South Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, June 18, 2024

[0:00:00] Planner Testemale: Okay, so welcome everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order and I'd like to begin

[0:00:09] Planner Testemale: this Board of Variants hearing by acknowledging with respect that we are meeting on the Coast

[0:00:14] Planner Testemale: Salish Territory in the lands and waters of the Salish Sea. My name is Phil Testamale. I am a

[0:00:20] Planner Testemale: planner with the Alliance Trust and today I'm also acting as the Secretary for the Board of Variants

[0:00:24] Planner Testemale: And I would like to introduce our three Board of Variants members. We have Andrew McLean, Bert Hull, and John Spalding. And other than myself, we also have Carly Bilney as our minute taker. And I'd also like to welcome our applicants, who are Audrey and David Green.

[0:00:47] Planner Testemale: uh so the first order of business uh is a motion to accept the agenda so i need a motion from one

[0:00:56] Planner Testemale: of our members so moved heard seconded andrew's second that so all any discussion if there's no

[0:01:06] Planner Testemale: discussion i'll call uh the vote all those in favor all right okay there's john okay so that

[0:01:15] Planner Testemale: that's passes

[0:01:16] Voice 7: we're

[0:01:19] Planner Testemale: off to a good start so the next item is for the selection of

[0:01:24] Planner Testemale: a board of variants chair and so I'll ask if there any nominations or from

[0:01:29] Planner Testemale: the from the board members I'm

[0:01:33] Voice 5: happy to nominate Andrew okay

[0:01:36] Planner Testemale: so a seconder

[0:01:38] Planner Testemale: i'll second it okay thanks john so um expert then we'll need a motion next

[0:01:46] Planner Testemale: so what we need now is a motion from a member and for the and the motion would be that the

[0:01:53] Planner Testemale: south pender uh island board of variance appoint andrew mclean as the board of variance chair

[0:01:58] Planner Testemale: so

[0:01:59] Voice 5: moved seconder okay

[0:02:03] Planner Testemale: um any discussion on the motion no discussion okay if there's no

[0:02:10] Planner Testemale: No discussion. I'll call the vote. All those in favor?

[0:02:13] Voice 1: Yes.

[0:02:15] Planner Testemale: Okay. So that passes unanimously.

[0:02:17] Planner Testemale: So at this point now, Andrew, you're the chair of the congratulations, I guess I should say, of the South Pender Island Board of Variants.

[0:02:25] Planner Testemale: So I'm going to pass the meeting over to you and we'll go from there.

[0:02:30] Voice 7: That sounds great.

[0:02:31] Voice 7: I'm just looking at the digging up the minutes or the agenda, rather, which Emily sent.

[0:02:39] Voice 7: Correspondence, correspondence.

[0:02:45] Voice 7: I don't see the agenda e-mail.

[0:02:47] Voice 7: Can you remind me when that was sent?

[0:02:51] Voice 4: Some time ago.

[0:02:53] Voice 7: Yes.

[0:02:54] Voice 4: Maybe it's

[0:02:55] Voice 7: this May 29th.

[0:02:59] Planner Testemale: I can forward it to you right now if you want.

[0:03:02] Voice 7: That would be wonderful.

[0:03:04] Voice 7: Thanks.

[0:03:06] Voice 7: What is it?

[0:03:09] Voice 7: I have this letter here.

[0:03:12] Voice 7: Help that out.

[0:03:20] Voice 4: It was on June 11th.

[0:03:23] Voice 4: Yes.

[0:03:23] Voice 7: Just got it here.

[0:03:24] Voice 4: here

[0:03:24] Voice 7: okay yeah as approval of the agenda selection of chair minutes by general consent the board of

[0:03:33] Voice 7: variance meeting minutes of august 8th 2014 were adopted as presented so we have to approve the

[0:03:41] Voice 7: minutes of the august 8th 2014 meeting burt did you have any comment i did

[0:03:48] Voice 5: yeah i did some research

[0:03:50] Voice 5: And I'm just going to leave this with staff, but in my research, it seems that there is mechanisms where we might be able to approve minutes in a more timely fashion.

[0:04:00] Voice 5: I think that it's unfortunate that we are faced with approving the minutes as strictly a formality without any knowledge of what went on at the meeting.

[0:04:08] Voice 5: I think Andrew was at the meeting, but the other board of variance members weren't.

[0:04:12] Voice 5: So I'm wondering if staff could consider looking at some mechanism where we can electronically approve the minutes or have a meeting to approve the minutes within a reasonable timeframe after each of the meetings, because it's, I mean, just as a note, I mean, this is a three-year-old set of minutes, and it may be three years again before we have another meeting to approve the minutes of this meeting.

[0:04:36] Voice 5: So I was just wondering if there might be something to consider there.

[0:04:39] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:04:39] Planner Testemale: So I'll look into it.

[0:04:42] Planner Testemale: it um we have a mechanism which called resolution without minute without meeting um and that may be

[0:04:47] Planner Testemale: a possibility i don't know if that applies with the board of variants uh but um i can definitely

[0:04:53] Planner Testemale: look into uh our we call it our rwm and simply what that is it's just a phone uh you're you're

[0:05:00] Planner Testemale: contacted and um and we can do that in a more timely fashion but i will definitely follow up

[0:05:05] Planner Testemale: on that for thanks

[0:05:06] Voice 7: appreciate that thank you okay

[0:05:09] Planner Testemale: i'd

[0:05:11] Voice 7: be happy for that um i don't know if we need

[0:05:14] Voice 7: to have a larger discussion about that meeting but we should perhaps dive into the current

[0:05:20] Voice 7: application so i just

[0:05:23] Planner Testemale: i would have so do we move

[0:05:25] Voice 7: that we approve the minutes minutes

[0:05:29] Voice 7: five minutes i

[0:05:30] Voice 4: have a comment on that i'm thinking rules of order i can't um either move or second

[0:05:38] Voice 4: so i'll i will abstain i'm

[0:05:42] Voice 5: not aware of i look at the rules

[0:05:45] Voice 5: actually and it did say that it is

[0:05:48] Voice 5: that people uh who were not in attendance at a meeting are allowed to approve and make motions

[0:05:56] Voice 5: about the minutes of meetings i don't like it and it does say that there are as i said we can

[0:06:02] Voice 5: do there are mechanisms to get around this in the future but yeah as a formality to get this one

[0:06:07] Voice 5: done i don't think we have a choice but to approve these minutes and i'm prepared to move the

[0:06:13] Voice 5: re-approval okay

[0:06:15] Voice 4: as i said i you know my experience is that i'm not in a position to to move it as

[0:06:20] Voice 4: it's fairly normal normal experience and so uh i don't really have anything to contribute to it

[0:06:26] Voice 4: i think i

[0:06:27] Voice 4: think uh bert you raised a good point uh it's it's um uh it's you know fundamentally

[0:06:38] Voice 4: wrong for us to be approving something that we have absolutely no one understanding of yes

[0:06:44] Voice 7: i'm

[0:06:48] Voice 7: happy to move to approve it if you still want to abstain i was at that meeting so i'm happy to move

[0:06:53] Voice 7: to approve it uh just love to approve the minutes and get past this hurdle for now so a motion to

[0:07:01] Voice 7: approve i don't

[0:07:05] Voice 9: think we have

[0:07:05] Voice 7: a second or do you have a second or well i'll second it just to get

[0:07:09] Voice 7: this over with thank you

[0:07:10] Voice 7: appreciate it okay minutes are approved on to part five uh meat

[0:07:17] Voice 7: potatoes applications okay

[0:07:22] Planner Testemale: would you like me

[0:07:25] Planner Testemale: to do a summary of the quick summary of the report

[0:07:28] Planner Testemale: support?

[0:07:29] Voice 7: Yes, I'd love that. Thank you.

[0:07:31] Planner Testemale: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Chair. So this is Board of Variants

[0:07:36] Planner Testemale: SPBOV 2024.1 Green for 9928 Gowland Point Road. And this is an appeal to the Board of Variants

[0:07:44] Planner Testemale: to vary the South Pender Island Land Use Bylaw for the interior side lot setback for proposed

[0:07:51] Planner Testemale: addition to an accessory building on the subject building. The specifics are to a variance to the

[0:07:58] Planner Testemale: Rural Residential Zone of the Land Use By-law and that is that which I'm sorry

[0:08:06] Planner Testemale: article 5.18 sorry bracket 8 bracket B which states that the minimum setback

[0:08:12] Planner Testemale: for any building or structure shall be at least 3 meters or 10 feet from an

[0:08:18] Planner Testemale: interior side lot line is varied to permit the addition which or sorry

[0:08:22] Planner Testemale: addition which is a landing and stairway to an accessory building within 1.5

[0:08:27] Planner Testemale: meters or five feet from an interior side lot line so the application is being made under section 540

[0:08:33] Planner Testemale: bracket a bracket i of the local government act uh for a variance to a bylaw respecting

[0:08:38] Planner Testemale: sighting size or dimensions of a building or structure um this is being made in advance of any

[0:08:46] Planner Testemale: violence trust preliminary building sorry preliminary plan review or crd building permit

[0:08:52] Planner Testemale: permit application so if granted it would allow for the construction of a 2.1 meter long by 1.5

[0:08:59] Planner Testemale: meter wide set of stairs um and sorry uh landing and a set of stairs at 3.8 meters long by 0.9

[0:09:09] Planner Testemale: meters wide and that would be attached to the upper floor of the building at the rear and

[0:09:14] Planner Testemale: east side so the applicants have provided a written rationale and that was attached to the

[0:09:20] Planner Testemale: the report and I believe that well we had a site visit there yesterday and they've expressed

[0:09:27] Planner Testemale: their rationale behind the request and I understand that John Spaulding the other

[0:09:35] Planner Testemale: member who hasn't wasn't in attendance yesterday is also familiar with their request so

[0:09:42] Planner Testemale: further the staff report outlines the legislative context and the role and responsibilities of the

[0:09:48] Planner Testemale: the board and to close staff is satisfied that all requirements other requirements set out in

[0:09:54] Planner Testemale: the local government act have been met specifically the statutory notification has been undertaken

[0:10:00] Planner Testemale: the natural environment will not be adversely impacted as the area of the proposed addition

[0:10:05] Planner Testemale: is minimal the variance will not impact the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties and more

[0:10:11] Planner Testemale: more specifically the dwelling on that property,

[0:10:19] Planner Testemale: given that it is a small addition to an existing building.

[0:10:23] Planner Testemale: The variance does not vary permitted uses or density.

[0:10:27] Planner Testemale: The variance does not defeat the intent of the bylaw,

[0:10:30] Planner Testemale: and the variance would not be in conflict with any other covenants or permits.

[0:10:35] Planner Testemale: Lastly, in considering the appeal, the board should be satisfied

[0:10:38] Planner Testemale: that the requirements under local government act uh 542 bracket one and bracket two are met

[0:10:46] Planner Testemale: and specifically that the owner would experience hardship if the appeal is not granted and

[0:10:51] Planner Testemale: secondly that the proposed variance is minor in nature so that's a bit of a long-winded summary

[0:10:58] Planner Testemale: but um so back to the chair thank you fantastic

[0:11:02] Voice 7: summary yes so i think that we both know

[0:11:06] Voice 7: John, I think you're new to this process. We have to understand that the variance is minor in nature, and that there is a hardship. So personally, I believe that it's minor in nature. I think that, or I hope that others would agree. Bert, John, do you feel this is a minor variance?

