Hornby Island Local Trust Committee special meeting, August 9, 2024

[0:00:27] Voice 2: Good afternoon, Chair Peterson. We are ready to go whenever you're ready to start.

[0:00:33] Voice 8: Excellent. Thank you very much for that. I'm just going to wait till the, there we go. It's one o'clock.

[0:00:41] Voice 8: So, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for this electronic special meeting of the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:49] Voice 8: I want to begin by acknowledging that we're fortunate to be able to gather today in locations across the territory of the Coast Salish people.

[0:00:59] Voice 8: We respectfully acknowledge that Hornby Island is in the unceded traditional territory of the Comox First Nation, the traditional keepers of this land.

[0:01:09] Voice 8: My name is Tim Peterson. I'm elected on Lusketi Island and I'm chair of the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:01:14] Voice 8: I am joined today by Hornby Island local trustees, Grant Scott and Alex Allen, and together we make up the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:01:27] Voice 8: This meeting is being live streamed, obviously, and recorded, and we have some staff joining us today.

[0:01:34] Voice 8: Planner Sonia Zupnick, Planner Ian Cox, and Lisa Millard is our meeting administrator.

[0:01:41] Voice 8: This meeting is an official forum for your local trust committee to make decisions about land use planning matters and to discuss relevant business.

[0:01:51] Voice 8: And I'll just add that this is a place of employment and despite the fact that some staff may be in their own homes, staff have a right to a safe and respectful workplace.

[0:02:00] Voice 8: place so we have an agenda before us and I'll just look to trustees and see if

[0:02:09] Voice 8: there are any amendments to the agenda you would like to make today not sorry

[0:02:20] Voice 8: okay not seeing any I will take it by general consent we'll adopt the agenda

[0:02:26] Voice 8: as presented and to start off starting on page two we have a lot frontage

[0:02:36] Voice 8: waiver request um and ian are you taking that that for us today yes yes

[0:02:46] Voice 8: so

[0:02:47] Voice 3: plan to tell me i

[0:02:48] Voice 3: just can't make it to uh to this meeting so i'll be delivering i'll be delivering this one

[0:02:53] Voice 3: answering any questions

[0:02:53] Voice 3: yeah so this is a um a request for a lot um frontage waiver it um comes

[0:03:02] Voice 3: about through a subdivision application for a two lot subdivision and the if you look on page I

[0:03:12] Voice 3: think the easiest way to describe this would probably be to look on page first of all page

[0:03:18] Voice 3: three of your agenda package that shows the subject property to be subdivided into two lots

[0:03:26] Voice 3: between Anderson and St. John's there. The Hornby land use bylaw, your land use

[0:03:33] Voice 3: bylaw, requires that any lot in the subdivision, any proposed lot, has at

[0:03:38] Voice 3: least 10% of its perimeter for access and so in this case that can't be met

[0:03:44] Voice 3: for these two lots and hence the applicant is requesting this waiver per

[0:03:51] Voice 3: per your land use by-law for both lots, in fact.

[0:03:56] Voice 3: So if you look now on page four, there is a map there with annotations that you can see

[0:04:04] Voice 3: showing the combined frontage for both proposed lots, which doesn't meet the 10%.

[0:04:13] Voice 3: There are two sort of, well, there's one main access point currently off Anderson Drive.

[0:04:19] Voice 3: um checkerspot road is an undeveloped right-of-way which has the potential to to to be access to

[0:04:27] Voice 3: these lots there's also two existing private easements from anderson road through other

[0:04:34] Voice 3: private property onto the um uh east southeast portion of the of the existing lot so i just

[0:04:43] Voice 3: want to clarify that the applicant did have some concern about the wording in the staff report

[0:04:48] Voice 3: As it relates to the development, like the actual physical construction of Checkerspot Road and whether that would actually be required. I just want to clarify that that's the wording in the staff report suggesting that that would be required if the subdivision was approved is based on our understanding from our letter of agreement with MOTI for road standards and so on.

[0:05:15] Voice 3: So just to clarify, that requirement to construct that road at the time of subdivision is not an Islands Trust requirement.

[0:05:23] Voice 3: That would be something coming from the Ministry of Transport if they do require that.

[0:05:28] Voice 3: So that's just to clarify that piece.

[0:05:30] Voice 3: What the LTC's task with doing is considering whether to waive the 10% frontage requirement.

[0:05:40] Voice 3: it's staff's understanding that in these sorts of this kind of configuration it's it's likely

[0:05:46] Voice 3: that something the ministry requires something for checkerspot road because it looks like that's what

[0:05:51] Voice 3: it was that's what it was dedicated for in the first place sort of thing but that's an unknown

[0:05:56] Voice 3: so that would be the approving officers jurisdiction so if you have any questions please ask away

[0:06:05] Voice 3: way uh

[0:06:07] Voice 8: trustee alan yeah

[0:06:10] Trustee Allen (probable): thank you um well reading it uh this property they've had a lot of requests

[0:06:16] Trustee Allen (probable): for variances a huge amount actually and then i've you know you've i see there's no um you say

[0:06:22] Trustee Allen (probable): you approve this variance staff but yet you haven't provided any reasons for recommending

[0:06:28] Trustee Allen (probable): this variance and i'm just curious why that wasn't in this report um

[0:06:35] Voice 3: so i can speak to what i what i

[0:06:37] Voice 3: understand of the of the of the analysis um the the the rationale is given just under that section

[0:06:45] Voice 3: at the on page five there um citing no anticipated negative uh impacts to access circulation or

[0:06:55] Voice 3: safety so that's that's the piece that's the the piece of rationale the um i would add that

[0:07:01] Voice 3: But it's a fairly standard request in some ways, in that we see this quite a lot, where the 10% can't be met for one or another reason, largely historic subdivision patterns.

[0:07:22] Voice 8: Thank you.

[0:07:23] Voice 8: Did I see your hand up too, Trustee Scott?

[0:07:26] Voice 6: Yes, I had the same concern as Alex.

[0:07:28] Voice 6: I just didn't see any rationale for why.

[0:07:31] Voice 6: and it's i i think of all the variances i've ever seen i've never seen one for the 10 percent like

[0:07:38] Voice 6: what is the perimeter of this whole lot i know it says it in here somewhere i've lost it

[0:07:44] Voice 3: so um just through the chair for clarity this isn't really a variance request as as a as a

[0:07:51] Voice 3: waiver so this this 10 is not a like it's a yeah it's a it's it's it's asking the ltc to to waive

[0:07:59] Voice 3: that particular requirement but it's not it's not technically varying a provision of your bylaw

[0:08:05] Voice 3: so but if you look on page four um you can see the combined frontage labels pardon me on that map

[0:08:15] Voice 3: in figure two it says 23.46 meters combined frontage for proposed lot two and then um the

[0:08:23] Voice 3: the existing private easements are 6.0 meters.

[0:08:27] Voice 3: Can you see that map?

[0:08:29] Voice 6: Sure. 6.0 on one and 11.51.

[0:08:36] Voice 6: So what is, you know, this 10% idea,

[0:08:39] Voice 6: what is the total perimeter of each lot?

[0:08:46] Voice 6: Because that's what we're

[0:08:47] Voice 6: being asked to,

[0:08:48] Voice 6: whether you want to call it a variance or whatever you want to call it.

[0:08:51] Voice 6: That's what we're being asked, as I understand it.

[0:08:54] Voice 6: It says it in here somewhere.

[0:08:56] Voice 3: So on page three, under the land use bylaw section, there's an analysis there of the sub, there's a, you're presented with the subdivision regulations, part six, and then the next paragraph there goes on to explain the relevant section of the local government act, minimum parcel front and down highway.

[0:09:19] Voice 3: And then underneath that, there are three bullet points.

[0:09:22] Voice 3: So proposed lot one, pardon me, is 4.4 and change hectares.

[0:09:27] Voice 3: The perimeter is 937 meters.

[0:09:30] Voice 3: And

[0:09:30] Voice 6: then it goes

[0:09:31] Voice 3: on to lay that out there if you found that section.

[0:09:35] Voice 6: Great.

[0:09:35] Voice 6: Yeah.

[0:09:36] Voice 6: And the proposed lot two is 943 meters.

[0:09:44] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:09:45] Voice 3: So then it gives

[0:09:47] Voice 3: the percentage, 10% of that is obviously move the decimal over.

[0:09:52] Voice 3: So it's 93.7 for the one.

[0:09:54] Voice 3: and 94.3

[0:09:56] Voice 3: for the other.

[0:09:57] Voice 6: I mean, the point is

[0:09:58] Voice 6: it's not even close.

[0:10:00] Voice 6: We're not looking at a minor variance here.

