:51] Voice 5: the screen has changed here on me now. Can we go back to where we were? Or is that my fault?

[1:40:59] Voice 5: Oh, I see. That's my fault because I've got the document in the background and we've stopped sharing screens.

[1:41:05] Voice 5: So essentially, that is the language that was in those three bullets and the preamble of that section of alteration.

[1:41:13] Voice 3: Correct. It's precisely that.

[1:41:18] Voice 5: Okay. So that's moved. We have a second, okay. Thank you very much.

[1:41:23] Voice 5: You were supposed to speak to the motion further.

[1:41:28] Voice 5: I've shot my bolt.

[1:41:30] Voice 5: Yeah, and you've got to remember,

[1:41:32] Voice 5: you're trying to sway me to vote one way or the other, you guys.

[1:41:35] Voice 5: So, Kate Louise.

[1:41:37] Trustee Stamford: I mean, it's not sitting well with me anymore.

[1:41:48] Trustee Stamford: It's not what?

[1:41:51] Trustee Stamford: I mean, I understand what it's doing.

[1:41:55] Trustee Stamford: I just think it opens up a whole can of worms because it's too vague.

[1:42:02] Voice 4: And, you know, in response to that, I have to say, I don't think it's vague at all.

[1:42:07] Voice 4: And I would ask Peter to look at the wording and especially that third bullet and to ask himself, how does this exemption result in environmental harm to DP3?

[1:42:20] Voice 5: Yeah, well, I like the third bullet.

[1:42:21] Voice 5: anyway um but what does it mean what does that third bullet really mean don't do any damage

[1:42:31] Voice 5: in whose opinion well actually at the end of the day a neighbor's and then by law enforcement and

[1:42:43] Voice 5: then us exactly

[1:42:46] Voice 4: so

[1:42:48] Voice 5: i'm getting it kate that you could live with this and well we may have to deal

[1:42:55] Voice 5: with it again later on but we could live with this so i'm going to call the vote all those in favor

[1:43:03] Voice 5: raise your hands digitally or electronically and i'm raising my hand kate i can live with this and

[1:43:08] Voice 5: so those opponents yeah

[1:43:11] Trustee Stamford: it's going to depend on the next one so

[1:43:15] Voice 5: so are you voting in favor or

[1:43:16] Voice 5: against uh sorry i'm not clear in favor or against it and so you're in favor your hand is up okay so

[1:43:28] Voice 5: So that carries.

[1:43:29] Voice 5: Thank you very much, both of you.

[1:43:31] Voice 5: I'm very,

[1:43:32] Trustee Stamford: I will allocate preferences.

[1:43:34] Trustee Stamford: I'm quite uncomfortable with the direction

[1:43:37] Trustee Stamford: this is taking us.

[1:43:39] Voice 5: I understand that.

[1:43:43] Voice 5: Marla?

[1:43:44] Voice 4: I wish I could articulate where I'm coming from

[1:43:48] Voice 4: in a clearer way somehow.

[1:43:53] Voice 4: We're actually on the same page

[1:43:54] Voice 4: in terms of the environmental protection we wanna get to.

[1:43:57] Voice 4: It's just that we have a different view

[1:43:59] Voice 4: of how much of how it should happen you know of anyhow and now we're running out of time here so

[1:44:06] Voice 4: i guess we might as well get to the last the very last item this is before

[1:44:10] Voice 5: we before we go there

[1:44:11] Voice 5: marla do you have something that uh at the moment i

[1:44:15] Planner McCargar: would just like to ask clarification will this

[1:44:17] Planner McCargar: exemption be replacing the repair and maintenance exemption no

[1:44:22] Voice 3: added there's there's we haven't

[1:44:26] Voice 3: discuss repair replacing anything here this is new oh

[1:44:31] Voice 5: so this was the alterations piece so that

[1:44:33] Voice 5: is to be added though and so now we're going

[1:44:36] Voice 5: to talk about the additions piece um and so um

[1:44:42] Voice 5: so where we add on the addition piece that's again the text if we get that back up on the screen

[1:44:47] Voice 5: that would be helpful uh that's the text that is provided in joe's document and we're we're

[1:44:53] Voice 5: going to have to be quick on this. It's coming down to the brass tacks, they say.

[1:45:01] Voice 4: Joe, over to

[1:45:02] Voice 4: you. Okay, I'll try to be very quick about the language. I just asked everybody to read the

[1:45:06] Voice 4: language again. And I'm not stuck on the 50 square meters. That is, to a certain extent,

[1:45:13] Voice 4: an arbitrary number. Because there does have to be a, you know, a limit. I don't know what the

[1:45:19] Voice 4: The SCRD limit is on how small a construction has to be before or sort of the threshold for requiring a building permit.

[1:45:33] Voice 4: I don't know if that's the right threshold.

[1:45:35] Voice 4: I think the size is negotiable, I guess.

[1:45:40] Voice 4: That's the wrong word to use.

[1:45:41] Voice 4: My mind is open.

[1:45:43] Voice 4: I'm not quite sure what the size should be.

[1:45:45] Voice 4: But I do recognize there needs to be a limit.

[1:45:46] Voice 4: But everything else, you know, I don't want to repeat myself, but similar to the other exemption, what I've drafted here is I've struggled to come up with wording that gets us to the same place of no environmental degradation.

[1:46:02] Voice 4: degradation like you know limited size it's entirely within the perimeter of the previously

[1:46:06] Voice 4: disturbed land doesn't alter vegetation um it doesn't result in environmental degradation

[1:46:13] Voice 4: anywhere within dp3 and just to be abundantly clear no earth moving or heavy machine so it's

[1:46:20] Voice 4: just like what i'm contemplating here is giving some room to homeowners to tack on a small addition

[1:46:26] Voice 4: to their building if they need to without the hassle of having to get a development permit

[1:46:31] Voice 4: I don't see any risk, DP3, given all the conditions that I've put on there.

[1:46:38] Voice 4: And I expect that Trustee Stamford, we can take virtually all of her comments from the previous discussion, and she would apply them to this.

