South Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, January 17, 2025

[0:00:00] Voice 7: that's good day in St. Johnson. I hope I'm approximating. Good morning. Thank you for

[0:00:06] Voice 7: coming to this special business meeting of the South Pender Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:11] Voice 7: And I'm going to turn it over to Hereditary Chief Eric Pelkey, who will welcome us to the

[0:00:18] Voice 7: territory and give us some words.

[0:00:21] Voice 9: My traditional name is Chris Keenum. I'm the Hereditary Chief

[0:00:27] of Sealt,

[0:00:29] Voice 9: of St. Ignatian. And our family's chieftainship history actually originates

[0:00:36] here from the village at Cuninuc down in Portugal where our people were historically removed

[0:00:45] by the colonial government from our original village site and moved over to where we are

[0:00:52] are now in sale and uh so we have uh we

[0:00:57] Voice 9: have strong ties to this area historical ties and uh

[0:01:03] our uh our family still

[0:01:06] Voice 9: utilize this area for as long as i can remember for hunting and fishing

[0:01:12] Voice 9: trapping so uh it is a well-utilized area for our people we have many many stories of things

[0:01:22] that happened to us

[0:01:23] Voice 9: out here in this area, so you know, I'm really glad to come here to

[0:01:32] Voice 9: let you know who we are. We are the French nation and this was one of our villages here.

[0:01:41] Voice 9: here. Our territory encompasses all of the southern Gulf Islands and the San Juan Islands

[0:01:52] Voice 9: all the way over to White Rock, Semiyamu. Historically, the Lummi people were part of

[0:02:01] Voice 9: of our nation also, until the creation

[0:02:06] Voice 9: of the Canada-American border split our nation apart.

[0:02:13] Voice 9: And they became the Lummi nation.

[0:02:17] Voice 9: But we all still speak the same language

[0:02:20] Voice 9: and still all have our cultural ties

[0:02:22] Voice 9: and really have a lot of activities

[0:02:28] Voice 9: between our families and our communities.

[0:02:31] Voice 9: But, you know, they have different ways of working with their government than we have with Canada.

[0:02:42] Voice 9: So they seem to be flourishing as a nation.

[0:02:49] Voice 9: They were given more land through their treaty on that side than we were given on this side for our communities.

[0:03:00] Voice 9: so we really have a lot to learn from them especially in regard to the reef net fishing

[0:03:10] Voice 9: and I'm glad that Paul has provided this map here. This map is actually a map that originated

[0:03:23] Voice 9: names from the Thompson Bay Marina case, and they were sent in by our elders, Earl Fox and Ray Sam,

[0:03:33] Voice 9: to the BC Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada to demonstrate our territory and our

[0:03:41] rights throughout the islands here. And as you can see, all the Ketothan names,

[0:03:48] Voice 9: where the islands

[0:03:50] Voice 9: are on here, and where you see that it doesn't have Kinshasa names means that's not part

[0:03:57] Voice 9: of our territory.

[0:03:58] Voice 9: And historically, Act of Path became a border between us and the Haudenosaunee people through

[0:04:08] Voice 9: many wars and treaties and agreements between each other, that we honored that Act of Path

[0:04:16] Voice 9: with a divider, a known border to our territory,

[0:04:22] and we respected the people's rights

[0:04:27] on the Northern Gulf Island.

[0:04:30] So all of these colors that are on here,

[0:04:33] when you read along the bottom of the color code,

[0:04:37] they're different, they were different purposes

[0:04:41] for each color and each location on the island.

[0:04:45] and you see arrows that come up here and that is the path of the salmon the

[0:04:53] Voice 9: path of the salmon

[0:04:55] Voice 9: was uh shown here through the arrows and our people so our people knew when the salmon were

[0:05:02] Voice 9: coming where they were going to go to and historically we had reef banks all along the

[0:05:11] Voice 9: the path of the salmon.

[0:05:12] Voice 9: And on San Juan Island, Stockwoods,

[0:05:20] Voice 9: there was many reef nets sites

[0:05:22] Voice 9: and my great-grandmother, her family,

[0:05:29] that's mostly reflected in the saltwater people book

[0:05:33] that you see, that's out there, that's published.

[0:05:39] Voice 9: That is about mostly our family that was on that side.

[0:05:44] Voice 9: And many of our Spanish people have rights there and are tied to the reef sites out there.

[0:05:56] Voice 9: And up on this side of the border, just down here in Portugal, that village was known as Quintinuj.

[0:06:10] that was our village, and that's where our family chieftainship comes from, is that village

[0:06:18] that we were moved from.

[0:06:19] Voice 9: So Quintinuke is historically our home, and the reef net across the bay is called Skeechta.

[0:06:29] Skeechta and Quintinuke were tied together, that Skeechta was the reef net site, and now

[0:06:36] Now our people know that it's

[0:06:40] Voice 9: the Pelkey Reef Net site, so we still utilize that and lately

[0:06:48] Voice 9: we've been having reef net demonstrations down there every summer.

[0:06:54] Voice 9: But hopefully we're going to expand that out to the other previously used reef net sites

[0:07:05] Like you see, wherever you see escuela, escuela, escuela,

[0:07:10] escuela, you see them, the names all over here.

[0:07:14] That is where a reef net site would have been located.

[0:07:18] And the one that was really flourishing

[0:07:25] at the time of the outlawed plant,

[0:07:28] the one that was outlawed by Canada

[0:07:31] Voice 9: was actually like Plain Roberts.

[0:07:34] Voice 9: Plain Roberts and Boundary Bay. We had a really huge reef net site there and our families

[0:07:43] always utilized that one. So that has more of a widespread ownership amongst the percentage

[0:07:54] people.

[0:07:54] Voice 9: So there is many more people on that reef net site than all of these other reef

[0:07:59] Voice 9: that thing. So we go through the color codes and it'll show you show you how each one of these

[0:08:07] Voice 9: areas was used was utilized by our people and how this this map demonstrated that what our true

[0:08:16] Voice 9: territory was and what it was used for that we had a continuous use of those those areas from

[0:08:25] Voice 9: from Tama Memorial.

[0:08:27] Voice 9: And this is one of the maps that actually proved

[0:08:29] Voice 9: that we still had a treaty,

[0:08:32] because Canada and BC were trying to deny

[0:08:35] that the Douglas Treaty, our treaty, existed.

[0:08:39] And through the oral history that was presented

[0:08:42] by Earl Fox and Ray Sam,

[0:08:46] showed that through this documentation,

[0:08:51] all of this was backed up by a big stack

[0:08:54] stock of information. And they sat on the witness stand for two weeks, two weeks being

[0:09:01] cross-examined about our history and rights within the territory. And in the end, we won

[0:09:09] that case that stopped the

[0:09:11] Voice 9: construction of the Sandston Bay Marina in our bay right in

[0:09:17] Voice 9: front of our village. And why that happened was that one day a dredger came floating into

[0:09:24] Voice 9: our bay and started dredging up our bay in front of our village. And so Gerald Thompson Jr. and my

[0:09:33] Voice 9: cousin Ignatius Pelkey and Chief Philip Paul actually went out there in little boats and

[0:09:38] Voice 9: stopped them. But later on we found out that the Oak Bay Marine Group was planning to build

[0:09:49] a huge marina that would take up the whole bay in front of our village so we had we end up going to

[0:09:56] court court for that and uh

[0:09:59] Voice 9: i think we were in court for like six years six years of uh court

[0:10:05] Voice 9: battles before we finally won a permanent junction for any kind of commercial development in our

[0:10:12] Voice 9: in our bay in front of our village so that this uh this is a really important map to us

[0:10:19] And it is

[0:10:20] Voice 9: a historical map now because all of our people can refer to it.

[0:10:25] Voice 9: So I'm really glad that people are starting to learn about us

[0:10:30] Voice 9: and learn about our territory and learn about the importance of maps like this

[0:10:37] Voice 9: that demonstrate who we are and what our rights are.

[0:10:42] Voice 9: So this proved that our treaty of 1852 still exists, that we have the right to hunt fishes

[0:10:52] Voice 9: formally and that for us that was always really important for out here because this is one of our

[0:10:59] Voice 9: traditional hunting sites. Our people used to still come out here, my grandfather and ourselves

[0:11:08] Voice 9: ourselves, would start hunting from always from Poets Cove, from our village site and

[0:11:16] Voice 9: then go out and they would like have a, what they call a deer drive, push the deer, push

[0:11:26] Voice 9: the deer to the canal area and that's where they would take them, take them there.

[0:11:34] So there was a, what they called a push, a push, you know, they'd push the deer over

[0:11:41] there and then they'd take the ones they wanted.

[0:11:43] Voice 9: So that's, that historically was, was one of the things that we still utilized our people

[0:11:51] Voice 9: for.

[0:11:53] Voice 9: And I can always recall those, those that happened from when I was six years old, I

[0:11:59] I remember coming out here and I was pitching a tent and starting the hunt.

[0:12:06] So all was much good other than making noise, you know.

[0:12:11] But yeah, this is a really important map to our people.

[0:12:16] I'm really glad that we're planning on putting it up in the school here

[0:12:19] and educating them

[0:12:21] Voice 9: about who we are and how our people are related to this land

[0:12:25] Voice 9: and how we are still here.

[0:12:28] Voice 9: so i'm always willing to as the hereditary chief to share our history and our rights

[0:12:34] Voice 9: with people who are willing to learn and uh thank you for welcoming me here today

[0:12:44] Voice 7: it's been an honor and you're

[0:12:45] Voice 7: so great for your time and your words and your wisdom

[0:12:48] Voice 7: and for sharing with us today it is so important for our um this is a business meeting but we want

[0:12:54] Voice 7: to center the nation's

[0:12:55] Voice 4: interest in your people's legacy.

[0:13:01] Voice 6: Well that was a wonderful way to start our

[0:13:08] Voice 7: business. It situates us in

[0:13:11] Voice 7: the place and reminds us of how long

[0:13:17] Voice 7: people's connection to this land and waters has been.

[0:13:20] Voice 7: and so let's carry on and keep that in mind if you need to leave before we're included just

[0:13:29] Voice 7: so we'll move to approving the agenda we just have one business item

[0:13:37] Voice 7: which is the consideration of the minor land use by-law project and this was because we couldn't

[0:13:45] Voice 7: meet in um december so we deferred this but we need to move this project forward so we're having

[0:13:52] Voice 7: a special meeting today and all the other items from the january or the december meeting will

[0:13:57] Voice 7: happen um as planned in february um we don't have on the agenda uh town hall and primarily

[0:14:07] Voice 7: that's because we've heard a lot of input from the community the apc and letters and but this

[0:14:15] Voice 7: is the chance for the ltc to really consider everything and have its own discussion about

[0:14:19] Voice 7: what we've heard and learned so far but i'll ask the trustees if you want to have a town hall

[0:14:25] Voice 7: we can add that to the agenda i would suggest afterwards so that we can have our discussion

[0:14:31] Voice 7: first ask the planner any questions we've got a lot of information to consider and then we

[0:14:36] Voice 7: could open it up for um if you want what do you

[0:14:40] Voice 12: think can i just ask a question are we voting

[0:14:43] Voice 12: Are we voting on anything today? Are we making motions?

[0:14:46] Voice 12: It's your choice.

[0:14:48] Voice 12: Yeah, so it probably doesn't make sense to have the town hall after, because then the town hall presumably would help inform us, perhaps.

[0:14:59] Voice 12: So it seems like it's entirely reversed. I'm not attached to the decision of whether or not we are voting today.

[0:15:06] Voice 12: I'd probably prefer that we don't.

[0:15:08] Voice 12: but yeah my sort of sense is that we should discuss and more or less kind of get a feel

[0:15:15] Voice 12: for where each of our must stand and and kind of work to reach consensus or understanding at least

[0:15:25] Voice 12: on each of the items and but not to vote on anything and then perhaps i don't follow up

[0:15:34] Voice 12: you know we can then we can we can make a motion to give direction to staff to continue developing

[0:15:40] Voice 12: things or whatever and then a final vote time would be at another meeting

[0:15:45] Voice 6: unless

[0:15:46] Voice 12: that skews

[0:15:48] Voice 12: our timeline too much

[0:15:49] Voice 6: but

[0:15:50] Voice 12: that's just my thought at this moment i'm open to other ideas

[0:15:55] Trustee Evans: mine are um again i'm with dag i'd like to have the town hall up front um give the community a

[0:16:01] Trustee Evans: chance to talk about the APC and give their comments because we haven't heard those yet

[0:16:06] Trustee Evans: we've had um correspondence but if there's any comments from the public that they'd like to make

[0:16:12] Trustee Evans: now I'd rather hear them in advance I would like to if if we reach a point where we're where we

[0:16:18] Trustee Evans: say yes we would like to ask staff to create the draft I would like to be able to direct the staff

[0:16:25] Trustee Evans: to create the draft and that will require a motion right so um and we will have to vote on that

[0:16:31] Trustee Evans: yeah well that's okay so yeah um this isn't this isn't to do anything other than move this forward

[0:16:39] Trustee Evans: so um that would be my preference yeah

[0:16:43] Voice 7: and i'll just note that um before referrals can be sent out

[0:16:48] Voice 7: to first nations other agencies we need a draft bylaw yeah right so um it is you know in some

[0:16:57] Voice 7: ways beneficial to move to drafting something so that we can then refer it and hear back comments

[0:17:02] Voice 7: because that's we may have to go to second drafting like redraft if we hear significant

[0:17:08] Voice 7: um comments or things that we want to reconsider so that's if i understand the process correctly

[0:17:15] Voice 7: we need to have a draft to send out for comment um but again this business meeting is yours to really

[0:17:21] Voice 7: dig into the project give us your thoughts um i will start off one of my goals i guess the

[0:17:30] Voice 7: focusing question for this meeting um i'd like us to keep in mind what are the goals of this project

[0:17:36] Voice 7: what are what were we trying to accomplish coming back to the core of it is it to fix process is it

[0:17:45] Voice 7: to make sure that the, you know,

[0:17:48] Voice 7: LEB bylaw 122 is the one that this community wants?

[0:17:53] Voice 7: Is it to create further environmental protection?

[0:17:59] Voice 7: Is it, you know, so just keep that in mind

[0:18:03] Voice 7: is what is your goal in this project?

[0:18:05] Voice 7: So we don't want to just, you know,

[0:18:07] Voice 7: we can spend a lot of time debating

[0:18:09] Voice 7: the pros and cons of each point,

[0:18:11] Voice 7: but if we have a goal that will focus us

[0:18:13] Voice 7: because then we know are we moving towards that goal um so if you want to have a town hall and

[0:18:19] Voice 7: hearing from both of you that you'd

[0:18:21] Voice 6: like us to

[0:18:22] Voice 7: address your question to us because i think that

[0:18:25] Voice 7: might

[0:18:25] Voice 4: be good up front as you're saying

[0:18:28] Voice 7: sure um let's well we'll have to amend the agenda to add

[0:18:34] Voice 7: a town hall so we're still at the moving of agenda um i think when we get into the business item we

[0:18:40] Voice 7: could um each of us could share what what was the goal of the project so if we need to add a town

[0:18:47] Voice 7: hall do you want it both yeah right now at

[0:18:49] Voice 7: the top okay so we'll amend the agenda and add a town hall

[0:18:54] Voice 7: for comment at uh i guess 3.1 before we move into our business at 4.1 we'll open the floor

[0:19:06] Voice 7: floor. This is a business meeting. Please keep your comments respectful and on topic.

[0:19:12] Voice 7: Identify yourself, of course, if you are.

[0:19:15] Voice 4: Since people are looking to the floor, do

[0:19:17] Voice 4: you want us to address your question about what was the purpose of this project?

[0:19:24] Voice 4: Sure.

[0:19:27] Voice 7: Well, I would prefer that the LTC discusses the project itself and

[0:19:34] Voice 1: then use from the community

[0:19:35] Voice 7: and then we can come back and make a decision

[0:19:37] Voice 7: because really this is just curiousness too

[0:19:39] Voice 7: yeah

[0:19:41] Voice 7: so with your indulgence I'd like to have the town

[0:19:43] Voice 7: hall afterwards we can come back to a decision

[0:19:46] Voice 7: we can

[0:19:47] Voice 7: have part two and then

[0:19:49] Voice 7: make a decision if you want to

[0:19:51] Voice 7: direct staff if anything's changed

[0:19:55] Voice 7: I just think we both

[0:19:56] Trustee Evans: said we wanted the town hall in the beginning

[0:19:57] Trustee Evans: okay

[0:19:58] Voice 7: let's go

[0:20:02] Voice 7: who would like to address the local trust committee

[0:20:04] Voice 7: today the floor is yours

[0:20:05] Voice 7: nobody

[0:20:09] Voice 13: else goes first I will because then everybody can shoot down what I'm saying but

[0:20:13] Voice 13: I think um I just did a little a little calculation and I know Jane um Birch had

[0:20:21] Voice 13: done something like this in the property um about what the setbacks what what the effect

[0:20:28] Voice 13: of setbacks were on buildable area and on my property I was thinking okay I've got 10 feet

[0:20:35] Voice 13: times 440 feet on each side on a two acre property it's a further 10 percent of my property that's

[0:20:44] Voice 13: no longer buildable without the approval of um or um my neighbors and uh my neighbors aren't

[0:20:56] Voice 13: paying my taxes of course none of my taxes i'm trust is not lowering my taxes um that's just me

[0:21:04] Voice 13: And I was looking at different properties on the waterfront and assuming, you know, I don't, the map, it's no longer up there, so I can't see it, but just assuming what the properties were, just inside, so inside setbacks alone, now that's 20% of my property.