[0:10:06] Voice 6: And also, there's the issue

[0:10:08] Voice 6: of it being, you know, you're creating more

[0:10:10] Voice 6: usage in the

[0:10:14] Voice 6: water

[0:10:16] Voice 6: zone

[0:10:18] Voice 6: day one.

[0:10:20] Voice 6: I mean, there's other issues besides just

[0:10:22] Voice 6: road. I mean, we're looking at a subdivision, right?

[0:10:25] Voice 3: Yeah, so just to clarify that

[0:10:27] Voice 3: the lot currently has

[0:10:30] Voice 3: It technically has the Checkerspot Road as frontage in a technical way.

[0:10:36] Voice 3: It is not constructed, but it's legally there because the road is dedicated.

[0:10:40] Voice 3: And currently, the whole lot has that access, pardon me, from Anderson Drive, which is a panhandle in itself.

[0:10:47] Voice 3: So it already has less than 10% frontage.

[0:10:52] Voice 3: So that's just for information.

[0:10:54] Voice 3: That got created at some point.

[0:10:56] Voice 3: uh i don't know the whole pardon me i can't speak to the whole history of how this piece came to be

[0:11:02] Voice 3: but um uh but it it it currently does also not have uh uh 10 so trustee

[0:11:12] Voice 8: allen yeah um

[0:11:16] Trustee Allen (probable): and i also find this why are we doing this now when shouldn't this be um shouldn't it be an

[0:11:22] Trustee Allen (probable): application for development and then we discuss the roadway i'm not sure why this this process

[0:11:28] Trustee Allen (probable): is happening this way as well when i look at this map on page four they're you know right there

[0:11:33] Trustee Allen (probable): there's a little axis right there the anders so that's where they want to have oh the phone's

[0:11:38] Trustee Allen (probable): reading oh dear i won't ignore it i don't understand they want to have the road at the

[0:11:43] Trustee Allen (probable): corner there a check spot versus the other end of anderson drive and also why is it have why are we

[0:11:49] Trustee Allen (probable): discussing this road access when the development hasn't been approved so

[0:11:56] Voice 3: through the chair i can

[0:11:58] Voice 3: I can explain that subdivision is generally an administrative process based on the regulations in your land use bylaw, which then an applicant for subdivision has to meet.

[0:12:10] Voice 3: So generally, it's an administrative process in that an applicant will apply to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the provincial approving officer, to subdivide.

[0:12:23] Voice 3: and it needs to meet you know and we get a you staff gets a referral from the ministry of

[0:12:30] Voice 3: transport to make sure that the proposed layout meets the land use bylaw and the subdivision

[0:12:38] Voice 3: regulations if it does then um or or you know if there are other conditions based on the

[0:12:44] Voice 3: regulations in the land use bylaws such as provision for septic and water and so forth

[0:12:49] Voice 3: Then those are conditions that the staff referral response would lay out and say, you know, yes, it meets the land use bylaw in this in this way. Here are some conditions that we require, we request, if you're going to approve the subdivision. That's essentially what a referral, typical referral looks like.

[0:13:08] Voice 3: um if the if there's a development permit area for example of the local trust committee um then

[0:13:16] Voice 3: you know perhaps that would trigger um a requirement for a development permit you know

[0:13:22] Voice 3: as a condition for example so that would be another thing the applicant needed to meet

[0:13:27] Voice 3: um but that would all already have been laid out in your bylaw so so this this is essentially

[0:13:32] Voice 3: the section of the bylaw that we're referring to on so this is on page

[0:13:36] Voice 3: page, let me just go back up here. It's explained in the report that your land use, so this is page

[0:13:49] Voice 3: three again, part six subdivision regulations, that the frontage on the highway must be this

[0:13:55] Voice 3: unless exempted by the local trust committee. So it's coming to you because they cannot meet that

[0:14:01] Voice 3: 10% and they're requesting an exemption. But all of the other, presumably, I wasn't the staff

[0:14:09] Voice 3: member on this referral, but presumably the applicant has met the other requirements of

[0:14:15] Voice 3: your land use by-law and then they would be essentially in the hands of the Ministry of

[0:14:19] Voice 3: Transport afterwards. That's who's the approving authority. Does that make sense a little bit or

[0:14:25] Voice 3: does that clarify that yeah so

[0:14:27] Voice 3: this wasn't this isn't physical development in that way to respond

[0:14:31] Voice 3: to um trustee allen's question um so um this is a this is a a referral of a proposed layout

[0:14:39] Voice 3: which has the ministry of transport um but and must conform with your land use bylaw as it exists

[0:14:47] Voice 3: and there is this provision in your bylaw there as it states on page three in the subdivision

[0:14:53] Voice 3: regulations that you know it must have 10 or be exempted by the by the ltc so that that is the um

[0:15:02] Voice 3: the request so it's not a typical application if you will this is coming through a staff referral

[0:15:09] Voice 3: basically trustee

[0:15:12] Voice 6: scott i don't understand why we're dealing i thought this meeting today was

[0:15:19] Voice 6: was about the land use by-law and the-

[0:15:23] Voice 6: Trustee Scott,

[0:15:24] Voice 8: if I can just interrupt.

[0:15:26] Voice 6: Pardon me?

[0:15:27] Voice 8: If I could just interrupt for a moment.

[0:15:29] Voice 8: This is on the agenda, it's been on the agenda

[0:15:32] Voice 8: since we got the draft sent out to us.

[0:15:36] Voice 8: So, and we've approved the agenda.

[0:15:38] Voice 8: So let's just not question why it's here.

[0:15:41] Voice 8: Let's just consider the matter

[0:15:43] Voice 8: and then we can get onto the other business today.

[0:15:50] Voice 8: Okay.

[0:15:51] Voice 8: Okay. I had a question, Planner Cox, which is if this proposed subdivision goes ahead, is there further subdivision potential on the new lots that would be created?

[0:16:14] Voice 8: That

[0:16:17] Voice 3: would be something that I would have to go away and answer by reviewing the referral to MOTI, which I wasn't on. So I don't have that off the top of my head. But typically, whether or not they have subdivision potential depends on the minimum and average parcel sizes in your subdivision regulations.

[0:16:37] Voice 3: So I apologize, I don't have that answer right off the top of my head. I could answer that given a little bit of time. But, you know, staff reviews these proposals based on your land use bylaw and this actually came through as a second application from the owner.

[0:17:02] Voice 3: owner there was an initial application i didn't i'm and i apologize i didn't go through that as

[0:17:07] Voice 3: preamble to to my spiel here but there is in the first part of your report you'll see that

[0:17:13] Voice 3: this property owner applied previously for more lots and it was rejected because it didn't meet

[0:17:18] Voice 3: your land use bylaw so they came back with a two lot subdivision so um without being able to tell

[0:17:25] Voice 3: you all of the details of the minimum average sizes and so forth i can fairly confidently say

[0:17:30] Voice 3: that likely this is they're maxed out for their potential subdivision given that this is the

[0:17:36] Voice 3: second attempt to try and meet your land use bylaw does that make sense well

[0:17:42] Voice 8: yeah thank you i was

[0:17:42] Voice 8: just curious because it seemed it looks like uh proposed lot one would end up being uh 4.45

[0:17:50] Voice 8: hectares and so that was actually the lot that i was more curious of whether it would could

[0:17:54] Voice 8: potentially be subdivided again at a later date so i appreciate that um any further questions from

[0:18:04] Voice 8: trustees trustee allen yeah

[0:18:09] Trustee Allen (probable): so i'm confused here still um so the map on page four up near the

[0:18:15] Trustee Allen (probable): anderson drive can that not be a driveway like i don't understand what's what it's got you know it

[0:18:21] Trustee Allen (probable): looks like a little driveway it's perfect and then um and so what's going on is they want to have

[0:18:26] Trustee Allen (probable): this one road access for both lots one and two is that correct so

[0:18:31] Voice 3: i don't believe that they're

[0:18:32] Voice 3: through the chair i don't believe that they're proposing necessarily uh and like like the ltc

[0:18:38] Voice 3: doesn't really have the ability to direct the proposed layout um that's going to be up to the

[0:18:44] Voice 3: approving officer to decide based on public interest and their jurisdiction what what they

[0:18:50] Voice 3: will allow for layout or not the ltc at this point is just being asked to make a decision on are you

[0:18:58] Voice 3: okay if this frontage is less than the required 10 and you know so there's a provision in the local

[0:19:06] Voice 3: government act that allows that allows this and in the bylaw as as you see analyzed in the staff

[0:19:11] Voice 3: report so the question isn't what it the question is not a discussion about what the layout should

[0:19:17] Voice 3: look like that is for the approving officer to decide what is best um that's their job is to

[0:19:25] Voice 3: look at circulation access all that kind of thing public interest and it ultimately they will be the

[0:19:31] Voice 3: one to approve or not the proposed layout and we don't know what they might you know we don't know

[0:19:40] Voice 3: what they might uh require or not require but the request is just um uh you know whether or not the

[0:19:48] Voice 3: ltc is comfortable waving the uh the 10 perimeter piece does that address that question yeah so

[0:19:58] Trustee Allen (probable): when you say the approving officer are you talking about ministry of transportation or the province

[0:20:02] Trustee Allen (probable): is that what you're talking about so

[0:20:04] Voice 3: yeah so so um the approving officer is the provincial

[0:20:09] Voice 3: approving officer but applications for subdivision go through the ministry of transport and and by

[0:20:16] Voice 3: extension the the approving officer so ministry transport is the administration sort of staff

[0:20:20] Voice 3: the technical review and all that and then it gets passed to the provincial approving officer

[0:20:25] Voice 3: to make the final decision in any conditions that might be required yeah

[0:20:34] Trustee Allen (probable): i know that part

[0:20:35] Trustee Allen (probable): Sorry, I just wanted to confirm whether it was the MOTI or not.