[1:46:46] Voice 4: And I recognize that. I don't know how we get past that.

[1:46:51] Voice 5: Sure. So I think maybe there's a question there for staff or even the director, for all that matters.

[1:46:58] Voice 5: I think that there is a permit required for 550 square feet.

[1:47:02] Voice 5: It's more likely less than 100 square feet.

[1:47:06] Voice 5: And I see nodding going on.

[1:47:08] Voice 5: Staff, do you have some confirmation on that one way or the other?

[1:47:13] Planner McCargar: I believe it's anything over 10 meters squared.

[1:47:17] Voice 5: Yeah, so that's...

[1:47:19] Voice 5: But

[1:47:19] Planner McCargar: I would have to look it up.

[1:47:21] Voice 4: Yeah, well, that's 100 square meters.

[1:47:22] Voice 4: That's like, okay.

[1:47:26] Voice 5: Oh, so 50 square meters, oh, I see 500 square feet.

[1:47:30] Voice 5: yeah so anyway it's substantially less than that so uh kate louise i'm just going to go to you

[1:47:35] Voice 5: what do you think about this a

[1:47:38] Trustee Stamford: lot of the same issues again we we seem to be trying to get around

[1:47:43] Trustee Stamford: the intent of the dpa and um any kind of addition this is new this this is new built to um buildings

[1:47:55] Trustee Stamford: Buildings that are already very small and on very small properties.

[1:48:00] Trustee Stamford: I just think that given our role, that it's due diligence to be able to have some kind of heads up to any kind of development in what we are determining is a delicate area.

[1:48:20] Trustee Stamford: and there's potential for we don't know what's happening underground like this area is so not

[1:48:31] Trustee Stamford: just ecologically but there's First Nations considerations we don't know what is under

[1:48:39] Trustee Stamford: the the surface disturbed or undisturbed I just can't see a scenario where we would allow additions

[1:48:49] Trustee Stamford: conditions is which is essentially new development into an area that the whole purpose of this

[1:48:56] Trustee Stamford: is to consider this is worth protecting um i i just would like you know i i don't think it's

[1:49:06] Trustee Stamford: unreasonable if you want to expand your footprint in any way shape or form into an area that's

[1:49:13] Trustee Stamford: considered uh important delicate whatever you want to call it um that you have uh an extra layer of

[1:49:22] Trustee Stamford: of supervision on that i yeah this one and yeah it definitely can't be 540 square feet um

[1:49:37] Trustee Stamford: yeah and i i think all of this is within the like so much of this was in the the

[1:49:43] Trustee Stamford: building permit requirements as well. There is going to be a lot of turnover on Keats.

[1:49:49] Trustee Stamford: This will come in front and center. Got DL 696 coming in. I think we're going to see

[1:49:57] Trustee Stamford: issues with this. So I want to have some sense of where people are going with their development

[1:50:05] Trustee Stamford: in this particular area of Keats, which is the waterfront area.

[1:50:09] Trustee Stamford: right

[1:50:11] Voice 4: um i'm going to um switch gears here because i'm sensitive to the fact that trustee

[1:50:16] Voice 4: stamford's time is limited here and i also want to be respectful of the process i i'm quite well

[1:50:23] Voice 4: aware that um this project i mean the comments of trustee stamford made at the last meeting and

[1:50:30] Voice 4: her frustration that her ocp project you know is you know to some extent having to deal with

[1:50:37] Voice 4: the friction i'm creating over this thing and there's only so much time at the ltc meetings

[1:50:42] Voice 4: i i want to be respectful of the process um i have and the reality is that trustee samford and i have

[1:50:51] Voice 4: very different views about this particular issue of the additions that and it's the it's the same

[1:50:58] Voice 4: discussion we had five minutes ago you know for the previous part of the meeting and except amped

[1:51:05] Voice 4: up. In order to be productive, I'm going to propose this, which is we have this shopping

[1:51:11] Voice 4: list of the changes that we've agreed to up to this point. I do think this thing is necessary,

[1:51:19] Voice 4: but I also recognize that it's a discussion that requires to be

[1:51:24] Voice 4: fuller and possibly more input. I'm prepared to hold off on dealing with this thing altogether

[1:51:31] Voice 4: on the understanding that with the all the all those other changes I'm prepared

[1:51:37] Voice 4: to vote second reading with all the other changes but that just giving you

[1:51:43] Voice 4: notice that when we do go to public hearing I'm going to be I will I'm

[1:51:51] Voice 4: prepared to take the position of saying look I brought this forward to you know

[1:51:56] Voice 4: I agreed to bring this forward to public hearing because I want to hear from the

[1:51:59] Voice 4: the public and specifically i want to hear from the public about this about the additions issue

[1:52:04] Voice 4: uh and just because if i'm prepared to agree to vote to bring all this stuff to second reading

[1:52:13] Voice 4: uh whether i'm prepared to agree to third and fourth reading uh after the public hearing that's

[1:52:21] Voice 4: an open question it very much will depend on the feedback i get to the community on this specific

[1:52:26] Voice 4: specific point everything else in the bylaw i'm fine with and i think is constructive and helpful

[1:52:34] Voice 4: and i think i'm not saying this to rub any salt in any wounds i think it it it gets the right

[1:52:40] Voice 4: balance so i so that's my proposal which is we go with the changes that we've agreed to up to now

[1:52:47] Voice 4: that's what goes to second reading we have our public hearing and at the public hearing i'm going

[1:52:51] Voice 4: going to be wanting to hear people's views about this. And I will express my own view that I think

[1:52:59] Voice 4: this is a necessary exemption that needs to be included going forward. But if what we hear from

[1:53:04] Voice 4: the residents of Keats Island is different from that, I'm prepared to change my mind.

