Denman Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, January 21, 2025

[0:00:03] Voice 12: Good morning, so thank you for joining us today for this regular meeting of the Denman and Idlewood Trust Committee.

[0:00:12] Voice 12: I want to begin this meeting by acknowledging that we are fortunate to be able to be able to take in locations across the territory of the Coast Salish People.

[0:00:20] Voice 12: I'm David Bartlett, I'm from Main Island, I'm chair of the Denman and Idlewood Trust Committee.

[0:00:24] I'm George, I'm

[0:00:24] Voice 12: the David, I'm the Denman and Idlewood Trust Committee.

[0:00:30] the city is being live screened and recorded for those who are unable to attend in person today.

[0:00:36] The recording will be posted to the Alice Trust website for future viewing.

[0:00:39] We have some

[0:00:40] Voice 12: staff members joining us today. So we have our 500 members in the car here.

[0:00:47] Voice 12: We have a fellow sitting in the background. There is a chat layer. We have a warrant

[0:00:51] Voice 12: to file enforcement um we have uh lisa mcfarland who's doing the um zoom meeting um and i think

[0:01:03] Voice 12: that's it's for something depending it's also going to get some supplies uh this meeting is

[0:01:12] the official one for your trust me the decisions the language finally not matters to discuss

[0:01:17] relevant

[0:01:17] Voice 12: business i want to add this to place employment despite the fact some staff are

[0:01:21] Voice 12: your homes are staffing right to a safe and respectful workplace so of course we have an

[0:01:26] Voice 12: agenda um the one thing we'd like to do is uh reverse the order of 921 9.2 uh just to um

[0:01:35] accommodate almost for a station who have to serve some tiny sensitive commitments

[0:01:39] if that works for everybody um

[0:01:41] Voice 12: anything else within the agenda

[0:01:43] Voice 12: that but additions relations do anything by general consent we will adopt that agenda

[0:01:51] Voice 12: um and we will move into trustee reports highlighted by today

[0:01:57] Voice 12: who wants to be first uh

[0:02:02] uh i mean we've i mean there's not you know during this sort of process period um things

[0:02:10] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to slow down a little bit for the trust so this is not our first meeting first bit of

[0:02:16] Trustee Borthwick (probable): trust business of the year we've had a mini football uh and yesterday i had a regional

[0:02:23] planning committee meeting um but but yeah it's been relatively slow over the last couple months

[0:02:29] over the last month um so not a whole bunch to report really on my end yeah we the meeting

[0:02:37] yesterday was about bylaw enforcement primarily uh and we're sort of working on getting a draft

[0:02:44] uh of the best practices uh manual assembled um to then send to trust council

[0:02:51] and that's sort of where we're at great i'll just follow up on christy barthwick's report

[0:02:59] it was a quiet winter but we did meet a community of the whole which is uh really work on

[0:03:06] on amending the policy statement,

[0:03:08] but

[0:03:08] Voice 12: we're trying to do that

[0:03:09] Voice 12: outside of our regularly scheduled meetings.

[0:03:12] Voice 12: So we've been moving along, moving along.

[0:03:14] Voice 12: We're trying to get first reading

[0:03:16] at least sooner rather than later.

[0:03:17] And as yesterday,

[0:03:21] we were in committee with the regional planning

[0:03:24] looking at our enforcement

[0:03:26] Voice 12: and handbook.

[0:03:31] That was before that was started.

[0:03:33] So it's easily read and easily understood.

[0:03:37] Voice 12: Anybody that, you know, is thinking about making a complaint or receives the letter,

[0:03:41] Voice 12: they can look at the ad, okay, they can say, oh, this is what's happening.

[0:03:45] Voice 12: I can relax, breathe, process, seems pretty fair.

[0:03:49] Voice 12: That's where we're at.

[0:03:50] Voice 12: We're also amending the Trust Council policy, which directs all of the bio-appliance

[0:03:55] Voice 12: and, of course, number two policy at 5.5.1.

[0:03:59] and tomorrow we've got a financial planning which jumping ahead but our year end is the end of march

[0:04:05] and we're uh

[0:04:06] Voice 12: struggling with a budget and trying to reduce the amount tax increase for our

[0:04:11] Voice 12: constituents and ourselves excellent well from my perspective it's been a little bit of a busy winter

[0:04:21] Voice 12: good oh it's uh we of course got through just council in december which um was a really good

[0:04:26] Voice 12: positive section we've had a couple of committee meetings to deal with the policy statement which

[0:04:32] is seems to be wandering its way to a conclusion um we're we've now got down to the point where

[0:04:39] it's we're word smithing which i hate but you know we've got to the point where that's all

[0:04:46] you can do is we're spending i think we're there so um we're looking forward to proposing first

[0:04:52] first reading, fairly soon though, then it gets out into the final public reading. We'll

[0:04:59] see what the feedback is and I'm exceptionally optimistic that, you know, maybe by September

[0:05:05] we might actually have this thing done. We can only see what we can see is that the main

[0:05:14] thing is once it gets to the point of first reading, the road forward is based on feedback

[0:05:20] Voice 12: from others. So, you know, if there's lots of feedback and not much, there's no

[0:05:25] Voice 12: reason why we can't just go boom, boom, boom. And my optimistic read is that I think we

[0:05:31] were pretty happy. So that's a great thing. Certainly happy to be around here on

[0:05:37] Demet today. It's such a beautiful day. It's just, you guys are amazingly lucky.

[0:05:42] It's a perfect party. So I guess I can leave it at that. We don't, our

[0:05:48] Our Electoral Director has not joined us today, so we don't

[0:05:52] Voice 12: have Electoral Director's report this evening.

[0:05:57] Voice 12: And we can move down to public comments. We have a town hall.

[0:06:01] Voice 12: We generally ask for two or three minutes, but seeing as there's four people here, we can be a little bit flexible.

[0:06:07] But if anybody has anything to contribute, go ahead.

[0:06:11] Thank you, Paul. This is pretty common, but we really do need to take affordable housing seriously and fervently.

[0:06:19] There are many people on Tender that live unhealthily and in poor living conditions

[0:06:26] and unaffordably, so somewhere between 100 to 300 people is the estimate.

[0:06:32] And I know there's a project in the works at the Island's Trust,

[0:06:36] but we need to get that done and focused, locked off, heard by the community,

[0:06:42] and hopefully heard by the Island's Trust so that we can address some of these issues

[0:06:47] is a short-term medium thank you very much certainly

[0:06:53] Voice 12: very high on the radio

[0:06:55] Voice 12: anybody else all right thank you very much so we'll go down to minutes well we have local

[0:07:05] trust committee made in the stated december 10th not that long we're surprised i think

[0:07:10] no i'm not surprised thanks um

[0:07:13] Voice 12: any comments or concerns um yeah a few minor really uh page five

[0:07:20] Voice 12: of our agenda page three of the minutes, three of the bottom, the third bullet, if you're

[0:07:29] Voice 12: all there, bullet point one, the sentence starts, once of the parcels is split. I think

[0:07:37] Voice 12: that means meant to be one. That's okay. And then page five of eight, trial of eight at

[0:07:47] Voice 12: the bottom discussion ensued um to address what i'm about here in unrestricted growth so what's

[0:07:59] Voice 12: the bottom of each page it's not restricted but i apologize but my notes don't point me at the top

[0:08:07] Voice 12: so the first bullet of the last paragraph at the bottom there is it starts with address

[0:08:12] Voice 12: affordable housing options in a way that indicates there is not interest in unrestricted growth

[0:08:17] Voice 12: i didn't understand i'm not sure what we were saying there address affordable housing options

[0:08:24] Voice 12: in a way that indicates there is not interested unrestricted growth

[0:08:32] Voice 12: is that what he said we're not interested we are interested in

[0:08:38] Voice 12: we are we are interested in am i the only one that's confused by that statement

[0:08:48] Voice 12: There was probably a statement that was fake, but yeah, it is

[0:08:54] Voice 12: a bit of a double negative.

[0:08:55] Voice 12: But if we're okay, if the intent is fine, then I'm happy to say it is the right way

[0:08:59] Trustee Borthwick (probable): around.

[0:09:00] Trustee Borthwick (probable): But it is a bit clunky.

[0:09:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Because if you take out the negatives, you can say that there is interest in restricted

[0:09:08] growth,

[0:09:09] Trustee Borthwick (probable): which is obviously not strictly true, because that's not how that works.

[0:09:12] Trustee Borthwick (probable): but yeah so

[0:09:14] Voice 12: let's leave that one but let's just change that one on page three and then i'm happy

[0:09:17] Voice 12: to uh okay talk the minutes as you can and you trust me not the minutes all

[0:09:23] Voice 12: right you know you

[0:09:23] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you have to hang around i'm very glad to hang around the trustee graham in that regard

[0:09:31] Voice 12: so by general consent we will adopt those minutes as

[0:09:36] Voice 12: if i may i will say that the minutes are excellent i really appreciate um the work of uh lisa and

[0:09:42] Voice 12: and uh well done that's much appreciated yeah um so moving down we have follow-up action list on

[0:09:51] Voice 12: page 10. um anything there that uh either planner or trustees want to bring up is just just page 17

[0:10:01] Voice 12: um number nine so i realized i saw it i think it was in the local paper record where he announced

[0:10:08] Voice 12: the elections of the Comox First Nations Council of Chiefs and we'd really like to get that letter

[0:10:13] Voice 12: sooner rather than later. I'm just wondering is there anything that our chair could do or we could

[0:10:19] Voice 12: do to move that along so that we're not months away from congratulating them? Just a simple letter.