[0:20:37] Trustee Allen (probable): Okay, thank you.

[0:20:38] Voice 3: Sorry.

[0:20:39] Voice 3: Yes.

[0:20:40] Voice 8: And I note that we have a hand up from John Grayson, who I believe is the applicant.

[0:20:46] Voice 8: And I just want to apologize.

[0:20:47] Voice 8: I didn't realize, I didn't know that you were going to be joining us.

[0:20:51] Voice 8: So I will give you an opportunity to add any information that you think is important for the trustees to hear.

[0:20:59] Voice 8: And if they have any direct questions that you might want to answer.

[0:21:03] Voice 8: So, Mr. Grayson, you could go ahead if you like.

[0:21:07] Voice 7: Hi there.

[0:21:08] Voice 8: Can you hear me?

[0:21:10] Voice 8: Yes, we can.

[0:21:11] Voice 7: Okay, great. I just wanted to point out that according to the bylaws, we made this application to be in complete conformance with the existing bylaws.

[0:21:22] Voice 7: And this subdivision is designed to be in compliance with the bylaws such that no further subdivision will be possible given the zoning and the sizes of the resulting properties.

[0:21:37] Voice 7: If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to field them. Otherwise, I believe the staff report has been at 18 pages. It's very thorough and very comprehensive, but that the ultimate restrictions or denial of this application is really in the hands of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

[0:22:01] Voice 7: which has very strict regulations to follow, as well as the provincial approving officer,

[0:22:07] Voice 7: as well as the Department of Health and any other agencies that have any concerns whatsoever.

[0:22:14] Voice 7: So I think the concerns and safety of Hornby Island residents and surrounding neighbors is very well covered

[0:22:22] Voice 7: and would not result in anything other than positive things,

[0:22:29] Voice 7: as long as these higher authorities are thoroughly satisfied with all the issues and concerns that

[0:22:36] Voice 7: they have to follow in terms of their regulations. Thank you.

[0:22:42] Voice 8: Okay, thanks for that. Trustee Allen?

[0:22:46] Trustee Allen (probable): Yeah, I just want to ask Ian Leonard-Cox. So because it's a waiver request versus a variance

[0:22:54] Trustee Allen (probable): request, none of the neighbors have been notified. Is that correct? They're not being consulted on

[0:23:01] Trustee Allen (probable): this at all i don't know i've correct

[0:23:04] Voice 3: this doesn't have a

[0:23:05] Trustee Allen (probable): waiver request before sorry

[0:23:08] Voice 3: pardon me so

[0:23:09] Voice 3: through the chair yes uh this is this does not have the requirement for statutory public

[0:23:13] Voice 3: notification as as most components of a subdivision do not unless for some reason they required

[0:23:22] Voice 3: a variance permit or a some other permit of the local trust committee and

[0:23:29] Trustee Allen (probable): can we as a trust

[0:23:30] Trustee Allen (probable): local trust committee or add that as a you know of a concern perhaps and say that we'd approve it

[0:23:39] Trustee Allen (probable): with this caveat so through the chair

[0:23:45] Voice 3: i believe that's ultra that's out of the jurisdiction of the

[0:23:48] Voice 3: ltc per the local government act

[0:23:50] Trustee Allen (probable): yeah i thought so okay all right well

[0:23:57] Voice 8: Trustee Scott

[0:23:58] Voice 8: yes

[0:24:01] Voice 6: I really do believe

[0:24:03] Voice 6: that this should go to the local

[0:24:04] Voice 6: people in the neighborhood

[0:24:06] Voice 6: I mean it's such a

[0:24:08] Voice 6: it's not a variance to me

[0:24:10] Voice 6: to me it's something

[0:24:12] Voice 6: a minor change to something

[0:24:14] Voice 6: this isn't minor at all

[0:24:16] Voice 6: the perimeter of one is

[0:24:18] Voice 6: 937 meters I take

[0:24:21] Voice 6: and it's 23.46

[0:24:23] Voice 6: and the other one is

[0:24:24] Voice 6: is 943 meters and it's the total is 17.5 this isn't and so i'd like to hear from the neighbors

[0:24:31] Voice 6: it's in that water catchment area i'd like to hear what the issues from the neighbors are

[0:24:37] Voice 6: and if the neighbors all said no no this this looks fine that would make it a lot easier for me

[0:24:42] Voice 6: to approve this but until i hear something like that i just don't feel comfortable

[0:24:47] Voice 6: approving something like this thank you sorry

[0:25:06] Voice 8: planner cops go ahead sorry i

[0:25:08] Voice 8: I didn't realize I'd muted myself.

[0:25:10] Voice 3: No problem. Thanks, Drew.

[0:25:12] Voice 3: So just for clarification,

[0:25:15] Voice 3: the 10% frontage,

[0:25:17] Voice 3: the 10% perimeters is basically

[0:25:19] Voice 3: a local government act provision

[0:25:21] Voice 3: that's been taken down into the bylaw.

[0:25:22] Voice 3: So it's not something

[0:25:30] Voice 3: that the province requires

[0:25:33] Voice 3: statutory notification for.

[0:25:37] Voice 3: That's sort of the

[0:25:38] Voice 3: bottom line.

[0:25:39] Voice 3: for this so and why

[0:25:41] Voice 6: why are we being asked then i don't get it uh

[0:25:47] Voice 3: because the local government act

[0:25:49] Voice 3: uh through the chair uh uh that that that's that's how the power is is given that's how the that's

[0:25:56] Voice 3: how the the the um the the regulation is written that it needs to meet this or be exempted by the

[0:26:03] Voice 3: local government and

[0:26:09] Voice 8: i'll just add on uh the bottom of page five there's a couple of alternatives

[0:26:15] Voice 8: alternatives um that staff had noted uh besides granting the waiver we could request it for

[0:26:21] Voice 8: further information and of course uh could deny the request as well but um uh i'm just wondering

[0:26:30] Voice 8: based on the concerns i'm hearing from trustees is there and and planner cox i i believe you said

[0:26:37] Voice 8: that um it would be ultra various for for the ltc to require the uh applicant um to consult the

[0:26:48] Voice 8: neighbors but in i wonder if there's some other way that sounds like the information that the

[0:26:54] Voice 8: trustees are interested in um is there another way that we can go about um trying to ascertain that

[0:27:02] Voice 8: uh

[0:27:06] Voice 3: so through the chair i could we uh this may be a question um uh for um manager jamra but it is

[0:27:13] Voice 3: my understanding that that isn't something that um you know that's that's the kind that information

[0:27:21] Voice 3: well this information it is um you know your option one there um is more you know information

[0:27:28] Voice 3: from the applicant information on the proposed layout and and so forth rather than actually

[0:27:33] Voice 3: canvassing a constituent sentiment on on the proposal that's my understanding but

[0:27:40] Voice 3: that could be clarified if you'd like I couldn't contact well fair enough and

[0:27:46] Voice 8: and and I do understand that it's just that I'm hearing from the from the

[0:27:51] Voice 8: trustees that they're they're wondering whether the the immediate neighbors have

[0:27:58] Voice 8: have concerns um i suppose uh we could potentially defer this and trustees could get out on the

[0:28:08] Voice 8: ground and talk to folks and we could reconsider it another time i'm just trying to move us forward

[0:28:13] Voice 8: here in a way that uh respects what i'm hearing from trustees so uh trustee allen um

[0:28:20] Trustee Allen (probable): can we

[0:28:23] Trustee Allen (probable): so we what are you saying that we have to be on the ground and do our own thing versus having

[0:28:28] Trustee Allen (probable): something formal where we could say send a letter to immediate neighbors request

[0:28:33] Trustee Allen (probable): well just anything like that or what's our options well

[0:28:38] Voice 8: what I think I heard

[0:28:40] Voice 8: the planner Cox say is that it's it's we can't require the applicant to to to to

[0:28:50] Voice 8: to you know show consultation with the neighbors it's and not jurisdictionally

[0:28:59] Voice 8: correct however it seems to me we could defer and that's why i was asking if there's another

[0:29:05] Voice 8: way we can gather the information that's that's um in an official um way and i was thinking if we

[0:29:13] Voice 8: if we can't then you you both as local trustees could sort of do it in a more um anecdotal sort

[0:29:21] Voice 8: of way but uh well i i've just both of you i've heard um state that you're you're wondering what

[0:29:28] Voice 8: the neighbors think essentially so i'm wondering how we how we get that information um in a way

[0:29:36] Voice 8: that's within our jurisdiction or in a reasonable manner um if if that's sort of what's if that's

[0:29:46] Voice 8: the hold up in terms of um your comfort level about approving this and you don't want to do

[0:29:52] Voice 8: it today? And how do we go about a process that gets you that information?