[1:53:08] Voice 4: So how does that sound as a way forward? Well,

[1:53:13] Voice 5: I'm going to suggest that I'm not

[1:53:16] Voice 5: prepared to make any deals, but you are free to act accordingly. And I'm pleased to think that

[1:53:21] Voice 5: we could move to second reading because indeed we do need to hear from the community. But what we

[1:53:26] Voice 5: hear from the community may or may not influence what the right thing to do is. And so I'm going

[1:53:33] Voice 5: to just want to touch base here because we're running out of time. Marlis, what do we need to

[1:53:39] Voice 5: do to get this to second reading other than go back to the original? I've got the wrong one up

[1:53:46] Voice 5: on my screen. That's why I'm so confused here. But anyway, what we need on the screen is what

[1:53:52] Voice 5: we need to do in terms of motions and what you've collected as far as notes. And then I want to go

[1:53:57] Voice 5: to Kate Louise Stanford. With the understanding here, Kate, that Trustee Bernardo is backing down

[1:54:04] Voice 5: from advancing that additions piece. And I think it's fair to go to second reading. So over to you.

[1:54:10] Voice 5: Let me hear from Kate Louise first, and then let's go to staff for how do we wrap this up

[1:54:15] Voice 5: and conclude this meeting um

[1:54:19] Trustee Stamford: okay first i i would like to try and stick this out and get that second

[1:54:23] Trustee Stamford: reading done if that's where we're going like i i've got a few minutes here i want to be able to

[1:54:28] Trustee Stamford: get to that point but secondly we have had good discussion all the way through this process

[1:54:36] Trustee Stamford: to this point we have all made um um adjustments in our expectations um to where this is going

[1:54:46] Trustee Stamford: i have been more than amenable to the various changes that trustee bernardo has suggested

[1:54:53] Trustee Stamford: all the way through the document all the way through the process this uh first of all um

[1:54:59] Trustee Stamford: the 540 square where is it the 540 square feet whatever um that that's just a no-go i don't even

[1:55:10] Trustee Stamford: even think it's legal like you're gonna have to get so joe's back down for that so let's move on

[1:55:17] Trustee Stamford: i mean that's what that's right now that as far as i can see that's where we're sitting i don't

[1:55:24] Trustee Stamford: have another another number sitting there um i i feel in a certain way that i'm being held over a

[1:55:32] Trustee Stamford: barrel on this one issue because now it's we're going forward but um the the whole project could

[1:55:41] Trustee Stamford: be scuttled on this one issue and and that's difficult for me to acknowledge um yeah so

[1:55:50] Trustee Stamford: anyway i'm willing to move forward excellent

[1:55:54] Voice 5: okay staff what do we need to do at this juncture to

[1:55:58] Voice 5: go forward yeah

[1:56:00] Planner McCargar: i if i could have even just a quick five minute break to craft that resolution

[1:56:05] Planner McCargar: with all the changes that have been made then i can pop it up on the screen and i did just want

[1:56:10] Planner McCargar: to have a really quick comment on trustee bernardo bringing what i see it as new information to the

[1:56:16] Planner McCargar: public for their consideration at public hearing because that wouldn't be typical of the process

[1:56:23] Planner McCargar: of the process sorry uh was that did i misinterpret trustee bernardo that you would be

[1:56:29] Planner McCargar: bringing this forward for the public's opinion at public hearing uh

[1:56:36] Voice 4: well i would anticipate

[1:56:38] Voice 4: and maybe i need to be educated on this but i would anticipate anticipate the public hearing

[1:56:42] Voice 4: is to receive the views of the public on the version that we bring forward a second uh after

[1:56:49] Voice 4: after second reading. But the point I was trying to make before was that at the public hearing,

[1:56:55] Voice 4: I would intend to make some remarks. He's talked about new information, but I would intend to,

[1:57:00] Voice 4: I guess it's information. It's more like stating a position, which is coming to you per second

[1:57:05] Voice 4: reading. But, you know, there's at least one trustee that isn't necessarily fully on board

[1:57:10] Voice 4: with moving it all the way forward. This is coming forward to hear from the public.

[1:57:14] Voice 4: and I would identify the issue

[1:57:17] Voice 4: that is outstanding for me

[1:57:20] Voice 4: and then I'd want to hear from the public.

[1:57:22] Voice 4: So it's like, yeah, some preliminary remarks.

[1:57:25] Voice 4: Is that...

[1:57:28] Voice 4: I

[1:57:28] Planner McCargar: just wanted to be clear

[1:57:29] Planner McCargar: that the public would be providing their views

[1:57:32] Planner McCargar: to the LTC on the bylaw in front of them.

[1:57:36] Voice 4: Yes, that's right.

[1:57:37] Voice 4: But with my political preamble

[1:57:42] Voice 4: would be thrown out to the crowd.

[1:57:44] Voice 4: for their consideration to

[1:57:46] Voice 4: some

[1:57:47] Voice 5: extent the public hearing is for us to listen and not talk and so

[1:57:52] Voice 5: certainly if you were to encourage members of the public to speak to the things then we could

[1:57:58] Voice 5: hear from them but it's up to them to determine what's good and what's bad and and indeed if they

[1:58:04] Voice 5: followed this conversation what's been left out but there is to some extent we have to be careful

[1:58:10] Voice 5: about not muddying the waters on these kinds of things but well

[1:58:17] Voice 4: you know i don't know what to say

[1:58:20] Voice 4: i mean that's why i'm mad i'm i'm not gonna i don't want i can't bring this allow this to go

[1:58:26] Voice 4: to second reading and end up at a public hearing and then i'm going to sit there just like a lump

[1:58:30] Voice 4: and not explain to my constituents why i've brought this thing forward i mean i will be in

[1:58:39] Voice 4: in a position to say look i think what we have here is fine except for this one thing that i'm

[1:58:45] Voice 4: uncertain about that we need to resolve and throw that into the mix of what the public is prepared

[1:58:53] Voice 4: to talk about you know i mean it doesn't change the purpose of the meeting the purpose of the

[1:59:04] Voice 4: meeting is to hear from the public but yeah they're going to get that little extra information

[1:59:07] Voice 4: from me because that's the context that's the context in which this thing is coming forward

[1:59:13] Voice 4: to them but

[1:59:14] Trustee Stamford: then do i get the opportunity to turn around and give my perspective that's not what the

[1:59:19] Trustee Stamford: public hearing is about that's

[1:59:21] Voice 5: right yeah the trouble is is i said that right at the beginning

[1:59:25] Voice 5: i'm not making any deals we're not making a deal here um we're either going to advance this

[1:59:31] Voice 5: this unanimously or we're not and in an ideal situation we do we've come a long way we're in

[1:59:39] Voice 5: a good place um that other item if we hear from the public um an outcry that they need to be able

[1:59:46] Voice 5: to do this these additions outside of the development permit area i would want to know why

[1:59:53] Voice 5: um and i'm not judging one way or the other whether i agree with the original idea or not but

[2:00:00] Voice 5: I would want to know why.