[0:21:26] Voice 13: there's no i can't feel that i mean 10 was fine but but the property the setbacks on the what i

[0:21:34] Voice 13: can see from the areas in front of me um some of them the side setbacks now are 20 more and they

[0:21:43] Voice 13: would be that would be a total of 40 of their property with the addition of the um setback

[0:21:50] Voice 13: from the sea which i don't think anybody's complaining about that but um i think that's

[0:21:56] Voice 13: a consideration considering that just property values land values and i know some people aren't

[0:22:04] Voice 13: concerned about land values at all some of us might at some point have to move back to the

[0:22:09] Voice 13: city and or to a place where there's better health care or whatever um our land values just in the

[0:22:16] Voice 13: last assessment have gone down appreciably more um on the waterfront i'm not on the waterfront but

[0:22:22] Voice 13: but just looking at it because it will have a reflection

[0:22:23] Voice 13: on what other properties are sold for later.

[0:22:29] Voice 13: Those land values just in front of our place

[0:22:33] Voice 13: have gone down a minimum of $150,000 in the last assessment.

[0:22:39] Voice 13: So, you know, that's going to have some impact

[0:22:42] Voice 13: on what properties of the waterfront could be sold for.

[0:22:48] Voice 13: And I know I've been told before that Islands Trust doesn't care, obviously, what the property values are, but I think that when you look at the six major southern Gulf Islands, none of them have gone to 20-foot setbacks on the side.

[0:23:07] Voice 13: and so those you don't see this type of drop if you look at the assessments on

[0:23:13] Voice 13: no offender at all it's completely just not there but I don't know whether

[0:23:22] Voice 13: anybody else is concerned about that so that's my thought like I say my

[0:23:28] Voice 13: My neighbor's not paying my taxes.

[0:23:31] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:23:34] Voice 6: Yes.

[0:23:36] Voice 6: I am

[0:23:44] Voice 5: disillusioned by this.

[0:23:50] Voice 5: These conversations that we've been having,

[0:23:53] Voice 5: where there seems to be such an intense focus

[0:23:57] Voice 5: on property values and calculating areas

[0:24:04] Voice 5: that can't be built on,

[0:24:07] Voice 5: there seems to be that focus instead of preserving and protecting and and enjoying and loving and

[0:24:18] Voice 5: looking after the trees and the animals and everything that is here that we want to interact

[0:24:28] Voice 5: with that's why we're here otherwise we feel it's true and so i i really want that to be held

[0:24:35] Voice 5: as the highest place that we should be coming from instead of what we can what people can

[0:24:44] Voice 5: personally get out of it and um i'm personally a little sickened by it and um i don't um

[0:24:53] Voice 5: i'm proud to be have the stand that i have and um i want to say that again

[0:25:04] Voice 5: Again, so that's all I have to say at the moment.

[0:25:15] Voice 11: I think I'd like to see the trustees get on with it.

[0:25:20] Voice 11: You know, we're into year three here.

[0:25:23] Voice 11: And if you haven't heard it by now, chances are you're not going to hear it.

[0:25:29] Voice 11: so I'm not sure how much longer maybe the plan is to drift it out you don't have to make any

[0:25:38] Voice 11: changes I'm not sure but I think it's time that the trustees stood up now and gave the community

[0:25:48] Voice 11: an indication on what you're going to do or what you're planning nobody knows at this stage what

[0:25:54] Voice 11: your thoughts are nobody has approved i don't think so i just believe that it's time i appreciate all

[0:26:03] Voice 11: the meetings and everything but there's been a lot so that i'm sure you must have got community

[0:26:09] Voice 11: feedback by now so i think it's time um i think everybody who might be speaking on a turn here

[0:26:15] Voice 11: would like to see some action thank

[0:26:19] Voice 6: you yes uh

[0:26:22] Voice 8: so uh i've worked with appraisers uh realtors

[0:26:27] Voice 8: for about 40 years and uh first thing i want to say is that assessed value and market value

[0:26:37] Voice 8: while similar are not the same market value is not a reflection of the assessed value and so often

[0:26:45] Voice 8: you'll see properties sell for a very different price than what it's assessed by a BC assessment

[0:26:50] Voice 8: program. Secondly, there are many communities where they have more restrictions where the

[0:26:58] Voice 8: properties are more valuable and I would posit that the community that prizes privacy,

[0:27:07] Voice 8: the rights of nature, environmental protection, and all of those considerations over time

[0:27:15] Voice 8: against communities that don't will not only retain its value but become more valuable

[0:27:23] Voice 8: as communities with lesser restrictions no setbacks less consideration for privacy less

[0:27:30] Voice 8: consideration for nature green spaces all those things what we're seeing is intensification in

[0:27:37] Voice 8: terms of development there are more properties being built on in areas that weren't before

[0:27:42] Voice 8: work. And once the horses left the barn, it's too late. And so

[0:27:50] Voice 8: protecting what we have is a long term strategy to not only

[0:27:56] Voice 8: maintain but enhance value. So if your consideration is

[0:28:01] Voice 8: monetary, it's beneficial. If your consideration is for

[0:28:06] Voice 8: environmental benefits, and health benefits, let's say,

[0:28:12] Voice 8: leaning towards a more restrictive environment will actually pay off.

[0:28:26] Voice 10: Paul Petrie, I'd like to briefly comment on two things. One is your question about the

[0:28:36] Voice 10: goals of the LTC and where they would like to go. And what I would like to suggest is that

[0:28:45] the starting place for that is with the goals in our OCP.

[0:28:50] Voice 10: The Local Trust

[0:28:52] Voice 10: Committee has an obligation under the Trust Act to follow those goals and to

[0:28:57] Voice 10: me that's the starting point and we should measure what changes we make to

[0:29:04] Voice 10: our current land use bylaw by how those changes better reflect our OCP. If those

[0:29:12] proposed changes do not

[0:29:14] Voice 10: correspond for the goals in our OCP or we can support

[0:29:19] Voice 10: for those goals I would suggest that that's something that's a path that from

[0:29:24] Voice 10: my own perspective I would strongly prefer that that not be pursued so you

[0:29:33] Voice 10: know I participated in all of the meetings so far I've been probably a

[0:29:40] Voice 10: little bit excessive in sharing my views with the local trust committee but i feel as as one member

[0:29:46] Voice 10: of the community who's been here for a long time i have an obligation to do that as well

[0:29:52] Voice 10: so the second point i'd like to make is around the apc and you have my dissenting

[0:30:00] Voice 10: you and I'm not going to go through any of that the one point that I would like to refer to there

[0:30:05] Voice 10: though is the issue of legal non-conforming and um you know sitting on the OCP number of meetings

[0:30:13] Voice 10: that we had um there was not a concurrence of the impact of uh that concept uh on our work

[0:30:24] Voice 10: my understanding from two staff reports is that bylaw 122 rendered all properties on south pender

[0:30:33] Voice 10: island legally conforming as of uh september 15th uh 2022 and um there are some folks with different

[0:30:45] Voice 10: views about that but i think clarification of that is important the last thing i will say is that

[0:30:50] Voice 10: uh the absence of that issue taking any profile on the staff report concerned me i i really felt like

[0:30:58] Voice 10: that was an opportunity to address that issue since some positions from the apc recommendations

[0:31:05] Voice 10: that you have to consider are based on one understanding and some are based on a different

[0:31:12] Voice 10: understanding and clarification of that issue with some certainty for the community would certainly

[0:31:18] Voice 10: help bring us together in terms of what what the best path forward is and

[0:31:23] Voice 10: finally I agree with Gordie that yes it's time we've we've put a lot of time

[0:31:28] Voice 10: into this community on this issue and there are other pressing issues I just

[0:31:34] Voice 10: read a letter from Ron Henshaw talking about those issues and and I think it's

[0:31:39] Voice 10: time for us to get this over with and get on to those more important issues

[0:31:44] Voice 10: that have been largely ignored over the first two and a half years here and and

[0:31:49] Voice 10: finally just appreciation for this committee's commitment to keeping

[0:31:56] Voice 10: reconciliation on the agenda as a standing item so thank you for today for

[0:32:02] Voice 10: hearing chief Eric Kelty as well thank you so

[0:32:06] Voice 7: we will during our consideration

[0:32:08] Voice 7: of the project we'll ask the planner about that the leading non-reforming any lack of that in

[0:32:15] Voice 7: the report thank you for those points can we

[0:32:17] Voice 12: respond um

[0:32:19] Voice 7: well no let's get to let's just hear

[0:32:22] Voice 7: from the community and then we'll discuss yes and actually can i ask for any first-time speakers

[0:32:28] Voice 7: before we go to second speakers hi

[0:32:31] Voice 15: i'm jerry frees and it bothers me that homeowners will go

[0:32:38] Voice 15: Go to buy a piece of property, build, be properly conforming, and then the rules are changed on them.

[0:32:46] Voice 15: The next trustees that come in could change what it is now, and then there's more people that are actually paying more.

[0:32:53] Voice 15: I've talked to people who are now not properly conforming in spite of the fact that it's all legal, but they are paying more, and they resent it highly.

[0:33:06] Voice 15: That doesn't seem right.

[0:33:07] Voice 15: like what's the point in making all these rules if they're going to be changed in the next four

[0:33:14] Voice 15: years or the next eight years there's nothing secure thank you any other speakers

[0:33:26] Voice 6: um

[0:33:27] Voice 13: i just want to remind everyone of course that um these setbacks changed two years ago

[0:33:36] Voice 13: 2022 at the end of 2022 and there was a lot of dissent at that time to these that's happening

[0:33:43] Voice 13: but they were changed anyways and it seems to me that there's a core group of people who come to

[0:33:49] Voice 13: these meetings now and of course the same thing happened last time but with a core group of people

[0:33:54] Voice 13: that came on the sort of I hate this but opposite side and we were told that oh nobody wanted to

[0:34:02] Voice 13: show up to the meetings because they would be you know they were there were issues i feel sometimes

[0:34:10] Voice 13: like if i show up to these meetings and express my views that i'm being um one person asked me

[0:34:18] Voice 13: like don't you believe in climate change in a personal conversation like you must be right out

[0:34:23] Voice 13: of touch here i do not understand what building can be closer to a property line would mean a two

[0:34:30] Voice 13: to climate change when most likely there's no other house within 30 or 40 feet um and you're

[0:34:38] Voice 13: talking about a small area but now it's under the control of somebody else so this idea that um

[0:34:45] Voice 13: you know other people that people should not be have the right to what they used to have on their

[0:34:53] Voice 13: property and like i say this is only a two-year thing it's not something that was set in stone

[0:34:59] Voice 13: although I heard one comment that we've always had these setbacks, no we have not always had

[0:35:05] Voice 13: these setbacks. These setbacks started two years ago and were pushed through very quickly without

[0:35:11] Voice 13: much of the community's agreement. So you know, okay well I've said what I wanted to say.

[0:35:22] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:35:25] Voice 6: Yes, sir.

[0:35:27] Voice 2: Yeah, I just thought, well, I should preface it with saying I'm rather ignorant of all, not all, but of the finer details that you folks have to deal with.

[0:35:38] Voice 2: And I appreciate the time and work that you do.

[0:35:41] Voice 2: Just trying to look at it from an overview from my own head is what I keep hearing throughout is the focus on bylaws, property lines.

[0:35:54] Voice 2: specific very sort of a narrow view of what's going on on the island

[0:36:01] Voice 2: whereas what when i think of island trust and the business about preserve and protect

[0:36:07] Voice 2: is not other than maybe people in town hall saying it um hearing that the focus the overall

[0:36:15] Voice 2: focus to me should be on preserving what we've got here um for the future not just for us but

[0:36:23] Voice 2: so everything that we just is decided should be in that light that um so water is an issue for

[0:36:34] Voice 2: all the islands increasingly everywhere fire is a big issue so if this is about community

[0:36:42] Voice 2: involvement i would i would feel that we need as a community more and more urgent information

[0:36:52] Voice 2: information and rules or whatever guidance around water fire um personations interests

[0:37:02] Voice 2: um because they have a much they have a much broader view than we do i think

[0:37:08] Voice 2: on uh where things should be going where they have gone and where they should be going so

[0:37:15] Voice 2: to keep coming back to me i just i i struggle with it every time i i read and i'm not trying

[0:37:22] Voice 2: to be critical, I'm just trying to point out where I'm coming from with it. It's not making a lot of

[0:37:29] Voice 2: sense to me whether I stay here or not, but when everyone who comes here says how beautiful, how

[0:37:38] Voice 2: amazing it is to build violence, that's one issue, but it seems like we were stuck in the mud. So

[0:37:46] Voice 2: maybe I would reinforce someone saying, the people saying, let's go on with sorting this stuff out

[0:37:53] Voice 2: so that we can get on to the more important issues. I'm repeating what someone else has said,

[0:37:58] Voice 2: but I feel very emotional about that part of it. I realize you have limited resources

[0:38:07] Voice 2: to do this stuff, but a lot of it's not making sense to me in the overall picture of our lives

[0:38:15] Voice 2: in general in the larger bc and local and our island so thanks for hearing thank you

[0:38:26] Voice 11: yes sir

[0:38:31] Voice 11: nobody else gory duncan um it's a bit of a response about the non-conforming issue

[0:38:38] Voice 11: I believe that the APC presented some solutions that minimize non-conforming and will deal with

[0:38:51] Voice 11: it once and for all and yet accomplish what I believe both sides of this room want. And it

[0:38:59] Voice 11: It doesn't require long-winded definitions

[0:39:06] Voice 11: of what legal non-conforming and how it gets into it.

[0:39:10] Voice 11: Legal non-conforming becomes a minor issue

[0:39:13] Voice 11: dealing with what it's intended to is the exceptions,

[0:39:17] Voice 11: not the rule where 122 brought at least 45%

[0:39:25] Voice 11: of the homes into that category.

[0:39:27] Voice 11: So the idea was to get something that would be workable for both sides of the community, and there is two sides.

[0:39:46] Voice 6: Wonderful. Thank you all for sharing

[0:39:50] Voice 7: your views with us.

[0:39:51] Voice 7: And I hope as we move through this meeting, we will get closer to some satisfying answers on some of your questions.

[0:39:58] Voice 7: I appreciate the questions, ones that are for the planner I noticed that Kim Stockdale has been writing down so she'll be able to address those.

[0:40:07] Voice 7: But yeah, I think we'll turn to the reports and get into this project.

[0:40:16] Voice 7: So a single item today is a consideration of the Liner Land Use By-law Amendments Project which, yes, we have been engaged in since, I believe, December 2022 we probably started the project, the Charter.

[0:40:36] Voice 7: um when i asked about the goals of the ltc in uh reviewing this land use bylaw

[0:40:47] Voice 7: it i do think it's important to think about because we want to be clear what are we trying

[0:40:56] Voice 7: to accomplish with this project and how will we know when that is successful and that will help

[0:41:04] Voice 7: us identify what are we what is holding us back from reaching that goal so is there more

[0:41:10] Voice 7: information needed are things unclear do we need planner analysis or more input from the community

[0:41:18] Voice 7: or more discussion so if we know what we want is it a better process restoring trust with the

[0:41:24] Voice 7: community through process that was not well done last term by many accounts is it to re-examine

[0:41:32] Voice 7: the land use bylaw and make sure that it conforms to the ocp and then upholds this community's goals

[0:41:38] Voice 7: and the preserve and protect mandate is it to strengthen environmental protection is it to

[0:41:45] Voice 7: provide clarity where there's ambiguity on like the legal non-conforming clauses for instance so

[0:41:53] Voice 7: i would like to hear from trustees what is your goal um with this project so that we know

[0:41:57] Voice 7: when we get there. I'll turn it over to trustees first and then the doctor I think has provided

[0:42:05] Voice 7: her report and she can answer any questions as they arise. Okay

[0:42:12] Trustee Evans: I can go first. So for myself

[0:42:16] Trustee Evans: my goals when I became trustee after going through the process in the last term and being

[0:42:26] Trustee Evans: on the other side where you guys are um i felt the conversation was cut short and a decision

[0:42:32] Trustee Evans: was made because it was the end of their term the conversation for me still needed to continue

[0:42:39] Trustee Evans: we hadn't reached a place where the community had come together we were very dis you know far apart

[0:42:47] Trustee Evans: there were two very distinct opinions as to what needed to happen um now that's not to say that

[0:42:55] Trustee Evans: that the solution that we arrived at was incorrect but the conversation hadn't brought the community

[0:43:04] Trustee Evans: together where the community said we are okay with this we can live with this we what we wound up

[0:43:11] Trustee Evans: with was a significant part of the community that's been saying we can't live with this

[0:43:16] Trustee Evans: because the conversation hadn't finished so while this has taken a long time I now feel that the

[0:43:23] Trustee Evans: conversation has wound down we've reached a place where we've heard from you and we've heard from

[0:43:32] Trustee Evans: the APC the APC has also sat down and gone through this and yes I sit here and I look at the OCP

[0:43:40] Trustee Evans: and the trust policy statement and everything that's said in there and for me it was to refine

[0:43:52] Trustee Evans: find where we landed so that more people are going to be able to say I can live with this

[0:43:59] Trustee Evans: might not be ecstatic about it but I can live with this and I can support this

[0:44:04] Trustee Evans: and I feel that we are a lot closer to that today than we have been there are other comments that

[0:44:11] Trustee Evans: I'm going to make on specific items as we get there in the agenda but that has been my goal

[0:44:15] Trustee Evans: is to bring the community to a place where they say I'm okay I'm okay might not be the happiest

[0:44:24] Trustee Evans: yes but I'm okay I understand and as we go through the individual items and we get to express our

[0:44:30] Trustee Evans: opinions on the individual items I'm hoping that you can all sit there and go okay I see where

[0:44:34] Trustee Evans: I see that you broke me and I see that you've applied the information that I've provided to you

[0:44:41] Trustee Evans: and I'm okay that has been my goal and yes this has been a longer process than has been done in

[0:44:49] Trustee Evans: normal times but it's because this was a major major topic with so many people in our community

[0:44:55] Trustee Evans: affected either um through misunderstanding or in reality because there have been both

[0:45:06] Trustee Evans: so we have to make sure that everything has been addressed and we're okay so hopefully when we get

[0:45:15] Trustee Evans: to our next topics soon we can move through things a little quicker so that like i said that that was

[0:45:23] Trustee Evans: that was my primary goal. The

[0:45:30] Voice 12: optimism for the future.