[0:10:27] Voice 8: So Joe Elliott has drafted the letter and I believe our PM Jamra is going to review it

[0:10:35] Voice 8: and then it should be ready to go out so it's wonderful thank you it

[0:10:39] Voice 12: sounds like it's very

[0:10:40] Voice 12: much pending so absolutely did you guys probably have a look at your signer no i'm sure it's a

[0:10:51] Voice 12: wonderful letter it shows right and the regional planning manager guy where he's looking at it

[0:10:55] Voice 12: what might we possibly add certainly yeah

[0:10:59] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i mean i like to see letters that are being sent to my

[0:11:01] Trustee Borthwick (probable): name i think generally but i have not worried about the content but i think it's important

[0:11:06] Trustee Borthwick (probable): see when it

[0:11:07] Voice 12: gets forward to me for my quote-unquote signature which is something somebody else does

[0:11:15] uh maybe just include

[0:11:17] Voice 12: the trustees so they'll have eyes on it yeah and then you know if in

[0:11:22] Voice 12: in the brief moment if somebody thinks that there should be something more something less

[0:11:26] Voice 12: then we can invest at that time

[0:11:28] Voice 12: to continue it up that's really good excellent great so we're good otherwise

[0:11:39] so we have landed at 10 12. now are we too early for it i see that the nation are

[0:11:48] there

[0:11:48] Trustee Borthwick (probable): several represents representatives of the nation in the zoo including the newly

[0:11:55] Trustee Borthwick (probable): elected councillor newman or re-elected well

[0:11:57] Voice 12: welcome welcome um that's the agenda so you're

[0:12:02] Voice 12: next up um so we're at 9.2 which is derz 2023.1 consequence staff reporter what i'd like to ask

[0:12:14] Voice 12: is why does this have rational numbering to it versus the stuff that we're seeing down south

[0:12:19] Voice 12: with these numbers that go on that you have to because it was

[0:12:24] Voice 8: uh this application would have

[0:12:26] Voice 8: been open before the new city view software so there's some applications that still have

[0:12:31] Voice 8: the old number inside well i love these applications are

[0:12:36] Voice 12: we getting a new number

[0:12:37] Voice 12: as chairman when you have to read over the thing it's really hard to do some 12 digits

[0:12:55] Voice 12: All righty, so what's that? Over to you.

[0:13:00] Voice 12: Yeah, I believe we have, do we have Marbelle

[0:13:04] Voice 3: on the Zoom?

[0:13:07] Voice 3: Well,

[0:13:07] Voice 12: we don't have a plan here.

[0:13:10] Voice 12: She was really expecting the 10th or the 11th.

[0:13:14] Voice 12: All right, there's one brief thing, and then we'll see if we can rouse a planet.

[0:13:21] Because we have a desk with great haste and speed.

[0:13:26] They didn't get the memo, did they?

[0:13:28] I'm

[0:13:57] Voice 12: going to do the same thing.

[0:14:06] Voice 12: Oh, there we go.

[0:14:09] Voice 12: We have found ourselves a planet, and magic comes on our screen.

[0:14:12] Voice 12: me. Good morning. Good morning.

[0:14:15] Voice 12: Okay, you're up. We're up. We have advanced quickly through

[0:14:19] Voice 12: the schedule.

[0:14:20] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Yeah, fast.

[0:14:22] Voice 12: So hopefully we didn't wait too long.

[0:14:27] Planner Thomaidis (probable): No, not at all. I was

[0:14:28] Planner Thomaidis (probable): ready. Good morning, everybody. Yeah, so this staff report provides the LTC with an update

[0:14:35] Planner Thomaidis (probable): on previous requests related to the environmental, archaeological and cultural heritage protection

[0:14:42] Planner Thomaidis (probable): section of Comas Ranch as part of this rezoning application.

[0:14:45] Planner Thomaidis (probable): So after discussing the LTC's initial request for a post-impact preliminary field reconnaissance

[0:14:52] Planner Thomaidis (probable): from June 2024, it was clear that the applicant requires more detailed information in order

[0:14:58] Planner Thomaidis (probable): to proceed with hiring an archaeological consultant to do the work.

[0:15:03] Planner Thomaidis (probable): So attachment two of the staff report therefore contains a draft terms of reference letter

[0:15:08] Planner Thomaidis (probable): letter detailing the specific PFR information that's required. The more detailed PFR requirements

[0:15:14] Planner Thomaidis (probable): were informed by ongoing engagement with the Comox First Nations archaeology staff.

[0:15:20] Planner Thomaidis (probable): They've identified gaps in cultural and archaeological heritage information for all

[0:15:25] Planner Thomaidis (probable): three properties, which a PFR would seek to address. The PFR would also help to inform the

[0:15:32] Planner Thomaidis (probable): creation of a heritage conservation area for the properties as detailed in attachment one of the

[0:15:38] Planner Thomaidis (probable): staff report although all archaeological sites whether recorded or unrecorded are protected

[0:15:46] Planner Thomaidis (probable): through the bc heritage conservation act unrecorded sites are much more likely to be

[0:15:51] Planner Thomaidis (probable): overlooked and damaged hence the need to account for all existing cultural heritage prior to any

[0:15:57] Planner Thomaidis (probable): any future development. This report also includes the applicant's response to these requests in

[0:16:05] Planner Thomaidis (probable): attachment three. Although the applicant is in support of protecting the properties in perpetuity,

[0:16:11] Planner Thomaidis (probable): including protecting cultural heritage values, they've outlined that they believe the archaeology

[0:16:16] Planner Thomaidis (probable): branch already has all the relevant information in order to protect the properties and that the

[0:16:22] Planner Thomaidis (probable): owners should not be required to do a PFR as part of the rezoning application. Staff recommend that

[0:16:28] Planner Thomaidis (probable): the LTC proceed with requesting the preparation of draft by-law language for a heritage conservation

[0:16:35] Planner Thomaidis (probable): area as outlined in attachment one for all three subject properties and also that the LTC approve

[0:16:42] Planner Thomaidis (probable): the draft terms of reference letter detailing additional information requests and PFR work.

[0:16:49] Planner Thomaidis (probable): staff also recommend that the ltc direct staff to develop a draft section 219 restrictive covenant

[0:16:55] Planner Thomaidis (probable): for environmental protection for a section of long peak point that was previously protected through

[0:17:02] Planner Thomaidis (probable): the land use contract as well as entering into a cost recovery agreement with the applicant

[0:17:08] Planner Thomaidis (probable): if necessary for legal review of that draft covenant the applicant couldn't be here today

[0:17:16] Planner Thomaidis (probable): day to attend uh and and speak to their application but i believe that one of the owners from comas

[0:17:22] Planner Thomaidis (probable): ranch is present um and if yeah if you have any questions uh for me please go right ahead

[0:17:28] Planner Thomaidis (probable): hi margo

[0:17:30] Planner Thomaidis (probable): it's uh chris right

[0:17:31] Voice 9: um basically what we've uncovered from our dealing with the

[0:17:37] Voice 9: archaeology branch is there is extensive information on uh both longmeat point and

[0:17:44] Voice 9: all the rest of our property any place that has publicly sensitive material deposited upon it

[0:17:51] Voice 9: there have been three extensive digs there in uh 1990 1995 and 2003 or four

[0:18:02] Voice 9: the actual and those were extensive digs those were uh digs uh done by uh you i'm not sure who

[0:18:13] Voice 9: who did those takes, because part of the problem

[0:18:17] Voice 9: is that we as

[0:18:18] Voice 9: citizens, even though it is our land,

[0:18:21] Voice 9: are not allowed to have that information

[0:18:23] Voice 9: for obvious reasons, because you would find out

[0:18:26] Voice 9: where the treasures might lie,

[0:18:30] Voice 9: and then people would go and take those.

[0:18:33] Voice 9: So there has been extensive work done there.

[0:18:37] Voice 9: It appeared that nobody had actually ever gone

[0:18:41] Voice 9: on and ask the archaeology branch for that information for what digs have been done and

[0:18:49] Voice 9: how extensive the investigation of the Comas Ranch property has been. That is why we're not

[0:18:57] Voice 9: quite sure why a PFR is required. A PFR is not a dig. A PFR is a reconnaissance of the property

[0:19:07] Voice 9: and not nearly as extensive as the three bodies of work that have been done by the

[0:19:13] Voice 9: archaeology branch and are deposited with the archaeology branch. However,

[0:19:19] Voice 9: we are not allowed to get that information, so we can't tell what's been done. You, I think,

[0:19:25] Voice 9: because you are a government, can get that information.

[0:19:32] Voice 9: So it's very difficult for us to say, yes, do a PFR, even though we don't think PFR is going to gain anything because of the extensive gigs that have already been done, but that's our position.

[0:19:44] Voice 9: So do

[0:19:45] Voice 12: you feel that the PFR would be disruptive?

[0:19:48] Voice 9: Or are you in support of the PFR if it does go forward?