[2:00:01] Voice 5: And so if somebody needs to come to that meeting and tell me,

[2:00:04] Voice 5: we think you need to add to these amendments the ability for me

[2:00:10] Voice 5: to make additions to my dwelling, and this is why.

[2:00:16] Voice 5: Because a development permit, now let me finish.

[2:00:19] Voice 5: Development permit doesn't prevent somebody from doing something.

[2:00:22] Voice 5: They just have to make an application.

[2:00:24] Voice 5: And if you're building

[2:00:24] Voice 5: a 500-square-foot addition on your place,

[2:00:27] Voice 5: that's expensive on Keats Island, I'm sure.

[2:00:28] Voice 5: Sure, a permit is not a significant limitation.

[2:00:33] Voice 5: But anyway, that's besides the point.

[2:00:35] Voice 4: Is there a rule against trustees making introductory remarks at the public hearing?

[2:00:46] Voice 5: Usually staff actually introduce the bylaw.

[2:00:50] Voice 5: And I would suggest that

[2:00:52] Voice 4: conversations happen.

[2:00:53] Voice 4: And staff can and should introduce the bylaw.

[2:00:56] Voice 4: but my question is is there a rule against trustees making introductory remarks and by all

[2:01:05] Voice 4: means if i'm going to say something about what my perspective is on the version that's in front of

[2:01:13] Voice 4: uh in front of the public by all means trustee stanford and trustee luckham should be able to

[2:01:19] Voice 4: do the same thing if they wish to it's simply not having a debate it's simply stating their

[2:01:24] Voice 4: perspective on this thing.

[2:01:29] Trustee Stamford: I really am uncomfortable with how this is proceeding.

[2:01:33] Voice 5: It's awkward. I

[2:01:34] Voice 5: suggest you need to have a conversation with David Mahler.

[2:01:37] Voice 5: Advancing this to second reading should be done on the merits of taking it to second reading,

[2:01:41] Voice 5: not anything else. Well,

[2:01:45] Voice 5: I'm

[2:01:48] Voice 4: struggling here because,

[2:01:49] Voice 4: okay, I thought I was being helpful here but apparently not.

[2:01:53] Voice 4: Well, you're

[2:01:54] Voice 5: trying. Let's recognize that.

[2:01:57] Trustee Stamford: I mean, for me, right off the bat, I mean, you've said, oh, well, let's look at another number for this extension or new build.

[2:02:10] Trustee Stamford: Right off the bat, that really makes me question.

[2:02:13] Trustee Stamford: Turn your

[2:02:13] Trustee Stamford: video off there, Kate.

[2:02:15] Voice 5: Pardon?

[2:02:16] Voice 5: Turn your video off. The audio is breaking up.

[2:02:18] Voice 5: I

[2:02:22] Trustee Stamford: mean, like to have everything hanging off this one final change, and the final change is so arbitrary that we don't know what the size of the extension is to be expected.

[2:02:38] Trustee Stamford: I don't know what the purpose of that is, because right off the bat, we're saying, OK, well, that's not going to work because it's way too big.

[2:02:44] Trustee Stamford: um so therefore there hasn't been a really clear determination of what is the purpose of having

[2:02:51] Trustee Stamford: that particular exemption so i i am not going to come to a a public hearing and then find out what

[2:03:00] Trustee Stamford: the purpose is and then i have to respond i i just don't want to go

[2:03:05] Voice 4: there in a public hearing

[2:03:06] Trustee Stamford: I

[2:03:07] Voice 4: should be careful here. First of all, it's a little funny. You know, I thought I was being kind of flexible and open minded here. And now I'm getting clubbed over the head with it. I'll make a note of that for the future.

[2:03:22] Voice 4: uh it would not be my intention to sort of wheel out the specific language of an exemption to say

[2:03:29] Voice 4: what do you guys think it is the principle i want to hear about the principle about additions

[2:03:35] Voice 4: and then um depending on how that goes uh i'd make up my mind about the next steps and um

[2:03:49] Voice 4: Because as it stands right now, I appreciate where Trustee Sanford's coming from. I get it. I understand her position. But I just don't think that the exemption that I have in mind with whatever the right magic number is, like the concept of allowing some additions within DP3 that I consider to be innocuous and not harmful.

[2:04:16] Voice 4: harmful uh i that's the principle and i i don't understand um what the actual objection is if

[2:04:26] Voice 4: if it's phrased in a way that ensures that there won't be any environmental degradation that that's

[2:04:34] Voice 4: a rule that has to be followed in order for this exemption to work and if you don't follow that

[2:04:38] Voice 4: you're going to get in trouble um again it's for the same reasons i've articulated before

[2:04:43] Voice 4: for it's striking a balance between the necessary regulation and frankly the convenience and

[2:04:49] Voice 4: comfort of the people on the island so no i wouldn't present the exemption uh it's the concept

[2:04:57] Voice 4: i'd want to introduce which is look here it is this is the best that we've been able to come up

[2:05:02] Voice 4: with up to this point one outstanding issue is whether or not there are in my mind in the mind

[2:05:06] Voice 4: of at least one trustee is whether or not there should be an exemption to permit additions of a

[2:05:11] Voice 4: a certain unknown size period yeah

[2:05:15] Trustee Stamford: I mean I guess coming from a landholder that that is sitting in

[2:05:22] Trustee Stamford: one of these DPAs I cannot move an inch in my current land use I have to go and get a DPA for

[2:05:34] Trustee Stamford: everything because of where I sit and you know my neighbors are in the same situation and yeah

[2:05:42] Trustee Stamford: Yeah, there's people that are not following the rules exactly,

[2:05:46] Trustee Stamford: but we're dealing with it.