[0:11:26] Voice 5: I agree.

[0:11:28] Planner Testemale: Could I, sorry, Andrew, I just want to interrupt. So we just have a new participant, a member of the public who's just entered and who would like to make a statement with regards to the application.

[0:11:43] Planner Testemale: Do you

[0:11:44] Voice 7: want to do that

[0:11:45] Planner Testemale: now

[0:11:46] Voice 7: or should we agree that it's a minor variance and that there is hardship so that we know that we have an application?

[0:11:52] Voice 7: because we have had previous applications where we haven't had the fact that it's minor or that

[0:11:59] Voice 7: there's hardship unless uh mr johnson would like to present now and we can also take that into

[0:12:05] Voice 7: account your call as to what's best bill

[0:12:07] Planner Testemale: um i i i think it's it's probably best if you

[0:12:10] Planner Testemale: yeah establish that you have that you have an application in fact and um yeah so then um

[0:12:19] Planner Testemale: and then maybe proceed from there.

[0:12:21] Planner Testemale: Okay,

[0:12:22] Voice 7: so personally, I believe it's minor.

[0:12:24] Voice 7: John, are you okay with that assumption or agreement?

[0:12:28] Voice 1: It's minor, yeah.

[0:12:29] Voice 9: Okay,

[0:12:29] Voice 7: and then we have to determine

[0:12:32] Voice 7: whether or not there's a hardship caused

[0:12:36] Voice 7: by or whether there is hardship that exists.

[0:12:41] Voice 7: I have an idea as to how there may be hardship,

[0:12:43] Voice 7: but I'd be interested to hear from John

[0:12:45] Voice 7: as to their take as to whether or not

[0:12:48] Voice 7: there might be hardship. Bert, John, happy to hear.

[0:12:55] Voice 4: Go ahead, Bert.

[0:12:56] Voice 5: Okay. Well, after visiting

[0:13:01] Voice 5: the site yesterday and looking at alternatives, it doesn't look like there is a better alternative to

[0:13:07] Voice 5: provide access to the second floor or attic space in the garage. That doesn't constitute the hardship

[0:13:15] Voice 5: because um necessarily because there is the access there um or i guess because there may

[0:13:25] Voice 5: not need to be an access but because of the use of the building uh currently um and the fact that

[0:13:33] Voice 5: it's dangerous to access in the method that's currently being used i believe that i can

[0:13:47] Voice 5: honestly say there is a hardship that um threshold that can be made here yeah i've been

[0:13:54] Voice 7: i've been thinking and wondering about that one a fair bit myself we do talk about how

[0:13:59] Voice 7: the building is currently being used but it's being you to me it feels it's being used in a way

[0:14:07] Voice 7: that the building code would not support uh because that should be an attic space up there

[0:14:14] Voice 7: and not an occupiable space so personally I feel that the fact that the existing means to access

[0:14:24] Voice 7: the attic which is an unoccupiable space I don't think we can count that into the hardship or I'm

[0:14:31] Voice 7: not sure if we can count that into the hardship. One thing that I did think that might constitute

[0:14:39] Voice 7: And I appreciate opinions on this is the fact that the rules at the time that the garage was constructed did not allow there to be an occupiable space on the second floor.

[0:14:55] Voice 7: And now that we have changed those rules, the people who had built their garages previously are kind of snookered because of the change in rules.

[0:15:05] Voice 7: They didn't have

[0:15:06] Voice 7: the opportunity to plan that there may be an occupiable second floor, and because of where they chose to finish in the garage at that time, they couldn't simply move it away from the property line to allow themselves room for the stairs.

[0:15:24] Voice 7: So my feeling is maybe the hardship is that we changed the rules and created a hardship because of the conflicting sets of rules and I'm not sure if that would count.

[0:15:32] Voice 7: but it seems to me like there might be some

[0:15:37] Voice 5: argument for hardship there yeah and that that's

[0:15:40] Voice 5: what i was going to say also andrew as you were bringing that up that was exactly what i thought

[0:15:48] Voice 5: as i was reading through this there was originally a variance to allow for the height of this

[0:15:51] Voice 5: building and of course that limited the use of the space and now with the rules changed

[0:15:59] Voice 5: this space can be modified to make it still fit within all of the rules but the hardship would

[0:16:06] Voice 5: be accessed so yes i think you've convinced me okay

[0:16:11] Voice 4: all right go ahead john no i i'm not sure

[0:16:16] Voice 4: if this is a contrary position but um so our decisions as a board of variance to do not permit

[0:16:25] Voice 4: people to construct, build, develop outside of the national building, the BC building code.

[0:16:34] Voice 4: So it seems to me that the building code applicability at the time of some time ago

[0:16:43] Voice 4: and today are probably not our decisions.

[0:16:46] Voice 7: No, and it's not a contrary position. But

[0:16:56] Voice 7: about the kind of second floor area,

[0:16:59] Voice 7: the way the building's constructed,

[0:17:00] Voice 7: there's not allowed to be a second floor.

[0:17:02] Voice 7: So the fact that someone's been going up into a second floor

[0:17:06] Voice 7: should not be factored into our decision

[0:17:08] Voice 7: because from all regulatory frameworks,

[0:17:13] Voice 7: there isn't a second floor to this building.

[0:17:15] Voice 7: So I don't think we should be able to take into account

[0:17:17] Voice 7: that someone could access the second floor

[0:17:20] Voice 7: or has been accessing the second floor in a dangerous way.

[0:17:24] Voice 4: Right?

[0:17:24] Voice 4: but every every attic is is accessed and used in some in some in some way shape or form

[0:17:32] Voice 4: yes

[0:17:33] Voice 7: whether it's actively correct but we're not permitted to have

[0:17:36] Voice 5: stairs to those attics

[0:17:37] Voice 5: i i would say that uh if we were to consider the modifications to the attic space that are

[0:17:46] Voice 5: being contemplated by the greens that if if those modifications if they got a building permit

[0:17:52] Voice 5: to be able to do those modifications,

[0:17:55] Voice 5: then they need the variance to be able to access that space.

[0:17:58] Voice 5: So that's exactly

[0:17:59] Voice 5: what I'm saying, yes.

[0:18:01] Voice 5: Right, so what I'm wondering is

[0:18:02] Voice 5: if we were to consider granting the variance,

[0:18:06] Voice 5: it would be subject to them being able

[0:18:08] Voice 5: to get a building permit anyway.

[0:18:10] Voice 9: Absolutely, it's

[0:18:11] Voice 9: enabling them

[0:18:14] Voice 7: to access a previously inaccessible space.

[0:18:20] Planner Testemale: Can I just make one comment?

[0:18:23] Planner Testemale: You're right, but there's no conditions with a variance.

[0:18:27] Planner Testemale: So, I mean, it's theoretically, yes, you're right.

[0:18:32] Planner Testemale: But it's their obligation to ensure that they can get a building permit.

[0:18:36] Planner Testemale: And the greens were directed to the building inspector initially before we even set up a meeting.

[0:18:43] Planner Testemale: So, I just wanted to make that comment.

[0:18:45] Planner Testemale: Well,

[0:18:45] Voice 5: I guess when I said that I meant that it is subject, no matter what, it's going to be subject to them getting the building permit.

[0:18:52] Voice 5: to be able to

[0:18:53] Voice 5: allow them to use the variants anyway.

[0:18:57] Voice 7: But I think that we've perhaps established at this point

[0:19:00] Voice 7: that the modification or amendment is minor in nature

[0:19:06] Voice 7: and that there is some degree of hardship.

[0:19:11] Voice 7: So we've satisfied ourselves that we have a minor amendment

[0:19:15] Voice 7: and we have hardship.

[0:19:16] Voice 7: Can we all more agree that we have hardship?

[0:19:20] Voice 4: Right.

[0:19:20] Voice 4: Right. I think, you know, in the sense of moving this along, yeah, they meet the threshold.

[0:19:28] Voice 7: Awesome. We have had, just for your record, John, we have had other applications where we haven't been able to see a particular hardship.

[0:19:36] Voice 7: But I think that in this case, that we can agree that there's hardship.

[0:19:39] Voice 7: and once we agree that there is minor it's minor in nature and that there is hardship we can

[0:19:47] Voice 7: discuss whether or not what they're doing is reasonable and is something that we should

[0:19:53] Voice 7: support or not support so hardship yes yeah yes okay

[0:20:02] Voice 4: just uh sort of a just question of

[0:20:05] Voice 4: information for phil um phil um is there a reason why the greens would uh use the board of variance

[0:20:14] Voice 4: uh very variance process versus development uh so very

[0:20:20] Voice 4: so i'll let

[0:20:21] Planner Testemale: the greens and perhaps there

[0:20:23] Planner Testemale: this might be the opportunity after i make my comments to to invite the greens to make

[0:20:28] Planner Testemale: a comment i'll leave that to the chair and also to andrew johnson who's who's waiting um

[0:20:35] Planner Testemale: but uh we did there's two there's two options they could either go to a development variance

[0:20:41] Planner Testemale: permit which is through this through um through the trust

[0:20:45] Planner Testemale: committee or they could have gone

[0:20:47] Planner Testemale: through a board of variance we did we did ask them we we weren't able to determine why but by

[0:20:54] Planner Testemale: the time they had already made the application um so it was it was their choice so i was more

[0:21:01] Voice 4: are wondering if there was a matter of policy or procedure that no they

[0:21:04] Voice 4: will have the options and

[0:21:05] Planner Testemale: i i think it's pointed out in the in the staff report that what if if this is denied they also

[0:21:12] Planner Testemale: have the option to immediately make a development variance permit application so okay

[0:21:16] Voice 4: good down just

[0:21:17] Voice 4: fair enough yeah they have that

[0:21:18] Voice 4: option all right rock on there we go so here

[0:21:24] Voice 7: we into the meat and

[0:21:25] Voice 7: potatoes of the hearing um i'm not sure what the best way to proceed is we could have we could talk

[0:21:31] Voice 7: to the Greens about their application we have board of variance members all being forwarded

[0:21:36] Voice 7: the application package thank you Emily it's open now I've read through it I've looked at the

[0:21:42] Voice 7: drawings we've all had a chance to kind of ruminate on those we've received some letters in support

[0:21:49] Voice 7: from neighbors uh none of those neighbors are Mr Andrew Johnson I'm curious

[0:21:56] Voice 7: as to what you have to bring to the table so i wonder if we want to hear from the greens first

[0:22:02] Voice 7: or mr johnson first let's

[0:22:04] Voice 4: hear from johnson uh

[0:22:08] Voice 10: thank you i i think actually it it would

[0:22:11] Voice 10: be right for the greens to have the first opportunity um but i i do just note the only

[0:22:17] Voice 10: letter of support that i saw in the um notice and the agenda was um one from miss susan antifave

[0:22:25] Voice 10: so if there are others that have been received since if if i was able to see those perhaps while

[0:22:31] Voice 10: the the greens are speaking that would be helpful but if that's not possible that's okay um i believe

[0:22:37] Voice 7: there was a second yes that came yesterday yeah

[0:22:40] Voice 4: we might have received why don't we just read it

[0:22:42] Voice 4: out it's a short one yeah that's probably helpful so i got it right here it's from marty evans who

[0:22:51] Voice 4: who is a neighbor, in regard to the variance at 9928

[0:22:55] Voice 4: Gollum Point Road, I'd like to register my full support for the

[0:22:59] Voice 4: Greens in regards to the application for a variance. The variance would have no impact

[0:23:03] Voice 4: on us or the neighborhood and would only increase the safety for Mr. and Mrs. Green.