[0:19:51] Voice 9: we don't understand the reason for a pfr and why we should be paying for a pfr if extensive work

[0:19:58] Voice 9: has already been done on our property and a pfr is not going to add anything if pfr is not an

[0:20:05] Voice 9: extensive dig as has already been done on our property i think somebody needs to liaise with

[0:20:11] Voice 9: the archaeology branch find out when information is available because what they wouldn't tell us

[0:20:18] Voice 9: was they wouldn't give us the information in the digs they told us extensive work has been done on

[0:20:25] Voice 9: your property and the letter and information was uh provided to staff and to uh you the trustees

[0:20:39] Voice 9: uh by john andrew in the letter uh outlining what the archaeology branch had said thank you

[0:20:45] Voice 9: pretty much just ease

[0:20:46] Voice 12: well um my understanding is there's a there's a a great void of time

[0:20:56] amount of time has been spent with with no um uh investigation of what's there uh the

[0:21:04] documentation i've seen is quite old i didn't see anything in the information that we've seen

[0:21:09] uh as early as the

[0:21:10] Voice 12: years that you quoted in the 19th so i don't know anything about that so my

[0:21:15] Voice 12: I'm missing some information here, and perhaps if we could hear from the archaeological branch of Comox First Nations, that might give us...

[0:21:24] Voice 9: No, no, I'm not talking about the archaeological branch of Comox First Nation.

[0:21:28] Voice 9: I'm talking about the archaeological branch of the province.

[0:21:32] Voice 9: What

[0:21:32] Voice 12: I need is both sides to present their arguments.

[0:21:37] Voice 12: You articulated your arguments quite eloquently. I

[0:21:40] Voice 9: would like to hear from you.

[0:21:42] Voice 9: And what I'm trying to say is, I can't make an argument, because I don't know, I'm not allowed to have the information from the archaeology branch, and so I can't make an argument.

[0:21:54] Voice 12: You've articulated the thinking that we could take.

[0:21:57] Voice 9: Yes,

[0:21:57] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and if I can clarify, we also don't get to see the detailed look into the archaeology branch's findings.

[0:22:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): it is that information. We've got people who are experts on the archeological side and that landscape on the other side of that,

[0:22:13] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and we also don't get to see that information directly. That's not...

[0:22:16] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Can I make

[0:22:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): a comment, please?

[0:22:19] Voice 12: Yeah, certainly. Go ahead. I guess you're very muted. You're very low on your volume. Think about that a little bit.

[0:22:25] Voice 5: Is this any better?

[0:22:27] Voice 12: Way

[0:22:28] Voice 5: better. Thank you very much.

[0:22:29] Voice 5: Wonderful. Thank you. Rainey Bevilacqua here, Comox First Nation, but I am an archaeologist.

[0:22:34] Voice 5: And so I do have access to all of the information the archaeological branch gives us.

[0:22:39] Voice 5: So we have a provincial database called the Remote Access to Archaeological Data.

[0:22:46] Voice 5: And what that does is we can, archaeologists who have access to that can go on and look at all previous reports that have been conducted on the property.

[0:22:56] Voice 5: There have been no significant excavations that have occurred on the property.

[0:23:02] Voice 5: So the only reports that are available from the BC ARC branch, and they do include every single site visit archaeologists have gone to the property for, are initial studies, our initial reporting in 1975.

[0:23:16] Voice 5: We do know that archaeologists were present on the site in 1952.

[0:23:21] Voice 5: And then since then, there has been hydropole replacements along the road.

[0:23:26] Voice 5: done by Baseline Archaeological and there has also been a notification sent from Comox who

[0:23:33] Voice 5: have had to go to the site and rebury ancestral remains that are eroding out at Long Beach Point

[0:23:40] Voice 5: so every single site visit has been recorded with the archaeological branch and archaeologists

[0:23:46] Voice 5: including ourselves at KFN have all of that information so there have been no excavations

[0:23:52] Voice 5: at this site to date. None of that information has been done systematically. And even if there

[0:24:00] Voice 5: were excavations done in 1952, they're not done to the standard of today's archaeological

[0:24:06] Voice 5: requirements. One of the reasons why we have recommended a PFR is because when we went to

[0:24:13] Voice 5: the property last March, we identified extensive archaeological material outside of the currently

[0:24:20] Voice 5: registered site boundary. And as that was not the purpose of the survey to identify that material,

[0:24:25] Voice 5: we did not do a complete PFR. So there are extensive archaeological material outside of

[0:24:31] Voice 5: even the recently updated site boundary that we have been working with the ARC branch directly on

[0:24:37] Voice 5: increasing. So that is currently happening, but we had limitations to what we could see based on

[0:24:45] Voice 5: where we were on the survey we or on the visit we did with Islands Trust. So there has been no

[0:24:52] Voice 5: systematic excavations of the site. We do not know how old it is. We do not know the extent of it and

[0:24:58] Voice 5: although that information wouldn't come from a PFR, the PFR does tell us the areas where

[0:25:05] Voice 5: archaeological material is outside of the recorded site boundary and does protect it. Another issue

[0:25:12] Voice 5: that we've had with the site is that almost all of the development that has occurred on the site,

[0:25:20] Voice 5: on all 21 lots, were done without being under permit. Some of those happened prior to permit

[0:25:26] Voice 5: requirements that went in in 1994. Many have happened since 1994, which means that they are

[0:25:32] Voice 5: all infractions to the standards of the Heritage Conservation Act, and there is an ongoing

[0:25:40] Voice 5: infraction at the property as well showing that even though the site is protected legally

[0:25:48] Voice 5: there hasn't been archaeological requirements because they have not been

[0:25:55] Voice 5: done under the proper permitting system so there have been no systematic studies that have been

[0:26:02] Voice 5: done if you do need this information from the ARC branch we can request it from them but we have

[0:26:08] Voice 5: just as much access, archaeologists have just as much access as the Ark Branch, and the Ark Branch

[0:26:14] Voice 5: does not have secret documents that we cannot see on RAD, so thank you.

[0:26:19] Voice 12: Thank you, thank you.

[0:26:24] Voice 12: So there we have it. This is a unique opportunity for Comox First Nations to gather this information

[0:26:30] Voice 12: on property that is extremely important, huge historical relevance to the past and the current

[0:26:38] Voice 12: make-up of the co-operations this is a we would be crazy to to miss this opportunity

[0:26:43] Voice 12: well

[0:26:44] Voice 9: and i'm applying for them to take that opportunity but i'm not sure why i should be

[0:26:48] Voice 9: paying for that remember this is not a traditional rezoning this is a transfer of glory yes this is

[0:26:56] Trustee Borthwick (probable): this is our meeting i'd love to hear from you but also that david will finish okay sorry yeah

[0:27:01] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i appreciate it it

[0:27:03] Voice 12: was saying nobody nobody wants to hear the bill they're not prepared

[0:27:07] Voice 12: to understand that. But from a philosophical perspective, the opportunity for Home Office

[0:27:13] Voice 12: First Nations to do this survey seems to make perfect sense from my perspective. So we'll

[0:27:19] stop there. I'm okay with the information I

[0:27:21] Voice 12: have at the moment. On that topic, I would

[0:27:24] Voice 12: like to go further, though. I'm curious about this Section 219, the covenant. What is the

[0:27:30] Voice 12: purpose of that is that is that tied to the conservation area or is this something

[0:27:44] Planner Thomaidis (probable): hello uh yes thanks uh the the section 219 covenant uh is a different tool than the

[0:27:51] Planner Thomaidis (probable): heritage conservation area um the heritage conservation area is more of like similar to

[0:27:57] Planner Thomaidis (probable): a development permit area scheme versus the section 219 covenant is for nature protection

[0:28:04] Planner Thomaidis (probable): that would mimic the protection that was provided through the land use contract historically

[0:28:09] Planner Thomaidis (probable): for a specific area of the lot so there are two different tools that the LTC could use to protect

[0:28:18] Planner Thomaidis (probable): in different ways but they're not they're not the same thing they're different things they

[0:28:22] Planner Thomaidis (probable): we this this staff report contemplates multiple tools not just the heritage conservation area

[0:28:28] Planner Thomaidis (probable): um and so this was this was added as you know uh to get the ball rolling on drafting that covenant

[0:28:34] Planner Thomaidis (probable): and uh getting legal review okay

[0:28:37] Voice 12: so that that answers that question but then i have further

[0:28:40] Voice 12: questions if i may so this land title act section two on that covenant involves detailed site plan

[0:28:46] Voice 12: land specific construction requirements and environmental monitoring for supporting obligations

[0:28:54] Voice 12: and other limits on proposed land use and development it feels very much from reading

[0:28:58] Voice 12: that it feels very much like this is anticipating development uh is this section 219 covenant

[0:29:06] Voice 12: really aimed at land that is now has an application pending and so you put the covenant on so

[0:29:13] Voice 12: so that you can lock all these various things.

[0:29:15] Voice 12: Am I getting the gist of what the purpose of this covenant really is?

[0:29:23] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Yes, through the chair.

[0:29:25] Planner Thomaidis (probable): It would be for environmental protection of an area of the lot

[0:29:29] Planner Thomaidis (probable): that is currently undeveloped, if that helps clarify.

[0:29:33] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Are you asking whether the covenant would apply to all of the areas

[0:29:37] Planner Thomaidis (probable): that have potential for residential development currently?

[0:29:42] Planner Thomaidis (probable): I'm

[0:29:43] Voice 12: just trying to understand what the purpose of this company is.