[2:05:48] Trustee Stamford: And it's because the principle is how do we best protect the environment?

[2:05:58] Trustee Stamford: And I

[2:05:58] Trustee Stamford: don't think my neighbor necessarily understands

[2:06:01] Trustee Stamford: what environmental degradation means.

[2:06:05] Trustee Stamford: So I'd be much more comfortable, especially around additions.

[2:06:12] Trustee Stamford: I mean, it's new development.

[2:06:13] Trustee Stamford: um that's i i feel like i have accommodated and the last one was very reluctantly but i will

[2:06:21] Trustee Stamford: accommodate those exemptions given the outline of your argument this one i don't know what

[2:06:28] Trustee Stamford: the principle is the principle to build onto the problem onto your your house for what purpose

[2:06:35] Trustee Stamford: why is it so necessary that you can do it without uh getting permits um

[2:06:43] Trustee Stamford: you know, so anyway, I mean, we can go around and around and around. I don't know what the

[2:06:49] Trustee Stamford: solution

[2:06:49] Voice 4: is. I don't want to argue the merits any further because like certainly today we're

[2:06:56] Voice 4: at an impasse in that respect. And I'm just trying to move the process forward somehow.

[2:07:02] Voice 4: I don't want to, look, I'll be honest. I don't want to constantly be the designated skunk at

[2:07:06] Voice 4: the picnic here and i um i do respect and appreciate the fact that we've made tremendous

[2:07:14] Voice 4: progress i'm very close to being happy with where we are with bylaw 154 uh and maybe i don't

[2:07:23] Voice 4: understand the process but i i where i'm at right now is i can't agree to second reading on the

[2:07:28] Voice 4: understanding that that's it that's the end of the discussion and it's just going to sort of uh

[2:07:34] Voice 4: after the public hearing, there's no further discretion on my part about what we do at

[2:07:38] Voice 4: third and fourth reading. And again, perhaps we'll understand the process here.

[2:07:43] Voice 5: I just want to interrupt for a second, because I want to be cognizant and respectful of the time

[2:07:47] Voice 5: Kate has said she could hang around for a bit to get us through this next step. I am concerned,

[2:07:52] Voice 5: I have a new evolving thought, which I think the wheels are going to fall off the cart here.

[2:07:57] Voice 5: And in which case, then we're going to adjourn this meeting, and we're going to end up having

[2:08:02] Voice 5: another meeting. But more or less, it strikes me that if we give second reading, we're taking this

[2:08:14] Voice 5: to public hearing, we're having that conversation at public hearing, if after public hearing

[2:08:20] Voice 5: we change the bylaw to include the exemptions that Trustee Bernardo is suggesting, it strikes

[2:08:28] Voice 5: strikes me that this is not a minor public hearing amendment. It's a more substantive change

[2:08:35] Voice 5: to the bylaw that would require us to redo second public hearing. Is that true or false?

[2:08:48] Voice 6: Possibly.

[2:08:49] Planner McCargar: Yeah, it would require probably a little bit of reflection on staff's part and whether,

[2:08:56] Planner McCargar: you know this requires a re-referral we're talking about expanding into you know new

[2:09:02] Planner McCargar: development into the dpa so whether it would require a referral to first nations who were

[2:09:07] Planner McCargar: already saying that 15 meters is not enough you know seven and a half seven and a half meters

[2:09:16] Planner McCargar: is a building footprint they've already stated that that's not uh current practice

[2:09:24] Planner McCargar: practice. And

[2:09:25] Voice 5: we might hear from them at that during the public hearing process to that extent,

[2:09:30] Voice 5: right? So yeah, so I'm concerned that changing the intent, which would be to include new development

[2:09:36] Voice 5: on a property would change the intent, which would cause us to have to turn the clock back to

[2:09:41] Voice 5: going back to public hearing a second time. And God forbid that we want to do that. So I apologize,

[2:09:49] Voice 5: But I want us all to be clear about what's going on here and what we're talking about.

[2:09:55] Voice 5: If this is more discussion, then we simply need to adjourn and continue this discussion.

[2:10:01] Voice 5: Kate Louise, over to you.

[2:10:03] Trustee Stamford: I just think this is a far bigger deal than Trustee Bernardo recognizes.

[2:10:11] Trustee Stamford: An exemption for new development is a totally different level.

[2:10:19] Trustee Stamford: I mean, I'm okay about the exemptions that we talked about earlier, and I, you know, I struggle with them, but I'm working with them. I have worked through this whole document, understanding and recognizing that Trustee Bernardo is ably representing the desires of Keats people, and I respect that.

[2:10:43] Trustee Stamford: this is the project. This is a big deal. New development in a DPA without any consideration

[2:10:53] Trustee Stamford: from any other source and just being able to build, it's not enough to say without any

[2:11:01] Trustee Stamford: environmental degradation. It just isn't. It's too big.

[2:11:06] Voice 4: Can I, well, first of all, I need to respond.

[2:11:11] Voice 4: and I think we do have a difference of view here.

[2:11:15] Voice 4: It's striking to me that Trustee Sanford

[2:11:17] Voice 4: is talking about this new development,

[2:11:19] Voice 4: which is, I guess that highlights the difference

[2:11:22] Voice 4: in our perspectives.

[2:11:23] Voice 4: I don't actually think it is new development.

[2:11:26] Voice 4: I'm viewing this as just somebody doing a certain amount

[2:11:28] Voice 4: of minor improvement to their house.

[2:11:31] Voice 4: That's the angle I'm coming from,

[2:11:33] Voice 4: but I appreciate that that's not how

[2:11:34] Voice 4: Trustee Sanford looks at it.