[0:23:08] Voice 4: The current access to the upper portion of garage is

[0:23:11] Voice 4: too dangerous and creates an unnecessary hazard for the Greens. Any

[0:23:15] Voice 4: trip or fall from the current folding stairs could cause life-altering injuries

[0:23:19] Voice 4: to the greens due to the safety issue and the lack of negative impact on the neighborhood i'd like to

[0:23:24] Voice 4: offer my full support to the greens and their application for a variance best regards marty

[0:23:29] Voice 4: evans 9917 golem point road south pender island so

[0:23:33] Voice 7: the green sorry you are 9923 is this your

[0:23:38] Voice 7: immediate neighbor or this is just a guy down the street he's up he's across the road he's across

[0:23:44] Voice 7: across the road yeah and uh miss antifev is the immediate neighbor no she's across the road as

[0:23:50] Voice 7: well she's across the road as well uh awesome there we go mr johnson i think it might be

[0:23:57] Voice 7: appropriate to hear from you just as we have heard from the greens and we have been on site

[0:24:02] Voice 7: yesterday with the green so i believe that burt myself and john all have a fairly good knowledge

[0:24:08] Voice 7: of the site itself and what exists at the site and what the greens hope to achieve

[0:24:15] Voice 7: but if you know if you have something to add i'd honestly i'd love to hear it before i go too much

[0:24:20] Voice 7: further sure

[0:24:21] Voice 10: um thank you um i sent in a written submission last night have you received that

[0:24:28] Voice 10: no

[0:24:29] Voice 7: i haven't at all uh if you could do you have phil's direct address um

[0:24:35] Voice 10: i believe so

[0:24:37] Voice 10: Phil

[0:24:38] Voice 7: is p-testimel at Islands Trust.

[0:24:43] Planner Testemale: You did contact

[0:24:44] Voice 7: me by email this morning, so

[0:24:46] Voice 1: he should have it.

[0:24:47] Voice 1: Sorry, Andrew.

[0:24:48] Voice 1: No, that's okay.

[0:24:49] Voice 1: I'll just forward it now.

[0:24:54] Voice 1: Sorry, Phil?

[0:24:56] Voice 1: Phil, P-H-I-L?

[0:24:58] Voice 10: No, no, that's not right.

[0:25:00] Voice 10: I'll just

[0:25:00] Voice 10: pull it from my send folder.

[0:25:02] Voice 10: Sorry, Will.

[0:25:03] Voice 10: But Phil, do you have it?

[0:25:05] Planner Testemale: Just one moment.

[0:25:06] Planner Testemale: I don't.

[0:25:07] Planner Testemale: No, we received one this morning.

[0:25:09] Planner Testemale: that was circulated and that was the one that was just read out by john and um sorry i don't know

[0:25:14] Planner Testemale: why i don't know where it was sent but um if if andrew mr johnson would like to send it to me i

[0:25:20] Planner Testemale: can just redistribute it to the trust yeah that

[0:25:23] Voice 7: would be great if he has an email i think it

[0:25:26] Voice 7: might be important to put it into the minutes as the

[0:25:29] Voice 7: input and if he could board it so we could

[0:25:31] Voice 7: all read it or mr johnson if you want to uh play storytime theater and read aloud for us

[0:25:39] Voice 7: Well, it's

[0:25:40] Voice 10: lengthy and I'd hoped to make my, my submissions much more concise. So hopefully if

[0:25:47] Voice 10: it's in front of you, we can sort of reduce any duplication. I'm sorry, Phil, could you, could you

[0:25:52] Voice 10: I'll

[0:25:52] Planner Testemale: just reply to you really quickly and you should have it now.

[0:25:59] Voice 10: Okay. I sent it to the, I see yours. Thank you. I sent it to the, the info email that was

[0:26:07] Voice 10: was on the notice but here let me just attach it here okay thanks sorry

[0:26:13] Voice 7: and you sent it to the

[0:26:13] Voice 7: south email info on the notice yeah

[0:26:16] Voice 1: i can fill

[0:26:17] Voice 7: no that's awesome but while you send it to phil i

[0:26:20] Voice 7: wonder if maybe we can check to see if they're just to double check and confirm that there are

[0:26:24] Voice 7: no other email submissions sent i

[0:26:27] Planner Testemale: don't have the sorry i'm kind of unsupported here and i don't

[0:26:31] Planner Testemale: have the some our staff is in training right now so that's why i'm running the zoom meeting so i

[0:26:37] Planner Testemale: I don't have the ability to check and I would assume Emily has been checking all day so I'm not sure if it was missed or if it didn't for some reason it didn't make it in but

[0:26:48] Planner Testemale: I just

[0:26:50] Voice 7: want to ensure that we haven't had sort of a flood of last minute. Right.

[0:26:57] Planner Testemale: I haven't

[0:26:58] Voice 7: seen it'd be important.

[0:27:00] Planner Testemale: There we go. Okay. So I'll just forward this if you can bear with me for two seconds here. Thank

[0:27:05] Voice 9: you very much.

[0:27:17] Voice 4: While we're waiting, is it possible for Andrew to give us the headline?

[0:27:23] Voice 4: He

[0:27:24] Voice 7: suggested that he'd like us to read it, but yeah, go for it.

[0:27:27] Voice 10: Sure. I mean, like I said, it's 10 pages long, so I don't expect you to read it as I'm speaking,

[0:27:34] Voice 10: but I'd hoped to be able to rely on it so that I don't have to take

[0:27:39] Voice 9: too much of your time.

[0:27:42] Voice 10: so the perhaps versus a point of information um are are miss antifa and mr evans um on adjacent

[0:27:55] Voice 10: lots to the subject property or or nearby lots it

[0:27:59] Voice 7: sounds like they're across the street from

[0:28:01] Voice 7: the subject property so they it's not their property line that the greens attempt to build

[0:28:06] Voice 7: nearby we have heard anecdotally from the greens that they have support of the neighbor and bert

[0:28:13] Voice 7: and i and i believe john bert and i yesterday and i believe john just as a member of the community

[0:28:18] Voice 7: are familiar with the relationship of the greens garage to the neighboring property and buildings

[0:28:25] Voice 7: currently on the neighboring property all right so we

[0:28:28] Voice 4: we have the uh the presentation now

[0:28:31] Voice 10: thank you

[0:28:32] Voice 10: um so so i'm an occupant at the neighboring property that's 9924 gallon point road so that

[0:28:38] Voice 10: is the property immediately uh to the east of the subject property so on the interior lot line

[0:28:44] Voice 10: um where this variance would be issued and our uh cabin is the nearest dwelling to it it's mentioned

[0:28:51] Voice 10: in the staff report uh as you are sorry

[0:28:54] Voice 7: yeah and just to frame in my mind you are the property that

[0:28:58] Voice 7: the garage sits adjacent correct like

[0:29:00] Voice 10: this would be

[0:29:01] Voice 7: encroaching into your setback okay that's

[0:29:03] Voice 7: important information thank

[0:29:04] Voice 10: you that's correct so it's it's the interior lot line that is shared

[0:29:08] Voice 10: with our property um and by my understanding the lot and obviously you were just there um the lots

[0:29:15] Voice 10: that are across the street would not be able to to even see the subject building you know or you

[0:29:21] Voice 10: you know, be affected to the same degree that we would be. Correct. You've got my submissions

[0:29:28] Voice 10: there, but the first thing that I wanted to say was I would sort of respectfully... Can I, sorry?

[0:29:35] Voice 7: Yep,

[0:29:35] Voice 10: no, please. I have so

[0:29:36] Voice 7: many questions. So you just note in the opening to your letter that you

[0:29:42] Voice 7: are an occupant of the property. Can you elaborate on that? Do you own the property or you happen to

[0:29:49] Voice 7: to rent there or you have been there once or twice?

[0:29:53] Voice 10: So my, no, that's okay. My mother is

[0:29:56] Voice 10: Daphne Lewis. She's the owner, the only person on, on.

[0:30:00] Voice 10: title there it's a family property that that um we've owned for for years um just in case there

[0:30:07] Voice 10: was any um sort of uh confusion about whether i was actually a sort of a proper uh participant

[0:30:15] Voice 10: here um my mother daphne did send an email i think to the same south info email address just

[0:30:21] Voice 10: before the meeting to confirm that i would be here um you know sort of speaking on on her behalf

[0:30:27] Voice 10: Wonderful. Thank you.

[0:30:29] Voice 10: So I would first just sort of respectfully disagree with the conclusion that you can find

[0:30:38] Voice 10: undue hardship on the basis that you suggested. The first thing is that the test is

[0:30:45] Voice 10: undue hardship, not simply hardship at all. And I was not personally familiar with the state of

[0:30:54] Voice 10: bylaw constraints in 2007 that the sort of design was working within. But what I would say is that

[0:31:01] Voice 10: the obligation is still on a person now to comply with the bylaws as they stand. And so the issue

[0:31:09] Voice 10: here is why they cannot comply with the existing setback requirement rather than what was the state

[0:31:16] Voice 10: of bylaws about occupiable attics at the time it was built. So in my mind, if the change in the

[0:31:29] Voice 10: bylaws had gone the opposite way, such that a compliance structure became a non-compliant one,

[0:31:34] Voice 10: people are usually grandfathered into the new regime. But the fact that a different bylaw

[0:31:45] Voice 10: was different at the time of construction, I don't think is a basis to waive compliance with

[0:31:51] Voice 10: the setback requirement now. And the main point that I made in that section of my submission there

[0:31:59] Voice 10: is that in my understanding of it, the burden is on the applicant to show that they have no way to

[0:32:07] Voice 10: comply with the bylaw without suffering undue hardship and to my mind that um just hasn't

[0:32:17] Voice 10: been established here because there are alternatives that um are not sort of properly

[0:32:23] Voice 10: considered or or no no reasons are given for why they are not uh viable absolutely that

[0:32:30] Voice 7: yeah and

[0:32:31] Voice 7: And just sort of to clarify, you're making a very valid argument.

[0:32:39] Voice 7: The test of hardship is a test as to whether or not we can hear the application, right?

[0:32:45] Voice 7: So testing and suggesting that there is hardship isn't an approval or a disapproval.

[0:32:52] Voice 7: It's just a, now we can look at the merit or opposite of merit of the application itself.

[0:33:00] Voice 7: Yeah.