[0:29:47] Voice 12: Who would bear the cost of all of these, this monitoring, the plans for civic instruction,

[0:29:53] Voice 12: the monitoring, et cetera, et cetera, reporting obligations?

[0:29:57] Voice 12: Who pays for that?

[0:29:58] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Right.

[0:30:00] Planner Thomaidis (probable): As part of the Section 219 covenant?

[0:30:04] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Well, the covenant would be registered in favor of the local trust committee.

[0:30:09] Planner Thomaidis (probable): I'm not sure exactly how it would be drafted at this point and who would bear that cost.

[0:30:18] Planner Thomaidis (probable): But I believe enforcing the covenant would be the responsibility of the LTC,

[0:30:23] Planner Thomaidis (probable): although it would depend on all of the clauses in the covenant,

[0:30:27] Planner Thomaidis (probable): and that could be tweaked with our lawyers through legal counsel.

[0:30:31] Planner Thomaidis (probable): It's sort of in the process of drafting the covenant,

[0:30:34] Planner Thomaidis (probable): you would contemplate these things.

[0:30:38] Voice 12: I'm just taking it right from your report.

[0:30:41] Voice 12: Detailed site plan specific construction requirements are not to monitor.

[0:30:46] Voice 12: This doesn't sound like the body of the covenant.

[0:30:49] Voice 12: This sounds like actions that have to proceed before the covenant is written.

[0:30:53] Voice 12: Am I close?

[0:30:54] Voice 12: close um

[0:30:58] Planner Thomaidis (probable): sorry i'm just i'm not understanding exactly what you're asking who would okay

[0:31:04] Voice 9: for the past 50 years the land from longbeat point all the way except for where the homes

[0:31:16] Voice 9: are on the waterfront so we have 200 acres 40 of which have home 40 acres which have homes

[0:31:21] Voice 9: 160 acres which have been protected through a covenant so there's no no development you can't

[0:31:29] Voice 9: you can't do anything on on that land and that's what we wish to and and your staff wish for

[0:31:37] Voice 9: complete protection of all the other land other than the little bit of waterfront where the bones

[0:31:43] Voice 9: are the archaeological sites would be protected under all the provincial legislation and whatever

[0:31:50] Voice 9: But the other area, we don't want any development on, we don't want it, you don't want it, and that's what they're talking about is that extensive piece of land continuing to be unlogged, untracked, unroaded, basically nothing can go on in there.

[0:32:08] Voice 12: So it sounds very much like a conservation covenant. Are they similar?

[0:32:13] Yes.

[0:32:14] Thank

[0:32:15] Voice 12: you. I'm just trying to understand that particular piece.

[0:32:18] Voice 12: Thank you for that, Claire.

[0:32:19] Voice 12: Yeah.

[0:32:21] Planner Thomaidis (probable): I could clarify further that there is the potential for a Section 219 covenant to restrict specific development in an area that is for residential development, like restricting the size of buildings or citing kind of an additional layer to the zoning regulation.

[0:32:41] Planner Thomaidis (probable): So that's something that the LTC could contemplate in addition to a conservation covenant.

[0:32:50] Planner Thomaidis (probable): So, yeah, it's just a legal tool.

[0:32:54] Planner Thomaidis (probable): And, yeah, so it's not that it can't apply to existing buildings on the lot, but it's just that we're suggesting that it apply to a part of the lot that is currently undeveloped and it's to serve the purpose of conservation.

[0:33:09] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Okay, thank you for that.

[0:33:11] Planner Thomaidis (probable): In addition to the zoning.

[0:33:14] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:33:15] Voice 12: If you want to hear anything about it, those are my questions.

[0:33:20] Voice 12: There seemed to be some confusion about the natural areas protection

[0:33:24] Voice 12: at the DAPTEC.

[0:33:25] Voice 12: I've never heard all those letters stamped or looked at.

[0:33:29] Voice 12: But we were just asking the applicant if they were interested in it.

[0:33:33] Voice 12: You don't

[0:33:34] Voice 9: have to be interested in it.

[0:33:35] Voice 9: That's fine.

[0:33:35] Voice 9: No, no, no.

[0:33:36] Voice 9: We'd have to rezone it to the whole area of R1.

[0:33:40] Voice 9: and there was a tremendous amount of work and violence and and we've managed to effectively

[0:33:47] Voice 9: through the land use contract keep that area pristine and and we'd like to keep it that way

[0:33:53] Voice 9: i

[0:33:53] Voice 12: think the conservation comment from our perspective does the same

[0:33:58] Voice 12: level of protection you just miss out on the tax advantage but yeah that's

[0:34:14] Voice 12: sorry

[0:34:15] Planner Thomaidis (probable): through the chair through the chair just adding um one like additional detail uh that

[0:34:21] Planner Thomaidis (probable): conservation covenants can go beyond zoning they can kind of restrict uh tree removal uh they can

[0:34:29] Planner Thomaidis (probable): kind of dictate how trails are built and access public access things like that so it's in addition

[0:34:37] Planner Thomaidis (probable): to zoning regulations in a bit more of a detailed way thank

[0:34:42] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you thank you okay now you trust your

[0:34:45] Trustee Borthwick (probable): work uh why don't we cut chris off earlier and i don't know if you wanted to finish his thought

[0:34:49] Trustee Borthwick (probable): okay uh make sure you're not patient um and uh yeah i mean and i think just and then without

[0:34:59] wanting to sort of belabor the point too much like i don't want to delve too deep into these

[0:35:04] this is a as a debate um but uh i think i think from my understanding of like the various

[0:35:13] conversations it was back and forth and having read the the information that

[0:35:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): john uh after

[0:35:18] Trustee Borthwick (probable): submitted um one of the one of the lines or you know a significant part of that that letter is

[0:35:24] Trustee Borthwick (probable): it's given to that you know despite that you know there are these logged areas in terms of what's

[0:35:30] what's known about the

[0:35:31] Trustee Borthwick (probable): archaeological significance of the area there the art branch also says given

[0:35:37] Trustee Borthwick (probable): us that they are most of these deposits are underground it's impossible to know the full

[0:35:41] Trustee Borthwick (probable): extent of that and from what my understanding is of pfr is that you're right it's not like an

[0:35:47] Trustee Borthwick (probable): extensive date it's not a it's not a deep excavation it's not designed to be intrusive

[0:35:51] Trustee Borthwick (probable): in that way but it is about getting um you know modern archaeological processes applied

[0:35:58] uh surface level to sort of identify where there may be areas that are of higher or lower

[0:36:02] sensitivity and a lot of these early surveys were done by boats with a bunch of students

[0:36:08] sort of mapping spaces from what they can see from the shore and again i'm

[0:36:12] Trustee Borthwick (probable): not an archaeologist so

[0:36:13] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i'm not going to try and delete the ins and outs there but but the art branch also says yes these

[0:36:19] Trustee Borthwick (probable): areas could be much larger the idea would be a bar and so in terms just in terms of like you guys

[0:36:23] Trustee Borthwick (probable): not seeing the point which i and i do understand and i really sympathize i think there's issues

[0:36:28] Trustee Borthwick (probable): with the way that we handle the cost of archaeological surveys in this country i think

[0:36:34] that we should be finding ways to make that that happen so it's easier for landowners because i

[0:36:40] think we discourage people from doing the diligence that i think a lot of people would be interested

[0:36:44] in doing if it wasn't going to wind up coming out of their bank account and potentially expose them

[0:36:50] to risk. But the PFR is about trying

[0:36:56] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to get a better idea of where there might be issues

[0:37:01] to a higher standard than the art branches currently got for the property. So while there

[0:37:08] is information, there's significantly more that could be gained. That's the purpose.

[0:37:13] It's a more thorough surface-level advanced scan for information, and that would be the reason.

[0:37:20] And this is a very big site. There are a lot of significant sites on Denman.

[0:37:27] That site is one of the bigger ones, for sure.

[0:37:31] And I don't think any of us are trying to...

[0:37:34] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I'm certainly not going to allege that you guys don't care about that.

[0:37:38] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I don't think that's not been my impression at all.

[0:37:42] Trustee Borthwick (probable): uh however what they're what the the nation is asking for is a chance to get a more thorough

[0:37:48] Trustee Borthwick (probable): broad sense and up to a higher standard than currently exists yeah that's that's the rationale

[0:37:54] Trustee Borthwick (probable): so in terms of like we can't see why it is to it is about and and there's you know that john has

[0:38:02] Trustee Borthwick (probable): made the point several times that the art branch is not requiring anything further at this point

[0:38:06] Trustee Borthwick (probable): this is about there's there is often gaps between legislation in terms of what is technically

[0:38:14] Trustee Borthwick (probable): required and what's right uh and we have an opportunity as davis says to you know deepen

[0:38:22] our understanding of this significant area um

[0:38:25] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and sort of advance partnership for our community in

[0:38:28] Trustee Borthwick (probable): general and your community in specific and the land that they live on and people who've lived

[0:38:33] there in the past so that those would be the reasons uh to do it um but

[0:38:40] Voice 9: one thing that seems

[0:38:42] Voice 9: to be lost on everybody here is from 1940 to 1965 an active mining operation was conducted on

[0:38:50] Voice 9: on that property so more than 2 000 tons of shell and material was stripped off the property

[0:38:59] Voice 9: it was a big mining operation they screened out the shell and then the shell was sold for

[0:39:05] Voice 9: something called chicken scratch which um i guess is important to chickens so they

[0:39:11] Voice 9: anyway and um so for 25 years the land on which my house and about six of the other it's probably

[0:39:19] Voice 9: probably the nicest part of the area, archaeologically, was ruined by the mining operation that happened

[0:39:30] Voice 9: there. So this is not a pristine site by any means.