[0:45:37] Voice 12: So yeah, goals with this process here that we're trying to go through. My belief right

[0:46:00] Voice 12: wrong is that the only thing that can protect and preserve our environment here is the community

[0:46:08] Voice 12: that lives here and if the community that lives here wishes predominantly to protect and preserve

[0:46:16] Voice 12: I think the people will do that because that's the people that live here and the things that happen

[0:46:22] Voice 12: here happen because we do them. So that is the reason why I thought it was a very, very serious

[0:46:32] Voice 12: thing to dismiss or to not address when half or whatever, no guess at what the split was between

[0:46:42] Voice 12: the two sides of perceptions on the issues of the last and the last term. It felt to me that

[0:46:52] Voice 12: have probably or something like that were dreadfully unhappy felt absolutely unheard

[0:46:58] Voice 12: and I was at those meetings I felt that myself I felt like I cannot believe these things are

[0:47:06] Voice 12: these objections are being expressed and no answers are coming back none and but the changes

[0:47:12] Voice 12: that were being addressed continued on and ended up being a bylaw that made it from what I could

[0:47:21] Voice 12: perceive a rift in the community and that did not that would not result in a community that could

[0:47:29] Voice 12: protect in a unified kind of way that is my interest that's one of my interest in this process

[0:47:38] Voice 12: we have to get the community back and my sense of it was if we let everyone speak and we let

[0:47:44] Voice 12: everyone give their input and we're respectfully just discussing it and trying to understand each

[0:47:51] Voice 12: other points of view maybe we can sort of keep that rift in the community that's my main goal

[0:48:01] Voice 12: the um the other goal which is more um i was gonna say mechanical i suppose technical or whatever

[0:48:12] Voice 12: with with with the violence i feel like integrity is very important when it comes to what we're

[0:48:25] Voice 12: saying we're going to do and what we're saying is important and the changes that are made if

[0:48:31] Voice 12: those changes are are defended with something that isn't truthful or or integral

[0:48:45] Voice 12: then i feel like it should be addressed it should we should take a break and we should say hey wait

[0:48:51] Voice 12: a minute, are we saying what we're meaning here? Are we doing, are we living according to what

[0:48:59] Voice 12: we're saying? And to me I have struggled and you know when I started this I was totally open to

[0:49:09] Voice 12: being explained to or convinced and understand what the connections were between what we were

[0:49:18] Voice 12: saying we were accomplishing with the bylaw changes the last term and what those you know

[0:49:24] Voice 12: how integral was that how much integrity did that have and I have not found a lot to support me

[0:49:35] Voice 12: in understanding that and that's what I'm still struggling with and to me it's not whether I agree

[0:49:42] Voice 12: with this or agree with that or disagree with this or disagree with that but that's less important

[0:49:48] Voice 12: than that we we say what we do and we do what we say because otherwise if a local government moves

[0:49:55] Voice 12: forward having said well we are doing this but meanwhile we're doing that that doesn't bode

[0:50:03] Voice 12: well for the future in my opinion so integral process is very important to me and to to put

[0:50:13] Voice 12: give an example of that or put that in perspective when when we say that when we you know

[0:50:21] Voice 12: point back to the

[0:50:24] Voice 12: preserve and protect

[0:50:25] Voice 12: mandate, which is in

[0:50:27] Voice 12: ODP, it's

[0:50:29] Voice 12: everywhere, it's in the

[0:50:31] Voice 12: policy statement, it's what we're about.

[0:50:34] Voice 12: Whenever we point to that

[0:50:36] Voice 12: as the reason

[0:50:38] Voice 12: for something, we have to be

[0:50:40] Voice 12: super clear that that

[0:50:42] Voice 12: is addressed in some significant

[0:50:44] Voice 12: manner by that.

[0:50:46] Voice 12: And that's what I

[0:50:47] Voice 12: struggle with.

[0:50:49] Voice 12: An example like

[0:50:52] Voice 12: take the house size. If the current bylaw, the one, two, three that we have, it has a certain

[0:51:04] Voice 12: restriction. All bylaws,

[0:51:06] Voice 6: all

[0:51:07] Voice 12: islands have a restriction on house size, right? So we have a

[0:51:10] Voice 12: slightly tighter restriction than others.

[0:51:14] Voice 7: Not all islands.

[0:51:15] Voice 12: Not all islands, sorry.

[0:51:21] Voice 12: But the bylaw doesn't address whether it's built up or not, so you could have more

[0:51:29] Voice 12: living footpaths or footage if you built up, which would make a smaller footprint on the lot.

[0:51:35] Voice 12: But not addressing that, if we're going to talk about preserving and protecting and we're

[0:51:41] Voice 12: we're working on the assumption that the amount of land that's being put under concrete and roof

[0:51:47] Voice 12: and building structure if we're not addressing that and we're saying we're really doing this

[0:51:53] Voice 12: for the environment and for the protection and preservation of our environment well we're not

[0:51:58] Voice 12: really doing that very well then are we we haven't really addressed it very thoroughly

[0:52:02] Voice 12: and that's my point we should be addressing it thoroughly we should be

[0:52:10] Voice 12: not forgetting why we're doing it and if we're doing it for preservation and protection then

[0:52:16] Voice 12: we should do everything we can and we need to make it while out that's better at addressing

[0:52:24] Voice 12: the actual concern now the other thing for me is that the size of a dwelling

[0:52:36] what

[0:52:38] Voice 12: is the relevance to preserving and protecting like so in other words if a building is larger

[0:52:44] Voice 12: than compared to a smaller building how big of an impact does that have on the protection of

[0:52:53] Voice 12: environment to me i i fail to be convinced after our whole process that it's a large impact

[0:53:01] Voice 12: impact. I see so many things having a much larger impact, things that we haven't been able to even

[0:53:09] Voice 12: get close to yet, and we may not never be able to get close to it. And to give you examples,

[0:53:15] Voice 12: and I apologize if any of you are in the situation where you feel like I'm naming you and I'm not

[0:53:20] Voice 12: naming anyone in particular, but we have properties that have been bought or developed recently on

[0:53:29] Voice 12: South Pender, where the entire lot, virtually almost the entire lot has been clear cut and

[0:53:36] Voice 12: a house has been put on it. There are several examples of this and it breaks my heart every

[0:53:40] Voice 12: time I go by. There is nothing in this bylaw 122 that addresses that whatsoever. That is a problem

[0:53:51] Voice 12: to me and if we're going to talk about protection that's what I want to talk about. I want to talk

[0:53:56] Voice 12: about how can we get the tools and how can we work together as a community and decide how we're going

[0:54:02] Voice 12: to achieve this so we can protect the travesties that are happening in that way. If a person wanted

[0:54:11] Voice 12: to buy a lot and they built and they wanted to build something on it and they built a small tiny

[0:54:18] Voice 12: little cabin you know 600 square feet they were happy with a small little cabin to live in when

[0:54:23] Voice 12: they weren't planning anything else but they came from a place where there's nice views and lots of

[0:54:29] Voice 12: sun and they didn't have the sun because it was trees there and they clear-cut the whole lot

[0:54:36] Voice 12: maybe they clear-cut the whole lot and didn't even put a building on it which i can say this

[0:54:43] Voice 12: because it's right across my view on north pender and it's not on south pender maybe there will be

[0:54:49] Voice 12: a house there one day it was like three four or five acres clear cut on a hillside steep hill

[0:54:56] Voice 12: this is a travesty we haven't been able to address that with one two two now if that somebody has a

[0:55:06] Voice 12: lot and they put a small cabin on it and they clear cut the whole thing the size of the house

[0:55:10] Voice 12: is irrelevant if they put a big house and clear cut the whole thing or if they put a little cabin

[0:55:15] Voice 12: and clarify the whole thing, the impact for future climate change for all of these things,

[0:55:21] Voice 12: I think, is negligibly different. It's the same. Very, very similar. There may be some

[0:55:26] Voice 12: more concrete being used, which is too bad, right? So what I'm wanting to bring as a goal

[0:55:33] Voice 12: for this is to link it, to really make sense of it. If we're saying house size is really

[0:55:39] Voice 12: important to protecting the environment, we have to all kind of find a way to say, I understand

[0:55:44] Voice 12: what you're saying I through all this whole process do not have a clear understanding of

[0:55:50] Voice 12: what the relationship is it's it's there but minimal more more building materials versus not

[0:55:56] Voice 12: more building materials that's as close as to what I can gather from it so that and that's not

[0:56:06] Voice 12: super convincing to me um the other thing is when we live as a community each of us have a different

[0:56:14] Voice 12: way of living in the communities. Some people have, they like people close, they like big families,

[0:56:21] Voice 12: they like a lot of people and like, you know, that sort of thing. Other people are

[0:56:24] Voice 12: very much kind of more like myself, probably just kind of stay to myself, do my own thing.

[0:56:31] Voice 12: And I shouldn't be dictating to other people how they should be living their life. Like,

[0:56:39] Voice 12: This is given the hope that I would have, that we would all not want our colour loss, right?

[0:56:47] Voice 12: We wouldn't want to do that. So if we can...

[0:56:55] Voice 12: Yeah, I think probably I should be quiet now. Probably going on long enough, but I just wanted

[0:57:00] Voice 12: to give you that picture because... And I take a little offense when I get painted

[0:57:07] Voice 12: with the broad stroke, not caring about the environment.

[0:57:12] Voice 12: I've spent 34 years in the organic industry,

[0:57:15] Voice 12: and a very big part of that, besides the personal health aspect,

[0:57:20] Voice 12: is to protect the environment,

[0:57:22] Voice 12: protecting it from harmful farming practices.

[0:57:25] Voice 12: I care about the environment.

[0:57:28] Voice 12: There's no tomorrow.

[0:57:31] Voice 12: And so to say that I just don't care about the environment,

[0:57:33] Voice 12: so go ahead and build a big house or have a setback if you want,

[0:57:38] Voice 12: That is just so absolutely wrong reading of my personal way of being.

[0:57:44] Voice 12: I want more protections.

[0:57:46] Voice 12: I don't have those tools.

[0:57:48] Voice 12: And I thought, you know, we all get an education.

[0:57:51] Voice 12: I think if you want to run for trustee, you're going to get your own education.

[0:57:56] Voice 12: We thought, I thought that we had a lot more power and tools to use because of the preserve and protect.

[0:58:04] Voice 12: I was led to believe that we had some tools to preserve and protect.

[0:58:08] Voice 12: I feel like the biggest drawback and let down for me in this process of learning about the Islands Trust

[0:58:15] Voice 12: is there are extremely few tools to preserve and protect.

[0:58:20] Voice 12: We can't protect the watersheds. We can't protect forests.

[0:58:28] Voice 12: I mean, those are the two biggest things here. We can't do anything with the deer.

[0:58:33] Voice 12: It's outside of our purview. We can't address all these things.

[0:58:38] Voice 12: Those are the three biggest things that are actually threatening to destroy our islands.

[0:58:44] Voice 12: So please, I am an environmentalist, I care deeply about the environment.

[0:58:52] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:58:52] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:58:53] Voice 12: Now I better stop talking.

[0:58:54] Voice 12: You should be knocking me down here.

[0:58:58] Voice 7: It's good to hear from you both.

[0:59:00] Voice 7: I will note that the LCC had a choice at the beginning of this term, and we did have options.

[0:59:07] Voice 7: If we wanted to address protection of forest cover or watersheds, a project we could have taken on would have been development permit areas.

[0:59:19] Voice 6: And

[0:59:19] Voice 7: that is a tool that you use through an OCP review to create protection for a larger area in which anybody who is developing within that area has to meet certain criteria.

[0:59:32] Voice 7: So we did have a choice.

[0:59:33] Voice 7: um the the scope of this project is limited to um the changes that were made as a result of bylaw

[0:59:42] Voice 7: number 122 so that's why we are restricted to just talking about the house sizes um and the

[0:59:49] Voice 7: setbacks and the setbacks to the actual boundary of the sea so i will say that if we can move

[0:59:55] Voice 7: quickly through this we could get to some development permit area work which could

[0:59:59] Voice 7: Quint.

[1:00:00] Voice 7: really do some ecosystem protection. My goal is to support the LTC to move through the work

[1:00:06] Voice 7: and to support your community in meeting its goals and to ensure

[1:00:10] Voice 7: that we adhere to the object

[1:00:13] Voice 7: of the trust, which is to preserve and protect the trust area and the residents and the ecosystem

[1:00:19] Voice 7: for all residents of BC. So I'm just here to support you and let's move into the project

[1:00:29] Voice 7: itself so that's that

[1:00:31] Voice 7: stuff that's a question yeah i

[1:00:34] Voice 7: was just going to ask if you have any

[1:00:38] Voice 7: introductory remarks before we move into i want to leave legal non-conforming question to maybe the

[1:00:45] Voice 7: section that section of it um there is an extensive fact sheet which i was just perusing

[1:00:52] Voice 7: on legal non-conforming but do you want to address that first

[1:00:55] Voice 3: sure i can answer it so

[1:00:57] Voice 3: So, and I will update the frequently asked question document because this question has been asked numerous times, but the only situation where the adoption of bylaw, where the adoption of bylaw number 122 created legal nonconformity is with regards to height.

[1:01:20] Voice 3: that is the only situation where the adoption of bylaw number 122 created legal non-conformity

[1:01:29] Voice 3: on south bender yes

[1:01:32] Voice 8: i'm sorry can you repeat that we had it so with

[1:01:34] Voice 3: the adoption of 122

[1:01:37] Voice 3: the only situation where the adoption of this privilege can you just close the door because

[1:01:43] Voice 3: it's really cold in here yeah

[1:01:44] Trustee Evans: can you just close the

[1:01:47] Trustee Evans: door because it's already really cold in here

[1:01:49] Trustee Evans: and we have no heat because this went on so

[1:01:53] Voice 3: the only situation where the adoption of bylaw 122

[1:01:57] Voice 3: created a legal non-conforming situation dwellings is in regards to height not with the floor area

[1:02:07] Voice 3: not with the setbacks but in terms of the height of the dwelling and

[1:02:15] Voice 4: why was that so the extra

[1:02:17] Voice 7: extra clauses were just to clarify that they were not actually clarify

[1:02:22] Voice 3: and take a step further

[1:02:24] Voice 3: beyond the local government act that allows you to actually rebuild your dwelling in that location

[1:02:32] Voice 3: as it stood on september 15th 2022 so

[1:02:39] Voice 7: the protection is already there except for

[1:02:42] Voice 7: reconstruction of the building but because of that clause in yes in the bylaw that additional

[1:02:49] Voice 7: uh protection is it

[1:02:51] Voice 3: gives you additional protection beyond the local government

[1:02:54] Voice 3: in

[1:02:55] Voice 1: terms

[1:02:56] Voice 3: of height the protection is from the local government act but uh so that's the only

[1:03:02] Voice 3: situation with vital number one to two my concern is there's still confusion so how can we how can

[1:03:10] Voice 3: the LTC clear that confusion that's really one thing that we need to address because although

[1:03:16] Voice 3: that protection is currently in the land use bylaw as it stands how that full bank section can't hear

[1:03:24] Voice 3: you so even though the land use bylaw right now they have the it has the clauses in it there's

[1:03:31] Voice 3: still confusion and concern so that's something that we need to address either through possibly

[1:03:36] Voice 3: possibly amending the land use bylaw or providing more information on the document or so forth but

[1:03:43] Voice 3: that's really something that needs to be addressed and I will update the frequently asked question

[1:03:48] Voice 3: document which is on the project web page and I'll add that question and then answer as well

[1:03:54] Voice 3: and I'm happy to take any phone calls as well and walk you through it feel free to give me

[1:03:59] Voice 3: a call send me an email and we can go through that information yeah

[1:04:07] Voice 12: thank you um on the non-conforming

[1:04:15] Voice 12: issue um with the opinions that you know the talking place or whatever the clarification

[1:04:23] Voice 12: that we have received so far and what you just said it seems pretty clear that from a legal

[1:04:31] Voice 12: point of view that's that's the way it is i think still there are some people some property owners

[1:04:38] Voice 12: here who have for lack of a better way of expressing it maybe an emotional response

[1:04:45] Voice 12: to having their property being called non-conforming legally non-conforming and they

[1:04:52] Voice 12: don't wish to they don't wish to have that label they don't wish to have that they don't want that

[1:04:58] Voice 12: and we can't all understand how everyone thinks and feels but i think some people feel that and

[1:05:04] Voice 12: they don't want that they feel like that lessens the value of their property perhaps

[1:05:10] Voice 12: and so i don't want to say to people they can't have that feeling they can't feel that that's fine

[1:05:17] Voice 12: you know but it's not very convincing to me in terms of making a decision on it except for when

[1:05:25] Voice 12: it comes to the height the glad part it does hold weight it does have meaning and it should

[1:05:32] Voice 12: be addressed so that was my sort of reading on that

[1:05:39] Voice 7: so a point that i as a member of the ltc

[1:05:43] Voice 7: that i i wanted to ask if we go into a question like the setbacks to the natural boundary of the

[1:05:48] Voice 7: sea um let's say we've received information or opinions from the apc community members

[1:05:54] Voice 7: the ltc will make its decision on on that component what i'd like to ask us is if the

[1:06:01] Voice 7: goal of amending the lub is to um protect the environment and to make sure that we

[1:06:08] Voice 7: um uphold the ocp and that protection is

[1:06:12] Voice 7: you know for the future um we might want to consider

[1:06:15] Voice 7: um you know maintaining that 50 meter setback if that's the decision of the ltc and removing

[1:06:23] Voice 7: removing the ability to rebuild in the event that a building is demolished. That may be a choice the

[1:06:31] Voice 7: LTC wants to make because the goal is to uphold the protection of the environment rather than

[1:06:37] Voice 7: the landowner's ability to rebuild. That's just an example. So that's what I mean is if we can

[1:06:43] Voice 7: clarify the goals in our mind of what we want to accomplish with this LUB amendment, then you can

[1:06:49] Voice 7: can know when you make a decision this is what I'm upholding so that's just an example you could

[1:06:55] Voice 7: remove that protection and say no you can't rebuild within 50 meters of the setback natural

[1:07:03] Voice 7: boundary or 50 feet sorry that would be somebody's entire property I apologize um 50 feet um you know

[1:07:14] Voice 7: With climate change and bigger storms and waves,

[1:07:18] Voice 7: this may be a reality that you don't want to put that

[1:07:22] Voice 7: in front of your community as an option.