[0:33:00] Voice 7: yeah i

[0:33:01] Voice 10: i think that's correct but i also think that it's a requirement to grant an approval

[0:33:06] Voice 10: and so i

[0:33:07] Voice 7: think it's a absolutely agree

[0:33:09] Voice 10: obviously i disagree with the um your conclusion as at the

[0:33:14] Voice 10: sort of the threshold level but all i would say is that i think it's something that would need to be

[0:33:18] Voice 10: revisited and confirmed before any approval could be could be

[0:33:21] Planner Testemale: granted just interrupt just to remind

[0:33:24] Planner Testemale: um mr johnson and the board and the board that there is no definition of hardship in the

[0:33:29] Planner Testemale: legislation so it's it is a case that it's it's i don't know if you would call it discretion but

[0:33:36] Planner Testemale: it's up to the board to turn their mind to the question of hardship and satisfy themselves that

[0:33:41] Planner Testemale: there is a hardship but it's not defined there is no threshold per se so i that's just something

[0:33:47] Planner Testemale: that needs to be stated i think thanks

[0:33:51] Voice 4: well chair um

[0:33:54] Voice 10: so the a large part of my written submission

[0:33:58] Voice 10: you'll see there is um just sort of questioning um why alternatives that would comply with the

[0:34:06] Voice 10: bylaw are are not viable and so the um the suggestions i made there are uh first that

[0:34:15] Voice 10: there are two other rooms on the ground floor that would seem to be large enough to accommodate an

[0:34:21] Voice 10: interior staircase and there's no mention in the application of the report um as to why those

[0:34:27] Voice 10: those aren't options. The only reference is to not wanting to put an interior staircase in one

[0:34:33] Voice 10: of the garage bays because that would block vehicle access. But the other two rooms aren't

[0:34:38] Voice 10: addressed. And then the other alternative that I say is not considered and sort of shown not to

[0:34:45] Voice 10: be viable is a different external face of the building. And the one that I've in particular

[0:34:51] Voice 10: particular suggestion is the southern face, which is long enough to accommodate an exterior staircase, would not require a variance, and would require a different, but from my view of the drawings, a similar alteration of the upper floor to sort of

[0:35:13] Voice 10: meet that staircase on the south side rather than the east. And the point I'd make just in response

[0:35:21] Voice 10: to what Phil, I'm sorry, I don't know your last name, but what Phil said about the fact that

[0:35:30] Voice 10: undue hardship isn't defined and is sort of a matter for your judgment. It is not defined in

[0:35:38] Voice 10: the legislation, but it is something that is considered from time to time as these decisions

[0:35:42] Voice 10: decisions get reviewed in courts and things like that and one point that I made in my submission is

[0:35:46] Voice 10: that courts have found that in the case of an existing building cost alone is not sufficient

[0:35:53] Voice 10: to to ground a new hardship and so that

[0:35:56] Voice 7: it's not enough to say

[0:35:57] Voice 10: that yeah sorry sorry to speak over

[0:36:01] Voice 10: you

[0:36:01] Voice 7: no no that's very correct and while we were on site yesterday with the Greens uh we did discuss

[0:36:08] Voice 7: briefly with them what their reason for hardship were and there had been brought up some cost

[0:36:14] Voice 7: implications but we have let the Greens know and they do understand that we can't factor in price

[0:36:20] Voice 7: or cost to any of this that's something that is yeah basically a non-starter for when considered

[0:36:26] Voice 7: hardship and

[0:36:27] Voice 10: so I guess where that leaves my understanding is that what you would need

[0:36:34] Voice 10: in order to grant to know that a variance is required at this point would be evidence that

[0:36:41] Voice 10: those other alternatives are not structurally viable um and so well

[0:36:47] Voice 7: even structurally viable

[0:36:48] Voice 7: doesn't count right sorry

[0:36:50] Voice 10: i

[0:36:51] Voice 7: would say even structurally viable doesn't necessarily

[0:36:53] Voice 7: have to be counted or non-counted as hard as hardship because we can go back to cost

[0:37:00] Voice 7: trust on that right i think that the most important part to me from your letter is

[0:37:06] Voice 7: rather than arguing the technicalities of hardship and i do think that you have a

[0:37:10] Voice 7: really valid argument for hardship uh and whether or not we should consider the

[0:37:16] Voice 7: the letter from susan antifave which is like personally i would definitely consider it but

[0:37:25] Voice 7: for the reasons that you list that we shouldn't consider it those are they color the application

[0:37:31] Voice 7: for me it's very easy for people who live across the road and are not affected really

[0:37:37] Voice 7: by stairs encroaching into a setback to write and say i totally support this thing that wouldn't

[0:37:42] Voice 7: really affect me at all it's much it's much different to have the immediate neighbor

[0:37:48] Voice 7: whose side yard is being encroached upon here to tell us in 10 pages and some effort that you're

[0:37:56] Voice 7: not opposing this and I take it that you're not opposing this but I'd invite you to kind of in an

[0:38:01] Voice 7: experiential sense let us know why you're not opposed to this the or why you are opposed to

[0:38:07] Voice 7: this the greens are applying to put a staircase my understanding of the bylaw and I'd ask Phil

[0:38:15] Voice 7: to correct me if i'm wrong is that the greens are applying for a five foot wide staircase

[0:38:21] Voice 7: or a five foot projection from the face of the building where they would only be permitted three

[0:38:27] Voice 7: feet from the face of the building so they're asking for a wider than normal staircase to

[0:38:33] Voice 7: project two feet into this setback and so i do understand that that might be something that you

[0:38:40] Voice 7: you wouldn't want. And I'd love to hear why you don't love that.

[0:38:45] Voice 10: No, absolutely. And one thing

[0:38:49] Voice 10: I'll just say first is my intention with the sort of the hardship argument is not to be sort of

[0:38:57] Voice 10: technical or procedural. It's that in my view, this whole process is about alternatives. And so,

[0:39:05] Voice 10: So, you know, no one, no one, no one's aim here is to prevent the creation of safe or alternate access to the attic.

[0:39:16] Voice 10: That's not what it's about. It's about whether it can be done in a way that doesn't affect our property versus one that does.

[0:39:20] Voice 10: And so that's, that's the only reason I raised that. As for how it affects our property.

[0:39:26] Voice 4: Sorry. Yeah, sorry. Could you just tell us how it affects your property?

[0:39:30] Voice 4: Yes.

[0:39:34] Voice 10: As you pointed out already, this is intrinsically linked to a renovation of the second floor of that building. If a variance is granted so that the stairs are on the east, then the renovation will go ahead as planned so that it meets that eastern entrance.

[0:39:52] Voice 10: If an alternative access is created, I assume that the renovation would then go in a different direction.

[0:40:01] Voice 10: That building is visible from our property. It overlooks the fence line into the back of our property on the path to the garden.

[0:40:09] Voice 10: Currently, and I emphasize in my submissions, it's a very large building. It's much larger than our dwelling, but its impact is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there's a fence, of course,

[0:40:22] Voice 10: and also that that side of it that faces us is simply a metal roof sloping away from the

[0:40:27] Voice 10: building. There's no balconies, doors, windows. And that is what would change with this variance

[0:40:34] Voice 10: so that the renovation is on this side. It would add rooms, doors, windows, and a balcony,

[0:40:41] Voice 10: which would face our property, project into the setback zone, and be bringing sort of more noise,

[0:40:49] Voice 10: more traffic, more light pollution immediately into our property. And I've sort of tried to

[0:40:55] Voice 10: emphasize in the submission that those are really important things to us. They're not just sort of

[0:41:02] Voice 10: nice to haves that everyone, of course, enjoys. They're quiet, they're privacy. They're pretty

[0:41:07] Voice 10: core priorities in the official community plan in terms of preserving tranquility and privacy

[0:41:14] Voice 10: and the rural character of of the area and um so it's it's just not correct in our opinion to say

[0:41:25] Voice 10: that it would not um affect the adjacent lot it's it's very large it's very visible it's very close

[0:41:32] Voice 10: um and we obviously would just strongly prefer that an alternative be found that doesn't

[0:41:39] Voice 10: uh vary the bylaw and doesn't um change the character of that building so that it faces

[0:41:46] Voice 10: our property in a way that it doesn't now yeah

[0:41:49] Voice 7: that's a those are important points for me to hear

[0:41:53] Voice 7: um the the character of the building and i think that what you're alluding to is something that in

[0:41:59] Voice 7: the cities is called overlooking in our planning bylaw is not as strict as many municipal planning

[0:42:09] Voice 7: bylaws are. But in Vancouver, for instance, if you're submitting a building facing elevation

[0:42:16] Voice 7: like this would be, you submit your building's elevation and the reflected elevation to show

[0:42:22] Voice 7: that you're not going to build windows that look directly into your neighbor's windows.

[0:42:26] Voice 7: As is, so conversely as is, if the Greens were for whatever reason just wanted to put a lot of

[0:42:34] Voice 7: glazing on that their only limit would be the building code which at 10 feet from the property

[0:42:40] Voice 7: line on a garage of this size they would be permitted to have 26.15 percent of that building

[0:42:48] Voice 7: face be glazing so i absolutely understand your argument for privacy and i think we should actually

[0:42:56] Voice 7: give a lot of weight to it currently the greens would be permitted to have more than a quarter of

[0:43:02] Voice 7: of that garage building face be windows.

[0:43:08] Voice 7: I don't know kind of how that will play out in discussion,

[0:43:12] Voice 7: but I do take that my understanding of your concerns

[0:43:15] Voice 7: is that you feel that them,

[0:43:19] Voice 7: I wanna find a better word than violating the setback,

[0:43:22] Voice 7: but by them violating the setback,

[0:43:24] Voice 7: you lose a degree of privacy,

[0:43:26] Voice 7: you see increased traffic there,

[0:43:28] Voice 7: and you feel that your property is kind of being overlooked.

[0:43:30] Voice 7: looked when we went to the greens property it's you know it's a well manicured lot for being an

[0:43:39] Voice 7: acreage on pander my yard is looks nothing like that but they do seem to have a fence which by

[0:43:46] Voice 7: my estimation is about eight feet tall and they have some sort of you have i believe hedges on

[0:43:51] Voice 7: the other side of the fence um when i was thinking about this i you know we discussed landscape

[0:43:59] Voice 7: landscape screening as options in the city sometimes we say oh you're going too close to

[0:44:03] Voice 7: the setback you have to include landscape screening uh if we were to approve something

[0:44:09] Voice 7: like this or look at approving it would landscape can we put a proviso for landscape screening phil

[0:44:14] Voice 7: or do we just get into a i think you might be muted phil can't

[0:44:22] Planner Testemale: put conditions on a variant so

[0:44:24] Planner Testemale: it you cannot make it conditional or put a conditions in there so absolutely unfortunate

[0:44:30] Planner Testemale: Okay,

[0:44:31] Voice 4: just a question for Mr. Johnson. You've talked about an alternative of trying to create the access from a different elevation of the building.

[0:44:47] Voice 4: The intention, though, is to proceed with a renovation, so I'm not sure why having the access on a different face of the building would necessarily change the nature of the renovation and, in essence, preserve the state of the building.

[0:45:13] Voice 4: building on on your property that by by your property lines or your shared property lines

[0:45:19] Voice 10: so my understanding and it may be sort of a chicken and egg thing but my understanding was

[0:45:24] Voice 10: that um the submission said that interior staircases weren't possible and that the only

[0:45:32] Voice 10: viable location for an exterior one was the rear because of the design of the roof and so my

[0:45:39] Voice 10: My understanding was that their submission was that that was the only place to create an access.