[0:39:35] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I understand. And to me, that is not a reason to not want to find anything else that might

[0:39:41] Trustee Borthwick (probable): be there. And in fact, all the more reason to try and recover what is there, or at least

[0:39:46] Trustee Borthwick (probable): get some deeper understanding now i'm i don't i feel like i'm speaking beyond my my my but i'm

[0:39:55] Trustee Borthwick (probable): just trying to your your point was that you weren't seeing the reason for it i'm saying that

[0:39:59] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i think no no no

[0:40:00] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i'm not saying that is that is what we tried in the in the beginning that's all

[0:40:05] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and that's all i'm responding to because you know i i know you a little and i don't think you know

[0:40:09] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i don't think there's acrimony yes particularly um but i'm just i'm just stating my point from

[0:40:15] Trustee Borthwick (probable): where i see it on this side and then i accept that this debate and for the conversations that we did

[0:40:21] Trustee Borthwick (probable): that's that's where that's that's all i'm saying and i don't know there may be other people who

[0:40:26] Trustee Borthwick (probable): want to speak to this well

[0:40:27] Voice 12: i see folks sort of walk up the screen rainy you have something

[0:40:31] Voice 12: hi

[0:40:31] Voice 5: yeah i just wanted to add that had uh all the developments that had have happened for both uh

[0:40:37] Voice 5: full homes uh accessory buildings garages and cabins that have happened uh since 2000 on the

[0:40:44] Voice 5: the property all those developments that should have been permitted had those developments been

[0:40:49] Voice 5: permitted we would know a lot more about the archaeology of the site and this might not be a

[0:40:53] Voice 5: requirement or this would maybe be redundant but the fact that all of those developments happened

[0:40:59] Voice 5: illegally against the heritage conservation act means that we not only did that cause more site

[0:41:04] Voice 5: destruction but we also didn't get any information that could have told us more about this site

[0:41:09] Voice 5: My colleague Leah has also added in the chat, just similar to what the council has said on that, the fact that there has been a lot of disturbance, both from mining activities, logging activities, and the development of Comas Ranch that continues to this day, the intact deposits are even more important to protect and or to understand scientifically.

[0:41:34] Voice 5: scientifically I will also add that we do continuously identify ancestral remains in this

[0:41:43] Voice 5: shell midden material they have been identified up until recently and throughout all of the the

[0:41:49] Voice 5: 2000s as well so shell middens are much more than what people assume is to be garbage heaps and

[0:41:56] Voice 5: they actually contain immense evidence of Comox's occupational history at this site which is

[0:42:02] Voice 5: thousands and thousands of years old, as well as ancestors of Comox and the Comox people today. So

[0:42:08] Voice 5: it's very, very important. And we are finding ancestors, like I said, continuously on this

[0:42:14] Voice 5: site, whether they're through infractions or site visits or erosion happening at Long Beak Point.

[0:42:20] Voice 5: They're very well documented in those archaeological branch records as well. So yeah, so it's just,

[0:42:27] Voice 5: it's very very important for Comox and also for the greater community and also yeah just that had

[0:42:33] Voice 5: proper permitting and archaeological practices taken place on the site in the past 24, 25 years

[0:42:41] Voice 5: we would know a lot more than we do know today and there would be more protection than all the

[0:42:47] Voice 5: the destruction that has happened since the 40s.

[0:42:51] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:42:53] Voice 2: Go ahead.

[0:42:55] Voice 7: Yeah, hi, I'm Leah Tarle, PhD.

[0:42:58] Voice 7: I'm also archaeologist for Comox First Nation.

[0:43:01] Voice 7: Just to add, and I'm sorry,

[0:43:02] Voice 7: I was having technical difficulties earlier,

[0:43:04] Voice 7: but just to add to Rainie's points,

[0:43:08] Voice 7: when we did visit the site just by chance,

[0:43:11] Voice 7: and we had about an hour on the site in last March,

[0:43:15] Voice 7: We did approximately triple the registered site boundaries with the BC Archaeology Branch, so that information is available in RAD, that's Remote Access to Archaeological Data, which is the BC Archaeology Branch database, which is a register for all registered archaeological sites in BC.

[0:43:36] Voice 7: see so you know that was about one hour of not even doing a thorough survey so what we are asking

[0:43:43] Voice 7: for in this rezoning process is for a thorough preliminary field reconnaissance which is

[0:43:50] Voice 7: non-destructive not even breaking the ground surface but just thoroughly documenting the

[0:43:56] Voice 7: information that is available on the surface that wasn't documented previously because of

[0:44:01] Voice 7: of the fact that this is private property

[0:44:03] Voice 7: and archeologists weren't able to document

[0:44:06] Voice 7: the site in the past.

[0:44:07] Voice 7: So this is our opportunity to document this site

[0:44:10] Voice 7: and also to document the unpermitted work

[0:44:15] Voice 7: that has taken place over the past 30 years

[0:44:18] Voice 7: since the Heritage Conservation Act came into effect.

[0:44:21] Voice 7: So all registered archeological sites

[0:44:24] Voice 7: and the recommended buffer of 50 meters

[0:44:26] Voice 7: within from a registered archeological site

[0:44:29] Voice 7: does require heritage conservation act permits um so all of the development since then on comas

[0:44:35] Voice 7: ranch has been unpermitted and illegal so we're looking to document the impacts of that development

[0:44:42] Voice 7: and expand our knowledge of the site in the least expensive and least time-consuming way possible

[0:44:49] Trustee Borthwick (probable): thank you very much thank you uh one more thing i would just like to and this is more

[0:44:53] Trustee Borthwick (probable): framing this is possibly the question to uh uh marga um planner um uh we had a we we talked

[0:45:02] Trustee Borthwick (probable): briefly the other day and i'm going to try not to butcher your explanation of some of the process

[0:45:08] Trustee Borthwick (probable): here part of the the part of the idea too um because because obviously in any of these spaces

[0:45:15] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you come across archaeological material you you know you immediately need to be in contact with

[0:45:19] Trustee Borthwick (probable): the art branch regardless um part of the framing and part of part of the reason for a request for

[0:45:25] Trustee Borthwick (probable): a pfr in advance is to get a more um comprehensive idea of like which areas are are of high concern

[0:45:34] Trustee Borthwick (probable): but also areas that are of lower concern and that might be less impacted by you know if you need to

[0:45:41] build another shed do whatever else like these are bits where we they can they can say yeah no

[0:45:45] it's not a problem we know that already because we've got that information um and but you know

[0:45:51] Trustee Borthwick (probable): if you want to go ahead and do those things and i know you guys are not looking to do a ton more

[0:45:54] Trustee Borthwick (probable): development of the property um however that obviously that may change in subsequent generations

[0:46:00] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and whoever else is buying it and killing in the property this is about getting a blanket uh a

[0:46:06] deeper level of blanket data for the whole site uh and it is uh in the long run it is also cheaper

[0:46:13] to get that done

[0:46:14] Trustee Borthwick (probable): in one go as opposed to doing it site specific and potentially running into

[0:46:19] Trustee Borthwick (probable): infractions in in specific zones now i may be completely wrong i think i'm pretty close to

[0:46:26] Trustee Borthwick (probable): the things but i think um planners minus is probably the better person to sort of explain

[0:46:30] Trustee Borthwick (probable): some of that rationale this is about trying to get that blanket like level of information uh and then

[0:46:36] Trustee Borthwick (probable): in the hopes of actually meaning that future in future there is less consternation about well

[0:46:43] Trustee Borthwick (probable): well, what's a safer area?

[0:46:44] Trustee Borthwick (probable): What's an area that's more at risk?

[0:46:50] Planner Thomaidis (probable): Yeah, yeah, that's the case.

[0:46:52] Planner Thomaidis (probable): I also would defer to the archaeologists

[0:46:54] Planner Thomaidis (probable): that are in attendance.

[0:46:56] Planner Thomaidis (probable): And they've already said it much more clearly.

[0:46:59] Planner Thomaidis (probable): But yeah, getting that baseline information,

[0:47:01] Planner Thomaidis (probable): there's ample rationale.

[0:47:04] Planner Thomaidis (probable): There are identified gaps in information.

[0:47:06] Planner Thomaidis (probable): And this preliminary field reconnaissance exercise

[0:47:10] Planner Thomaidis (probable): would address those gaps upfront

[0:47:12] Planner Thomaidis (probable): front and identify also to inform potentially wording and mapping in the heritage conservation

[0:47:18] Planner Thomaidis (probable): area draft if the LTC chooses to to pursue that the PFR would would provide really good detailed

[0:47:28] Planner Thomaidis (probable): information to inform that regulatory scheme actually

[0:47:34] Voice 12: Leah's come back on the screen hi

[0:47:37] Voice 7: Hi. Yeah, just to add to Sam and Margot's point, the PFR does also provide information to homeowners.

[0:47:46] Voice 7: I know that some homeowners have tried to do the right thing, you know, looking on RAD and seeing that their property may not be in the registered site boundaries,

[0:47:55] Voice 7: which we all know is very, very poorly documented by Boat more than 50 years ago.