[1:07:24] Voice 7: So I'm just saying, if you have a clear goal in mind,

[1:07:27] Voice 7: we want to protect the environment.

[1:07:29] Voice 7: This is the very limited tool that we have before us right now.

[1:07:33] Voice 7: So how will we uphold that value?

[1:07:36] Voice 7: So that's a consideration as we work through this.

[1:07:39] Voice 7: um you could it's totally your discretion as the ltc to decide where you fall on that kind of an

[1:07:47] Voice 7: issue with the community and all the input that we've heard so far so so i want to thank the apc

[1:07:58] Voice 7: you've met five times in the past four months and um really have done great work in analyzing

[1:08:05] Voice 7: and getting dissenting opinions and different people's perspectives and i think they there

[1:08:11] Voice 7: There were some recommendations that definitely helped me in my understanding of the issue.

[1:08:18] Voice 7: So thank you for your work there.

[1:08:21] Voice 7: So do we want to get into sort of part one, which is the setback from the natural boundary of the sea, and discuss these one by one?

[1:08:28] Voice 7: Sure.

[1:08:29] Voice 7: Okay.

[1:08:30] Voice 7: Do you want to introduce?

[1:08:32] Voice 7: Sure.

[1:08:32] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:08:33] Voice 7: Yeah.

[1:08:34] Voice 3: So the first topic the LTC sent to the APC to address was the setback to the natural boundary of the sea.

[1:08:44] Voice 3: So prior to the adoption of bylaw number 122, the setback was 7.6 meters or 25 feet.

[1:08:53] Voice 3: after the adoption of bylaw 122 there was a regulation for the setback to be increased to

[1:09:03] Voice 3: 15 meters or 50 feet for new dwellings or cottages so existing buildings that are located

[1:09:13] Voice 3: within that 15 25 feet sorry to 50 feet they're able to keep their sighting due to that clause

[1:09:21] Voice 3: clause so the apc made a recommendation and the recommendation is to retain the 50 meter setback

[1:09:30] Voice 3: from the natural boundary of the sea as currently regulated in the land use bylaw but to change the

[1:09:37] Voice 3: wording of the clause and they recommended to change the wording of the clause it's at the

[1:09:43] Voice 3: very end this is when the owner may have to provide further information if for some reason

[1:09:48] Voice 3: they had to rebuild their dwelling or cottage or building they need to provide some type of

[1:09:54] Voice 3: proof of the original sighting so the original wording

[1:10:00] Voice 3: oh was a reference to an appropriate qualified person the apc has recommended that we're going

[1:10:07] Voice 3: to change for the owner to submit substantive evidence to establish the sighting of the dwelling

[1:10:13] Voice 3: in cottage and so forth so staff car promise are that they support this recommendation and there

[1:10:20] Voice 3: should be a minor amendment to the plan this morning and i'll leave it at that for the natural

[1:10:26] Voice 3: best way to see it right

[1:10:29] Trustee Evans: thoughts comments analysis um my thoughts they had recommended

[1:10:35] Trustee Evans: that it be put in a table i think that's for the sec oh

[1:10:40] Voice 3: i believe that was for the um the floor

[1:10:44] Voice 3: area okay for the dwellings not for the natural boundary of the sea i don't see how there would

[1:10:49] Voice 3: be a table for those regulations um

[1:10:52] Trustee Evans: i'm just thinking just because the uh the confusion

[1:10:57] Trustee Evans: surrounds the language that have been put in regarding conforming and non-conforming so if

[1:11:04] Trustee Evans: we just have the same as with um the house sizes if we had prior to september 15th this is the uh

[1:11:12] Trustee Evans: the setback and after September 15th this is the setback that's

[1:11:17] Voice 3: what it essentially says on page

[1:11:19] Trustee Evans: three yeah I know I'm I'm reading it but what I'm saying is this is the language that has caused

[1:11:25] Trustee Evans: confusion within the community specifically this so if if we if we replaced it with those with the

[1:11:33] Trustee Evans: two tables just it'll just be like the one line on the table before September 15th and after

[1:11:39] Trustee Evans: September 15th that will clarify any miscommunication not only with our community but

[1:11:44] Trustee Evans: also any insurers that are looking at our bibles I

[1:11:48] Voice 7: think it does need to be a table because there's

[1:11:50] Voice 7: only one like all lots that are on waterfront it'll either be 15 or but it's kind of when you

[1:11:59] Trustee Evans: come to rebuild that is where there is confusion whether they're conforming or non-conforming

[1:12:05] Trustee Evans: so and and it's it's it's the language that's being used in here that's being confusing for

[1:12:10] Trustee Evans: our community it's the exact same language that was put in the house sizes

[1:12:14] Voice 4: right and it's that

[1:12:16] Trustee Evans: it's the cause yeah so um uh by removing a substantive amount of the clause and replacing

[1:12:23] Trustee Evans: it with the table and then having the um the bit where it says you know submitting substantive

[1:12:28] Trustee Evans: evidence keep that as the secondary or keep the whole cause i don't

[1:12:33] Voice 13: i could

[1:12:34] Trustee Evans: take a look at it

[1:12:35] Trustee Evans: yeah that would

[1:12:36] Trustee Evans: work i'm just i'm just thinking rather than leaving the language that has caused

[1:12:42] Trustee Evans: so much confusion within the community and with insurers if that is replaced then it's crystal

[1:12:47] Trustee Evans: clear i

[1:12:49] Voice 3: definitely want to make it more crystal clear

[1:12:51] Trustee Evans: and that's that's my only thought here i'll

[1:12:54] Trustee Evans: make a note of that and i know it's a little silly but um i i think i'd rather have clarity

[1:13:01] Trustee Evans: for the future, rather than having somebody interpreting the language that's in the words

[1:13:08] Trustee Evans: differently, which could happen in the future, because we've seen that when we've looked back

[1:13:14] Trustee Evans: at previous motions, we don't understand what they're saying, but those are my thoughts. I'm

[1:13:21] Trustee Evans: happy with the recommendation to keep it. I'm happy with the suggested change.

[1:13:26] Trustee Evans: change so

[1:13:28] Voice 7: you're um you're saying you're voicing support for the um the recommendation to maintain

[1:13:35] Voice 7: the 15 meter setback to the natural boundary of the sea and to make the change to substantive

[1:13:43] Voice 7: evidence to establish rather than the appropriately qualified person and you want to maintain the

[1:13:51] Voice 7: ability to rebuild

[1:13:52] Voice 7: if somebody's

[1:13:54] Voice 7: building is torn down.

[1:13:57] Trustee Evans: Yeah, and my reason for that is

[1:13:58] Trustee Evans: there's already a clear house

[1:14:00] Trustee Evans: site. If they have to move back,

[1:14:02] Trustee Evans: they'll have to clear more environment.

[1:14:05] Trustee Evans: That's not

[1:14:06] Trustee Evans: offering...

[1:14:08] Trustee Evans: That's going to have an environmental impact

[1:14:10] Trustee Evans: by moving a house site.

[1:14:15] Voice 12: Plus it may

[1:14:16] Voice 12: be possible in several examples.

[1:14:18] Voice 12: Exactly. There wouldn't be

[1:14:20] Voice 12: space to build another house. Exactly.

[1:14:23] Trustee Evans: just because of the lost sizes and topography so I'm I

[1:14:33] Voice 12: mean you're calm

[1:14:35] Voice 12: I mean let's consider not allowing some rebuilding if we want to I mean I don't know

[1:14:44] Voice 12: maybe there are lots where that would make sense I mean I like a portion of that kind of suggestion

[1:14:52] Voice 12: but it's not practical. The current setbacks wouldn't allow a house to be built in so many cases on the waterfront.

[1:15:04] Voice 4: And that substantially

[1:15:05] Voice 4: changes the conversation that we've been having in this community.

[1:15:08] Voice 7: The current

[1:15:09] Voice 7: setbacks don't allow a house to be built anywhere else on the property?

[1:15:16] Voice 7: like the only place

[1:15:17] Voice 12: would be within

[1:15:18] Voice 7: 25 meters of an outbound real estate?

[1:15:20] Voice 12: If a house wasn't built, some of the homes that are already built, if it wasn't built now

[1:15:26] Voice 12: and they wanted to build it after 1-2-2 is in effect, they couldn't. The lot wouldn't allow

[1:15:31] Voice 12: other than a tiny little cabin sort of up towards the road. It's like there isn't space and I know

[1:15:38] Voice 12: that. I have neighbors I know seeing the properties. So

[1:15:44] Voice 7: what we're trying to do is

[1:15:45] Voice 7: create a general land use bylaw regulation there are

[1:15:49] Voice 7: going to always be exceptions there's always

[1:15:51] Voice 7: going to be ones that fall outside that do not fit because of course the lot sizes are very different

[1:15:59] Voice 7: and some of them are tiny and narrow so those exceptions absolutely have to be but we can't

[1:16:05] Voice 7: make a rule out of exceptions so what i'm asking is what is the general uh goal of this um this

[1:16:13] Voice 7: This being able to rebuild within the natural boundary of the sea, if you want to uphold it, that's fine.

[1:16:20] Voice 7: But I don't think we can make a rule out of exceptions.

[1:16:23] Voice 7: I want to uphold it

[1:16:25] Trustee Evans: the way that it is.

[1:16:26] Trustee Evans: I don't want to say if your house burns down, you cannot rebuild on that site because it's within that.

[1:16:33] Trustee Evans: That changes ostensibly the conversation that we've had over the last two years.

[1:16:40] Trustee Evans: So, no, I'm not in support of that.

[1:16:42] Trustee Evans: that would have to be a separate new conversation that is not what we set out to do we set out to

[1:16:50] Trustee Evans: re-look at the reasoning and to continue the conversation that changes the conversation

[1:16:56] Trustee Evans: and at this point i'm not willing to sure i'm not

[1:16:59] Trustee Evans: pushing

[1:17:00] Voice 7: anyone to do that i'm just asking

[1:17:01] Voice 7: the question so that we're clear on why we would maintain this and the ltc can give absolutely

[1:17:08] Voice 7: clear direction to staff in the drafting department yeah so do we have consensus on

[1:17:14] Voice 7: on that section at least yep anything else i

[1:17:18] Voice 12: mean that's not a vote right we're just

[1:17:20] Voice 12: verbally saying yep let's move forward right

[1:17:22] Voice 7: okay so everyone is in agreement

[1:17:25] Voice 7: um with the recommendation of the apc and uh the change to the appropriately qualified person

[1:17:35] Voice 7: sounds good and some clarity around that clause um or and i guess it's just five

[1:17:45] Voice 7: whether that could be right written more simply yes yeah yeah yeah and the table yeah

[1:17:53] Voice 3: yeah so

[1:17:54] Voice 3: what i could do is i can provide options so i'll try to you know work with the table i can provide

[1:17:59] Voice 3: a different couple few different options for the ltc and then the ltc from the side which one

[1:18:06] Voice 3: may be the best fit great

[1:18:08] Voice 7: all righty so we move to number two interior side lot line

[1:18:14] Voice 7: setbacks for rural residential zones dwellings and cottages

[1:18:22] Voice 7: so the apc recommendation we could just move straight to that is that the ltc reverts the

[1:18:28] Voice 7: The setback from the interior and exterior lot lines to 3.0 meters, 10 feet, as stated in the South Pender LUB number 114, prior to adoption by law number

[1:18:38] Voice 6: 122.

[1:18:40] Voice 7: So over to you, trustees, what do you think of the recommendations and why you're part of the community?

[1:18:48] Trustee Evans: For myself, I support the APC's recommendation.

[1:18:52] Trustee Evans: recommendation my position on that is i don't see um the the impact of increasing the setback

[1:19:02] Trustee Evans: when you can continue to build anything you want within it except a primary residence or a cottage

[1:19:08] Trustee Evans: you can still build and you can still uh like the the adding on the extra 10 feet is not adding

[1:19:16] Trustee Evans: it's not saying that you can't um put anything in there so at this point i would prefer to put

[1:19:25] Trustee Evans: it back to where it was and then if we have a separate conversation that is um that's got

[1:19:31] Trustee Evans: a better basis and a specific goal for this then we can have something that actually accomplishes

[1:19:38] Trustee Evans: it because for me this isn't accomplishing privacy because you can still take down the trees

[1:19:45] Trustee Evans: you can still uh put um accessory buildings in there there is nothing to say you can't do

[1:19:55] Trustee Evans: anything within those 10 feet you can do everything you you previously could except

[1:20:00] Trustee Evans: move your house and considering that the houses are already built on just about every lot it

[1:20:08] Trustee Evans: hasn't accomplished anything all it's done is move the setbacks without any protection

[1:20:16] Trustee Evans: there was no protection in there so I failed to I and I failed to understand this when this was

[1:20:24] Trustee Evans: made and I failed to understand the impact today um and there are a lot of lots that by moving

[1:20:33] Trustee Evans: that setback now means that their houses are currently within those setbacks so again I

[1:20:46] Trustee Evans: I don't see what it was going to accomplish.

[1:20:51] Voice 6: Okay.

[1:20:53] Voice 12: Yeah, my view is pretty similar on that.

[1:20:56] Voice 12: The one thing I can add is that when you have a lot

[1:21:03] Voice 12: and you're planning to develop it, I think, just for myself,

[1:21:12] Voice 12: if I was in a situation of having a lot and I was going to develop it,

[1:21:14] Voice 12: But to me, the most creativity that I could have available to me to be creative in solving the configuration of a lot is important.

[1:21:25] Voice 12: But if my ability to use my creativity is reduced because of the setbacks, then my solutions are going to be less optimal than mine.

[1:21:39] Voice 12: So, for instance, if you have a larger setback as we have now, and you have to build your buildings inside that, you may have to build your, because of where you have to look at your house, you may have to build your driveway right on the lot line or closer to the lot line, which will have an impact, probably positive or negative.

[1:22:03] Voice 12: You may be able to reduce your size of your driveway.

[1:22:08] Voice 12: All configurations are different, right?

[1:22:10] Voice 12: So just reducing the ability for a developer to develop a property

[1:22:16] Voice 12: in the best way to protect the environment as possible,

[1:22:20] Voice 12: I feel like why take away, why put restrictions on?

[1:22:25] Voice 12: So I, again, fail to see how this is protecting the environment.

[1:22:28] Voice 12: I see it's possible that it will have no impact on the environment and it's possible that it will increase negative impact on the environment.

[1:22:39] Voice 12: I can't see it having the impact of protecting the environment further because you're going to have a driveway, you're going to have a well,

[1:22:47] Voice 12: you're going to have all these other infrastructure pieces and you have to put them somewhere.

[1:22:52] Voice 12: somewhere. So, and so I agree.

[1:22:55] Trustee Evans: Can you just say one other quick thing? This would have made a lot more sense to me if

[1:23:02] Trustee Evans: South Panda was not as developed as it currently is. Because I think there's, what, nine lots

[1:23:09] Trustee Evans: that haven't been developed yet out of 300. So it's really again, yeah, so.

[1:23:17] Trustee Evans: How would it make more sense?

[1:23:18] Trustee Evans: Well, if South Pando, say, 250 lots had not yet been developed, putting those increased side lot lines, then those houses would have been placed within those lot lines.

[1:23:38] Trustee Evans: Right now, they are placed where they currently sit. They're already there. So increasing those lot lines aren't going to change where those houses are sitting, and they can rebuild where they're currently sitting.