[0:45:46] Voice 10: And then if you create an access on the east, then you need to bring the building out to meet it.

[0:45:50] Voice 10: Otherwise, it's just sort of a staircase to nowhere, you know, up to a sloping metal roof.

[0:45:58] Voice 10: So again, the impact on us comes from the lack of a visual screen above the fence.

[0:46:05] Voice 10: And obviously, this is a second story we're talking about.

[0:46:08] Voice 10: um and that area of roof that would become doors windows and balcony is visible um along the

[0:46:15] Voice 10: driveway the parking area of our property it's visible from the back porch um so i i take the

[0:46:23] Voice 10: point that you can't add visual screening requirements but if if that had been part of

[0:46:27] Voice 10: the proposal then we would you know maybe we would be sort of thinking about it in different terms

[0:46:32] Voice 10: um but it is visible uh and my understanding again was that it was the access that drove

[0:46:39] Voice 10: it in that east direction absolutely

[0:46:42] Voice 5: um so i think um what i'm what i the way i understand your

[0:46:47] Voice 5: your argument is going is that um you don't like the second story addition to the building the

[0:46:58] Voice 5: the raised roof and the window facing towards your property.

[0:47:03] Voice 5: And it's not necessarily access that's the problem,

[0:47:06] Voice 5: but the access enables that particular face of the building to be put there.

[0:47:10] Voice 5: And that's where you're having the challenge, right?

[0:47:14] Voice 10: I think that's right. I mean, if, if I,

[0:47:17] Voice 10: I take the point that they do not add by minor saying need a variance for

[0:47:21] Voice 10: that renovation.

[0:47:22] Voice 10: It's the fact that there's only one way to access it that, that conflicts with

[0:47:27] Voice 10: with the setback requirement.

[0:47:29] Voice 10: So can

[0:47:30] Voice 7: I clarify if

[0:47:31] Voice 10: there was a, sure.

[0:47:33] Voice 7: Yeah, sorry.

[0:47:34] Voice 7: Cause I had a different understanding than Bert.

[0:47:37] Voice 7: And my feeling is that it's not that you're against them

[0:47:43] Voice 7: raising the roof or you're not against them having

[0:47:45] Voice 7: a studio above the garage.

[0:47:48] Voice 7: You just don't want the stairs to go on that side.

[0:47:50] Voice 7: And you're sort of saying,

[0:47:52] Voice 7: please put the stairs on another side.

[0:47:54] Voice 7: Or are you saying,

[0:47:54] Voice 7: saying, hey, I can crush this by disallowing the stairs to go on in the setback. You're more saying

[0:48:02] Voice 7: like, please respect my privacy. Don't build in the setback. We have every right to expect that

[0:48:08] Voice 7: you will not build in the setback. So please don't build over there.

[0:48:11] Voice 10: I think it's a combination of

[0:48:14] Voice 10: the two. So if, for example, they were able to create interior access to the proposed renovation,

[0:48:19] Voice 10: renovation we might not like the proposed renovation we might you know think that it

[0:48:24] Voice 10: changes the impact on our our property but if they didn't require variants for that then you

[0:48:30] Voice 10: know that would just be uh our opinion um my understanding was that the two are are linked

[0:48:36] Voice 10: in that they said there's only one viable location for an access and that's the rear east side and

[0:48:41] Voice 10: therefore we have to modify the roof toward that east side so that we can meet a new landing and

[0:48:48] Voice 10: stairs there. And so, you know, my intention is not to sort of defeat the larger change by

[0:48:56] Voice 10: the smaller one. It's my understanding was that they were linked. And so that if there was

[0:49:00] Voice 10: a viable alternative for the access, I had assumed that that would alter the design of

[0:49:09] Voice 10: the renovation because you would need to meet that stairway at a different point. And if it

[0:49:14] Voice 10: it is one that would have less or no impact on our property then that would be wonderful

[0:49:18] Voice 10: well

[0:49:20] Voice 5: i think um based on the meeting that we had with the greens yesterday um the the way the

[0:49:28] Voice 5: structure is built above the double garage and the direction of the trusses and the stick framing of

[0:49:34] Voice 5: that roof assembly the only way they can the only way they can make a larger

[0:49:46] Voice 5: space up there which would be allowed would be to raise that part of the roof

[0:49:50] Voice 5: so regardless of where the access comes from that's the only space that they can

[0:49:57] Voice 5: get more headroom and they were gonna like it's like a twin dormer going out

[0:50:02] Voice 5: where the door and the window are on the east elevation shown on the drawings um so if they

[0:50:09] Voice 5: want to still proceed with that um just for clarification it is possible for them to proceed

[0:50:18] Voice 5: with that exact same design if they were to reduce the um the stairs and landing from 1.5 meters to

[0:50:28] Voice 5: one meter is that right would there would there would be no variance required for that

[0:50:34] Planner Testemale: that's

[0:50:35] Voice 5: correct

[0:50:36] Planner Testemale: you you can yeah you're allowed to um it

[0:50:41] Voice 5: was one meter

[0:50:42] Planner Testemale: one meter into the setback with

[0:50:44] Planner Testemale: stairs landings etc yeah

[0:50:48] Voice 5: okay so a fallback position for the greens might be to

[0:50:54] Voice 5: consider how to redesign that stair and landing so that it falls within that one meter

[0:50:59] Voice 5: from the face of the building if the variance wasn't allowed and then they could proceed with

[0:51:09] Voice 5: this design and

[0:51:12] Voice 10: sort of like i said if if they're if they had a a way to to sort of minimally adapt

[0:51:22] Voice 10: their plan so that they didn't require variance then we wouldn't be here with the opportunity to

[0:51:27] Voice 10: to say that, you know, how it would affect us. We might still, you know, prefer that it not be

[0:51:34] Voice 10: modified in that way and feel the impact of it if it were modified, but, you know, that they would

[0:51:40] Voice 10: have that right if they're not requiring a variance. The only other point that I did make

[0:51:47] Voice 10: in my written submission is that in my view, the fact that this alteration would now require a

[0:51:56] Voice 10: variance is only the result of the fact that the building was designed in such a way so that it

[0:52:02] Voice 10: left one viable location for exterior stairs and then sited in a way that placed that location

[0:52:09] Voice 10: in the setback. If the building had been sited half a meter or 1.5 meters to the west,

[0:52:16] Voice 10: this wouldn't be an issue. Or if it had been designed in a way that created other internal

[0:52:20] Voice 10: or external uh locations for stairs this this wouldn't be an issue and and my feeling is that

[0:52:28] Voice 10: when the only constraint that one is bumping up against is their previous choices in design and

[0:52:36] Voice 10: siting um that to me doesn't make out the kind of necessity and hardship that variances are

[0:52:41] Voice 10: usually granted for where people are working around terrain or or small lots and and like

[0:52:47] Voice 10: Yeah,

[0:52:48] Voice 5: I understand and appreciate that argument. But that's not taking into account the fact that the bylaws drove their decision on what this bill, where it was cited and the use of the attic space.

[0:53:04] Voice 5: And then the bylaws have since been changed, which allows this to happen. So that's the other part that sort of drives part of my feeling about whether this constitutes a hardship or not.

[0:53:24] Voice 5: Because when the bylaws changed and allowed them to do something different with this building that they couldn't do when they originally sited and designed the building, that's something that was beyond their control.

[0:53:35] Voice 5: They didn't know that the bylaw would change and they would be able to make these, you know, minor changes because we've already established it's minor, minor changes to the setback to allow for this small addition on to the floor space of their attic.

[0:53:49] Voice 5: so I'm

[0:53:51] Voice 9: just sort of

[0:53:52] Voice 5: throwing a counterpoint on that argument Andrew I

[0:53:56] Voice 4: don't have any more

[0:53:57] Voice 4: questions of Mr. Johnson

[0:53:59] Voice 7: yeah man I have so many questions I'm not sure how to how to deal with

[0:54:05] Voice 7: them all best I disagree with you Mr. Johnson that there is no case for hardship the the bar

[0:54:17] Voice 7: R for what could be construed a hardship can be incredible.

[0:54:22] Voice 7: In my experience, which is limited, can be incredibly low.

[0:54:25] Voice 7: So I would argue that there is hardship here.

[0:54:31] Voice 7: I don't know that the Greens not having a space above their garage is something that I would be able to, you know, it's not my decision.

[0:54:48] Voice 7: has nothing to do with me

[0:54:49] Voice 8: zoning

[0:54:50] Voice 7: bylaws enable them to have an occupiable space above their

[0:54:55] Voice 7: garage level they do have to meet a very stringent a number of very stringent portions of the

[0:55:02] Voice 7: building code to have that above a garage and to safely exit from it the current condition the

[0:55:08] Voice 7: current access to their attic could not be the permanent access to an occupiable space

[0:55:16] Voice 7: so they do have to if they want to use that space they do have to have another way up uh it does

[0:55:24] Voice 7: seem that they could narrow up their stairs and be compliant with the stairs on the back side of

[0:55:30] Voice 7: the building it does seem that if they want a wide stair they might be able to put that stair

[0:55:34] Voice 7: somewhere else often when we look at these we look at who it impacts and how they feel about it

[0:55:41] Voice 7: And to me, it puts, it doesn't feel right to not have heard from you for this long. And to, I don't know how I feel about considering a variance that impacts only you when you and it seems your family, I haven't seen the email from your mother, but it seems that you and your family are very strongly opposed to this and are really the only people affected by it.