[0:48:01] Voice 7: um so the pfr will provide more information for homeowners to um uh follow uh avoid breaking the

[0:48:10] Voice 7: law um and uh yeah like the one uh the one uh permitted archaeological project on the property

[0:48:20] Voice 7: was entirely within the registered site boundaries and um they um did not adhere to the conditions of

[0:48:26] Voice 7: their preliminary or of their site alteration permit and did that did result in an infraction

[0:48:31] Voice 7: construction, which caused a stop work order.

[0:48:35] Voice 7: Stop work orders can sometimes last up to 180 days, adding cost to and delays and timelines

[0:48:43] Voice 7: to everyone's construction projects.

[0:48:45] Voice 7: So this is beneficial to everyone to avoid losing precious archaeological information,

[0:48:52] Voice 7: which has been made more precious by the history of unpermitted and undocumented impacts to

[0:48:58] Voice 7: this very significant cultural heritage site. And I'll add that one of the sites is about 100

[0:49:05] Voice 7: meters up on a cliff and that has shell mitten, which that's very unusual for shell mitten to be

[0:49:10] Voice 7: 100 meters up on a cliff. So that's something that we could learn a lot about. It could tell

[0:49:16] Voice 7: us about sea level change, the history of occupation of the site, but it is really in

[0:49:22] Voice 7: everyone's best interest to understand the true nature of the site to avoid illegal impacts to

[0:49:30] Voice 7: the site in the future and stop work orders and delays and development projects in the future

[0:49:34] Voice 7: if we do all work together to minimize impacts to the site in the future.

[0:49:42] Voice 12: Thank you very much.

[0:49:46] Voice 12: Great, trustees. Any other questions or comments? I appreciate Comox wants to get this

[0:49:57] Voice 12: rezoning done as quickly as possible you've got some things that you'd like to do if you provided

[0:50:01] Voice 12: a lot of the information these are the last bits and we want to get this rezoning accomplished also

[0:50:06] Voice 12: in a timely manner so um i'm i'm happy i also want to just mention that the applicants for the

[0:50:13] Voice 12: development areas current are here we've actually switched but at least you're going to come out

[0:50:18] Voice 12: okay no no that's fine okay um i have nothing else to do other than propose uh

[0:50:26] Voice 12: um all right um i've just forwarded an email to planners and get some advice on that um so

[0:50:39] we have some more questions otherwise i just want to pause just for a quick review

[0:50:45] of

[0:50:45] Voice 12: some correspondence please okay just like a five minute break

[0:51:01] Voice 12: we don't maybe we should just take a 500 right so we're not staring at each other

[0:51:04] Voice 12: we just have someone that's wanting to go shortly and she wanted to ask a question so certainly

[0:51:10] Voice 12: this

[0:51:11] Voice 4: is an excellent

[0:51:12] Voice 12: opportunity for questions

[0:51:13] Voice 4: we can have a question okay so the

[0:51:17] Voice 4: question has to do with my understanding of the affordable

[0:51:19] Voice 4: housing changes with allowing a second residence on properties and leading with the with the

[0:51:29] Voice 4: inference that that's going to increase affordable housing so my question is if people are allowed a

[0:51:35] Voice 4: second residence is there something that says this needs to be affordable housing or is it just going

[0:51:40] Voice 4: to be a way of getting a second residence on property it's

[0:51:44] Voice 12: a great question it's one that

[0:51:45] Voice 12: the housing advisory planning commission struggled to embed into their requests some mechanism to

[0:51:52] Voice 12: ensure that that second dwelling was only used for portable housing the the mechanism is a housing

[0:51:57] Voice 12: agreement which is a document a legal document that goes with the lab prevents that second

[0:52:03] Voice 12: dwelling from using the problem with housing agreements is they require administration

[0:52:07] Voice 12: violence trust has basically said we don't have the person we don't have the labor to administer

[0:52:14] Voice 12: hundreds potentially hundreds of these housing agreements so there was no easy answer to your

[0:52:21] Voice 12: your question of ensuring that the second dwelling would be used for formal

[0:52:26] Voice 12: housing. I will say there's no opportunity to self-divide the property.

[0:52:31] Voice 12: So you have to be kind of a special person that wants second dwelling on your

[0:52:36] property that you can't sell and reap the market rewards.

[0:52:43] Voice 12: There are a number of people on them who have aged out and are now seeing

[0:52:48] Voice 12: their children abandon the city and come back to the island and we've heard of their excitement

[0:52:55] Voice 12: that they'll be able to build a second dwelling so they're they have uh succession planning uh

[0:53:00] Voice 12: opportunities on their land uh so children vacation rentals are not allowed on them and

[0:53:06] Voice 12: they will not be allowed under this uh iteration of the golden trust committee so that second

[0:53:10] Voice 12: dwelling can't be used for uh bnb or airbnb or any of those vacation dwellings has to be used

[0:53:17] Voice 12: for full-time rentals so we basically have to say this is as good as it gets okay

[0:53:23] Voice 2: thanks yeah thank

[0:53:24] Voice 12: you very much so we'll just we'll take a couple minutes break that's okay we're like this is

[0:53:30] Voice 12: very romantic

[0:53:49] Voice 12: Yeah, but I think it's important

[0:53:50] Voice 2: to reach out to them, and I think it's important to talk to them.

[1:00:59] Voice 3: sorry to interrupt you're all muted we cannot hear anything you're doing sorry

[1:01:06] Voice 12: that is my uh

[1:01:08] Voice 12: not winning today what would you like us to do could you just continue on this um

[1:01:16] Voice 12: so for a local trust committee consideration exactly

[1:01:21] Voice 12: the draft restrictive covenant motion recommendation three yeah so other questions

[1:01:27] and i move that i move that the demin

[1:01:33] Trustee Borthwick (probable): on the local trust committee enter into a cost recovery

[1:01:35] Trustee Borthwick (probable): agreement if necessary with the applicant allowing island stress legal counsel to review a draft

[1:01:40] Trustee Borthwick (probable): restricted covenant for application d-r-z-dash-2023.1 commerce ranchland

[1:01:48] All right, thank you. Mr. Right. This

[1:01:54] Voice 12: is, you know, there's some traps and all that.

[1:01:57] Voice 12: So, okay, I'll conclude. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. All right, see you Chris.

[1:02:04] Voice 12: Thank you, Margot. Thank you, Home Office representatives. We will continue the road.

[1:02:11] Voice 11: There's no picture on the screen either. I don't know if you have anything to do with anything.

[1:02:16] Voice 8: No, I'm actually not. I need to work on my computer, so it was just so that we could see the people on the screen.

[1:02:25] Voice 8: I'll be asking some questions a little

[1:02:26] Voice 12: more closely with technology.

[1:02:29] Voice 12: I think the rest of our discussion is all in this room, so.

[1:02:32] Voice 12: All right, so we are at DDP 24.

[1:02:36] Voice 12: for uh 2024.1 so we have a plan to work i believe

[1:02:42] Voice 12: um

[1:02:43] Voice 8: so the applicant is seeking retroactive approval for structures that encroach on side

[1:02:50] Voice 8: and exterior lot line setbacks as well as a

[1:02:53] Voice 8: variance for an overhyped fence these encroachments

[1:02:56] Voice 8: were discovered during a biological financing enforcement action the property is 0.77 hectares

[1:03:04] Voice 8: located on Lacombe Road and his own residential R1.

[1:03:09] Voice 8: The applicant has obtained an encroachment permit

[1:03:12] Voice 8: from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,

[1:03:16] Voice 8: which I believe isn't the correct title any longer,

[1:03:19] Voice 8: but you know what I mean.

[1:03:23] Voice 8: Public notification was sent out in December 2024,

[1:03:26] Voice 8: but no submissions were received at the time of writing the report

[1:03:30] Voice 8: and have not been received since the report was published.

[1:03:35] Voice 8: The property is within COMOC's First Nation area of potential, but as the application

[1:03:40] Voice 8: pertains to existing structures, no cultural heritage investigation permit is needed.

[1:03:46] Voice 8: The encroachments are relatively minor and non-intrusive with minimal impact on the surrounding

[1:03:51] Voice 8: area.

[1:03:52] Voice 8: The staff recommend approval to resolve the by-law compliance issue and allow the structures

[1:03:56] Voice 8: to remain as is.

[1:03:58] Voice 8: Thank you.

[1:03:58] Voice 12: I don't have concerns.

[1:04:00] Voice 12: Are there questions from trustees?

[1:04:02] Voice 12: Or is it fairly straightforward?

[1:04:04] Voice 12: No questions.