[0:30:00] Voice 8: a way that you you know you can feel better about making the decision so

[0:30:04] Voice 3: just to jump in really

[0:30:05] Voice 3: quickly through chair peterson the the subdivision is like the public consultation piece of subdivision

[0:30:12] Voice 3: is really what your regulations are in your land use bylaw so that's the piece that would have been

[0:30:18] Voice 3: developed through public consultation what do you want your minimum lot sizes to be in etc

[0:30:22] Voice 3: etc. This is a technical piece about access. If a local government then were to go out

[0:30:31] Voice 3: and, you know, like, there'd be all sorts of feelings and comments about subdivision

[0:30:40] Voice 3: generally, but the regulation of subdivision in a given jurisdiction is really through

[0:30:45] Voice 3: the zoning bylaw, is through the land use bylaw. So staff would just point that out

[0:30:50] Voice 3: That, you know, subdivision generally is not something that has a public consultation component other than as it might relate to a development variance permit or some other authorization that was needed.

[0:31:06] Voice 3: Well,

[0:31:07] Voice 8: certainly, and I'm hearing you, but what I'm hearing from the trustees is that the waiver being requested is quite significantly different than what the 10% is.

[0:31:23] Voice 8: And they're perhaps not feeling great about proceeding with offering that waiver without some sense of what the neighbors are thinking.

[0:31:36] Voice 8: So that's why I'm sort of asking questions. Is there an official way we can request that

[0:31:42] Voice 8: information or does it need to be in a sort of more casual way? Trustee Scott, I see your hand.

[0:31:54] Voice 6: Yes, I mean what we could do right now is deny it and ask the applicant to

[0:32:01] Voice 6: to check out, find out from their neighbors

[0:32:05] Voice 6: what they think of this

[0:32:07] Voice 6: and let them bring the application back

[0:32:10] Voice 6: with that information to us.

[0:32:11] Voice 6: And I think Alex sounds to me like

[0:32:14] Voice 6: if we heard that and we were comfortable with it,

[0:32:16] Voice 6: we'd be in a much different position

[0:32:18] Voice 6: than we are right now

[0:32:19] Voice 6: because this is not a minor variance.

[0:32:21] Voice 6: It's not like the other ones we've seen

[0:32:22] Voice 6: where we're looking at a half a meter

[0:32:24] Voice 6: on a roof line or something.

[0:32:26] Voice 6: It's not like that at all.

[0:32:30] Voice 6: So my

[0:32:30] Voice 8: tendency,

[0:32:32] Voice 8: I

[0:32:32] Voice 6: can't see without, excuse me, but without the ability to say something like that, the way I'm feeling right now is to deny it if there's no way we can get more information.

[0:32:49] Voice 8: Yeah, and it just occurs to me, Trustee Scott, we could also defer the decision as another option, but I'm just going to go to Trustee Allen now.

[0:33:02] Trustee Allen (probable): we are i'm kind of in grant's vein too but you know it's i think that's my biggest concern about

[0:33:10] Trustee Allen (probable): all the stuff that's going on hornby is that there's so many things that isn't a public

[0:33:13] Trustee Allen (probable): consultation i just don't get it or the neighbors it's just like vacation rentals you know the

[0:33:17] Trustee Allen (probable): neighbors don't get asked how they feel about it and um it's so i it's and it's how grant and i

[0:33:24] Trustee Allen (probable): decided that every application gets sent to comas first nation so they are aware of it and uh this

[0:33:30] Trustee Allen (probable): This is really where we totally feel that, as you can see, this is a big application.

[0:33:40] Trustee Allen (probable): It's not some simple little thing.

[0:33:41] Trustee Allen (probable): And because of that, the neighbors should be informed and given some opportunity to speak.

[0:33:46] Trustee Allen (probable): And whether it's moody eventually or whatever, I don't care.

[0:33:50] Trustee Allen (probable): I still think that we're a small community and, you know, things do affect us.

[0:33:55] Trustee Allen (probable): It's not like some subdivision, whatever, somewhere else, you know.

[0:33:59] Trustee Allen (probable): and then when it does become a subdivision application

[0:34:02] Trustee Allen (probable): are the neighbours not going to be able to have a chance of saving a gain? And I just don't agree with this.

[0:34:07] Trustee Allen (probable): So I don't know where to go here.

[0:34:11] Voice 3: So I think staff

[0:34:11] Voice 3: may recommend

[0:34:14] Voice 3: then or suggest that the LTC

[0:34:18] Voice 3: defer this and neighbouring property owners or the public could come to the next

[0:34:22] Voice 3: meeting if that's the direction of the LTC at this point.

[0:34:26] Voice 8: Okay. Yeah. And it occurs to me that since this being a special meeting doesn't have a public comment period, that those neighbors wouldn't in this meeting have an opportunity. So deferral, I think, is a reasonable approach for today.

[0:34:44] Voice 8: It

[0:34:45] Voice 3: would also be more appropriate to discuss it in a public way than to discuss it privately outside of a meeting and then make a decision. So that would be probably much more appropriate to do.

[0:34:55] Voice 8: no thank you for that advice trustee scott i move

[0:34:58] Voice 6: that we defer uh this application until

[0:35:02] Voice 6: the next meeting giving given the people on the neighbors um near to this application the

[0:35:10] Voice 6: opportunity to find out about it and present their concerns or support the next meeting

[0:35:21] Voice 8: okay so moved um i'm just going to check in with um lisa millard and see if you captured that

[0:35:32] Voice 2: yes chair peterson i got that thank you are

[0:35:35] Voice 8: we thank you you're amazing

[0:35:36] Voice 8: uh so so i'll take that

[0:35:40] Voice 8: as moved trustee allen now

[0:35:42] Trustee Allen (probable): can i see it on the screen before i second it please i just

[0:35:46] Trustee Allen (probable): certainly we'll

[0:35:46] Voice 8: just take them take a moment

[0:35:48] Voice 1: so

[0:36:31] Trustee Allen (probable): am i assuming this is going to be our next meeting or

[0:36:34] Trustee Allen (probable): we

[0:36:37] Voice 3: don't know through the chair yeah this could be um if you would like to direct that now by

[0:36:44] Voice 3: resolution you could you could do so and say bring um staff please bring this uh item back

[0:36:50] Voice 3: at your regular business meeting which is currently september 13th so

[0:36:59] Trustee Allen (probable): can we just add

[0:37:00] Trustee Allen (probable): the uh the preamble information of the original and recommendation and not just say application

[0:37:06] Trustee Allen (probable): because we need a little more detail on it and to provide neighbors an opportunity to comment

[0:37:15] Trustee Allen (probable): in public a friendly amendment okay

[0:37:27] Voice 8: and i'll just note that the next meeting is stipulated there so

[0:37:30] Voice 8: yeah trustee scott i'd

[0:37:35] Voice 6: just like to ask is mr grayson still on the call and i wonder if he

[0:37:40] Voice 6: He has talked to the neighbors.

[0:37:42] Voice 8: He is still on the call, yes.

[0:37:50] Voice 7: Hello, can you hear me?

[0:37:52] Voice 7: Yes.

[0:37:54] Voice 7: Okay.

[0:37:54] Voice 7: No, I have not spoken to the neighbors simply because this is such a minor legal subdivision that is in total compliance with Hornby Island's bylaws

[0:38:08] Voice 7: and would have virtually no effect on the neighbors

[0:38:12] Voice 7: since whatever home is built on the property

[0:38:15] Voice 7: will be so far from them

[0:38:17] Voice 7: that they would never even know it was there

[0:38:21] Voice 7: because the bylaws limit the property

[0:38:25] Voice 7: to basically a single residence,

[0:38:30] Voice 7: as far as my understanding goes.