[0:56:14] Voice 7: buy this um i wonder if the greens want to make quick comment or we should turn it over to them

[0:56:24] Voice 7: because it seems like they might have a few things to say yeah

[0:56:28] Voice 6: we certainly have um we certainly have

[0:56:31] Voice 6: explored every other possibility on the north and the south side of the buildings well i'll back up

[0:56:37] Voice 6: to put a set of stairs on in front of the like on the west side you know it would block our garage

[0:56:45] Voice 6: make it somewhat useless on the north and the south side there is a structural beam that's

[0:56:54] Voice 6: about six feet off the floor you couldn't get pedestrian you know you couldn't get a man door

[0:57:00] Voice 6: in there it's too it's too low um we had a 50 plus year uh building contractor who built our

[0:57:09] Voice 6: house and built our garage look at this and and he concluded in his experience that this was the only

[0:57:18] Voice 6: way that we could make an access that was uh viable so yeah i mean we've looked at elevators

[0:57:26] Voice 6: we looked at uh all sorts of ways of of trying to accomplish what we want and uh we come down to

[0:57:35] Voice 6: our what we have on our application and we did check with that and you know i did i did speak

[0:57:44] Voice 6: with the at of mr uh johnson's mother some time ago and she before

[0:57:51] Voice 6: we started the whole process

[0:57:52] Voice 3: we

[0:57:53] Voice 6: asked as i did with every other neighbor and she didn't seem to have a problem with it she did

[0:57:58] Voice 6: say that she was going to talk to her children about it but she didn't seem to have any problem

[0:58:03] Voice 6: with it we stood on her back porch and looked over we couldn't even see the

[0:58:08] Voice 6: garage at that maybe something's different you've done some clearing or

[0:58:12] Voice 6: something I don't know but at that time she didn't say that she had a problem

[0:58:16] Voice 6: with it we probably would not we would have no I don't

[0:58:23] Voice 3: think we would have done

[0:58:24] Voice 3: things differently we we could still have the addition that would impact them

[0:58:30] Voice 3: with the so the stairs might not be there but the addition am i wrong the addition

[0:58:38] Voice 3: can still come

[0:58:40] Voice 3: out the back of that addition

[0:58:41] Voice 6: doesn't encroach in the setback

[0:58:43] Voice 6: uh it's it's

[0:58:45] Voice 7: just yeah you can

[0:58:46] Voice 6: you

[0:58:47] Voice 7: can add all you want we i don't think anyone here is

[0:58:51] Voice 7: suggesting that you can't maximize your building envelope yeah but you know there is one neighbor

[0:58:58] Voice 7: who's saying mine is the property that would be encroached upon and i would prefer you not to

[0:59:03] Voice 7: encroach in this manner

[0:59:04] Voice 6: boy oh boy well i mean we live in a democracy everybody's got their opinion

[0:59:10] Voice 6: and uh but it is a minor you know the the variance is for the stairs it's not for what we're doing

[0:59:19] Voice 6: uh above the the existing uh gutter line right well

[0:59:26] Voice 7: you can have

[0:59:27] Voice 6: your your gutters can prove

[0:59:29] Voice 6: can stick out into i understand that but what we're yeah what we're asking for a variance is

[0:59:36] Voice 6: for the stairs and the stoop to come out into the setback area we're not asking for any kind

[0:59:44] Voice 6: of work that's done on the second story that's not part of the variance that's right yes so

[0:59:52] Voice 6: that's what we're talking about here the subjects kind of got around to what we're doing globally

[0:59:58] Voice 6: Probably not.

[1:00:00] Voice 6: you know um yeah

[1:00:02] Voice 7: we're just looking at the stairs the your building face is exactly at the setback

[1:00:09] Voice 7: is my understanding right face of building is 10 feet away you're allowed how far are you allowed

[1:00:16] Voice 7: to project stairs into the uh setback one one meter one meter can i just

[1:00:24] Planner Testemale: add to that the the

[1:00:25] Planner Testemale: the building is under height by current bylaws as well

[1:00:28] Planner Testemale: right now so it's i think i

[1:00:30] Planner Testemale: believe it's 6.7

[1:00:31] Planner Testemale: meters high it could be 7.6 meters high just just for information yeah

[1:00:37] Voice 7: and the stairs to provide an

[1:00:40] Voice 7: exit the stairs are required to be a minimum of 900 millimeters wide so

[1:00:48] Voice 5: that would fit within the

[1:00:49] Voice 5: one meter allowable that yeah

[1:00:52] Voice 7: that would fit that's um

[1:00:54] Voice 7: sorry i'm looking at uh the 2018 edition

[1:00:58] Voice 7: of the code because the way that the 2024 edition of the code is digitized it's harder to quickly

[1:01:05] Voice 7: reference but that's bcbc 2018 9.8.2.1 talks about your required stair width so

[1:01:18] Voice 5: um okay so

[1:01:23] Voice 4: So where are we here?

[1:01:25] Voice 5: Well, my understanding of where we are is that Mr. Johnson and his family would prefer not to see the second story

[1:01:34] Voice 5: because there is going to be light pollution with the window and new door overlooking the fence that is adjacent to their property.

[1:01:46] Voice 5: So the other thing that comes to mind is that whether we approve the minor variance of really 0.5 of a meter or not, a staircase could be built there within the one meter.

[1:02:01] Voice 5: Andrew says that the minimum is 0.914, which is three feet.

[1:02:05] Voice 5: so we would be looking at or the greens would be looking at potentially changing their design

[1:02:10] Voice 5: to make it one meter which is uh 30 whatever 38 inches 39 inches wide instead of the 52 inches

[1:02:20] Voice 5: or sorry 60 inches um so if we take away the fact that um mr johnson's family as opposed to the

[1:02:33] Voice 5: uh addition and the addition if the addition was contingent on getting the the stairs being um

[1:02:41] Voice 5: being approved then i might have a different opinion but because the stairs could be built

[1:02:48] Voice 5: there anyway it still seems to me to be minor in nature and still provides for that hardship

[1:02:57] Voice 4: yeah i i think that i think that dave and audrey's uh comments about uh the structure

[1:03:03] Voice 4: structure and the design are appropriate to speak to the hardship and I you know I with respect to

[1:03:11] Voice 4: Mr. Johnson's comment about the sighting the original sighting of the building it's pretty

[1:03:18] Voice 4: pretty common in that Higgs subdivision area that with those long narrow lots that people are going

[1:03:22] Voice 4: to build to the prescribed setback at the time and and you know that's I don't I don't think

[1:03:30] Voice 4: you can really hold that against them or point of fact I don't think it really

[1:03:37] Voice 4: bears on this on this application for a variance

[1:03:40] Voice 7: yeah I'm going to take a

[1:03:44] Voice 7: different totally different tack I think from the other two board members because

[1:03:51] Voice 7: well not to disagree with you John but I don't think that we can take David's

[1:03:58] Voice 7: comments that it would be expensive to move a beam or expensive to perform some sort of structural

[1:04:06] Voice 7: gymnastics i'm not sure i

[1:04:09] Voice 7: didn't mention cost in my comment

[1:04:11] Voice 7: no you you didn't but you just said you

[1:04:14] Voice 7: did you

[1:04:15] Voice 9: simply just said there was a beam there

[1:04:16] Voice 7: okay my apologies my apologies it seems to me

[1:04:21] Voice 7: that the beam location could be changed by throwing money out so i feel that that might

[1:04:28] Voice 7: mean that we can't really take that into account because that's a cost-based argument i do feel

[1:04:37] Voice 6: though

[1:04:37] Voice 7: that wasn't

[1:04:38] Voice 6: a cost base it was my building contractor who i rely on for opinion said you

[1:04:44] Voice 6: could not do it

[1:04:45] Voice 9: so

[1:04:46] Voice 3: why don't you change i get okay you know what we were kind of new at this

[1:04:52] Voice 3: we did mention cost in our thing but you know what if we did a garage like did the beam thing

[1:05:03] Voice 3: we we we're going to raise the roof we're going to put the building we're going to put the studio

[1:05:08] Voice 3: up there no matter what it was still it will still no without the variance and we get a building

[1:05:15] Voice 3: permit and the building permit passes the structure up there will it will be there

[1:05:22] Voice 3: regardless

[1:05:23] Voice 7: i agree i agree and that's why i have a different idea and i would have to talk to phil

[1:05:29] Voice 7: about how he feels about this but it's one thing that bert and i have done before when brad was

[1:05:35] Voice 7: around and i might suggest that typically in the past we've had two options we can move to approve

[1:05:44] Voice 7: or we can move to disapprove and bert i don't know how you feel but i would almost move to

[1:05:50] Voice 7: delay this hearing and to wait a while and to give the greens a chance to explore to see if they can

[1:05:57] Voice 7: come up with a either a stair that fits into a three foot wide space where they're allowed to

[1:06:05] Voice 7: project into their openings and or to modify their design to one that would be supported by the

[1:06:12] Voice 7: neighboring family because there might be a way that you could put less windows in agree to put

[1:06:18] Voice 7: cutoffs on your lights to do some things that the neighboring family might be willing to support.

[1:06:25] Voice 7: Because my own feeling is that with support of the neighbors this is a much stronger application

[1:06:31] Voice 7: and that if we could delay making a decision now until you've had time to see if you can

[1:06:36] Voice 7: work with that three feet or if there might be ways that this would be more amenable to

[1:06:41] Voice 7: the neighbors. I have to get the Greens to answer to that because they're the only ones

[1:06:45] Voice 7: to

[1:06:45] Voice 6: control we have to take that

[1:06:47] Voice 6: now you know in effect our neighbors are going to design our

[1:06:51] Voice 6: our what we're proposing i mean that's back asswards in my opinion um we should we should

[1:06:59] Voice 6: get an uh an approval or disapproval from you guys from what we put in so

[1:07:05] Voice 3: we can move

[1:07:05] Voice 6: on it's been

[1:07:06] Voice 3: months no okay

[1:07:08] Voice 4: i'm gonna stand with what the greens are saying and say that you know this is

[1:07:14] Voice 4: is a lame it's probably an unnecessarily lengthy procedure the bulk of what we've heard in terms

[1:07:20] Voice 4: of objections are related unrelated to the the variance application but more specifically

[1:07:27] Voice 4: related to what the ultimate or to another another part of the redevelopment is which is not subject

[1:07:35] Voice 4: to the variance i think i think that the greens deserve a you know a response and and be able to

[1:07:42] Voice 4: to get on with their lives.

[1:07:45] Voice 7: Mr. Johnson.

[1:07:47] Voice 10: Can I say, I mean, obviously I agree with what you said

[1:07:53] Voice 10: and what I would say about it is the whole process

[1:07:59] Voice 10: and also from the perspective of the neighbor,

[1:08:02] Voice 10: it is about understanding alternatives.

[1:08:05] Voice 10: And a big part of my concern is that

[1:08:09] Voice 10: on the application materials we saw,

[1:08:11] Voice 10: we don't have um the the evidence that mr green referred to of the you know uh a building or sort

[1:08:19] Voice 10: of a contractor saying i've reviewed it and these things are impossible not costly impossible and

[1:08:26] Voice 10: that's important information for us to have too as neighbors because if your neighbor comes to

[1:08:31] Voice 10: you and says there truly is no other option physically structurally the only way i can do

[1:08:36] Voice 10: this is this way it changes the way you might think about it even if it still has a negative

[1:08:42] Voice 10: impact on you um so that would make a big difference to us and it is only because um

[1:08:49] Voice 10: in my view those alternatives aren't ruled out on the application itself that the two become

[1:08:57] Voice 10: intrinsically linked and and that's why i you know with respect to mr spaulding's point my

[1:09:03] Voice 10: my intention is not to focus on an unrelated thing.

[1:09:07] Voice 10: It's that the application itself ties the two together

[1:09:09] Voice 10: and says, this is the only place for access.

[1:09:12] Voice 10: Therefore, this is the expansion

[1:09:14] Voice 10: we're planning to meet that access.