[1:23:50] Trustee Evans: so it doesn't change it they're there they're already there um so i fail to see how this is

[1:23:59] Trustee Evans: changing anything plus we have so many very very narrow lots that by by doubling the side setbacks

[1:24:10] Trustee Evans: it's like it's it doesn't work

[1:24:14] Voice 6: it

[1:24:15] Trustee Evans: causes more problems than solutions so i i'd rather come

[1:24:19] Trustee Evans: back and have a separate different conversation to try and find whatever it was that they were

[1:24:24] Trustee Evans: trying to accomplish here we'll have to we'll have to revisit and find a different solution

[1:24:28] Trustee Evans: but this to me isn't that yeah

[1:24:31] Voice 7: i i tend to agree that if there's very few properties that it's

[1:24:35] Voice 7: going to affect because this is only to do with new builds then there isn't really a point and

[1:24:42] Voice 7: it's um you know points have been made about privacy and upholding the ocp values of privacy

[1:24:49] Voice 7: from neighbors and I can do I do see that if um um if a lot of south pender was not developed and

[1:24:56] Voice 7: you were going to see a lot more houses built and you want to uphold that value privacy

[1:25:02] Voice 7: having the 20 meter set or foot set back would make sense so um yeah I'm in general support of

[1:25:09] Voice 7: that as well um so it sounds like so the APC recommendation that you agree um that we revert

[1:25:19] Voice 7: or that the LTC revert the setback back to 10 feet and just that would be just eliminating

[1:25:28] Voice 7: subsections 5.19 and 5.110. Is that what I'm hearing? Yep. Okay great. Any other thoughts or

[1:25:40] Voice 7: considerations? I'm

[1:25:42] Voice 3: going to recommend we quickly discuss height before moving into

[1:25:54] Voice 7: We're rolling here. Let's skip over three and move to the four, dwelling and cottage height,

[1:26:02] Voice 7: which is on

[1:26:02] Voice 7: page seven. Do you want to introduce this? Because this is the only case where we're

[1:26:09] Voice 7: legal non-conforming yeah

[1:26:10] Voice 3: so this is and um i think it's one that flew under the radar and so

[1:26:16] Voice 3: it's really important that we highlight that this is the regulation where some property owners are

[1:26:21] Voice 3: unaware that their height could be potentially now legal non-conforming

[1:26:25] Voice 1: so

[1:26:26] Voice 3: um the original

[1:26:28] Voice 3: regulation before bylaw 122 was adopted stated a dwelling or cottage shall not exceed 9.2 meters

[1:26:37] Voice 3: in height and the way that height is calculated it's an average so a fair amount of properties

[1:26:45] Voice 3: on south pender are can be more built on a slope so there is one side of the house that's going to

[1:26:50] Voice 3: be have a higher height compared to the the one that's on the top of the slope so with the adoption

[1:26:57] Voice 3: of bylaw 122 that regulation was changed and it now states a dwelling or cottage shall not exceed

[1:27:04] Voice 3: exceed 9.2 meters in height, and at no point may a dwelling or cottage exceed 9.0 meters in height.

[1:27:12] Voice 3: So what that does is that portion of the house that's on the lower slope, it may be 11 meters

[1:27:18] Voice 3: in height that is actually now not permitted. So the APC has recommended to revert the regulation

[1:27:27] Voice 3: back to what it was prior to bylaw 122, and staff support that as well.

[1:27:34] Trustee Evans: So I was going to say

[1:27:35] Trustee Evans: um and the previous um definition of height it was from medium grade

[1:27:41] Voice 1: whereas

[1:27:42] Trustee Evans: right now it's not

[1:27:43] Trustee Evans: so i'm in support of moving it back to how it was just because this has had an unforeseen

[1:27:51] Trustee Evans: effect and those houses again are already in existence um so yeah okay

[1:28:03] Voice 6: great great

[1:28:07] Voice 6: Agreed.

[1:28:09] Voice 7: Simple. Consensus.

[1:28:12] Voice 3: Excellent job.

[1:28:16] Voice 3: I just want to make sure that the, I don't believe there was any changes to the definition of height, but I want to make sure

[1:28:23] Voice 3: that we're all on the same page. I'm just looking at bylaw 122.

[1:28:27] Voice 3: And

[1:28:27] Trustee Evans: before we get into this discussion, because there were a couple of other minor edits that have been brought up along the way, if I can be indulged.

[1:28:37] Trustee Evans: yeah that's what the height was yeah so that was the natural grade versus medium height

[1:28:50] Trustee Evans: I was going to say on page 14 of the bylaw itself and deciding and setback regulations

[1:29:07] Trustee Evans: there are three changes in here I have a question for staff

[1:29:11] Voice 5: so

[1:29:12] Trustee Evans: this is referencing

[1:29:14] Trustee Evans: building rather structures and then it's like despite section 3.3 and despite section 3.3.3

[1:29:21] Trustee Evans: again we've got the same language that we had before should is it possible to put these three

[1:29:27] Trustee Evans: elements into a table rather than having all that that language again so

[1:29:33] Voice 7: page 14 that's to the

[1:29:34] Voice 3: natural boundary of the c is that right no citing setbacks yeah that's where the setback to the

[1:29:41] Voice 3: natural boundary of C is found? Are we talking about 3.3, 3

[1:29:47] Trustee Evans: .3, 3.3, 3.3, 3.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 5?

[1:29:53] Trustee Evans: Yeah. Is it possible to put those in a table under definitions?

[1:30:01] Voice 4: is my question this

[1:30:02] Voice 3: is what we were just talking about previously right because those are the

[1:30:05] Voice 3: regulations that deal with the natural boundary of the sea okay is that what

[1:30:12] Trustee Evans: we were at okay okay

[1:30:14] Trustee Evans: yeah all right just wanted to make

[1:30:16] Trustee Evans: sure yes okay so and so i'm just going through sure my god

[1:30:22] Trustee Evans: um so uh the other thing that we that we have been talking about was shipping containers

[1:30:30] Trustee Evans: containers. So this is page 16, if I can show you. So the way that shipping can, and I think

[1:30:42] Trustee Evans: we had touched on this conversation earlier, with shipping containers, because these are

[1:30:48] Trustee Evans: just like three categories in there. And they don't really align with our breakdown of how

[1:30:58] Trustee Evans: we break out our our housing sizes so what i would like to recommend is that in um 3.56 a that remain

[1:31:09] Trustee Evans: so it says on a lot less than two acres a maximum of one shipping container is permitted then b

[1:31:16] Trustee Evans: a lot two acres or great so so this is what i'd like to so i'd like to change it from um so on

[1:31:23] Trustee Evans: a lot two acres or greater but less than 1.6 hectares or four acres i have to take a picture

[1:31:36] Voice 7: send me a picture or a minute so you've got a bit of a glare

[1:31:40] Voice 7: you know

[1:31:42] Voice 10: what i can i can send can

[1:31:43] Voice 7: you send them across these

[1:31:47] Voice 10: apologize for the interruption

[1:31:55] Voice 12: what i wanted to say to you is thank you for being our link to the first nations

[1:32:02] Voice 1: all

[1:32:03] Voice 12: the work that you're doing there's a lot of people

[1:32:05] Voice 10: in this room who are part of that as well

[1:32:06] Voice 10: but yeah thank you for what you're doing um

[1:32:12] Voice 7: sorry i'm a little bit lost so now we've moved

[1:32:14] Voice 7: to shipping containers page 13

[1:32:16] Trustee Evans: of the bible

[1:32:18] Voice 7: the land use by a lot which okay why are we going

[1:32:21] Voice 7: because we're

[1:32:23] Trustee Evans: talking about um changes to the bylaw and so this is this this this is

[1:32:29] Trustee Evans: so while we're dealing with some of the bigger items from the apc we're also dealing with the

[1:32:33] Trustee Evans: smaller items as well so if we're going to ask for a draft to come back to us these are elements

[1:32:38] Trustee Evans: that i'd like to say well

[1:32:39] Voice 7: we also haven't okay so i'd like a little context um we have discussed

[1:32:46] Voice 7: us there's some previous meetings yeah and i just want to get caught up on where it's at

[1:32:54] Voice 7: in terms of where you want to change this

[1:33:00] Trustee Evans: that's what i'm getting to so 3.56b

[1:33:06] Voice 4: that's

[1:33:07] Voice 3: on page 16 of the land use file

[1:33:21] Trustee Evans: This is a bylaw 122 change, so changing B on a lot of two acres or greater an area but

[1:33:31] Trustee Evans: less than, and I'd like to change from three to four acres so that it kind of aligns with

[1:33:36] Trustee Evans: our housing sizes and then C on a lot that's grow to then four acres so that

[1:33:49] Trustee Evans: that it'll align with the other two so just it aligns better with our group

[1:33:56] Trustee Evans: names because I think this was taken from North Canada and

[1:34:01] Voice 7: this is a small

[1:34:03] Voice 7: enough thing you don't think you need community feedback on it we have

[1:34:07] Voice 7: previously discussed it but I didn't see the changes in here okay that's what I'm trying to

[1:34:13] Voice 7: get caught up on is when this was addressed I'm trying to find the table of items that you

[1:34:20] Voice 7: were looking at changes and there are some major and minor ones that I'm not yeah

[1:34:24] Voice 4: so this was one

[1:34:25] Voice 4: of the minor

[1:34:26] Voice 7: and

[1:34:29] Voice 4: this is not

[1:34:30] Voice 12: the last time for opportunity to give feedback right no

[1:34:33] Voice 7: no no once

[1:34:33] Voice 7: Once the model is drafted, of course, there will be more opportunities.

[1:34:37] Voice 3: And what I could do is make a tracked changes,

[1:34:40] Voice 3: so I can track where some of these changes are made.

[1:34:42] Voice 3: It's easier to visualize.

[1:34:43] Voice 3: For

[1:34:44] Trustee Evans: me, I like the fact that it makes it a lot easier for me.

[1:34:48] Trustee Evans: The other thing that we've had community feedback on,

[1:34:51] Trustee Evans: and it was raised at a couple of meetings, was Section 310,

[1:34:55] Trustee Evans: use of recreational vehicles as a dwelling.

[1:34:58] Trustee Evans: We have one, and then there's F, and I believe F was supposed to be under a two.

[1:35:03] Trustee Evans: Yes, yes,

[1:35:04] Voice 4: I like that captured.

[1:35:07] Voice 4: Has anybody mentioned that you've

[1:35:08] Trustee Evans: got a great eye for detail?

[1:35:12] Voice 5: Sorry,

[1:35:12] Trustee Evans: and that was it from the plot for the mindless.

[1:35:15] Trustee Evans: You have no idea.

[1:35:17] Trustee Evans: You should see me

[1:35:18] Trustee Evans: with a measuring tape.

[1:35:21] Voice 3: Can we quickly go back to the definition of height just so I'm sure that what we have or what needs to be changed?

[1:35:30] Trustee Evans: No, I think the definition of height is good.

[1:35:32] Voice 3: good fine

[1:35:33] Trustee Evans: let me just

[1:35:34] Voice 3: go because it refers to natural grade which is what we

[1:35:37] Trustee Evans: want yes

[1:35:39] Trustee Evans: yeah being the average of undisturbed elevation yeah it's yeah so it's the natural or average

[1:35:44] Trustee Evans: elevation and that's what i want to make sure is still in there and it is right so that doesn't

[1:35:50] Trustee Evans: need to change but that was the effect that that um that word created in the bible was negating

[1:36:01] Voice 3: staff we always we put together a list of technical or minor amendments as we go through

[1:36:07] Voice 3: the land use bylaw and things we see that need to be tweaked or not clear so i can bring that

[1:36:13] Voice 3: list back as well for the ltc to take a look at they're usually really minor it's either a spelling

[1:36:18] Voice 3: mistake yeah something like the recreational vehicles same thing it was placed in the wrong

[1:36:23] Voice 3: subsection so if there's any any other of those i'll bring them back as well for the ltc to

[1:36:28] Voice 3: consider could

[1:36:29] Trustee Evans: you when you do that my changes could you just send me the whole document so i

[1:36:33] Trustee Evans: can just go through them and i can see because that's how i guess i'd like to work okay thank

[1:36:38] Trustee Evans: you okay

[1:36:40] Voice 4: that was it thank you so much for your time so it's big containers and

[1:36:46] Voice 7: are these of lines it's a little lost as to where that section is but i trust you

[1:36:53] Voice 7: of tracking but yeah

[1:36:57] Voice 4: these are all things that were brought up previously i just want to make

[1:36:59] Voice 4: sure that they're captured for the next iteration okay okay right

[1:37:05] Voice 7: are we ready to move into dwelling

[1:37:09] Voice 7: silos yeah

[1:37:11] Voice 6: i

[1:37:12] Voice 7: have nothing that i can scratch for yeah this is the this is the tough one because

[1:37:17] Voice 7: it's it's what are we trying to accomplish with the changes whether we you know go back to what

[1:37:24] Voice 7: it was, amend by 500 square feet. So the recommendation number, sorry, two, no, that's

[1:37:41] Voice 7: a lot of lines. It's three. 3A, excluded attached garage from the floor area. Yeah. So the agency

[1:37:52] Voice 7: UBC had recommended excluding attached garages from the calculation for floor area for a dwelling and to add the definition to the LUB for attached garage.

[1:38:01] Voice 7: Staff, can you let us know why you don't support this recommendation?

[1:38:05] Voice 3: Yeah, because what can happen is a garage, you know, that would be regionally stated as non-livable area could be converted then to livable space.

[1:38:15] Voice 3: So that's a way that's like a loophole through the maximum floor area.

[1:38:19] Voice 3: So that's why we recommend against that, excluding attached garages.

[1:38:25] Voice 3: But the LTC wants to allow or increase the maximum floor area to allow for those garages.

[1:38:34] Voice 3: That may be something to consider, but I don't advise to remove detached garages from the calculation of floor area.

[1:38:43] Voice 7: I personally think it would make it more confusing.

[1:38:47] Voice 12: Yeah, what would make it more confusing?

[1:38:50] Voice 12: if

[1:38:50] Voice 7: you start adding exclusions um you know we're we're talking about total built area

[1:38:56] Voice 7: and you're trying if the goal of this this part of the lub is to limit or to control the amount

[1:39:03] Voice 7: of built area you might as well just say everything that's built is got to be within this

[1:39:09] Voice 7: um so i don't

[1:39:10] Voice 7: actually see the point of excluding attached garage well

[1:39:13] Voice 12: i think i think maybe one of

[1:39:15] Voice 12: the objectives would be to prevent somebody to force them to build a standalone garage

[1:39:22] Voice 12: because they can't they couldn't fit it in and because then as soon as you fit it in as soon

[1:39:29] Voice 12: as it's counted as as your house if it's attached then you're the rest of your house all of a

[1:39:34] Voice 12: sudden got a garage smaller and so we're forcing them then to build a garage separately which

[1:39:40] Voice 12: which means at least three more walls, probably four more walls.

[1:39:45] Voice 12: And it's a footprint, and you need to drive around it.

[1:39:48] Voice 12: So it increases the use of the lot significantly.

[1:39:51] Voice 12: I think that would be kind of the harm that it could cause.

[1:39:57] Voice 12: That's my perspective anyway.

[1:39:59] Voice 12: And my understanding of that, if we allow,

[1:40:09] Voice 12: like how are we going to lose control here?

[1:40:12] Voice 12: are we not all of a sudden people are going to build garages and then they're going to

[1:40:17] Voice 12: renovate it into a living living area so we shouldn't do it because because that's a loophole

[1:40:22] Voice 12: i i don't agree the thinking there um to me we have rules and some people work outside the rules

[1:40:33] Voice 12: and that's always going to happen and we have mechanisms to try to address that

[1:40:37] Voice 12: or a bylaw enforcement and so on.

[1:40:42] Voice 12: But just because we know that it's maybe easy to do

[1:40:47] Voice 12: for people to get away with it

[1:40:50] Voice 12: doesn't mean we should be changing the bylaw for that,

[1:40:55] Voice 12: in my opinion.

[1:40:56] Voice 12: It's like, how many people drive 60 or 70 kilometers an hour

[1:41:01] Voice 12: from there to the postcode?

[1:41:03] Voice 1: Yeah, right.

[1:41:04] Voice 12: And the speed limit is 50.

[1:41:07] Voice 12: so just because we know that we don't just change we you know we don't make any changes we say yeah

[1:41:14] Voice 12: some people are just speeders you know and that's too bad and we will catch some you know but

[1:41:21] Voice 12: and you could also build a building on your property without asking for permission right

[1:41:29] Voice 12: like a fresh building you could just go ahead and build one put one up you would need a building

[1:41:33] Voice 12: without a building permit yeah you could do that right people do that that happens so that's just

[1:41:40] Voice 12: the nature of our life we can't control everything like if people break the rules they break the

[1:41:46] Voice 12: rules you're supposed to if you have a garage and it's part of your house like if we changed it to

[1:41:53] Voice 12: what we're what's being proposed here and somebody built a garage in their house and then decided to

[1:41:59] Voice 12: who renovate it they would be breaking the rule because they were supposed to have asked for a

[1:42:05] Voice 12: permit just like they were supposed to ask for a permit to build a you know a building that's

[1:42:12] Voice 12: bigger than 10 by 10 or something like that so i'm

[1:42:15] Voice 7: just trying to understand are we are trying

[1:42:18] Voice 7: to create a bylaw here that gives clarity for how people are to build we can't create a bylaw that

[1:42:25] Voice 7: allows for exceptions or people who are going to break the law right so we're not doing that

[1:42:30] Voice 7: exactly right so let's stick to what we want the law to accomplish rather than if people are going

[1:42:37] Voice 7: to break the law they're just going to do it anyway that's that's not useful and no i'm just

[1:42:42] Voice 12: i'm just making that point for why i don't support the idea that we shouldn't do it because

[1:42:46] Voice 12: somebody could come along and break it later i think we should do it because the intent from

[1:42:51] Voice 12: my understanding is to allow people to build a garage in their house without having to lose

[1:42:59] Voice 12: living space so they don't have to develop more of their lot it just makes sense it doesn't make

[1:43:06] Voice 12: sense like again like creatively creatively developing your lot and your buildings and

[1:43:12] Voice 12: everything for your use is being limited yes

[1:43:16] Voice 7: and and that is what in part this section of the bylaw

[1:43:19] Voice 7: is trying to do is limit the built environment and the the residential footprint and so i will

[1:43:26] Voice 7: actually counter argue my view is that i've seen many garages built that are then turned into giant

[1:43:32] Voice 7: studios and living quarters so there

[1:43:34] Voice 7: is a precedence for that in my experience so i'm going

[1:43:39] Trustee Evans: to say then um based on what you've said it's not going to stop so people are going to build a

[1:43:44] Trustee Evans: garage and it's going to be built as a garage and they're going to use it as an accessory building

[1:43:49] Trustee Evans: even though it's not being permitted as an accessory building

[1:43:53] Trustee Evans: because it's being built under the building code as a garage.