[0:38:33] Voice 7: So because the property is so big,

[0:38:36] Voice 7: there can be virtually no impact on on the neighbors and we just have minor road access

[0:38:44] Voice 7: that's already in place and but nonetheless i'd not absolutely welcome comments from anyone that

[0:38:54] Voice 7: feels that they could be impacted but again i would doubt that very much simply because

[0:39:00] Voice 7: because you can't see it, you can't hear it,

[0:39:03] Voice 7: you can't smell it.

[0:39:05] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:39:08] Voice 8: Okay, so, and then I have some staff advice

[0:39:11] Voice 8: that we should add the application number.

[0:39:15] Voice 8: So it would be the resolution read,

[0:39:19] Voice 8: should read that the Hornby Island LTC

[0:39:21] Voice 8: request staff to defer application,

[0:39:27] Voice 8: where the heck did it go?

[0:39:29] Voice 8: so

[0:39:29] Trustee Allen (probable): who's sub 2023.2

[0:39:33] Voice 8: um okay and that would be the rest would be as per the resolution

[0:39:41] Voice 8: um until the next meeting to provide neighbors with an opportunity uh for public for to comment

[0:39:51] Voice 8: in public i think that's fine and i'll just give lisa a minute there sub

[0:40:13] Trustee Allen (probable): 2023.2

[0:40:35] Voice 8: okay yeah so it should be application ho dash sub yeah

[0:40:40] Voice 1: okay

[0:40:45] Voice 8: that looks that looks good so we'll

[0:40:50] Voice 8: take it as move trustee allen will second it uh any further discussion on the motion

[0:40:59] Voice 8: not seeing any i'll call the question all those in favor and that carries okay so

[0:41:08] Voice 8: So there we go.

[0:41:09] Voice 8: So that is going to show up at our next meeting then.

[0:41:14] Voice 8: And then we'll move along to starting on page 21.

[0:41:19] Voice 8: We have the report on the major project here.

[0:41:25] Voice 8: And I believe it's Planner Zupanek is going to take us through this.

[0:41:31] Voice 2: Good afternoon.

[0:41:32] Voice 2: In the interest of time, I will keep my summary really short so that there's ample opportunity for the trustees to ask any questions.

[0:41:40] Voice 2: about the two draft bylaws that are being presented to you today on behalf of the regional

[0:41:45] Voice 2: planning team. We know that you and the community have been waiting for to get to the stage and so

[0:41:52] Voice 2: we're pleased to present you with the drafts bylaw numbers 176 and 177. I'll just note there is a

[0:42:00] Voice 2: error in 176 being referred to as a bylaw number 173 so we'll correct that. One is to amend your

[0:42:08] Voice 2: your official community plan. The other is to amend the land use bylaw specific to the first

[0:42:13] Voice 2: phase of changes listed in your project charter, which deal with housing, secondary suites,

[0:42:19] Voice 2: vacation rentals, chickens, and cisterns. And there's policies in the official community plan

[0:42:26] Voice 2: related to these issues and supporting regulation amendments. The second phase of your project will

[0:42:32] Voice 2: deal specifically with First Nations matters and references. So those bylaws, of course,

[0:42:37] Voice 2: are on hold while we continue with engagement with Comox First Nation.

[0:42:42] Voice 2: So both bylaws are attached for your reference as well as the accompanying marked up official

[0:42:48] Voice 2: community plan and land use bylaw to show you what those changes would actually look

[0:42:51] Voice 2: like if they were to be adopted as presented in the draft.

[0:42:55] Voice 2: The local trust committee has the opportunity today to direct staff to make further changes.

[0:43:00] Voice 2: If they're considered relatively minor, we can do that today and I can track those and

[0:43:06] Voice 2: And you can give first reading because it's a draft.

[0:43:10] Voice 2: There's no amendments required.

[0:43:11] Voice 2: You simply amend the draft bylaw and give first reading.

[0:43:14] Voice 2: However, if there's substantial changes that the local trust committee wishes to either

[0:43:18] Voice 2: have further analysis on, more information or drafting of new policies or regulations,

[0:43:24] Voice 2: then that should be done either prior to first reading or you identify those issues as requiring

[0:43:33] Voice 2: consideration after the referral period is closed.

[0:43:36] Voice 2: So you could still proceed with first reading, and you can then determine whether or not you wish to incorporate other changes at the same time, which could be second reading, first reading as amended.

[0:43:46] Voice 2: There's some options there.

[0:43:49] Voice 2: The intent is to obviously streamline this process as much as possible so that you're able to get the input from the referral agencies and First Nations, as well as your advisory planning commission.

[0:44:00] Voice 2: All the listed referrals are recommendation number five in the staff report here.

[0:44:07] Voice 2: as soon as possible, and then consider the full suite of possible changes prior to going to the

[0:44:15] Voice 2: public hearing. So, the target is to get to a public hearing with bylaws that you're fully

[0:44:18] Voice 2: confident are implementable, supportable, and will address these core issues that are

[0:44:24] Voice 2: the pith and substance of your project charter. Before I introduce the two bylaws, I just wanted

[0:44:33] Voice 2: to pause to see if there are any questions from the trustees before we begin because i have not

[0:44:41] Voice 2: heard any feedback up until today so i'm just checking in

[0:44:46] Voice 8: trustee alan are

[0:44:48] Trustee Allen (probable): you talking about

[0:44:49] Trustee Allen (probable): any questions are you talking to clear this is all

[0:44:53] Trustee Allen (probable): the questions right now any

[0:44:56] Voice 2: well if you'd

[0:44:57] Voice 2: like to start with a with the official community plan or the land use bylaw or in general questions

[0:45:02] Voice 2: about this information today and the process moving forward we do have just over an hour

[0:45:09] Voice 2: to go through this so i would like to really target any amendments and get a sense of whether

[0:45:16] Voice 2: or not you need to defer whether or not you're ready to move towards first reading or if you

[0:45:20] Voice 2: have specific amendments that you wish to consider okay

[0:45:24] Trustee Allen (probable): well i'd like to i i have concerns regarding

[0:45:26] Trustee Allen (probable): the um i'm not sure why why i do understand how it happened to earlier but in terms of bed and

[0:45:33] Trustee Allen (probable): and breakfasts as a home occupation as opposed to being under vacation accommodation.

[0:45:40] Trustee Allen (probable): I don't understand how that's managed to be there because it's way larger than being a potter.

[0:45:48] Trustee Allen (probable): And I've looked at other communities and most of them, all the B&Bs have sort of been unified under a general accommodation umbrella.

[0:45:56] Trustee Allen (probable): umbrella and ours isn't and i have concerns where um some of these air these i'm sorry b&b's are not

[0:46:04] Trustee Allen (probable): necessarily acting like b&b's they've got kitchens in them i hear in some places and there's sort of

[0:46:12] Trustee Allen (probable): more of a wild west because they get to operate year-round and um yeah so i was just wondering

[0:46:18] Trustee Allen (probable): yeah there could be a loophole there that uh it's yeah it's got yeah it's they are commercial

[0:46:24] Trustee Allen (probable): commercial vacation but they're why is it under home occupation and is that a large thing to just

[0:46:31] Trustee Allen (probable): put it under a different umbrella so

[0:46:36] Voice 2: through the chair the examination of your bed and breakfast

[0:46:38] Voice 2: regulations is not part of the scope of this project yeah can

[0:46:43] Trustee Allen (probable): that yeah sorry can that be

[0:46:46] Trustee Allen (probable): referred to uh abc because we we did discuss referring some other things that are sort of

[0:46:53] Trustee Allen (probable): tying in with this whole so you

[0:46:56] Trustee Allen (probable): need to plan any referral to the

[0:46:58] Voice 2: advisory planning commission

[0:46:59] Voice 2: should be made in good faith that the local trust committee has an active project to address any

[0:47:03] Voice 2: recommendations that the APC is going to make. In this case, if your volunteers are going to spend

[0:47:08] Voice 2: time looking at that provision, they'd like to likely understand at what point will the LTC be

[0:47:13] Voice 2: implementing or considering those recommendations. It's not part of the scope of this project.

[0:47:17] Voice 2: So

[0:47:17] Voice 4: you

[0:47:18] Voice 2: would need to create either a minor project specifically to look at those issues,

[0:47:22] Voice 2: or you'd need to expand the scope of this project, which would have implications as well.

[0:47:26] Voice 2: Yeah.

[0:47:27] Trustee Allen (probable): Okay. I'll pass it on to Grant. I've got other questions, but I'll share the table.

[0:47:34] Trustee Allen (probable): Trustee Scott.

[0:47:37] Voice 6: Yes. Well, I think to start to try to delve into all of this right now would be the wrong process.

[0:47:44] Voice 6: I think what we need to do is give this first reading so that it can then go out to the public.