[1:09:23] Voice 6: I

[1:09:27] Voice 5: think that sort of, I'm on John's,

[1:09:35] Voice 5: I'm seeing it from John's perspective as well,

[1:09:36] Voice 5: which is what I tried to portray earlier in the meeting,

[1:09:40] Voice 5: that i think um that considering the fact that the addition is going to happen no matter what

[1:09:48] Voice 5: then it's just a matter of the best option on how to get the access to it and whether it can be in

[1:09:56] Voice 5: a narrower format and not require the approval or in the format that's shown here really becomes a

[1:10:02] Voice 5: bit of a moot point in my mind because it's going to happen and there's going to be a stairwell

[1:10:06] Voice 5: while there that doesn't satisfy the neighbor per se so um you know i'm prepared to see this

[1:10:12] Voice 5: um as a hardship see this being approved to move it forward and just counsel that the um applicant

[1:10:21] Voice 5: speak to the neighbor and try to look at um some maybe there's some minor alternatives on

[1:10:27] Voice 5: the placement of the window or because i look at the um if i look at the south elevation or

[1:10:31] Voice 5: the north elevation you know there's a wall there that could um potentially have a window in it

[1:10:36] Voice 5: maybe um maybe a slightly smaller window on that um east elevation i don't know that maybe there's

[1:10:42] Voice 5: some things that can be worked with um just to make the be more neighborly that's sort of the

[1:10:48] Voice 5: way that i'm considering this right now um you know andrew does bring in some you know some valid

[1:10:55] Voice 5: concerns and it is good i think we're a small community it does behoove us to try to be

[1:11:00] Voice 5: neighborly um you know i think that you know there's um maybe some room to play with that

[1:11:07] Voice 7: yeah i i have a bit of a different take in my experience in development on pender is that

[1:11:18] Voice 7: you know i've i'm an architect and i've been an architect on pender for some time my wife is a

[1:11:23] Voice 7: realtor and she's been a realtor on pender for some time and has lived on pender for a very very

[1:11:28] Voice 7: very long time my experience with almost all development in pender is that it happens

[1:11:34] Voice 7: in concert with a neighbor my neighbor's fence is on my property i know very well that it is

[1:11:41] Voice 7: and they asked if they could fence that part of my property because it's useful to them and i'm

[1:11:46] Voice 7: absolutely fine with that but when i look at the zoning bylaws the zoning bylaws exist because

[1:11:55] Voice 7: because Mr. Jackson, or Johnson, my apologies,

[1:11:58] Voice 7: I'm sitting away from the screen, it's blurry.

[1:11:59] Voice 7: Mr. Johnson and his family have every reasonable right

[1:12:03] Voice 7: to believe that the setback to the Green's house

[1:12:08] Voice 7: would not be violated, except for a very, very good reason.

[1:12:14] Voice 7: I don't think that I'm comfortable in approving a bylaw

[1:12:20] Voice 7: where it seems that there might be another way

[1:12:23] Voice 7: to build the staircase and that you know there might be a way to preserve the setback that has

[1:12:31] Voice 7: become important to Mr. Johnson and his family they are the only people affected by this and

[1:12:38] Voice 7: they seem to be quite they're opposed enough at least to write a well-researched 10-page letter

[1:12:44] Voice 7: about it so I would suggest that as of right now that I would have to vote to deny the

[1:12:52] Voice 7: the variance but rather than do that I would encourage the option to not vote on this and

[1:13:01] Voice 7: let the Greens have another option at designing their stairs and building in a way that would

[1:13:08] Voice 7: be amenable to Mr. Johnson and his family.

[1:13:15] Voice 4: Can I just ask a question for Phil? So Phil

[1:13:20] Voice 4: Well, you mentioned earlier that we can't put conditions on this.

[1:13:25] Voice 4: The last Board of Variants decision on the island resulted in development that was not quite a bit more development to the property and in a nature and form that was not contemplated in the application.

[1:13:43] Voice 4: and i'm wondering if um you know i so the johnsons are concerned about

[1:13:52] Voice 4: uh changes on adjacent property and i'm just wondering to what extent um

[1:13:59] Voice 4: their interests are protected and if if we if we approve this uh and um the greens build us

[1:14:08] Voice 4: stairwell uh but instead of building you know a you know modest one and a half meter stairwell

[1:14:16] Voice 4: projection they they built something that's quite different um what what protections exist for

[1:14:24] Voice 4: the johnsons in this case so

[1:14:28] Planner Testemale: the i mean the way that the letter is i mean it's in this case it's

[1:14:33] Planner Testemale: a letter it's not a permit but so the if if it was granted um it did has attachments to it so

[1:14:40] Planner Testemale: essentially what is built has to be substantively the same as what is shown in the drawing so

[1:14:47] Planner Testemale: there's two two schedules attached to that so that would be the protection i'm not sure what

[1:14:53] Planner Testemale: you're contemplating when you say that

[1:14:56] Voice 4: this is a question of yeah for

[1:14:59] Voice 4: information yeah yeah you

[1:15:01] Voice 4: You know, based on, you know, the island's experience with a recent, most recent DOV decision and what enforcement is available if, you know, to ensure that, you know, the decision or the, you know, the approval was consistent with the build.

[1:15:22] Voice 4: So,

[1:15:23] Planner Testemale: just to that point, so what happens now is that the next step, in the circumstance that this was approved, the next step would be for the Greens to submit a preliminary plan review to the Islands Trust, which is required for a CRD building permit, and we would review the plans and ensure that they're consistent with our bylaws, or in this case, the variance, the Board of Variance order that was granted.

[1:15:49] Planner Testemale: So that's the check. And the CRD building inspection department will not accept a building permit without, it's not an approval that we provide, it's just a verification that the plans meet it. So that would be the check.

[1:16:06] Planner Testemale: and

[1:16:11] Voice 5: i think um just um just thinking aloud here that you know when i read through the

[1:16:17] Voice 5: most recent um sales pender board of variance decision it the the um the order or the i guess

[1:16:25] Voice 5: the um board of variance decision was to reduce the setback and that's the only thing that's

[1:16:31] Voice 5: stated in the um yeah

[1:16:33] Voice 4: precisely order

[1:16:34] Voice 5: uh it's it's in the applicant's um commentary that it

[1:16:38] Voice 5: speaks to the vegetation screening and there's nothing there's no authority to enforce that

[1:16:43] Voice 5: the only thing that can happen is the building inspector will make sure that it complies with

[1:16:47] Voice 5: the setback that was allowed yeah

[1:16:50] Voice 4: i mean so i mean it's kind of a blunt instrument approach

[1:16:56] Voice 4: or uh okay fair enough just just i just wanted to sort of some clarity there in terms of

[1:17:02] Voice 4: some of the concerns that have been raised well

[1:17:07] Voice 5: at the end of the day my understanding is that

[1:17:09] Voice 5: we're going to grant a relaxation of our week we could grant a relaxation on the

[1:17:16] Voice 5: current setback based on the bylaw and that's the only thing that we would be

[1:17:21] Voice 5: doing and then the greens would be able to you know propose to build within that

[1:17:25] Voice 5: but they still have to go through the whole building permit process and make

[1:17:31] Voice 5: sure that you know all of the other parts of the building meet the

[1:17:36] Voice 5: requirements floor area and stuff absolutely

[1:17:41] Voice 7: but we could as phil's saying we could approve it as

[1:17:44] Voice 7: per the plans that they have submitted yeah i

[1:17:47] Voice 7: don't know if we have to be as blunt as to say

[1:17:50] Voice 7: now the setback has decreased to 1.5 meters i think it's now it's decreased to enable this

[1:17:58] Voice 7: particular configuration is it not phil so

[1:18:01] Planner Testemale: so just to just to comment so there's the notice

[1:18:05] Planner Testemale: is the letter has gone out as as it's um drafted and if the if you were to change that um particularly

[1:18:15] Planner Testemale: to remove the schedules if that's what's being suggested here i'm not sure i'm trying to follow

[1:18:20] Planner Testemale: the thread here we that would require re-notification so yeah because you're essentially

[1:18:26] Planner Testemale: Essentially, yeah, you're giving them, you're reducing, I'm sorry, making it more lenient, which if you were to make it stricter and say, no, we're only going to give you a variance to, let's say, you know, four feet versus five, then that wouldn't require a renotification because the expectation is still with the neighbors that it would be at five feet.

[1:18:52] Planner Testemale: Yeah.

[1:18:53] Voice 5: And we had that happen on a previous Board of Variants decision on North Pender where we did that. But the other one that Andrew was speaking about was to do with looking at alternatives. And we deferred the decision to allow the applicant to do a little bit more work.

[1:19:13] Voice 5: And I think that's the way Andrew is leaning right now, is to just say, let's defer this.

[1:19:18] Voice 5: There's no additional fees. There would be a minor timing issue.

[1:19:22] Voice 5: I mean, maybe a month or something, depending on how quickly the Greens might be able to look at alternatives.

[1:19:28] Voice 5: And then that would be something that that's what Andrew is pushing towards.

[1:19:34] Voice 5: And we've done this before. So there is a precedent for that.

[1:19:37] Voice 5: Yeah, that's definitely my preference.

[1:19:39] Voice 7: from

[1:19:40] Voice 5: five feet to four feet or or i i don't know you

[1:19:44] Planner Testemale: can't defer your decision you don't yeah um

[1:19:47] Planner Testemale: in my my understanding is you can again though yeah as long as and you can reconvene

[1:19:55] Planner Testemale: on the same application um but again it can't be a situation where there's you're basically

[1:20:05] Planner Testemale: basically they're coming back with a proposal that is like less less rigorous with a

[1:20:11] Planner Testemale: yeah that's

[1:20:13] Voice 7: what we've done last time so maybe there was a re-notification but

[1:20:19] Voice 7: Phil I'm sure you're able to look at the North Pender North Pender and South Pender boards are

[1:20:23] Voice 7: fairly similar and what we did there was we met with the clients and they said we're applying for

[1:20:29] Voice 7: a variance to do this but what we really want to do is that and we sort of suggested well you know

[1:20:35] Voice 7: you might be able to do that let's defer our decision and you can go and see if you can do that

[1:20:40] Voice 7: that and that in deferring that decision they came up with a proposal that worked much better for them

[1:20:46] Voice 7: and could be supported much better by the neighbors everyone was more happy it delayed

[1:20:52] Voice 7: the process by about a month and everything was approved we moved forward and it was great

[1:20:57] Voice 7: that's something that i much prefer to see here because this mr jackson's right to assume that

[1:21:06] Voice 7: there's a setback there seems very important to mr johnson i'm so sorry i keep calling mr jackson

[1:21:12] Voice 7: i'm going to sit closer to my monitor mr johnson's right to to have that setback is important to him

[1:21:18] Voice 7: but maybe it's important for reasons that the greens can satisfy in their revised proposal

[1:21:27] Voice 7: uh

[1:21:30] Voice 4: i i'm just gonna i'll be blunt um all what i've heard from mr johnson and i'll paraphrase

[1:21:36] Voice 4: phrase you from your earlier comments is is that they're concerned about the uh the nature of the

[1:21:43] Voice 4: potential or proposed renovation to the second story and that the moving or eliminating the

[1:21:54] Voice 4: stairs are in a sense largely irrelevant to that so I think that and I haven't heard

[1:22:04] Voice 4: the Greens say we didn't really want to have a one and a half meter stairway we wanted to have

[1:22:10] Voice 4: something else um you know i think that they've they've come forward with a very specific ask and

[1:22:16] Voice 4: i think we need to address that mr johnson if

[1:22:23] Voice 10: i can just just clarify i'll say if the building

[1:22:27] Voice 10: already existed as is proposed with that that expansion there and it was accessed in some other

[1:22:33] Voice 10: way interior or whatever and the proposal today was we need a variance to add a rear stairway

[1:22:40] Voice 10: as well uh i i think we would still be here raising the concern saying that has an impact

[1:22:47] Voice 10: on us it projects into the setback it increases foot traffic it's visible there will be lights

[1:22:52] Voice 10: presumably to make it safe illuminating at night that sort of thing so it is not

[1:22:57] Voice 10: this the stairway and and projecting into the setback and waiving the ordinary bylaw for that

[1:23:02] Voice 10: that is not irrelevant to us.