[1:04:07] Voice 12: In your report you mentioned there were no public submissions no letters I checked the

[1:04:14] Voice 12: website yesterday there are still no so yeah it doesn't sound like there's any concern

[1:04:20] neighbors there's obviously no environmental issues to worry about it seems fairly straightforward

[1:04:26] forward this thing happens from time to time our over eggs

[1:04:29] Voice 12: encroach etc um so we have it in the

[1:04:35] back of our hands

[1:04:36] Voice 12: so the custody is here to prepare here people can go forward thank you um

[1:04:43] Voice 3: this letter is straight through the eyes and i'll do the problem this year

[1:04:50] Voice 3: um yeah i don't know if you want me to do the letter or because it's not just for me i've

[1:04:55] Voice 3: coming through, but people have to sign it. Sure. Okay. Ready to

[1:05:00] Voice 3: say regarding this variance permit application. Basically,

[1:05:05] Voice 3: I'm involved in a group of people who are hoping to open up

[1:05:09] Voice 3: a lot of our trails. So if you look at the page two, there are

[1:05:14] Voice 3: approximately 50 beach accesses on on that are all road

[1:05:20] Voice 3: allowance is actually in reality and one of the easiest access happens to be Millard which is the

[1:05:29] Voice 3: adjoining road to this variance and what we're asking basically we're asking you consider not

[1:05:38] Voice 3: approving this variance and for this reason is that it reduces the road setback and it's

[1:05:45] Voice 3: possibly on the roadway right away it's a little bit unclear to us it's a it's a popular and rare

[1:05:50] Voice 3: of public access that we should encourage the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

[1:05:56] Voice 3: to maintain to keep its safety standards up so that it's drivable and reducing setbacks

[1:06:03] Voice 3: makes the road harder to maintain and less safe to drive on and as well granting this

[1:06:08] Voice 3: permit will send a message to property owners that it is okay to build too close to public

[1:06:14] Voice 3: rights way and then if you are found out to ask permission later and be approved.

[1:06:19] Voice 3: The Millard Road access is one of the very few here on Denman that is properly labeled

[1:06:24] Voice 3: and accessible on foot or four-wheel drive.

[1:06:26] Voice 3: Many of our accesses, such as the Janet Road one, which is not labeled at the end of DL,

[1:06:32] Voice 3: are not marked with a road sign.

[1:06:35] Voice 3: There are some like Largo Road that are about to be marked because of work from the regional

[1:06:40] Voice 3: district and local volunteers from TIRA, and we're hoping to do more of that.

[1:06:46] Voice 3: unfortunately many are blocked by neighboring property owners fences gates garden sheds and

[1:06:52] Voice 3: plank i'm attaching the truss map so you can see where they all are millard well treacherous with

[1:06:58] Voice 3: the wrong footwear or tires and winters the dust jewel public access for denman residents

[1:07:03] Voice 3: it's a place where i have launched a kayak where i have swum and i'm hoping that uh that we you know

[1:07:09] Voice 3: preserve it as it is. I apologize for this late response. I'm not a next-door neighbor,

[1:07:18] Voice 3: so I have no skin in the game that way, but this was sent out on the day before Christmas Eve,

[1:07:24] Voice 3: and I think only to the local neighbors that I feel, and we feel, that no art is of general

[1:07:30] Voice 3: interest to the island. So rather than chipping away at this road, please consider sending a

[1:07:36] Voice 3: message that we value making our beaches accessible for all and that we want the Ministry of

[1:07:42] Voice 3: Transportation to maintain our roads properly and that's it and so basically we're an unregistered

[1:07:48] Voice 3: group of people loosely attached to the DERA trails committee and we're going to be applying

[1:07:54] Voice 3: for funding to mark the trails and clear as many as we can around the island and that's our interest

[1:08:00] Voice 3: Yes, thank you.

[1:08:01] Voice 3: OK, thank you.

[1:08:04] Voice 12: So to be clear, Mr. Bell, there's still

[1:08:08] Voice 12: an incursion into the road road right of way?

[1:08:11] Voice 8: There is.

[1:08:13] Voice 8: That's with the encroachment permit,

[1:08:15] Voice 8: which has been granted by the Ministry.

[1:08:18] Voice 8: Yeah.

[1:08:18] Voice 8: That was responded to.

[1:08:23] Voice 12: I

[1:08:26] Trustee Borthwick (probable): recall from the staff report, I'm

[1:08:28] Trustee Borthwick (probable): trying to find where it is now.

[1:08:30] Trustee Borthwick (probable): When things was here, they were still requesting a variance

[1:08:35] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to the

[1:08:36] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you were still requesting

[1:08:38] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to the Ministry of Transportation?

[1:08:40] Trustee Borthwick (probable): They have the permit. Okay, you have it now.

[1:08:42] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Okay. Just because

[1:08:44] Trustee Borthwick (probable): when this was drafted, I didn't have it.

[1:08:47] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I think it wasn't.

[1:08:48] Trustee Borthwick (probable): No.

[1:08:49] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Yeah.

[1:08:56] Unclear as to the extent

[1:08:57] to which, I mean, this is presumably still

[1:08:58] the Ministry of Transportation. The road is still

[1:09:00] there.

[1:09:02] The

[1:09:02] Trustee Borthwick (probable): brain was not assessed down the road

[1:09:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): as far as I'm understanding.

[1:09:06] Voice 8: understanding no new construction being proposed in the road right away so if it's accessible now

[1:09:13] Voice 8: it would continue to be yeah uh and gracie just maybe

[1:09:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you can sort of elucidate a little further

[1:09:22] Trustee Borthwick (probable): on that for me just so that i understand i'm concerned that it might compromise access to

[1:09:26] Trustee Borthwick (probable): the road yeah my understanding here is that this won't this won't like this will reduce

[1:09:34] Trustee Borthwick (probable): reduce the burden on ministry to maintain that road. Now obviously we know the ministry is a

[1:09:39] Trustee Borthwick (probable): little behind on maintaining lots of our roads but I don't think this would reduce their requirement

[1:09:46] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to keep that.

[1:09:47] Voice 3: If in fact since this report came out the ministry of transportation has approved

[1:09:53] Voice 3: building on the right-of-way then I guess you know what can you do right? Yeah I

[1:09:59] Trustee Borthwick (probable): don't see that

[1:10:02] Voice 3: but apparently it exists yeah um you're going wrong i mean i'm assuming the planner has a copy

[1:10:10] Voice 3: of that yes yeah okay yeah

[1:10:14] Trustee Borthwick (probable): um yeah obviously the ministry are fundamentally the ones who are going

[1:10:18] Trustee Borthwick (probable): to decide things about those kinds of right of way uh well obviously we want to do that i'm very much

[1:10:22] Trustee Borthwick (probable): in favor of maintaining these beach accesses and i know a lot of them have disappeared so i'm very

[1:10:27] Trustee Borthwick (probable): glad to hear that that work i don't necessarily see where this is going to stop at specifically

[1:10:33] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I mean,

[1:10:35] Voice 3: if I build stuff on the right way beside my property, right, and ask for permission

[1:10:42] Voice 3: later, it just sends a poor message.

[1:10:44] Voice 3: And again, the Ministry of Transportation has already approved it, so you can ask for

[1:10:47] Voice 3: that.

[1:10:48] Voice 3: And then second, if there's no application, I guess I think when it's a public road, the

[1:10:55] Voice 3: notification needs to be broader.

[1:10:57] Voice 3: Sure.

[1:10:58] Voice 3: For this type of fare and service.

[1:11:01] Sure.

[1:11:03] sure yeah yeah

[1:11:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): that that part is i don't know that that side of that component but i yeah i

[1:11:09] Trustee Borthwick (probable): agree absolutely um yeah and i i mean obviously and i i mean i wouldn't say this to to to uh

[1:11:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): getting invented to like obviously like we're we don't want to set the precedent where people can

[1:11:21] Trustee Borthwick (probable): you know do a bunch of stuff and then get it approved afterwards that obviously is not what

[1:11:25] Trustee Borthwick (probable): we're trying to do i don't think that's your intention to skirt the rules in that way but i

[1:11:30] I, you know, that is obviously not how we want to enforce bylaws here or have those rules sort of circumvented, but I don't think that's your intention.

[1:11:42] I'm, yeah, our first chair.

[1:11:46] If I can give some background, the

[1:11:51] Voice 11: encroachment application was for the placement of the fence.

[1:11:56] Voice 11: uh it followed the line of an existing fence that uh and markings that were there when we

[1:12:01] Voice 11: bought the property 25 years ago 26 years ago and if the planner has my survey there

[1:12:12] Voice 11: you might be able to tell us how much we are encroaching but as far as i remember it's like

[1:12:19] Voice 11: 0.2 meters in one point, but basically a kink in the line and the kink point was wrongly marked

[1:12:28] Voice 11: by somebody who was qualified in surveying that many, many years ago. It was a wire fence and

[1:12:36] Voice 11: we've changed it to a solid fence for the simple reason that Millard Beach ought to be zoned

[1:12:43] Voice 11: commercial because there's a lot of activity going on there. All times of day and night there are

[1:12:50] Voice 11: cars going down and coming back up and the headlights shine right into our bedroom.

[1:12:59] Voice 11: I tried to put the fence in. I made exact calculations about our fence heights

[1:13:05] Voice 11: fence as a structure, the height has to be averaged. The bylaw enforcement director did

[1:13:13] Voice 11: not agree that a fence was a structure that it had a maximum height of two meters. If

[1:13:19] Voice 11: we do an average height on the fence, it is two meters, but there are places that are

[1:13:24] Voice 11: 2.4 meters. And we have actually improved our quality of life by being able to sleep

[1:13:36] Voice 11: So, it is, in my opinion, a mistake for which we're fully responsible.

[1:13:45] Voice 11: We've been asked to rectify it in this way by applying for a development permit at quite

[1:13:52] Voice 11: a large expense, and that might be a cautionary tale for others.

[1:13:56] Voice 11: It costs us about $6,000 now in survey and application fees, including a 20% penalty

[1:14:04] Voice 11: because it's a net for the fact application.