[1:43:57] Trustee Evans: So it's not going to stop this from happening.

[1:43:59] Trustee Evans: All that's changing is where it's happening.

[1:44:03] Trustee Evans: So there, and again, most buildings have been built.

[1:44:07] Trustee Evans: It's not going to affect that many,

[1:44:11] Trustee Evans: but it will support the trust policy statement,

[1:44:15] Trustee Evans: statement which is asking us to have a smaller environmental footprint so by having a smaller

[1:44:23] Trustee Evans: environmental footprint and the thing is if a new building were to be built the the building code

[1:44:29] Trustee Evans: has it tells you what the garage is supposed to be if it's above and beyond that it is no longer

[1:44:36] Trustee Evans: designated as a garage and it becomes living space so so then so i'm kind of finished

[1:44:42] Trustee Evans: um so based on so it's illegal within the province of bc to use your garage as living space

[1:44:52] Trustee Evans: unless it has been upgraded and by which you have to have a permit to do it because there's no heat

[1:44:59] Trustee Evans: in there there doesn't have to be any windows there doesn't have to be an access door um you

[1:45:04] Trustee Evans: just have the garage doors the lighting is different the insulation is different the

[1:45:10] Trustee Evans: The roofing is different.

[1:45:11] Trustee Evans: So if you're going to be using that, if you're going to upgrade that to living space, it's going to be very expensive, A.

[1:45:16] Trustee Evans: Or if you're going to do it as you're building, it will be seen and noted by the inspector, at which point then it'll be addressed.

[1:45:28] Trustee Evans: What I'm trying to do here is limit the amount of property that is going to be environmentally impacted.

[1:45:40] Trustee Evans: so if we force people to build a separate garage that's having the opposite effect and if those

[1:45:46] Trustee Evans: people are going to if they're going to turn it into living space they're going to turn it into

[1:45:50] Trustee Evans: living space whether it's attached to the house or not i would therefore like to counter with staff

[1:45:58] Trustee Evans: and and and ask staff again um how how they feel about our comments um if they're going to do it

[1:46:06] Trustee Evans: they're going to do it i'd rather that it had a smaller impact but i also and and uh pc assessment

[1:46:14] Trustee Evans: as well doesn't include the garage in their footprint so we know that it's doable the

[1:46:20] Trustee Evans: garage is is counted as part of your accessory dwelling allotment so i know it's a little bit

[1:46:31] Trustee Evans: more complex than what we currently have in here but i think it'll have a better environmental

[1:46:36] Trustee Evans: mental impact for the few that are left or and again like i said this i think is is a bigger

[1:46:43] Trustee Evans: conversation and we've not really had this conversation so maybe this is a conversation

[1:46:50] Trustee Evans: that we have outside of this iteration what do you mean what i mean is we haven't had this

[1:46:59] Trustee Evans: conversation this specific conversation with community about attaching a garage to the house

[1:47:06] Trustee Evans: or not like having it included like currently it is included so if we're talking about

[1:47:13] Trustee Evans: significantly changing that we haven't really had community input really on that topic we don't have

[1:47:21] Trustee Evans: to do it on this iteration of changes to this bylaw which iteration of the bylaw do you want

[1:47:27] Trustee Evans: to do that then a future one we

[1:47:31] Voice 7: need to draft something for the community to comment on we

[1:47:35] Voice 7: It cannot endlessly...

[1:47:37] Trustee Evans: No,

[1:47:37] Voice 7: I get that.

[1:47:38] Voice 7: What

[1:47:38] Trustee Evans: I'm saying is right now,

[1:47:41] Trustee Evans: because excluding attached garage from floor area,

[1:47:44] Voice 1: this,

[1:47:45] Trustee Evans: so recommendation 3A,

[1:47:49] Trustee Evans: we move this conversation to a future iteration down the road.

[1:47:55] Voice 4: We

[1:47:55] Trustee Evans: put a thumbtack in it

[1:47:57] Trustee Evans: because we've not had this conversation

[1:47:59] Voice 12: with World Unity.

[1:48:00] Voice 12: The recommendation came from the APC

[1:48:03] Voice 12: and would the APC

[1:48:05] Voice 12: have had that?

[1:48:06] Voice 12: I think we have talked about it.

[1:48:09] Voice 12: We did.

[1:48:10] Voice 12: My meetings, I'm not sure, but

[1:48:13] Voice 12: it seems like

[1:48:14] Voice 12: how else would it come to the APC?

[1:48:17] Voice 12: That's the

[1:48:17] Voice 12: recommendation they came up with.

[1:48:18] Voice 7: The APC is a representation of your

[1:48:21] Voice 7: community. They have made

[1:48:23] Voice 7: a recommendation. You can draft

[1:48:25] Voice 7: that into the first draft of

[1:48:27] Voice 7: the bylaw and then it

[1:48:28] Voice 7: goes out for community

[1:48:29] Voice 7: comment. That is how you get input

[1:48:31] Voice 7: on a redraft.

[1:48:33] Voice 1: we

[1:48:33] Voice 7: cannot go back into community consultation right about a new section here's the recommendation

[1:48:39] Voice 7: if you want to put it in if you if the ltc supports it i'm

[1:48:43] Voice 12: saying the second

[1:48:44] Voice 7: project we

[1:48:45] Voice 12: i i feel like i can do what you just said there and put it in because i i believe that we had

[1:48:52] Voice 12: the conversation in my spreadsheet i thought

[1:48:54] Voice 12: was one of the things i captured okay well i prefer

[1:48:57] Voice 7: My only lack of clarity was I just didn't understand that, and now I think I get it, that attached garages is just not included in the floor area of the dwelling, but it would be still included in the total area of built environment.

[1:49:12] Voice 1: Yes, so I'm

[1:49:13] Voice 7: content with that. I'm just looking at the APC recommendation, page 13.

[1:49:22] Voice 7: their 13 or yeah they're they're no 13 of our agenda they're page four okay so that i don't

[1:49:29] Voice 7: understand this the recommendation addresses the issue created by the inclusion of and exclusive

[1:49:35] Voice 7: of a story that is not fully enclosed by a floor ceiling and four walls or glass

[1:49:40] Voice 5: clause

[1:49:41] Voice 7: page 14 of our agenda yeah this one for the recommendation another one too okay yeah one two

[1:49:49] Voice 7: um so this is after the october 4th discussion abc recommended the ltc their touch garage is

[1:50:02] Voice 7: not included in the flurry of dwelling and that staff provide a definition of garage and then 1.2

[1:50:09] Voice 7: it's so the reason is is that it addresses the issue exclusive of a story is that how it reads

[1:50:17] Trustee Evans: yes so um so basically their example is let's say you've got a 2 000 square foot dwelling

[1:50:22] Trustee Evans: the two car garage 625 square feet so that leaves 1375 feet for the dwelling and then you also have

[1:50:30] Trustee Evans: to take off the um the um uh what's the any area that's greater than uh four foot nine so you're

[1:50:41] Trustee Evans: because everything's built on a slope so a significant portion of most buildings have

[1:50:45] Trustee Evans: that as well so that comes off as well so at the end of the day there's very little room left for

[1:50:50] Trustee Evans: actual living space you

[1:50:56] Voice 7: know but i'm just trying to find it another option

[1:50:59] Voice 3: the ltc that you want

[1:51:00] Voice 3: to consider is just increasing the floor area for a dwelling to accommodate you know those

[1:51:05] Voice 3: garages that could potentially then be turned into livable space it would then conform to the

[1:51:11] Voice 3: land use bylaw may not conform to the building permit but it gives a flexibility um for property

[1:51:17] Voice 3: the owner so you could still increase the maximum floor

[1:51:22] Voice 3: of a dwelling of a dwelling right that would

[1:51:25] Voice 3: be what's

[1:51:26] Voice 3: the i don't know what the average size of a garage but you could have that discussion

[1:51:30] Voice 3: and then add that on to accommodate yeah while still keeping the total floor area of all buildings

[1:51:38] Voice 3: the same i'm just trying to think how let's try to keep it as simple as possible too so we're not

[1:51:43] Voice 3: creating situations where staff property owners have

[1:51:48] Trustee Evans: that discussion is this a

[1:51:50] Voice 3: garage this is

[1:51:50] Voice 3: not a garage it would almost be

[1:51:53] Trustee Evans: easier to yeah because i think the um the previous

[1:51:56] Trustee Evans: floor areas were significantly large enough to accommodate garages etc yeah but with that being

[1:52:03] Trustee Evans: reduced so significantly you can't have an attached garage now and still having a livable

[1:52:07] Trustee Evans: workshop you know a

[1:52:09] Trustee Evans: livable working i know i look at just a livable space yes yeah not

[1:52:12] Trustee Evans: I'm not talking about a workshop, I'm just saying there isn't enough room for livable space.

[1:52:15] Trustee Evans: So then I guess that then the second suggestion of increasing the dwelling area by the 500 square feet would then take the garage into account.

[1:52:30] Voice 7: Yeah, so the ABC has recommended both increasing the total dwelling size by 500 square feet and excluding garages.

[1:52:40] Voice 7: yes

[1:52:41] Trustee Evans: okay so that that makes sense i just thought it was just a random increase but now yeah

[1:52:49] Voice 7: but to um the planner's point what is going to be the simplest way to interpret the bylaw

[1:52:56] Voice 7: right yeah so then yeah i

[1:53:00] Voice 3: get that and the closer we get to increasing the maximum floor area the

[1:53:05] Voice 3: closer we're getting to the previous regulations in the land use bylaw right so then it goes back

[1:53:10] Voice 3: to what is the ltc trying to achieve with this regulation is it to limit the mega homes the

[1:53:20] Voice 3: gigantic homes right that take potentially away from the rural character of south tender

[1:53:28] Voice 3: but or is there another reason to restrict it further right

[1:53:32] Voice 1: for me

[1:53:35] Trustee Evans: the it was it was a massive reduction um of the previous house size which those house sizes were

[1:53:43] Trustee Evans: very very large in some cases um but the and i can't remember if it's in the ocp or the trust

[1:53:51] Trustee Evans: policy statement we have to account our bylaws have to permit all lifestyles and what this has

[1:54:01] Trustee Evans: is done it's actually done the opposite it's created a single lifestyle for myself and my

[1:54:09] Trustee Evans: husband we've got you know four kids so if our four kids were to come to visit that's 10 people

[1:54:15] Trustee Evans: coming into our house that doesn't accommodate our lifestyle that's just having our kids come

[1:54:23] Trustee Evans: visit other people like thanks it more hermit it's just either a single person or two and that

[1:54:31] Trustee Evans: that definitely meets their lifestyle so we have to whatever it is that we come up with here we

[1:54:39] Trustee Evans: have to be cognizant of various lifestyles as well and still make the various lifestyles

[1:54:48] Trustee Evans: permissible we've got this is an aging community a lot of people here are leaving because they

[1:54:53] Trustee Evans: can't age out in their home but they might have been able to had they built a wheelchair

[1:54:57] Trustee Evans: wheelchair accessibly or

[1:54:58] Voice 6: if

[1:54:59] Trustee Evans: they can renovate it to make it wheelchair accessible these current

[1:55:04] Trustee Evans: sizes don't allow that in every case and i've heard um comments from the the community saying

[1:55:15] Trustee Evans: um you know like you can have so many rooms um but again it's we we have to be cognizant of

[1:55:25] Trustee Evans: all lifestyles while maintaining the rural character which this is originally like cottage

[1:55:31] Trustee Evans: country it's small it's compact so for me I think by increasing it by the 500 square feet it will

[1:55:44] Trustee Evans: now permit a garage to be attached if you choose not to have a garage attached and I don't know

[1:55:51] Trustee Evans: is any way that we can make that wording that sorry did not include attached barrages in the

[1:56:00] Trustee Evans: calculation of floor area so not yeah so so by increasing it by 500 square feet as it was

[1:56:06] Trustee Evans: recommended and then um like having some wording say the additional 500 is for um attached garage

[1:56:13] Trustee Evans: or not having them i don't know i

[1:56:15] Voice 3: would advise not having it in there then it's just it gives

[1:56:18] Voice 3: the property owner the ability to decide if they want more livable area or if they perhaps they

[1:56:24] Voice 3: want a smaller livable area but a big workshop yeah it gives that flexibility right um yeah

[1:56:32] Voice 7: and and to your point kim we are getting close to the original like three amendments oh

[1:56:41] Trustee Evans: no like if you look at less than an acre it was 3 800 square feet it's now 2

[1:56:45] Voice 7: 500 they're

[1:56:46] Voice 7: recommended 3 000 and if you exclude a garage that happens to be 800 square feet you're right

[1:56:52] Voice 7: back to 3 800 square feet

[1:56:53] Voice 4: no

[1:56:55] Trustee Evans: this this excluded a garage and this excludes a garage yeah they both

[1:57:01] Trustee Evans: yeah the previous excluded a garage as well okay

[1:57:04] Voice 3: i don't believe it did the floor area was never

[1:57:08] Voice 3: the definition of floor area wasn't

[1:57:10] Trustee Evans: oh no no no sorry sorry no neither sorry beg your pardon

[1:57:14] Trustee Evans: neither of these will exclude a garage right right okay yes you were talking about we're adding we're

[1:57:20] Trustee Evans: adding the 500 square feet to each that now compensates for the garage right

[1:57:26] Voice 6: not we're not

[1:57:28] Trustee Evans: saying that the you know 2500 3000 and it excludes the garage we're adding the 500 to compensate so

[1:57:35] Trustee Evans: they can't have a garage so

[1:57:37] Voice 7: we're not excluding a garage

[1:57:39] Voice 7: from the calculation now no that's back

[1:57:41] Voice 7: to the original we're adding

[1:57:42] Voice 7: the 500 to compensate for gary thank you that's the

[1:57:45] Voice 3: balancing that i was

[1:57:47] Voice 3: looking for here for the ltc fields for property less than one acre three thousand square feet

[1:57:53] Voice 3: that three thousand that

[1:57:55] Voice 3: includes an attachment includes yeah

[1:57:58] Voice 6: yeah

[1:57:59] Voice 7: just making

[1:58:00] Voice 7: sure yes i would

[1:58:02] Voice 7: not have felt comfortable excluding and adding 500 square feet

[1:58:05] Trustee Evans: no that would be

[1:58:06] Voice 7: right back at

[1:58:07] Voice 7: yeah

[1:58:07] Trustee Evans: there's and this was like my my disconnect of where that five that recommended 500 was coming

[1:58:13] Trustee Evans: from

[1:58:14] Voice 3: and again this would be applicable to lots that you bear land right now that they want to

[1:58:22] Voice 3: construct a building dwelling which

[1:58:24] Voice 3: these would be applicable whereas those lots that currently

[1:58:27] Voice 3: have a dwelling have their separate set of regulations yeah

[1:58:31] Trustee Evans: yeah or if actually there

[1:58:33] Trustee Evans: Or two tables.

[1:58:34] Trustee Evans: Yeah.

[1:58:35] Trustee Evans: Again.

[1:58:36] Trustee Evans: And should someone who's got a constructed,

[1:58:40] Trustee Evans: let's say they've got an 800 square foot house,

[1:58:43] Trustee Evans: and they're going to,

[1:58:44] Trustee Evans: because we're going to wind up with that happening as well,

[1:58:46] Trustee Evans: they're going to tear down and rebuild,

[1:58:49] Trustee Evans: then the new table applies.

[1:58:59] Voice 7: So

[1:58:59] Trustee Evans: if they've got an 800 square foot house,

[1:59:01] Trustee Evans: they can rebuild an 800 square foot house exactly where it is.

[1:59:04] Voice 7: No problem.

[1:59:05] Trustee Evans: If they tear that down,

[1:59:08] Trustee Evans: then let's say they're on a two-acre lot,

[1:59:10] Trustee Evans: then they can build a 3,000-square-foot house

[1:59:13] Trustee Evans: because a new one applies.

[1:59:14] Voice 6: Yeah.

[1:59:16] Trustee Evans: Yeah.

[1:59:16] Trustee Evans: I see that.

[1:59:17] Voice 6: Just because

[1:59:19] Trustee Evans: we know that there are going to be

[1:59:22] Trustee Evans: rebuilds happening too.

[1:59:25] Trustee Evans: And I like the idea of having these as two tables

[1:59:29] Trustee Evans: and the clause kind of goes away.

[1:59:36] Voice 3: Well, except for that.

[1:59:38] Voice 3: I'll have to work through that.

[1:59:39] Voice 3: I

[1:59:39] Voice 6: really want to

[1:59:39] Voice 3: make sure that we're not...

[1:59:42] Voice 3: Yeah, I want to make it as clear as possible. I see that the two tables is helpful, but I want to make sure it's worded in such a way that we can eliminate the pause.

[1:59:50] Voice 3: I

[1:59:51] Trustee Evans: think there'll be a little bit in there that has to remain, but

[1:59:54] Trustee Evans: the majority of the wording that says anything built before the state, you can still rebuild anything after.

[2:00:00] Trustee Evans: state you have to apply the new one because it's just going to be visually in the tables

[2:00:04] Trustee Evans: with the line before and after again. No, no

[2:00:08] Voice 3: misunderstanding in the paragraph.