[0:47:49] Voice 6: The public, it can go to the Advisory Planning Commission, it can go to these other agencies,

[0:47:54] Voice 6: and then we can get all this information back and we can deal with it by hearing from the public

[0:47:59] Voice 6: then we've got something really solid to work with so my instinct is let's get on with this

[0:48:05] Voice 6: and give it the first reading and that sets up the public process for people to be able all the

[0:48:09] Voice 6: issues tim that you brought up that we saw that's the that's the time for them to come forth and

[0:48:18] Voice 6: and uh and i look forward to that process of hearing that so that's my instinct on this

[0:48:24] Voice 6: thank you justy

[0:48:32] Voice 8: allen yeah

[0:48:33] Trustee Allen (probable): well i agree with grant completely on that um so i'm just so i didn't get

[0:48:40] Trustee Allen (probable): a chance because it's really busy up here i didn't get a chance to um see the actual time frame for

[0:48:47] Trustee Allen (probable): how this is playing out so when it would be the uh first reading is that in the fall or is that

[0:48:53] Trustee Allen (probable): in the new year we can do that right now

[0:48:56] Trustee Allen (probable): on your agenda

[0:48:57] Voice 2: today for consideration we're being asked

[0:48:59] Voice 8: to consideration yeah we're being asked to

[0:49:02] Voice 8: consider that today yeah okay

[0:49:03] Trustee Allen (probable): and then um

[0:49:04] Trustee Allen (probable): so there's

[0:49:07] Voice 2: five recommendations yeah

[0:49:09] Voice 7: these

[0:49:10] Voice 2: are administrative in nature in terms of

[0:49:12] Voice 2: showing you that the bylaws that have been drafted comply with the island's trust policy

[0:49:16] Voice 2: statement checklist so those are the first recommendations to ensure that you've agreed

[0:49:20] Voice 2: you've reviewed those bylaws and that you concur that they're in compliance with the island's trust

[0:49:24] Voice 2: policy statement checklist and then it's first reading recommendation for first reading and

[0:49:29] Voice 2: And then a recommendation for referrals to all the agencies, First Nations, that are listed in recommendation number five in order to advance the next step.

[0:49:38] Voice 2: So 90-day minimum referrals would be what we're recommending.

[0:49:43] Voice 2: So that means that sometime this fall, early winter, you'd be receiving a package and analysis of any and all input related to those draft bylaws.

[0:49:50] Voice 2: So you can consider or to the proposed bylaw because once it's given a reading, it switches from draft to proposed.

[0:49:55] Voice 2: so after first reading you can consider all the input and any amendments or changes that you wish

[0:50:02] Voice 2: to make yeah

[0:50:05] Voice 8: and certainly process wise um it's perfectly reasonable to expect that there might

[0:50:10] Voice 8: be changes um in between readings and and and post referrals so you've received a public

[0:50:17] Voice 2: comment as

[0:50:18] Voice 2: well um as yes you've received this week some public comments around some suggested changes

[0:50:24] Voice 2: changes, and questions that staff have reviewed. There are some possible amendments that could be

[0:50:30] Voice 2: considered by the local trust committee. There's pros and cons to different approaches that we

[0:50:34] Voice 2: could provide more analysis on as well. So this is the time for you to convey whether or not you're

[0:50:40] Voice 2: confident that the bylaws presented today in the draft form are sufficiently close enough to what

[0:50:46] Voice 2: you would like to see other agencies and First Nations to comment on. If there's a dramatic

[0:50:51] Voice 2: departure from what you expected then they're not ready for first rating but if they are close

[0:50:56] Voice 2: then this would be an appropriate course of action is to follow the staff recommendations

[0:51:03] Voice 8: yeah thank you for that um trustee scott did you have a question or comment yes um i've read

[0:51:12] Voice 8: through

[0:51:13] Voice 6: the um one and two the trust policy and i assume you folks went through it in detail

[0:51:25] Voice 6: more detail than I would be able to do so I don't know why we need to do one and two to get to three

[0:51:31] Voice 6: four and five because my instinct is to go with three four and five it's

[0:51:39] Voice 8: just part of the normal

[0:51:40] Voice 8: process trustee Scott okay um that that is that's part of the normal the normal deal uh trustee

[0:51:47] Voice 8: Allen yeah

[0:51:49] Trustee Allen (probable): I was just going to follow up with uh planners super next said that yeah given them

[0:51:53] Trustee Allen (probable): a lot of the correspondence we received of late that it'd be good you know to let them know that

[0:51:59] Trustee Allen (probable): all can be addressed at the first reading and um yeah go from there so i'm happy to make a motion

[0:52:10] Voice 8: um there's a couple of questions that i that i i feel like um planners who connect might be able

[0:52:15] Voice 8: to answer uh quickly for us today that come from some of the public comments and if not that's okay

[0:52:22] Voice 8: Okay. But I just thought maybe I'd ask a couple of them and see what information we can get.

[0:52:31] Voice 8: One of the concerns was about definition of short-term rental and whether, if it is not added, would the provincial 90-day definition apply?

[0:52:43] Voice 8: lie?

[0:52:46] Voice 2: So the current draft proposes to use the temporary use permit guidelines to theoretically

[0:52:53] Voice 2: define the use in terms of what is expected for that type of a use to be permitted and in which

[0:53:00] Voice 2: locations of the island that's permitted use. So you have a definition currently in your land use

[0:53:06] Voice 2: bylaw that you'll see has been struck out as proposed to be removed in this draft bylaw

[0:53:13] Voice 2: because what we don't want to see is a definition that regulates the use the definition currently

[0:53:20] Voice 2: has a regulatory nature to it and that was sort of required at the time that this use was put in

[0:53:25] Voice 2: place so one option is is that it's fully removed and the guidelines are explicitly clear on what

[0:53:30] Voice 2: this type of a use looks like if it's permitted or that you more succinctly shrink that definition

[0:53:37] Voice 2: down so that it's as simple as the first line use of a residential dwelling unit for the temporary

[0:53:44] Voice 2: accommodation of paying guests or something along those lines and then leave it to the temporary

[0:53:48] Voice 2: use permit to specify whether or not you want to create more regulatory framework around where the

[0:53:58] Voice 2: owner operators are which dwellings or how many are in use that all should be part of the guidelines

[0:54:05] Voice 2: not in a definition so there's some options there in

[0:54:11] Voice 4: the absence of

[0:54:12] Voice 2: so in the absence of

[0:54:13] Voice 2: this definition and if your guidelines don't aren't clear yes of course the province of

[0:54:19] Voice 2: british columbia is looking to local governments to use their definition um if they wish to do that

[0:54:26] Voice 2: so

[0:54:28] Voice 8: if i can just recap what i think i heard you say is that that that can be addressed um

[0:54:33] Voice 8: in the temporary use permit when that's set out?

[0:54:37] Voice 2: It is currently.

[0:54:38] Voice 2: You have a draft

[0:54:39] Voice 8: of what those guidelines

[0:54:41] Voice 2: should include.

[0:54:42] Voice 2: If the local trust committee wishes to flesh it out even further

[0:54:45] Voice 2: and have more guidelines that explicitly articulate

[0:54:49] Voice 2: what it is that you expect these uses to look like

[0:54:52] Voice 2: and how they expect to operate and work on these residential lots,

[0:54:56] Voice 2: then we can expand those guidelines further.

[0:54:59] Voice 2: Or we can condense

[0:55:00] Voice 2: the definition in your land use bylaw currently is proposed to be removed, or it can just be reduced to a much more succinct definition so that it's not creating an added layer of regulatory possible non-consistency with the TUP guidelines.

[0:55:18] Voice 2: We want to be careful that the definitions don't have many regulations built into them.

[0:55:24] Voice 8: Absolutely.

[0:55:25] Voice 8: So the short answer is that the 90-day is not necessarily what's going to happen depending on what we do with the TUP, right?

[0:55:39] Voice 2: So

[0:55:40] Voice 8: it doesn't absolutely have to be defined here to deal with that.

[0:55:45] Voice 2: Yeah, but ideally it needs to be clear what the use is for sure.

[0:55:50] Voice 8: Okay, fair enough.

[0:55:51] Voice 8: Trustee Allen?

[0:55:53] Trustee Allen (probable): Thank you.

[0:55:53] Trustee Allen (probable): um i have just two questions for process so when you said planners open up expanding expanding the

[0:56:01] Trustee Allen (probable): guidelines later on um do we is this where we do it now or can we wait till we've got further

[0:56:08] Trustee Allen (probable): feedback from the community and we can do that after first reading or

[0:56:11] Voice 4: are

[0:56:12] Trustee Allen (probable): you recommending we

[0:56:14] Trustee Allen (probable): jump into the the pool today if

[0:56:18] Voice 2: the local trust committee is confident that there's some key

[0:56:21] Voice 2: Key guidelines missing, this would be the time to, if you understand what it is you want inserted at this point, we can do that.

[0:56:29] Voice 2: If you still need analysis or wording or you're not quite sure what that should look like, then I'd recommend you wait until you review all the recommended changes.