[2:11:36] Voice 4: I asked a question like the issue that the trust,

[2:11:41] Voice 4: chair luckham identified which is there's a potential that uh if the bylaw as we've proposed

[2:11:50] Voice 4: to amend it in a past the second reading and then there's some further change along this edition

[2:11:55] Voice 4: issue that that might well require a whole rerun of second reading and public hearing all over again

[2:12:03] Voice 4: in um that would be unwelcome that would be a bad uh that'd be a bad process situation to be in

[2:12:15] Voice 4: i'm sorry but that's a risk i think where i'm at right now that's just a risk in the process i

[2:12:21] Voice 4: can't promise that because i mean where i'm coming from with with this thing i can't promise that

[2:12:25] Voice 4: after the public hearing i would be able to support the thing going forward without that

[2:12:32] Voice 4: I might. I don't know. Now, I asked a question before.

[2:12:36] Voice 4: But

[2:12:36] Voice 5: we're not looking for a promise from you to support it at the public hearing. That's fair for any of us.

[2:12:42] Voice 4: Right. But the question I asked before was, is it possible for me at the public hearing to state the dilemma?

[2:12:52] Voice 4: I mean, is there a rule against that? That's all I'm trying to do.

[2:12:56] Voice 4: I'm going

[2:12:57] Voice 6: to say I don't have the answer.

[2:12:59] Planner McCargar: If there

[2:13:00] Voice 4: is a chair,

[2:13:01] Planner McCargar: I think that I don't know of a specific rule. The intent of a public hearing is not for discussion or debate by trustees. The intent of a public hearing is to listen. So we can clarify with David Marler if there's a specific rule that would prohibit you from being able to discuss, but I've not seen it been done before.

[2:13:22] Planner McCargar: A

[2:13:23] Voice 4: related question. First of all, we do need the answer to that question. And I'm trying to think this through in a binary way. If the answer is yes, then I guess I would communicate whatever I've got to communicate. If the answer is no, then I wouldn't do it.

[2:13:38] Voice 4: So that leaves me another question, which is I still need to get the point across to my constituents.

[2:13:45] Voice 4: Is there, there can't be, but I'm asking the question anyhow, is there some objection to my communicating with my constituents before the public hearing to say, look, this is how we got here.

[2:13:57] Voice 4: We have a dilemma here, but it's going to the public hearing because this is as good as we could get it to this point.

[2:14:02] Voice 4: But in my mind, there's this outstanding issue.

[2:14:08] Voice 4: I'm undecided.

[2:14:08] Voice 4: look forward to hearing what the views of the public are at the you know at the public hearing

[2:14:16] Voice 4: blah blah blah i mean is there some kind of principle or rule that says a trustee ought not

[2:14:22] Voice 4: to sort of um

[2:14:23] Voice 6: talk

[2:14:24] Voice 4: about these things before the public hearing well

[2:14:28] Voice 5: this meeting is public by

[2:14:30] Voice 5: virtue of it being public and you are free to talk to your um um your constituents um the one

[2:14:39] Voice 5: one of the principles is that you support the decision of the local trust

[2:14:44] Voice 5: committee. So the decision in this case was to go to second hearing.

[2:14:47] Voice 5: So you are supporting that. And I'm assuming your vote will, uh, uh,

[2:14:51] Voice 5: indicate that, um,

[2:14:53] Voice 5: what you're interested in hearing from the public is more about new

[2:14:58] Voice 5: development. And lo and behold, if that's where we go, that's where we go.

[2:15:02] Voice 5: But at least, you know,

[2:15:03] Voice 5: I'm not saying we shouldn't go to second hearing anticipating that we might

[2:15:07] Voice 5: might have to revisit it. But as you've indicated, that would be less than well received.

[2:15:16] Voice 5: But, yeah. And, you know, I'll just say, actually, that, you know, this bylaw could advance and get

[2:15:22] Voice 5: through public hearing and be adopted. And it's not to say that there couldn't be another project

[2:15:27] Voice 5: that revisited elements of it as an amendment in the future, if you continue to find that there's

[2:15:35] Voice 5: a necessity for that whether or not the LPC wants to support that conversation is a different thing

[2:15:39] Voice 5: but um it's not over until it's

[2:15:43] Voice 5: over right but

[2:15:44] Voice 4: what I'm looking for is clarification here about

[2:15:47] Voice 4: um I'm trying to move the thing forward but I just want to make sure that my community

[2:15:55] Voice 4: is you know yeah people can watch these meetings if they have the patience for it but I'm

[2:16:00] Voice 4: contemplating you know if i can't speak to the issue at the meeting because that's not on because

[2:16:06] Voice 4: there's a rule against it um and i wouldn't anticipate it being a debate it's simply stating

[2:16:12] Voice 4: a position that's it but if that's not allowed then i would want to say look this is the dilemma

[2:16:18] Voice 4: this is the last outstanding issue at least in my mind and that although what is before you know

[2:16:24] Voice 4: i'd say some i'd go into some email i guess to just communicate with my constituents talking

[2:16:29] Voice 4: talking about how this thing is good enough as it goes, but there is an outstanding issue

[2:16:33] Voice 4: here that we never were able to resolve and would like to hear from the public on it.

[2:16:39] Trustee Stamford: Can I just

[2:16:40] Trustee Stamford: jump in? Because the biggest thing here for me is we don't have a size. And I

[2:16:47] Trustee Stamford: don't know what the legal size would even be to be considered when it's 100 square feet

[2:16:53] Trustee Stamford: for like 10 meters is is that what we're talking about i mean that's that's a

[2:17:01] Trustee Stamford: building a separate

[2:17:02] Trustee Stamford: building that's permitted without a permit and the srd does but you could have

[2:17:11] Trustee Stamford: five of those

[2:17:11] Trustee Stamford: like i really like five of those within a dpa or a dp um because they all stand alone

[2:17:21] Trustee Stamford: i i this this is so potentially i i don't know what we are trying to agree to here or why

[2:17:29] Trustee Stamford: why is it so important to be able to do this and i'm i'm sorry but i'm really running out of time

[2:17:36] Trustee Stamford: here i've already delayed my meeting um yeah you

[2:17:43] Trustee Stamford: know i'm i'm just not getting the rationale

[2:17:45] Trustee Stamford: know for this

[2:17:47] Voice 5: let's let's pause then uh morris has asked for five or ten minutes to write something