[2:00:11] Voice 12: So kind of where where the conversation is going is if we increase the building

[2:00:20] Voice 12: dwelling the

[2:00:21] Voice 12: dwelling size yeah by 500 square feet that's a small garage yeah um

[2:00:29] Voice 12: So, if somebody then builds living space in that whole size,

[2:00:36] Voice 6: and

[2:00:37] Voice 12: they still want a double

[2:00:38] Voice 12: car garage, they will have to build it

[2:00:41] Voice 6: detached.

[2:00:43] Voice 6: Correct.

[2:00:43] Trustee Evans: Because right now, let's go like less than an acre on 2500 square feet, or let's go,

[2:00:51] Trustee Evans: because I think the average is around two acres.

[2:00:53] Trustee Evans: So you've got 3000 square feet, you take off the 625.

[2:00:56] Trustee Evans: 25 you've got like 2400 square feet most places are on a slope so you've got the anything above

[2:01:05] Trustee Evans: 1.5 meters which for a lot of places is about a third

[2:01:10] Voice 1: so

[2:01:12] Trustee Evans: now you're down to you know

[2:01:16] Trustee Evans: 24 that's eight so you're down to 1200 square feet if you're like marty and myself and you've

[2:01:23] Trustee Evans: you're trying to fit use that yourselves and all of your family in 1200 square feet by this bylaw

[2:01:30] Trustee Evans: and i think that's a little restrictive so you have a choice then if you want to attach a garage

[2:01:38] Trustee Evans: 1200 square feet if you don't then you have 1800 square feet because you have to remember there's

[2:01:44] Trustee Evans: a lot of things that are deducted off this number i

[2:01:48] Voice 12: guess the the intent of allowing

[2:01:53] Voice 12: of your dwellings and garage, so that you would combine them. That was the intent that

[2:02:01] Voice 12: we started off discussing, that we wanted to prevent forcing people to build a separate

[2:02:05] Voice 12: garage because it costs more material and it takes more footprint of the lot. We're

[2:02:10] Voice 12: not addressing that any longer with this kind of proposal of just increasing the size. So

[2:02:16] Voice 12: what people can do is they can build a bigger house to live in and still have a four-car

[2:02:19] Voice 12: our garage if they want if they have the land if

[2:02:21] Trustee Evans: they have the land so yeah

[2:02:24] Voice 12: because

[2:02:26] Trustee Evans: right now the

[2:02:27] Trustee Evans: house size is the way that they've been put in it's not it's also in violation of the the trust

[2:02:34] Trustee Evans: policy statement that says you have to permit all lifestyles you're not now you're saying you have

[2:02:40] Trustee Evans: to build in 12 now you have to build in 1200 square feet or less

[2:02:43] Voice 7: if you since we're redrafting

[2:02:47] Voice 7: the policy statement i would pause on that it still has to go for public comment um building

[2:02:53] Voice 7: for all lifestyles the communities will have to decide if we're building for mega mansions and

[2:02:58] Voice 7: you know people that's not i don't think what would uphold the object

[2:03:03] Trustee Evans: of the trust so you know

[2:03:04] Trustee Evans: what we're saying is there are larger families yeah we have we have to we have to say that you

[2:03:09] Trustee Evans: are allowed to have larger families absolutely you

[2:03:13] Voice 7: have to say you are

[2:03:14] Trustee Evans: allowed to be disabled

[2:03:16] Trustee Evans: with a wheelchair and with these sizes we're not permitting that people can apply for the

[2:03:22] Trustee Evans: development variance program that is what we're trying to avoid that is not the way that is not

[2:03:30] Trustee Evans: the basis for a bible we have to make a rule for the general majority it's not for exceptions

[2:03:36] Trustee Evans: exactly and the general majority this is too small that's a matter of opinion that was a

[2:03:44] Trustee Evans: matter of election on this island

[2:03:46] Voice 1: that

[2:03:48] Trustee Evans: was a matter of election on this island this these

[2:03:52] Trustee Evans: house sizes are too small you went present

[2:03:55] Voice 7: i'm not disagreeing with your interpretation i'm just

[2:03:59] Voice 7: saying that you are not going to constrain your land use bylaw to fit all lifestyles that is

[2:04:07] Voice 7: impossible that is why the provision for development variance permits exists we simply

[2:04:13] Voice 7: cannot create a bylaw that will satisfy absolutely everyone so let's arrive at a satisfactory

[2:04:19] Voice 7: what is the general principle that we're trying to uphold let's get back to what is the total

[2:04:25] Voice 7: building or a dwelling that you consider appropriate for this community and do you

[2:04:31] Voice 7: want to exclude garages from it

[2:04:34] Voice 6: i think

[2:04:36] Trustee Evans: i've said i'd like to increase these by 500 excluding

[2:04:39] Trustee Evans: excluding garages because that will help accommodate more of the lifestyles that we

[2:04:44] Trustee Evans: are seeing on this island and address concerns

[2:04:47] Voice 7: that were raised. So you are advocating for

[2:04:49] Voice 7: increasing from 2,500 square feet to 3,000 square feet and excluding garages? No, no, no, no. We're

[2:04:57] Voice 7: excluding the whole garage thing. Okay. Removing the words. No,

[2:05:03] Voice 7: we're excluding the garage issue.

[2:05:05] Voice 7: you thank you that was confusing okay so we are not going to go okay dad can i hear from you on

[2:05:13] Voice 7: apc recommendation 3a excluded attached garage from floor area you were sort of disagreeing

[2:05:21] Voice 7: with this whole thing because you feel i heard that it would push people to build in a separate

[2:05:27] Voice 7: a garage yeah

[2:05:28] Voice 12: um it's complicated to get it perfect and to you know address all all the

[2:05:37] Voice 12: concerns so it would have been my preference that people wouldn't be penalized by wanting

[2:05:43] Voice 12: to build their garage attached i wish because there may not be a lot of circumstances where

[2:05:50] Voice 12: that's the case but it could be somebody that wants to do that and i hate to restrict their

[2:05:54] Voice 12: freedom to do that because what what harm does it do and what good does it do it means less building

[2:06:01] Voice 12: materials it means smaller footprint on the lot of the buildings yeah those

[2:06:07] Voice 12: are both good things in

[2:06:08] Voice 12: my opinion

[2:06:08] Voice 6: so

[2:06:09] Voice 12: we're losing the opportunity to funnel things in that direction to give people

[2:06:14] Voice 12: that opportunity to to have that as a solution i'm unhappy about that um i couldn't be swayed to

[2:06:23] Voice 12: yield on that point.

[2:06:26] Voice 3: So what would be the most efficient way to achieve that right? So is it

[2:06:31] Voice 3: then increasing the floor area even more or is it you know excluding garage? In your mind what

[2:06:38] Voice 3: would be?

[2:06:40] Voice 12: Well I think Christina's point that the current size is too small for all

[2:06:47] Voice 1: normal

[2:06:49] Voice 12: lifestyles or whatever you want to call it like not excessive kind of thing and so I think we

[2:06:54] Voice 12: need to address that so increasing it by 500 square feet would do that

[2:06:58] Voice 6: and

[2:06:59] Voice 12: then I still think

[2:07:03] Voice 12: there could be a clause in that could say that a garage could be attached if it's just a garage

[2:07:10] Voice 12: and it just wouldn't be counted which was the original proposal right and it doesn't change

[2:07:18] Voice 12: the size of the garage they can have because they can have whatever size their land base allows that

[2:07:23] Voice 12: would still remain the same their house size would remain the same so nothing is taken away from

[2:07:30] Voice 12: anybody but what the benefit is we could make the rural character better by having it less spread

[2:07:39] Voice 12: out buildings scattered i can't see that point and so how do we achieve that could we not make

[2:07:47] Voice 12: an exception like that to say if a garage is attached it doesn't give common as living space

[2:07:54] Voice 12: I can provide more

[2:07:55] Voice 3: information to the LTC and report back if that helps.

[2:07:58] Voice 3: A couple different options to look at, the pros and

[2:08:00] Voice 7: cons of each.

[2:08:02] Voice 7: So if we give direction to draft a bylaw, we can ask for what are the implications of excluding garages

[2:08:10] Voice 7: and increasing by 500 square feet and sort of form an analysis and say or not those.

[2:08:18] Voice 7: Well, she'd provide options on both.

[2:08:23] Voice 12: Well I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of those who feel like we need to restrict

[2:08:30] Voice 12: development basically right and if we increase it by 500 square feet

[2:08:34] Voice 12: yeah it's in lieu of the garage almost kind of thing and it kind of gets messy there you know

[2:08:40] Voice 12: it's not clear right then then we're increasing the building size so I don't know I'd like to

[2:08:50] Voice 4: see the options if

[2:08:51] Voice 12: you can think of options yeah i don't see it right now but yeah the

[2:08:57] Trustee Evans: other thing

[2:08:58] Trustee Evans: that could help with the um amount of usable living space and so our bylaw says anything that's

[2:09:07] Trustee Evans: um uh over 1.5 meters is included in your living space that's four foot nine

[2:09:15] Trustee Evans: um the building code says five foot nine if we increase that to five foot nine that would then

[2:09:24] Trustee Evans: make a lot more of the available like the the maximum size is actually livable okay

[2:09:30] Trustee Evans: i can look into

[2:09:32] Voice 3: options of um having it similar or the same as the bc building code i do have

[2:09:40] Voice 3: some options there that's not the building code it does but

[2:09:44] Trustee Evans: um having it at you can't live you're

[2:09:46] Trustee Evans: not permitted to live in five foot nine I mean so I don't think they would make it any higher it

[2:09:54] Trustee Evans: might go lower but and then whatever whatever the BC building code is it's just automatically

[2:09:59] Trustee Evans: applying to us regardless we could

[2:10:03] Trustee Evans: work that way exactly so yeah we could we could word it

[2:10:08] Trustee Evans: um in accordance with the BC building code and height

[2:10:10] Voice 5: because

[2:10:12] Trustee Evans: then whatever it is applies to us

[2:10:14] Trustee Evans: and my thought here is again we're an aging community I don't know if any of you have tried

[2:10:19] Trustee Evans: to walk at under five we

[2:10:22] Voice 12: more and more do I

[2:10:24] Trustee Evans: know I know but if you've got a box in there

[2:10:27] Trustee Evans: it's there for your grandkids because you're never pulling it out again

[2:10:32] Voice 7: so we're asking so in general I hear concurrence with the APC recommendation

[2:10:40] Voice 7: recommendation to potentially increase the floor area of the dwelling by 500 feet square feet

[2:10:48] Voice 7: in each of the categories and we're asking the planner to give us options about what excluding

[2:10:55] Voice 7: garages attached to garages from the floor area um could

[2:11:02] Trustee Evans: be yeah and actually that would be my

[2:11:05] Trustee Evans: preference is maintaining these house sizes the way that they are and it's like that that would

[2:11:11] Trustee Evans: be my ideal world having maintaining these sizes the way that they are excluding garages and um

[2:11:17] Trustee Evans: increasing the so

[2:11:20] Voice 7: i'm into could you do three scenarios where it's

[2:11:22] Voice 7: like you consider garages

[2:11:24] Voice 7: plus a reduced house a dwelling size excluded garages the current dwelling size and then

[2:11:30] Voice 7: including bridges, I think that would be and also

[2:11:34] Voice 3: analysis the story of the story and how that

[2:11:38] Voice 3: and if

[2:11:40] Trustee Evans: we can just reference the DC building. Yeah, absolutely. Rather than putting it in

[2:11:44] Trustee Evans: because it'll keep changing. Okay.

[2:11:47] Voice 7: So are you satisfied with that?

[2:11:50] Voice 7: I mean, we haven't

[2:11:50] Voice 12: decided on what we see. But we're on the same page in terms of what we're

[2:11:56] Voice 12: okay yeah

[2:11:57] Voice 7: right um so we kind of answered 3b then total and maximum floor area tables

[2:12:05] Voice 7: yeah uh we're not talking about alr zone or agriculture zones yeah um but the recommendation

[2:12:14] Voice 7: was that two separate total and maximum floor area tables be created for simplification which

[2:12:20] Voice 7: I think makes a lot of sense. So anything, any comments or questions on that?

[2:12:35] Trustee Evans: One other minor thing under agriculture, we had at one of our community information meetings

[2:12:43] Trustee Evans: where and I'm sure that you've got all of your notes and just as a reminder we had talked

[2:12:49] Trustee Evans: about removing the conditions of use that were already addressed by the ALC

[2:12:57] Trustee Evans: so that we don't fall behind, that we just reference them instead of writing

[2:13:03] Trustee Evans: them out because that takes a lot of admin work to me moving up.

[2:13:11] Voice 7: Is there

[2:13:11] Voice 7: Is there anything further on the total floor area and maximum floor area outside of the ALC?

[2:13:22] Voice 6: So

[2:13:24] Voice 7: you generally want to see more and still on the side.

[2:13:29] Voice 7: Okay, ABC recommendation number 3C, agriculture maximum floor area.

[2:13:41] Voice 7: Yeah, do you want to introduce this?

[2:13:42] Voice 7: Yeah, the ABC. So

[2:13:45] Voice 3: currently, the agriculture zone is a similar table as a real residential zone.

[2:13:54] Voice 3: The ALC has the policy that a building on ALR land can be no greater than 500 meters squared.

[2:14:06] Voice 3: But a local government has the ability to restrict that amount further.

[2:14:11] Voice 3: And so currently that's what the land use bylaw does, it restricts that number further.

[2:14:17] Voice 3: The APC stated that they recommend reviewing the floor area for dwellings as regulated by the ALC

[2:14:25] Voice 3: and recognize that land use bylaw regulations should be consistent with any future ALC regulatory changes.

[2:14:32] Voice 3: So, the LTC can decide to keep things as is, to increase the maximum floor area up to 500

[2:14:40] Voice 3: meter squares to be in compliance with that.

[2:14:43] Voice 3: How much was that feet?

[2:14:44] Voice 3: Oh gosh, I don't know.

[2:14:46] Voice 3: I

[2:14:49] Voice 6: think it was 5

[2:14:51] Voice 6: ,500 feet

[2:14:52] Voice 6: before.

[2:14:58] Trustee Evans: I would like to encourage us.

[2:15:01] Trustee Evans: Yeah.

[2:15:01] Trustee Evans: Yeah, so we can be as one, because everything is, all of our farms, our ALC is over 10 acres,

[2:15:08] Trustee Evans: so it was 6,030, so it was actually 560 meters, so it's now

[2:15:12] Trustee Evans: 500 meters.

[2:15:15] Voice 3: The LTC can remove the floor area regulations completely from the zone.

[2:15:20] Voice 3: Yeah, I would

[2:15:22] Trustee Evans: love to rely on the ALC because anyone that's living in the ALC and it remains

[2:15:30] Trustee Evans: in the ALC and I will have to apply for that the only thing would be is if somebody

[2:15:38] Trustee Evans: purchases ALC land well no because the zoning remains whether they're farming it or not

[2:15:47] Trustee Evans: it's just the tax breaks that are different and I think it's important in the zoning because

[2:15:52] Trustee Evans: they will have to have workers and they have to house them in there I think yeah I think this is

[2:16:00] Trustee Evans: this will this will need a little bit more compensation

[2:16:02] Voice 3: is there any direction or

[2:16:07] Voice 3: information you'd like to see or would you just simply like to think more on what's there oh we

[2:16:12] Voice 12: can't we don't have the option of exceeding they can't exceed

[2:16:16] Voice 12: that's right so that's that's how

[2:16:18] Voice 12: they would get more housing for workers for instance right by exceeding it if that's

[2:16:21] Voice 12: not big enough already no

[2:16:23] Trustee Evans: but ours is much smaller yeah lc

[2:16:26] Voice 12: is significantly reduced from

[2:16:29] Voice 12: I'm kind of where I'm sitting is we should say follow the ALC done.

[2:16:36] Voice 6: I

[2:16:36] Voice 12: mean, they are the experts on farmland and what it's going to take.

[2:16:41] Voice 12: And I think they have a lot of work to update themselves.

[2:16:44] Voice 12: They allow more dwellings for farm workers, for instance, but that's their business.

[2:16:49] Voice 12: We shouldn't stand in the way of that.

[2:16:51] Voice 7: And

[2:16:51] Voice 12: we can propose that we know more than the ALC would.

[2:16:55] Voice 7: I tend to agree.

[2:16:56] Voice 7: I think the dwelling floor area in agricultural land should comply with the ALC regulations.

[2:17:05] Voice 7: So you could potentially ask staff to come back with options for removing that, the restrictions

[2:17:14] Voice 7: on dwellings on ALC.

[2:17:18] Voice 7: And

[2:17:19] Voice 12: if people lobby us for the ALC restrictions being too tight for them to operate a farm

[2:17:28] Voice 12: If they came to us, I think we should write a letter at least to the ALC, you know, supporting

[2:17:33] Voice 12: the...

[2:17:33] Voice 7: Well, then you're not the ones that are holding them back, right?

[2:17:38] Voice 12: The provincial

[2:17:38] Voice 7: regulation.

[2:17:39] Voice 12: When we advocate for

[2:17:41] Voice 7: making

[2:17:42] Voice 12: it better for people, if that's what you want.

[2:17:45] Voice 7: I think that's a good recommendation, yeah.

[2:17:48] Voice 7: out? Yeah, I am. So the APC did recommend that the LUB regulation should be consistent with any

[2:17:59] Voice 7: future ALC regulatory changes. So do we want to, do we concur that this section of the bylaw should

[2:18:08] Voice 7: comply with the ALC Act and have a maximum floor area of 500 feet or square?