[0:56:39] Voice 2: we can provide you with some analysis on suggested wording and then you have a more formal approach

[0:56:46] Voice 2: to making those amendments versus trying to figure it out at this point and

[0:56:52] Trustee Allen (probable): then sorry my

[0:56:53] Trustee Allen (probable): next question yeah and that's another thing is that there's a lot of kind of new information

[0:56:57] Trustee Allen (probable): that is not going to be we can't explore that in this meeting which it's actually quite a short

[0:57:01] Trustee Allen (probable): meeting considering how huge this is um my other question was regarding the provincial registry

[0:57:08] Trustee Allen (probable): registry, how does that work? Are you as a staff member is going to be receiving these numbers or

[0:57:14] Trustee Allen (probable): how is that going to play out this process in terms of the registry?

[0:57:18] Voice 2: We'll know more this fall

[0:57:20] Voice 2: when the province releases the details.

[0:57:22] Trustee Allen (probable): Because it's happening in the summer right now, as I hear.

[0:57:25] Trustee Allen (probable): But is it automatically going to be the staff going to hear about it or you don't know how

[0:57:30] Trustee Allen (probable): it's going to play out? I'm just wondering where we're going to get all this information eventually.

[0:57:34] Trustee Allen (probable): the

[0:57:36] Voice 2: whole province is wondering the same thing so we'll all be we'll all be getting the information

[0:57:41] Voice 2: once this the registry is set up and functioning and uh local governments will no doubt have very

[0:57:48] Voice 2: specific instructions about how to access data and work with the province on this next step

[0:57:54] Voice 2: thank

[0:57:55] Voice 6: you trustee scott yes i'd like to start i'm satisfied enough i'd like to start

[0:58:05] Voice 6: start making motions to move through these five recommendations I think they make sense to me and

[0:58:10] Voice 6: I think we should do it and get on with get first reading and get the public process set up so I'd

[0:58:19] Voice 6: like to move that the Hornby Island local trust committee has reviewed the island's trust policy

[0:58:24] Voice 6: statement directives only checklist and determined that bylaw number 176 cited as Hornby Island

[0:58:31] Voice 6: and official community plan bylaw 149, 2014 amended

[0:58:36] Voice 6: as number 120, 24 is not contrary to or at variance

[0:58:41] Voice 6: with the Island's trust policy statement.

[0:58:46] Voice 8: Move, seconded by Trustee Allen.

[0:58:49] Voice 8: Further discussion?

[0:58:52] Voice 8: No, not seeing any, I'll call the question.

[0:58:54] Voice 8: All those in favor?

[0:59:00] Voice 8: And that carries.

[0:59:05] Voice 8: Do one of you want to proceed

[0:59:07] Voice 8: with the second motion there?

[0:59:09] Voice 8: Trustee Scott.

[0:59:09] Voice 6: Alex, are you going to do it? Do you want me to do it?

[0:59:13] Trustee Allen (probable): I'll be doing the next one, and I'll do the one after that.

[0:59:16] Voice 6: All right.

[0:59:17] Voice 6: I move that

[0:59:18] Voice 6: the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee has reviewed the

[0:59:25] Voice 6: Highlands Trust Policy Statement Directives Only Checklist and determined that

[0:59:29] Voice 6: Bylaw No. 177 cited as Hornby Island Land Use Bylaw No. 150-2014 amended

[0:59:38] Voice 6: that number one 2024 is not contrary to or at variance with the island's trust policy statement

[0:59:48] Trustee Allen (probable): second

[0:59:50] Voice 8: uh moved and seconded any further discussion

[0:59:55] Voice 8: not seeing any i'll call the question all those in favor

[1:00:00] Voice 8: And that carries.

[1:00:04] Trustee Allen (probable): I move that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 176, cited as Hornby Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 149-2014, Amendment No. 1-2024, be read a first time.

[1:00:21] Voice 8: So moved. Seconded by Trustee Scott. Any further discussion? Not seeing any, so I will call the question. All those in favor? And that carries.

[1:00:43] Trustee Allen (probable): I move that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee...

[1:00:45] Trustee Allen (probable): oh what go for it

[1:00:48] Trustee Allen (probable): all right i moved at the hornby on local trust committee bylaw number 177

[1:00:53] Trustee Allen (probable): cited as for beyond land use bylaw number 150 2014 and then number 20 number one 2024

[1:01:01] Trustee Allen (probable): be read a first time move

[1:01:05] Voice 8: seconded by trustee scott any further discussion i'll call the

[1:01:13] Voice 8: question all those in favor and motion carries so

[1:01:20] Voice 6: i have a question on number five

[1:01:24] Voice 6: Go ahead.

[1:01:25] Voice 6: I don't know why there's so many of these First Nations.

[1:01:29] Voice 6: There's five First Nations that overlap Hornby, as I understand it.

[1:01:34] Voice 6: And a number of these are a great distance from Hornby Island.

[1:01:37] Voice 6: I don't know why these would be listed here and others might not be.

[1:01:41] Voice 6: So, Sonia, could you just explain why, please?

[1:01:50] Voice 2: Absolutely.

[1:01:50] Voice 2: Absolutely. So we use a provincial database to identify all nations that have an interest

[1:01:59] Voice 2: in specific geographies. We have to delineate the geography within a geographic information

[1:02:04] Voice 2: system. So in this case, the entirety of the Hornby Local Trust Area and the list of nations

[1:02:11] Voice 2: that appear from that provincial system are the ones that we are obligated to refer to so that

[1:02:17] Voice 2: your bylaw when it goes to the minister your official community plan for approval very close

[1:02:22] Voice 2: to the end of the process they will cross-reference and if we are missing any of the nations from

[1:02:29] Voice 2: their provincial system they have the right to delay or refuse adoption of your bylaw so at

[1:02:34] Voice 2: this early stage we want to make sure that we're in strict compliance with the provincial

[1:02:40] Voice 2: data set and not missing any nation with an interest in either the marine or the land-based

[1:02:47] Voice 2: area of your local trust area okay

[1:02:49] Voice 6: thank you that makes sense so i'll move that the hornby

[1:02:53] Voice 6: local trust committee request staff to oh hold on a moment we've got a question from trustee allen

[1:02:59] Voice 8: oh

[1:02:59] Trustee Allen (probable): sorry yeah because i'm just following up on grant's question um because i seem to remember

[1:03:04] Trustee Allen (probable): there was 15 and there's 13 here and and i'm trying to quickly go through this thing that

[1:03:11] Trustee Allen (probable): that we got from policy analysts way back when.

[1:03:16] Trustee Allen (probable): And so I'm just wondering

[1:03:21] Trustee Allen (probable): whether there's a couple that are missing.

[1:03:23] Trustee Allen (probable): Cause there used to be, I heard 15, now there's 13.

[1:03:26] Trustee Allen (probable): So maybe perhaps Trustee Stubanek can help out.

[1:03:31] Trustee Allen (probable): So through the chair,

[1:03:32] Voice 2: we do do this

[1:03:34] Voice 2: every time we initiate a project

[1:03:36] Voice 2: and we are subject to provincial process

[1:03:42] Voice 2: with the nations to update those systems

[1:03:45] Voice 2: And sometimes there are changes through the course of a project where nations are added or removed from a list by the time the bylaws are going to the minister.

[1:03:53] Voice 2: So at the time that we ran the query for the provincial data set, these were the nations that were identified.

[1:04:00] Voice 2: However, if you have information that's relatively recent that identifies two other nations, you can please forward it to the planners and we will cross-reference.

[1:04:12] Voice 2: and we can always come back to the local trust committee with a supplemental resolution

[1:04:16] Voice 2: to include them yeah

[1:04:18] Trustee Allen (probable): i've got it all here so i will i'll do that thank you thank you

[1:04:24] Voice 6: trustee scott yeah so i'd like to move that uh part of the island local trust committee request

[1:04:29] Voice 6: staff to refer proposed bylaw number 176 ocp and 177 land use bylaw to the following first nations

[1:04:40] Voice 6: and agencies for comment.

[1:04:42] Voice 6: Do you want me to read through them?

[1:04:47] Voice 6: I

[1:04:48] Voice 7: don't think that that's strictly necessary, but...

[1:04:50] Voice 6: I'll stumble over some of them, but...

[1:04:52] Voice 6: You can. Go ahead.

[1:04:54] Voice 6: No, it's okay.

[1:04:55] Voice 6: No, if I don't have to, I won't.

[1:04:59] Voice 2: You can just reference as per Recommendation 5

[1:05:02] Voice 2: in the staff report dated August 9th.

[1:05:04] Voice 6: Sure, okay.

[1:05:06] Voice 6: To the following agencies for comment

[1:05:09] Voice 6: as listed in staff report,

[1:05:13] Voice 6: whatever you just said, Sonia.