[2:17:55] Voice 5: up for us let's do that let's come back let's decide and it let the chips fall where they lie

[2:18:01] Voice 5: um we're not going to resolve this in the limited amount of time we've got a bit

[2:18:05] Voice 5: so let's pause for five minutes we'll come back

[2:18:09] Voice 4: and that just to be clear and that's for the

[2:18:12] Voice 4: purpose of getting the right resolution forward so that we can just take care of the business

[2:18:16] Voice 4: that we've agreed on up to now and maybe defer the second reading question until figure it figure out

[2:18:23] Voice 5: well i would like to use second reading question but if that's not where it goes and that's not

[2:18:27] Voice 5: where it goes

[2:18:27] Voice 6: okay but

[2:18:28] Voice 5: i think we need to we need to be really uh strategic in getting through this

[2:18:34] Voice 5: so that kate can get to her other meeting um she you know obviously that's affecting other people

[2:18:41] Voice 5: and things. So, Senator McCargo, are you okay to get that developed and come back to us in five

[2:18:48] Voice 5: minutes so that'll make us at 1225? Okay. Thank you. I'm here. Okay, great. So, Marla, stop on

[2:24:55] Voice 5: the screen for us. Look at that. Thank you.

[2:24:59] Planner McCargar: Through the chair, I

[2:25:00] Voice 5: just had one

[2:25:01] Planner McCargar: kind of minor

[2:25:03] Planner McCargar: question. They're in the Trustee Bernardo's memo. It mentions that water quality has

[2:25:09] Planner McCargar: three three times it's throughout the bylaw and I can only I can't find it in

[2:25:15] Planner McCargar: this section here item C so I'm wondering if that's an error or if I'm

[2:25:21] Planner McCargar: not seeing something bear

[2:25:26] Voice 4: with me here is

[2:25:28] Voice 5: it fair for us to just say that all

[2:25:31] Voice 5: cases of water quality be replaced with marine ecosystems well

[2:25:37] Planner McCargar: except that in

[2:25:37] Planner McCargar: another spot it's marine ecosystem or the ecology of the foreshore um

[2:25:42] Voice 6: i

[2:25:43] Planner McCargar: think if we could just get

[2:25:45] Planner McCargar: okay clarification on this one uh

[2:25:49] Voice 3: let me just look something up here it's the first

[2:25:54] Planner McCargar: bullet on page two of the memo yeah

[2:26:18] Voice 3: give me a second here uh

[2:26:24] Voice 4: yeah i'm referring to 9.3.5

[2:26:28] Voice 4: five c3 oh

[2:26:29] Voice 7: i'm

[2:26:36] Voice 4: sorry that should have been four roman numeral uh four that's where the reference

[2:26:46] Voice 4: to degre sorry about that that's where the reference okay

[2:26:48] Voice 7: i

[2:26:49] Voice 4: that's my typo

[2:26:52] Voice 5: okay so then

[2:26:54] Voice 5: let's just include that in the wording okay

[2:26:56] Planner McCargar: i just want to quickly double check sorry about that

[2:26:59] Planner McCargar: hey gotta go okay

[2:27:07] Voice 6: sorry

[2:27:08] Planner McCargar: just trying to get this right i'm

[2:27:11] Voice 5: sorry so let's get the motion on the

[2:27:14] Voice 5: floor okay

[2:27:15] Planner McCargar: it's a big one yep

[2:27:19] Voice 5: kate read as fast as you can me

[2:27:24] Trustee Stamford: yep i

[2:27:25] Trustee Stamford: move the gambia local trust

[2:27:27] Trustee Stamford: committee bylaw number 154 so it is keats island land use bylaw um something something because

[2:27:34] Trustee Stamford: number

[2:27:35] Voice 6: one

[2:27:36] Trustee Stamford: uh 2002 amendment number one to 2021 is shown in attachment two of the staff

[2:27:42] Trustee Stamford: report dated april 29th 2024 be amended as follows a 9.3 dp3 shoreline 0.2 exemptions

[2:27:52] Trustee Stamford: the following be added after item a alterations of previously disturbed land and to be

[2:27:56] Trustee Stamford: two pre-existing buildings structures utilities located between 7.5 meters and 15 meters in the

[2:28:03] Trustee Stamford: natural boundary of the sea provided always that the alteration one takes place entirely within

[2:28:08] Trustee Stamford: than the perimeter of previously disturbed land or within the footprint of a pre-existing building

[2:28:13] Trustee Stamford: or structure utility two does not alter disturb or otherwise harm previously undisturbed land or

[2:28:19] Trustee Stamford: native vegetation anywhere within dp3 and three does not result in environmental degradation of

[2:28:24] Trustee Stamford: any kind anywhere within dp3 or the ecology of the foreshore b 9.3 dp3 shoreline 0.3 general

[2:28:33] Trustee Stamford: guidelines item h the words water quality be replaced with the marine ecosystem c 9.3 dp3

[2:28:40] Trustee Stamford: shoreline 0.4 guidelines construction or replacement of docks ramps item f be replaced

[2:28:46] Trustee Stamford: replaced in its entirety with docks should be constructed of stable materials that do not have

[2:28:52] Trustee Stamford: the potential to degrade the marine ecosystem or the ecology of the foreshore over time d 9.3 dp3

[2:28:59] Trustee Stamford: shoreline 0.5 guidelines shoreline modifications item c subset subsection for the words water

[2:29:07] Trustee Stamford: quality be replaced with the marine ecosystem e 9.3 dp3 shoreline 0.5 guidelines shoreline

[2:29:16] Trustee Stamford: modifications item f subject subsection 4 should be deleted in its entirety f 9.3 dp3 shoreline

[2:29:25] Trustee Stamford: point five guideline shoreline modifications item g the words water quality be replaced with

[2:29:30] Trustee Stamford: the marine ecosystem or ideology of the foreshore move you guys okay and we keep going uh

[2:29:40] Planner McCargar: i think

[2:29:41] Planner McCargar: that's it for that one

[2:29:43] Trustee Stamford: that's it i

[2:29:44] Voice 4: second the motion

[2:29:46] Voice 5: okay i i i'm assuming no further

[2:29:49] Voice 5: the discussion. I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Aye.