[2:18:13] Trustee Evans: Yeah, just, I would

[2:18:16] Trustee Evans: actually just reference the ALC rather than putting a specific in there

[2:18:19] Voice 6: because

[2:18:20] Trustee Evans: ALC will

[2:18:21] Trustee Evans: change that in the future and again it's up to it's too much administrative work to keep

[2:18:28] Trustee Evans: reviewing the ALC bylaws and then updating our bylaw every time it changes I know but a planner

[2:18:35] Trustee Evans: would yeah

[2:18:36] Voice 7: so I don't know what's so

[2:18:38] Voice 3: we do have an information note in the agriculture zone right now

[2:18:41] Voice 3: and it's under the current floor area regulations that state the maximum floor area of a dwelling

[2:18:47] Voice 3: or cottage located within agricultural land reserve must be compliant with the agricultural

[2:18:54] Voice 3: land commission act regulation and any resolution uh for the should say from the agricultural land

[2:19:01] Voice 3: commission so we do have an information note in there already um so if that's sufficient if ldc

[2:19:07] Voice 3: feels like that information is sufficient, then the land use by-law or we can just delete any type

[2:19:14] Voice 3: of floor area regulations. You may have to update that note, I guess, if the ALC changes.

[2:19:24] Voice 6: And

[2:19:25] Voice 3: the information note doesn't state an amount, it just says that you must be in compliant

[2:19:29] Voice 3: with whatever the ALC says. It's on the land use by-law, yeah it's on page 30.

[2:19:38] Trustee Evans: I have a question. What does the ALC say for the total area of buildings that may not exceed?

[2:19:45] Trustee Evans: Do they have something on that?

[2:19:47] Voice 3: I don't.

[2:19:47] Trustee Evans: Yeah, I don't believe they do, but I'll check and I can report back.

[2:19:50] Trustee Evans: We should maintain that, if nothing else.

[2:19:53] Trustee Evans: I'll check.

[2:19:57] Trustee Evans: So, yeah, while I want to support farmers, I also want to make sure that we are protecting our community as well.

[2:20:06] Trustee Evans: So I'd like to take a look at that.

[2:20:08] Trustee Evans: I don't know I don't know how I feel about that right now I

[2:20:13] Voice 4: have a question as well speaking on

[2:20:17] Trustee Evans: um under the previous term they said that they were not going to be changing the total floor

[2:20:21] Trustee Evans: area of all buildings but I note that on 10 acres or greater in each of the sections it

[2:20:27] Trustee Evans: was reduced from 20,000 feet to 15,000 feet was that on purpose or was that just a holdover

[2:20:35] Trustee Evans: error. I can't quite remember, but we can, I

[2:20:39] Voice 6: can check. That'd be great. Excuse me.

[2:20:48] Voice 12: So if there was a change, I'll be proposing.

[2:20:53] Trustee Evans: If this was a holdover error and it wasn't

[2:20:56] Trustee Evans: reverted back as it was supposed to be, then it's one of those cleanup methods. If this was

[2:21:01] Trustee Evans: done on purpose, then I just missed it. I just, I don't recall. I just recall the statement saying

[2:21:08] Trustee Evans: that they weren't going to change.

[2:21:09] Voice 3: Yeah, I feel like it was done on purpose.

[2:21:11] Voice 3: Okay.

[2:21:12] Voice 3: Tripping my memory, but I don't know procedure,

[2:21:14] Voice 3: so it's better for me to check and I can work back.

[2:21:16] Voice 3: Yeah, no worries.

[2:21:17] Voice 3: Perfect.

[2:21:18] Voice 3: If it's on

[2:21:18] Trustee Evans: purpose, then leave it the way it is.

[2:21:20] Trustee Evans: I'm happy with it.

[2:21:23] Trustee Evans: And if it wasn't done on purpose,

[2:21:25] Trustee Evans: then you need to make sure that it's done on purpose.

[2:21:29] Voice 3: So to kind of wrap things up,

[2:21:31] Voice 3: there is a resolution on page one of the staff report

[2:21:36] Voice 3: for the LTC to give direction to staff

[2:21:39] Voice 3: out to draft a bylaw in accordance with the staff report and you can also amend it to say

[2:21:44] Voice 3: and in accordance with the discussion at the January 17th special meeting and what that would

[2:21:51] Voice 3: do is it would issue a bylaw number and I would be able to draft some of the language in there

[2:21:58] Voice 3: in the staff report I can also provide other options for language so when the LTC receives

[2:22:04] Voice 3: receives it, takes a look at it, and if the LTC decides to have a community information meeting

[2:22:09] Voice 3: after, once the LTC has a good idea which direction they want to go, which regulation

[2:22:15] Voice 3: to put in there, we can just grab it from the staff report and put it into the draft by-law.

[2:22:19] Voice 6: Cool. So

[2:22:20] Voice 3: I just want to make sure that the LTC is aware that by directing staff to draft a by-law

[2:22:25] Voice 3: does not mean it's written in stone,

[2:22:27] Voice 6: it can be

[2:22:28] Voice 3: changed, there's been no readings, and there

[2:22:30] Voice 3: certainly will be about community engagement yeah

[2:22:32] Voice 12: okay so between between when that's drafted

[2:22:36] Voice 12: and the first reading there's an opportunity for uh community there

[2:22:41] Voice 3: there is opportunities but the

[2:22:43] Voice 3: ltc will have to give direction by resolution to schedule the cim it's not mandated in terms

[2:22:50] Voice 3: of the legislative process but it's always encouraged of course okay and in terms of

[2:22:56] Voice 3: turnaround time i feel like this can be done and presented for i think it's the february 13th ltc

[2:23:02] Voice 3: meeting i think so wow i

[2:23:04] Voice 3: do my very best lots of caffeine

[2:23:08] Voice 3: some chocolate i do like writing bylaws so she's really good at the nitty-gritty stuff

[2:23:14] Voice 3: yeah i think i'll do my very best and if they some things like we can't get to perhaps we can

[2:23:21] Voice 3: schedule another special meeting afterwards if needed but i'm gonna do my very best to get

[2:23:25] Voice 3: so we can continue with the natural progression of the project

[2:23:30] Voice 6: awesome

[2:23:31] Voice 3: okay what do you think

[2:23:33] Voice 3: i

[2:23:34] Trustee Evans: will make a motion okay i move that south pender island local trust committee request

[2:23:39] Trustee Evans: staff to prepare a draft bylaw for the minor land use bylaw amendments project in accordance

[2:23:44] Trustee Evans: with the staff report and trustee discussion dated january 17th 2025 do i have a seconder

[2:23:52] Voice 12: I'll second that

[2:23:53] Voice 7: seconded by trustee Falk

[2:23:55] Voice 7: any discussion on the motion

[2:23:57] Voice 7: good work

[2:23:59] Voice 7: looking

[2:24:01] Voice 4: forward to seeing a draft

[2:24:03] Voice 7: excellent

[2:24:04] Voice 7: yes okay all those in favor

[2:24:06] Voice 7: aye

[2:24:06] Voice 7: that is carried

[2:24:08] Voice 7: well done LTC

[2:24:11] Voice 7: I think we've had a good discussion

[2:24:13] Voice 7: it's been

[2:24:14] Voice 7: diverse

[2:24:15] Voice 7: it's been years

[2:24:16] Voice 7: years together

[2:24:18] Voice 6: we

[2:24:19] Voice 7: should both have coffee together

[2:24:22] Voice 7: Yes. You've never seen me on coffee.

[2:24:24] Voice 7: Oh dear.

[2:24:26] Voice 7: So I think this concludes our business today. We now have given staff direction, we are going to see a draft, and as well, lots of options for the items of discussion.

[2:24:38] Voice 7: So we'll have more discussion at our February 13th meeting, and then probably direct for

[2:24:44] Voice 7: a clean information meeting to, you know, present that draft bylaw with any changes

[2:24:50] Voice 7: that we decide in the meeting, and then we can move to the first meeting.

[2:24:56] Voice 3: Just as a reminder, the February 14th meeting is a regularly scheduled LTC meeting, so the

[2:25:02] Voice 3: agenda will be released the one week before.

[2:25:05] Voice 3: So it'll be released on that Friday prior.

[2:25:07] Voice 3: the reason why this agenda was released earlier this week is there's a it's a special meeting

[2:25:13] Voice 3: and so the minimum amount of time for notice was 48 hours and because of our ministry we only

[2:25:20] Voice 3: decided on the date and the location i think we finalized that thursday of last week yeah

[2:25:24] Voice 4: and

[2:25:25] Voice 3: then administration staff was off on friday so there was a delay but for the february 14th

[2:25:30] Voice 3: meeting you'll have a week to digest this well

[2:25:33] Voice 7: i'm

[2:25:34] Voice 12: glad we had a pretty good turnout so yeah

[2:25:36] Voice 3: yeah yeah

[2:25:36] Voice 7: i'll call for a few minutes all those in favor all right thank you all thank you

South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
January 17, 2025 ADOPTED Page 1 of 5 
 
South Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
January 17, 2025 
South Pender Fire Hall 
8961 Gowlland Point Road, South Pender Island, BC 
 
Members Present: Tobi Elliott, Chair 
 Dag Falck, Local Trustee 
 Kristina Evans, Local Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Kim Stockdill, Island Planner 
 Katherine Vogt, Recorder (electronic) 
  
Others Present: Hereditary Chief Eric Pelkey 
There were approximately eighteen (18) members of the public 
present 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Elliott called the meeting to order at 10:31 a.m. She acknowledged that the meeting 
was being held on the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations. She welcomed everyone to 
this special meeting of the Local Trust Committee and introduced Hereditary Chief Eric 
Pelkey. 
2. TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
Hereditary Chief Eric Pelkey (W̱IĆKINEM) presented a map showing the SENĆOŦEN place 
names and significance of sites within the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ People. He explained 
that the map originated from a precedent setting BC Supreme Court case by which 
W̱SÁNEĆ First Nations upheld their territorial rights to hunting and fishing. 
Chief Pelkey explained the color codes in the map representing various activities and the 
arrows that represented the path of the salmon where reef nets were placed for harvesting. 
Chief Pelkey’s family, home, hereditary status, and traditional reef net site originates in 
QENEN,IW̱, at Poet’s Cove. Reef net demonstrations are presented at this site every 
summer and are hoped to be expanded to other sites in the future.  
W̱SÁNEĆ First Nations used the map to achieve an injunction against the construction of a 
marina right outside their village and demonstrate the validity of the 1852 Treaty rights to 
hunt and fish in their territory. 
Chief Pelkey was glad to share the map and W̱SÁNEĆ nation’s history with everyone at the 
meeting and looked forward to sharing this knowledge with others going forward. 
Chair Elliott thanked Chief Pelkey for his presentation. 
A D O P T E D 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
January 17, 2025 ADOPTED Page 2 of 5 
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
The following additions to the agenda were presented for consideration: 
• add item 4. Townhall, move other items forward 
By general consent the agenda was approved as amended. 
4. TOWN HALL 
Members of the public made the following comments: 
• Greater setback requirements means that neighbors are able to provide input on a 
building development that they do not pay taxes on, yet property taxes are not being 
lowered 
o The speaker would not be able to build on 20% of their property and the 
waterfront properties in front them would lose 40% of their buildable space by a 
20% increase of side setbacks and the increase in the setback from the sea 
o This could affect property values; and some assessments in their neighborhood 
have gone down this year 
o None of the other 6 major Gulf Islands have gone to 20-foot side setbacks 
• The environment should be a higher priority than property values or having more 
buildable area 
• Trustees should take a stand, to move this long-stalled project forward, as there has 
already been a lot of public feedback 
• Assessed value and market value are quite different and restrictions that improve 
privacy and natural value can improve a property’s value 
• There is no Advisory Planning Commission concurrence on the issue of legal non-
conforming status, nor is it addressed in the recent staff report, but this issue needs to 
be clarified to provide community certainty 
• A community member thanked the Local Trust Committee and Chief Pelkey for the 
reconciliation presentation 
• It is concerning that a property owner can build and then suddenly have the rules 
changed, which adds costs, insecurity, and community resentment 
• When the setbacks were changed in 2022 there was a lot of dissent, but they were 
changed anyways 
o It is and was intimidating to some people to come to these meetings and be 
questioned about their beliefs in climate change 
o Losing rights on one’s property is concerning 
• The focus should be on preserving and protecting the environment for the long-term 
future 
• Bylaw No.122 makes about 45% of the homes legal non-conforming and the Advisory 
Planning Commission worked on solutions for minimizing legal non-conforming issues 
5. BUSINESS ITEMS 
5.1 Minor Land Use Bylaw Amendments Project - Staff Report 
Chair Elliott acknowledged that the Land Use Bylaw Amendment Project had been 
stalled for various possible reasons; and invited Trustees to speak on what goals 
they were hoping to accomplish through the project.  

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
January 17, 2025 ADOPTED Page 3 of 5 
Trustee Evans expressed the goal of wanting important community discussions to 
not be cut short, so that community differences can be resolved to a point that 
almost everyone can live with.  
Trustee Falck expressed the goals of wanting to resolve, through discussion, the rift 
in the community that was created due to concerns over Bylaw No. 122; a rift that 
could lead to reduced protection of the environment, given that it is the people in a 
community that protect it; to ensure that bylaw proposals are defendable and 
arrived at through an integral, thorough process and that they adequately address 
the actual environmental concern. Trustee Falck also acknowledged that people 
were very different in how they preferred to live their lives on their properties, and 
that it was not up to Trustees to dictate to them. 
 
Island Planner Stockdill presented the Staff Report, dated January 17, 2025, which 
contains Advisory Planning Commission’s recommendations for review. The 
following comments and responses were noted:  
• Island Planner Stockdill confirmed that the only situation where the adoption of 
Bylaw No. 122 created a legal non-conformity on South Pender is regarding 
building height, not floor area or setbacks 
o There is additional protection in the wording of Bylaw No. 122, beyond 
the Local Government Act, to be able to rebuild a dwelling as it 
previously stood as of September 15, 2022 
o Confusion and concern regarding this issue continues to be expressed 
by members of the public 
o Trustee Falck acknowledged that many people had a negative response 
to their property being labeled legally non-conforming 
• Advisory Planning Commission Recommendation No. 1 would require 
“substantive evidence” rather than “an appropriately qualified person,” for 
submitting building site documents for rebuilding dwellings within the new 50-
foot setback (changed from the original 25-foot setback) to the natural 
boundary of the sea 
o A table that clearly spells out before September 15, 2022 and after 
September 15, 2022 was requested 
• The Local Trust Committee considered Advisory Planning Commission 
Recommendation No. 2 to revert interior and exterior lot lines back to 10 feet 
o Support was expressed for this recommendation, given that trees could 
still be cut, and outbuildings or driveways developed within the setback 
the restriction does not appear to accomplish much 
• Trustees expressed support for reverting the height restriction back to the way it 
was written prior to Bylaw No. 122 
• Another table could help clarify the clauses on Page 14 of the Bylaw under siting 
and setback regulations, where it says “despite section...” in 3.3()3, (4) and (5) 
• With regard to shipping containers, Article 3.5(6)(b) on page 16 of the Land Use 
Bylaw No. 114 be changed from 3 to 4 acres and Item 3.5(6)(c) be changed to 4 
acres for alignment with housing sizes 
• Section 3.10 regarding the use of recreational vehicles as a dwelling, was 
supposed to be under a new subsection 
• The Planner offered to update clerical items for Trustee review 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
January 17, 2025 ADOPTED Page 4 of 5 
• The Planner presented Advisory Planning Commission Recommendation No. 3a 
to exclude attached garage from floor area and to define “attached garage” 
o Staff did not support this recommendation, because it provided a 
loophole for garages to be converted into living space 
o Excluding attached garages from the floor area could force the building 
of bigger footprint with detached garages 
o Previous floor area allowances were greater, and easily allowed for 
attached garages without reducing permittable living space 
• The Planner presented the Advisory Planning Commission Recommendation 
No. 3b to amend the Land Use Bylaw to provide two separate total and 
maximum floor area tables, one for prior to September 12, 2022, and one for on 
or after that date 
o The planner noted that staff supported this recommendation 
o The reduction of allowable house sizes in the bylaw did not account for 
large families and other lifestyles, including wheelchair accessibility 
o Support was expressed for increasing floor size by 500 square feet in 
each category as recommended, which would compensate for the 
attached garage 
o Further support was expressed for allowing attached garages, as 
this would promote less scattered building footprints 
o The clause associated with the tables could be removed for clarity 
o The Planner offered to come back with options for garages/dwelling 
sizes and aligning the bylaws with the BC Building Code height 
standards 
• The Planner presented Advisory Planning Commission Recommendation No. 
3c: “agriculture maximum floor area and align it with the Land Use Bylaw,” 
o It was noted that the Local Trust Committee is restricting, by lot size, the 
maximum allowable floor area of 500 square meters, as is permitted 
o It had been previously recommended to refer to the Agricultural Land 
Commission Act regulations rather than write them up in the Land Use 
Bylaw, since they may change 
o The Planner would report back regarding if there was a total maximum 
allowable floor area of all buildings on Agricultural Land Commission 
land 
o Last term it was stated that there would be no change to the total floor 
area of all buildings; yet, on 10 acres or more in each of the sections it 
was reduced from 20,000 feet to 15,000 feet 
o Will need to determine if this was error 
 
SP-2025-001 
It was Moved and Seconded, 
that South Pender Island Local Trust Committee request staff to prepare a 
draft bylaw for the Minor Land Use Bylaw Amendments Project in 
accordance with the staff report and trustee discussions dated January 17, 
2025. 
CARRIED 
  

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
January 17, 2025 ADOPTED Page 5 of 5 
6. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 12:57 pm. 
 
 
_________________________ 
Tobi Elliott, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
_________________________ 
Katherine Vogt, Recorder