[1:23:11] Voice 7: No, for example, sometimes we see a stairway built

[1:23:14] Voice 7: with a handrail that acts like a screen beside it

[1:23:17] Voice 7: so that someone on Mr. Johnson's property

[1:23:20] Voice 7: wouldn't see people going up and down the stairs.

[1:23:23] Voice 7: Maybe that would become important to them.

[1:23:25] Voice 7: The addition of a screen,

[1:23:27] Voice 7: maybe there was a way to reconfigure the windows

[1:23:29] Voice 7: that would be more amenable to Mr. Johnson.

[1:23:31] Voice 7: Maybe there would be a note in the building permit

[1:23:34] Voice 7: that any light fixtures put there

[1:23:36] Voice 7: were supplied with cutoffs and dark sky compliant all of these things could be included in the plans

[1:23:42] Voice 7: that go forward but i feel like in the at the moment mr johnson and his family don't love this

[1:23:51] Voice 7: plan and would like the setback to be maintained okay

[1:24:05] Voice 4: so i think we're ready for calling up calling

[1:24:09] Voice 4: calling for a decision here so

[1:24:12] Voice 7: i would move to defer our decision i'm not sure

[1:24:21] Voice 7: that's your prerogative yeah

[1:24:23] Voice 4: not supporting that uh

[1:24:26] Voice 7: bert i

[1:24:34] Voice 5: think i'm prepared to make a decision

[1:24:35] Voice 5: okay

[1:24:38] Planner Testemale: just so you just put in terms of process it's seconding doesn't isn't it mean you're in

[1:24:45] Planner Testemale: in favor of it so you'd have to vote on it so exactly

[1:24:48] Voice 7: yeah but without someone even seconding

[1:24:51] Voice 7: it i think it speaks to the other board members wishes i

[1:24:57] Voice 9: mean

[1:25:00] Voice 5: i think we've got enough on the

[1:25:01] Voice 5: record here to um provide some direction depending on the way this lands i

[1:26:07] Planner Testemale: don't

[1:26:08] Planner Testemale: bert did you finish your comments because i think we lost you for a minute oh

[1:26:14] Voice 5: no i'm i'm finished

[1:26:15] Voice 5: um i'm just reading through um your procedure email here now i

[1:26:25] Planner Testemale: do apologize but we did receive

[1:26:27] Planner Testemale: another letter and and sorry these are coming in as we're trying to have this meeting and it is

[1:26:32] Planner Testemale: from daphne lewis and i can is that is that your mother andrew that's correct yeah i'm glad you

[1:26:40] Voice 10: have that name

[1:26:40] Planner Testemale: sorry yeah and i've just forwarded it to the trustees i i'm not sure if there's

[1:26:45] Planner Testemale: anything substantively different in there or not i i really don't have the it's quite a long letter

[1:26:50] Planner Testemale: as well so i haven't had the opportunity

[1:26:51] Planner Testemale: to look at it i

[1:26:52] Voice 7: think the impact for the last 17 years

[1:26:55] Voice 7: the existing building has most definitely impacted us and has for 17 years so that's her opinion

[1:27:01] Voice 7: there it's very large and visually intrusive frequently during the winter months bright

[1:27:06] Voice 7: lights illuminate the entire south side and are left on all night destroying the dark nights

[1:27:10] Voice 7: which are highly valued in a rural residential area we can't legislate the greens not leave

[1:27:17] Voice 7: lights on or uh change the existing building but it is um is lewis suggesting that this

[1:27:27] Voice 7: building does in fact impact her and that she does not want to increase that impact by

[1:27:34] Voice 7: you know being opposed to encroachment into the setback impact if the variance is granted

[1:27:43] Voice 7: as a long section at the end of miss lewis's letter okay

[1:28:30] Voice 5: i think um i for reasons that have

[1:28:37] Voice 5: already been stated um believe that i'm ready to make a decision on this and i will make a motion

[1:28:42] Voice 5: to approve but having considered the matter set out in section 542 bracket 1 bracket c of the

[1:28:49] Voice 5: the local government act and having found that undue hardship would be caused to the applicant

[1:28:55] Voice 5: if section 5311 of the local government act is complied with the south pender island board of

[1:29:01] Voice 5: variance approve application spbov 2024.1 green as presented and shown on schedules a and b of the

[1:29:10] Voice 5: spbov 2024.1 notice of hearing so moved and

[1:29:16] Voice 4: i'll second that i'm

[1:29:19] Voice 7: going to register that i

[1:29:20] Voice 7: I do not approve this variance.

[1:29:23] Voice 7: I do believe that there's a way that the Greens can have access to the stairs in a manner that's supportive of their neighbours.

[1:29:32] Voice 7: I see that we've now received two letters in opposition to this,

[1:29:36] Voice 7: and two letters which, while they state support, they base that support in that there will be no effect on the neighbouring properties.

[1:29:44] Voice 7: The neighbours definitely seem to feel that they would be supported.

[1:29:48] Voice 7: So I feel that we have two letters against and two letters stating no effect from people across the street.

[1:29:55] Voice 7: I feel that the only people that are affected by us.

[1:30:00] Voice 7: a relaxation here have made every effort to oppose this.

[1:30:05] Voice 7: I feel that the Greens do have an option.

[1:30:08] Voice 7: They can build a smaller stair

[1:30:09] Voice 7: tight against the face of the building

[1:30:12] Voice 7: or might have the option to redesign in a manner

[1:30:17] Voice 7: that might be more acceptable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Lewis.

[1:30:21] Voice 7: So I have to say that I'm opposed to granting the variance

[1:30:27] Voice 7: for the plans that have been submitted,

[1:30:31] Voice 7: which is just to say that I am opposed

[1:30:33] Voice 7: to granting this specific variance,

[1:30:36] Voice 7: but I'm not necessarily opposed to there being a variance.

[1:30:40] Voice 7: I just like that to be amenable

[1:30:41] Voice 7: to the neighbors to whom it affects.

[1:30:44] Voice 5: And I appreciate that, Andrew.

[1:30:46] Voice 5: And I think through our discourse during this meeting,

[1:30:49] Voice 5: we've shared some opportunity for the neighbors

[1:30:53] Voice 5: to work together on trying to make this

[1:30:55] Voice 5: as compatible and acceptable as possible.

[1:30:59] Voice 5: And I hope that they will take that with them

[1:31:02] Voice 5: and maybe have some discussions

[1:31:04] Voice 5: about what can be done to mitigate the impact.

[1:31:08] Voice 5: But that said, regardless of, like we said,

[1:31:12] Voice 5: I mean, we've got some pre-existing conditions

[1:31:15] Voice 5: of the siting of the building and the old bylaws,

[1:31:18] Voice 5: which has changed and allows this addition to happen.

[1:31:22] Voice 5: And I think whether it's a one-meter staircase or a 1.5-meter staircase really is somewhat of a moot point in my decision on this, and that's why I was moved to support it.

[1:31:41] Voice 5: And as I say, I just hope that there can be some discourse about how that can be accomplished in a more neighbourly way.

[1:31:48] Voice 5: Yeah,

[1:31:51] Voice 4: I would basically endorse what Burt said, but I think particularly a little bit of conversation with the neighbors and maybe working out some of the points, many of the points raised in both the letters refer to things that are unrelated to the variants.

[1:32:12] Voice 4: and you know maybe maybe just uh communication sharing some information on on those those

[1:32:19] Voice 4: aspects will help on the sort of the good neighbor front um yeah

[1:32:24] Voice 7: i take it you know and as i've said

[1:32:26] Voice 7: i take a different tack uh planning has evolved to protect the value of the neighbor's properties

[1:32:35] Voice 7: and to give the neighbors a stake in how the properties adjacent theirs are developed

[1:32:41] Voice 7: and I believe that the Mr. Johnson and Ms. Lewis have suggested that their property would be

[1:32:50] Voice 7: negatively impacted by this development as it goes. These stairs, the 1.5 meter stairs that

[1:32:59] Voice 7: encroach in the setback are not the only options that the Greens have. They appear to be the best

[1:33:06] Voice 7: options that the Greens have, but they're not the only option that the Greens have. So because

[1:33:11] Voice 7: Because there are alternatives to these stairs, though not the preferred alternatives, but because there are alternatives, and because the proposal affects the neighbors, and the neighbors do not want their setback encroached upon, I have to vote against this.

[1:33:32] Voice 4: Follow-up question.

[1:33:35] Voice 7: Phil, do we need to reach quorum, or it's just a simple, straight-up vote?

[1:33:51] Planner Testemale: So it's up if your next step chair is to, if there's no further discussion, to call for the vote.

[1:34:02] Voice 7: Yeah, I believe that anyone can make a motion to vote. I don't think that I have to call for the motion to vote. Is that correct?

[1:34:10] Planner Testemale: We've

[1:34:11] Voice 4: already made the motion.

[1:34:12] Planner Testemale: the motion you just need to call the vote sorry yeah

[1:34:15] Voice 7: exactly

[1:34:16] Planner Testemale: yeah as

[1:34:18] Voice 7: the chair i need to call the

[1:34:19] Voice 7: motion the vote

[1:34:20] Planner Testemale: to call the vote yeah yes

[1:34:22] Voice 7: i need to call the but i need to do that as the chair

[1:34:24] Voice 7: bird can't do that correct

[1:34:26] Planner Testemale: that's correct yeah

[1:34:27] Voice 7: okay uh so i'll make a motion to call the vote

[1:34:32] Voice 5: in favor in favor all

[1:34:35] Voice 7: in favor all opposed oh bird i caught you

[1:34:44] Voice 7: so that's uh two in favor burt and john and one opposed andrew and i just want to be on again on

[1:34:52] Voice 7: the record of saying to the greens that i'm not opposed to you accessing your upstairs in a safe

[1:34:58] Voice 7: manner or to you having a stare on this side just i wish there was a way that mr johnson and ms lewis

[1:35:07] Voice 7: would be satisfied

[1:35:10] Voice 7: and feel they had a stake

[1:35:12] Voice 7: in preservation of that CEPAC.

[1:35:23] Voice 4: Very good.

[1:35:25] Voice 4: Do we have more

[1:35:27] Voice 4: on our agenda?

[1:35:29] Voice 4: I'm digging up the agenda. I've got

[1:35:31] Voice 4: a few

[1:35:32] Planner Testemale: other windows open on the computer here.

[1:35:33] Planner Testemale: The only item is to

[1:35:35] Planner Testemale: close the meeting.

[1:35:36] Voice 5: Adjourned only.

[1:35:38] Voice 5: Motion to adjourn.

[1:35:40] Voice 5: Second. Meeting is adjourned.

[1:35:47] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:35:48] Voice 5: Okay. Thank you.

[1:35:49] Voice 5: Thank you,

[1:35:50] Voice 9: everyone. Thanks for your time.

[1:35:51] Voice 5: Thank you.

[1:35:52] Voice 6: Bye-bye.

[1:35:53] Voice 6: Bye-bye.

[1:35:55] Voice 4: Bye, Bert.