[2:29:54] Voice 5: Aye. So that carries unanimously.

[2:29:56] Voice 5: Thank you. And now is that the next motion right there, Joe?

[2:30:00] Voice 5: pick that one up thank you kate for the last one

[2:30:02] Voice 4: well i i've got this uh well we haven't resolved

[2:30:08] Voice 4: this dilemma of how i'm supposed to negotiate my you can

[2:30:13] Voice 5: speak to your constituents yeah

[2:30:16] Voice 4: uh

[2:30:18] Voice 4: is there any objection to my you know explaining to my constituents that yeah this is going to

[2:30:24] Voice 4: second reading but i don't necessarily you know i don't necessarily support the thing all the way

[2:30:30] Voice 4: to its conclusion at this stage.

[2:30:32] Voice 4: I still have this outstanding question

[2:30:34] Voice 4: and that I need to hear from my constituents about it.

[2:30:38] Voice 5: I think that's fair.

[2:30:42] Voice 5: But I would also advise

[2:30:44] Voice 5: to speak with David Mahler, Legislative Services.

[2:30:46] Voice 5: He is way more experienced

[2:30:48] Voice 5: and familiar with the legislation and its requirements.

[2:30:53] Voice 4: So what do we do here?

[2:30:54] Voice 4: I mean, if I can't speak at the public hearing

[2:30:59] Voice 4: and that's what the rule is,

[2:31:01] Voice 4: and that is what it is,

[2:31:02] Voice 4: if i can't even communicate that what i just mentioned to constituents before the meeting

[2:31:09] Voice 4: well that's a problem because it's a then it's just like i i do have this outstanding issue i

[2:31:14] Voice 4: need to resolve for myself so

[2:31:15] Voice 5: i think i can stand out on the limb here and say that you can

[2:31:19] Voice 5: communicate with constituents in advance of the meeting that you uh you're interested to hear

[2:31:24] Voice 5: from uh constituents about this one outstanding issue um

[2:31:30] Voice 4: if i may does trustee samford agree with

[2:31:32] Voice 4: that yeah

[2:31:35] Trustee Stamford: i'm kind of hoping that it's it's an objective outline of the process and and the

[2:31:40] Trustee Stamford: other you know acknowledgement of the work that we have done together that we have compromised

[2:31:46] Trustee Stamford: all the way through this as part of finding that overall vision yeah yeah

[2:31:52] Voice 4: all right thank you and

[2:31:53] Voice 4: i'll on that basis then i'm comfortable with uh proceeding that the game uh i moved that the

[2:31:58] Voice 4: the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 154

[2:32:01] Voice 4: cited as Keats Island land use bylaw 2002,

[2:32:05] Voice 4: amendment number 1, 2021,

[2:32:07] Voice 4: as shown in attachment two of the staff report

[2:32:09] Voice 4: dated April 29, 2024,

[2:32:14] Voice 4: be given second reading as amended.

[2:32:18] Voice 5: Okay, seconder?

[2:32:20] Voice 5: Second.

[2:32:22] Voice 5: Okay, no further discussion?

[2:32:24] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[2:32:26] Voice 5: Aye.

[2:32:28] Voice 5: That carries unanimously.

[2:32:28] Voice 5: unanimously. I think we have a third and a fourth motion here, by the looks of it.

[2:32:32] Trustee Stamford: I can do that one. The Gambier Island Local Trust Committee requests staff

[2:32:36] Trustee Stamford: to procure a legal review on proposed bylaw number 154, cited as

[2:32:41] Trustee Stamford: Keats Island Land Use Bylaw 2002

[2:32:44] Trustee Stamford: Amendment number 12021. Perfect.

[2:32:49] Voice 5: Moved and seconded, Trustee Bernardo? Seconded.

[2:32:52] Voice 5: So moved and seconded. No reason for any discussion, really.

[2:32:56] Voice 5: Really, all those in favor?

[2:32:58] Voice 5: Aye.

[2:32:59] Voice 5: That also carries unanimously.

[2:33:01] Voice 5: And one more, Joe.

[2:33:09] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm just looking at Keats Island or in Gibsons.

[2:33:12] Voice 4: I'm not sure which one is, yeah, okay.

[2:33:20] Voice 4: That the Gambier Island Local Trust Committee

[2:33:22] Voice 4: request staff to schedule an in-person public hearing

[2:33:24] Voice 4: in the summer of 2024 on Keats Island or in Gibsons

[2:33:29] Voice 4: for proposed bylaws numbers 153, OCP, and 154, LUB.

[2:33:37] Voice 5: Second.

[2:33:38] Voice 5: Yeah, sorry, I got cut off there.

[2:33:40] Voice 5: It was interesting.

[2:33:42] Voice 5: Okay, moved and seconded.

[2:33:43] Voice 5: Any further discussion?

[2:33:45] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[2:33:46] Voice 5: Aye.

[2:33:47] Voice 5: That carries unanimously also.

[2:33:50] Voice 5: So does that conclude our business today,

[2:33:52] Voice 5: Vanna McCarger?

[2:33:57] Voice 5: Yes, it does.

[2:33:59] Voice 5: Okay, bye.

[2:34:01] Voice 5: Thank you, everybody.

[2:34:02] Voice 5: We'll call the meeting adjourned.

[2:34:04] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[2:34:05] Voice 5: Two of us are in favor, so the meeting's adjourned.

[2:34:10] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:34:10] Voice 5: John McCarger, thank you for your support here today,

[2:34:13] Voice 5: and thank you, Lisa, for your work to keep us online

[2:34:16] Voice 5: and keep the screen going.

[2:34:17] Voice 5: And Joe, thank you for the conversation.

[2:34:20] Voice 5: I do appreciate it.

[2:34:21] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:34:21] Voice 5: Bye.

[2:34:22] Voice 5: Of course, to Cade as well.