[1:05:15] Voice 6: staff recommendation

[1:05:16] Voice 8: number five yeah

[1:05:18] Voice 6: that's great on page 21 of the staff report of august 9th

[1:05:31] Voice 8: okay uh so moved and did you second trustee allen i didn't quite hear you clearly yes sorry

[1:05:41] Voice 8: okay so it's been moved and seconded uh any further comment not hearing any i'll call the

[1:05:50] Voice 8: question all those in favor and that carries all right well um trustees that we seem to have uh

[1:06:06] Voice 8: made our way rather um quickly through this today and i'm sure we all appreciate the opportunity to

[1:06:15] Voice 8: get back out and enjoy this amazing weather um i'll just check in with staff to see if there's

[1:06:22] Voice 8: Is there any thing you want to add on next steps

[1:06:25] Voice 8: before we look for adjournment?

[1:06:28] Voice 2: No, other than the public is advised

[1:06:31] Voice 2: to provide any correspondence or input

[1:06:33] Voice 2: on what's now considered proposed bylaws 176 and 177

[1:06:38] Voice 2: addressed to the local trust committee,

[1:06:40] Voice 2: either through the planner

[1:06:41] Voice 2: or through the local trust committee's email address.

[1:06:43] Voice 2: We will post all public correspondence to the website

[1:06:46] Voice 2: and we can incorporate all that feedback

[1:06:48] Voice 2: as well as the referral comments

[1:06:50] Voice 2: in one package at a future date

[1:06:54] Voice 2: once the referral period closes.

[1:06:56] Voice 6: And you'll forward it to our EPC members, I presume?

[1:07:00] Voice 6: They

[1:07:00] Voice 2: are part of the referral list.

[1:07:02] Voice 6: It's on the list.

[1:07:03] Voice 2: That's right.

[1:07:03] Voice 2: So they'll receive a formal referral,

[1:07:05] Voice 2: schedule their meeting,

[1:07:06] Voice 2: and their recommendations will also form part of the package

[1:07:10] Voice 2: that you'll be considering once the referral period closes.

[1:07:14] Voice 2: Thank you.

[1:07:17] Voice 8: Yeah, excellent.

[1:07:18] Voice 8: Okay, and then as far as the application

[1:07:21] Voice 8: that we deferred of course our next meeting is the 13th of September so

[1:07:29] Voice 8: certainly if anyone is neighbors or knows neighbors to that property they

[1:07:34] Voice 8: let them know that that's when we're going to reconsider that application

[1:07:39] Voice 8: next and so if there's nothing further I will call for adjournment and thanks

[1:07:49] Voice 8: Thanks, everyone, and we'll see you September 13th.

[1:07:53] Voice 6: Thank you.

ADOPTED 
 
 
Hornby Island ADOPTED 1 
Local Trust Committee Special Meeting Minutes 
August 9, 2024 
 
Hornby Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
August 9, 2024 
Electronic Meeting 
 
Members Present: Timothy Peterson, Chair 
 Alex Allen, Local Trustee 
 Grant Scott, Local Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Sonja Zupanec, Island Planner (Regional Planning Team) 
 Ian Cox, Planner 2 
 Lisa Millard, Recorder 
  
Others Present: There were approximately 16 members of the public in attendance. 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. He acknowledged that the meeting was 
held on the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. 
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent the agenda was approved as presented. 
3. BUSINESS ITEMS 
3.1 10% Lot Frontage Waiver Request for Application HO-SUB-2023.2 (Mason & Grayson) - 
Staff Report 
The Planner summarized the staff report and highlighted the following: 
 Subject property to be subdivided into two lots; 
 Land Use Bylaw requires any proposed lot have minimum 10% of perimeter for 
access and; 
 Requirement cannot be met for subject property and applicant seeks a waiver in 
order to permit the lots to have less than 10% frontage on a roadway. 
 
Discussion ensued and the following comments and answers to questions were noted: 
 Rationale for granting the waiver is there are no anticipated negative impacts to 
access, circulation, or safety; 
 Staff clarified that the application is for a waiver request and not a variance; 
 Perimeter of Lots 1 and 2 measure 937 and 943 metres respectively and proposed 
combined frontage access to both lots is 23.46 metres per the staff report; 
 Existing frontage is already less than 10% requirement; 

ADOPTED 
 
 
Hornby Island ADOPTED 2 
Local Trust Committee Special Meeting Minutes 
August 9, 2024 
 Subdivision is an administrative process in that an applicant applies to the Ministry 
of Transportation and Infrastructure with the Provincial Approving Officer to 
subdivide, the Local Trust Committee receives a referral from the Ministry to ensure 
the proposed layout meets the adopted Land Use Bylaw, the referral response 
outlines any conditions that need to be met, and the Ministry/Provincial Approving 
Officer is the body that approves or denies the subdivision; and 
 Trustees noted concern that the process does not require consultation with 
adjacent property owners or statutory public notification.  
 
The applicant was in attendance and made the following comments: 
 Application is in compliance with bylaws; 
 No further subdivision of the property will be possible due to layout; 
 Approval or denial of subdivision is in the jurisdiction of Ministry of Transportation 
and Infrastructure; and 
 Has not spoken to neighbours because the waiver will have no effect on adjacent 
property owners as road access is already in place. 
 
HO-2024-027 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee defer application HO-SUB- 2023.2  
until next meeting to provide neighbours an opportunity to comment in public.  
 
CARRIED 
3.2 Major Project: Official Community Plan / Land Use Bylaw Draft Bylaw Nos. 176 (OCP) 
and 177 (LUB) - Staff Report 
The Planner summarized the staff report and highlighted the following: 
 Project is to amend Official Community Plan (OCP) and Land Use Bylaw (LUB) 
specific to the first phase of changes listed in the project charter dealing with 
housing, secondary suites, vacation rentals, chickens, and cisterns; and policies are 
in the OCP related to these issues and supporting regulation amendments; 
 Second phase of project deals with First Nations matters and references which are 
on hold during continued engagement with K’omoks First Nation; 
 Intent is to get to first reading which then enables staff to get input from the 
referral agencies, First Nations, and the Advisory Planning Commission; and 
 Once referral comments are received back the Local Trust Committee can make 
amendments to the bylaws and go to public hearing. 
 
Discussion ensued and Trustees indicated interest in giving first reading so the proposed 
bylaws can go to referral agencies and the public which would provide the necessary 
feedback so the Local Trust Committee could then work on any issues identified. 
 
The Chair referred to correspondence received which asked for the definition of short-
term rental and if the provincial 90 day exemption would apply in absence of a 
definition.  
Planner clarified the draft proposes to use the Temporary Use Permit guidelines to 
define the type of use permitted and locations on the island that will allow the said 

ADOPTED 
 
 
Hornby Island ADOPTED 3 
Local Trust Committee Special Meeting Minutes 
August 9, 2024 
use. The current definition in the Land Use Bylaw is proposed to be removed 
because it has a regulatory nature to it and it is preferable to use the Temporary Use 
Permit to define regulations and guidelines. 
 
HO-2024-028 
It was MOVED and SECONDED  
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee has reviewed the Islands Trust 
Policy Statement Directives Only Checklist and determined that Bylaw No. 176, 
cited as “Hornby Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 149, 2014, 
Amendment No. 1, 2024”, is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust 
Policy Statement. 
CARRIED 
HO-2024-029 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee has reviewed the Islands Trust 
Policy Statement Directives Only Checklist and determined that Bylaw No. 177, 
cited as “Hornby Island Land Use Bylaw No. 150, 2014, Amendment No. 1, 
2024”, is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement. 
 
CARRIED 
 
HO-2024-030 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 176, cited as “Hornby 
Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 149, 2014, Amendment No. 1, 2024” 
be read a first time. 
 
CARRIED 
 
HO-2024-031 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 177, cited as “Hornby 
Island Land Use Bylaw No. 150, 2014, Amendment No. 1, 2024” be read a first 
time. 
 
CARRIED 
 
HO-2024-032 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee request staff to refer Proposed 
Bylaw Nos. 176 (OCP) and 177 (LUB) to the following First Nations and Agencies 
for comment as listed in staff recommendation No. 5 on page 21 of August 9, 
2024 Staff Report.  
 
CARRIED 
 
 

ADOPTED 
 
 
Hornby Island ADOPTED 4 
Local Trust Committee Special Meeting Minutes 
August 9, 2024 
The Planner noted the public is advised to provide any correspondence or input on 
proposed Bylaws Nos. 176 and 177 addressed to the Local Trust Committee either 
through the Planner or through the Local Trust Committee’s email address and that all 
public correspondence is posted to the website. 
4. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
Tim Peterson, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
 
_________________________ 
Lisa Millard, Meeting Administrator/Recorder