[1:14:09] Voice 11: If it has inconvenienced public, I'm very sorry for that, but I really don't see how

[1:14:16] Voice 11: it has.

[1:14:17] Voice 11: in terms of access to the beach, the road is maintained, the road is drivable, our property

[1:14:27] Voice 11: line is 30 feet from the nearest edge of the drivable surface of the road and as soon as

[1:14:39] Voice 11: our priority ends, the verges or the sides of the road disappear completely. Steep hill

[1:14:48] Voice 11: to the one side and steep drop off to the other side. So in my opinion there is no restriction

[1:15:00] Voice 11: for any use in the future that is going to be employed on that road right away.

[1:15:09] Voice 11: did you see the setback yeah it's very

[1:15:13] Voice 11: minimal the

[1:15:16] Trustee Borthwick (probable): trustee should have it in the

[1:15:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i have a number c and i'm not yeah i'm going to take it out now yeah point

[1:15:23] Trustee Borthwick (probable): point

[1:15:27] Voice 3: eight i

[1:15:30] Voice 11: think it's point one eight point one eight and point two three or something

[1:15:47] I mean I think I think in this case I mean and again

[1:15:52] Trustee Borthwick (probable): like I hear the concerns uh in terms of

[1:15:55] Trustee Borthwick (probable): like precedence we are also not a court so it's we don't set up wrestling by decisions um there

[1:16:01] will hopefully always be people who care about the process sitting on the side of the table

[1:16:07] and i don't i don't think that this is a i don't think this is a big issue and i know that you

[1:16:13] guys have been dealing with this for quite a long time now so um i'm happy to uh to make a motion

[1:16:21] uh i move that the deminado local trust committee

[1:16:23] Trustee Borthwick (probable): approved insurance and development

[1:16:25] Trustee Borthwick (probable): development per variance kind of d dash ddp dash two zero two four point one yes

[1:16:32] for the discussions thank

[1:16:36] Voice 12: you very much thank you thank you all right so now we move across

[1:16:46] Voice 12: to our friends on r&b um we have one people trust me about number 176 and 177 it's a referral

[1:16:54] Voice 12: report for your response i really hope you don't like this because i have one time i want to step

[1:17:01] Voice 12: back

[1:17:02] Voice 12: in all my years of that i was just i've never seen it and you guys do

[1:17:12] Voice 12: well

[1:17:13] Trustee Borthwick (probable): we do famously hate both of those trustees they're you know just the worst

[1:17:35] Voice 12: The purpose of this bylaw that we're looking at, in my mind, it regulates vacation rambles

[1:17:41] Voice 12: in dwelling units to a temporary use for none.

[1:17:43] Voice 12: So that's actually a positive for Demmon.

[1:17:46] Voice 12: Yeah, that reduces the use of a Dem and highway for people to get to their party Airbnb. So that's a good thing. Yeah, they're also permitting secondary suites and residential zones in an attempt to increase the rental opportunities.

[1:18:04] Voice 12: And they're exempting CISPRs from setback regulations, which we also do that, and prevent

[1:18:13] Voice 12: check-ins for personal use while prohibiting roosters in presidential areas.

[1:18:17] I love that.

[1:18:18] That's just such a .

[1:18:20] I know.

[1:18:21] It really is.

[1:18:22] I had a rooster.

[1:18:23] I got rid of the .

[1:18:26] Voice 12: So there was a reason.

[1:18:28] Voice 12: So anyway, and I just think it's bizarre that we're asked to comment on that.

[1:18:33] Voice 12: on the work of undermining i just think this just feels uncomfortable it's like we are in a

[1:18:40] federation and we have to respect each island's decisions but

[1:18:43] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i'm happy with this i know we could

[1:18:46] Trustee Borthwick (probable): ask them why they didn't do it sooner it took you guys so long you've been in for two years

[1:18:57] Voice 12: we have to choose the box

[1:19:11] Voice 12: that's the one weakness with this referral process yeah there should be an emotional

[1:19:17] Voice 12: yeah that's something yeah uh i

[1:19:19] Trustee Borthwick (probable): can go ahead you can figure it out uh i knew that the deminon local

[1:19:24] Trustee Borthwick (probable): trust committee uh expressed that they have no reservations about uh bylaw referral from

[1:19:34] for bylaws number 176 of cp and 177 land use bylaws uh from the from the island local trust

[1:19:44] committee only

[1:19:46] Voice 12: i presume these are proposed bylaws shortly yes i'll say okay well good discussion

[1:19:56] Voice 3: could they be asked to do this because they anticipate you don't have to use the traffic

[1:20:00] Voice 3: But

[1:20:01] Voice 12: this is literally a process with the Nylons Trust. It's every

[1:20:04] Voice 12: mile I guess referring to the neighbouring islands just to make sure that we're not roughly any further.

[1:20:10] Voice 12: It's

[1:20:10] Voice 3: not an exception. They just do it.

[1:20:12] Trustee Borthwick (probable): This is business as usual. And if anything, we'll hopefully reduce traffic somewhat.

[1:20:17] Voice 2: We

[1:20:18] Trustee Borthwick (probable): can only hope. I'm not counting on it,

[1:20:20] Trustee Borthwick (probable): but it's not a silver bullet, but like, you know, we all do

[1:20:23] Voice 12: the best we can.

[1:20:24] Voice 12: Yes, I know. It's just it's an administrative process. As I said, like, you know, in my

[1:20:30] Voice 12: last amount of time with my trust, Mr. Grant and sort of agree is I've never, ever, ever

[1:20:38] heard of somebody object. So these things really should be just

[1:20:41] Voice 2: for information. Yeah,

[1:20:42] Voice 2: because

[1:20:42] Voice 12: it's, I just can't, I can't imagine where one open trust committee would object

[1:20:49] Voice 12: I mean, I can imagine it, quite easily.

[1:20:54] Voice 12: Even if

[1:20:55] Trustee Borthwick (probable): it's MJ that's active.

[1:20:57] Voice 2: I

[1:20:58] Voice 12: mean, so that would make the people

[1:21:00] Voice 12: of Barnaby hopefully very happy. So, we're now on projects.

[1:21:06] Voice 12: Devon Island Temporary Use Project Review

[1:21:11] Voice 12: Who's on that? Me.

[1:21:17] Voice 8: So, this will give you a brief

[1:21:20] Voice 8: update. The report

[1:21:21] Voice 8: proposes amendments to Bylaw

[1:21:23] Voice 8: No. 249 focusing on

[1:21:25] Voice 8: temporary lease permits for secondary dwelling

[1:21:27] Voice 8: units. The main content of the

[1:21:29] Voice 8: report is clarifying whether secondary

[1:21:31] Voice 8: dwelling should be permitted on a

[1:21:33] Voice 8: per-law or per-primary

[1:21:36] Voice 8: dwelling.

[1:21:37] Voice 8: I'd recommend adopting a per-law

[1:21:39] Voice 8: approach for secondary dwellings to ensure

[1:21:41] Voice 8: consistency with sustainable land use practices

[1:21:44] Voice 8: and address the current

[1:21:46] Voice 8: ambiguities in the land use bylaw.

[1:21:49] Voice 8: Seeking the

[1:21:50] Voice 8: LPC's direction on this approach and the project addresses the immediate housing needs and staff

[1:21:57] Voice 8: are recommending that it continue independently of the broader housing review project we had some

[1:22:03] Voice 8: discussion about that last

[1:22:05] Voice 3: last

[1:22:06] Voice 8: meeting so reasons to keep the project separate

[1:22:11] Voice 8: just that combining the project could delay essential housing solution

[1:22:16] Voice 8: flexibility, the secondary dwelling provision can be revisited later as part of the larger

[1:22:21] Voice 8: housing project and in conjunction with the suitable land analysis there may be parcels

[1:22:25] Voice 8: of land with multiple primary dwellings that are well suited to multiple secondary dwellings.

[1:22:31] Voice 8: So staff are recommending that you adopt the per lot approach now with the caveat that

[1:22:39] Voice 8: within the larger housing project there could be parcels of land that are identified with

[1:22:44] Voice 8: multiple one parcel with multiple dwellings that could be well suited so the work's already

[1:22:51] Voice 8: completed the tup review is nearly finished and should not be held up to be included with the

[1:22:55] Voice 8: larger housing project that could create delays and the delays could also affect some concurrent

[1:23:01] Voice 8: housing related rezoning applications that are currently underway the per lot approach limits

[1:23:09] Voice 8: unintended density increases especially for properties with multiple dwellings it provides

[1:23:14] Voice 8: a clear provisional solution flexibility to revisit as part of the larger project once further analysis

[1:23:22] Voice 12: thanks trustees i'm loathe to comment as i live on one of those 14 properties that i've seen

[1:23:34] Voice 12: dubious fact there's more than one dwelling on a single lot so i will not say it

[1:23:48] Voice 12: um yeah

[1:23:50] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i mean this this seems fairly like obviously we've heard we heard from monday

[1:23:56] earlier uh in terms of like concerns about making sure that secondary dwellings are used for for

[1:24:01] affordable housing i think that some of that work is coming further in their housing project

[1:24:07] um and i i completely understand the the the rationale given by staff is to not try and fold

[1:24:13] this back into things i think it is good to keep it moving um and yeah uh it i've been broadly in

[1:24:25] favor of things i would i i'm sorry

[1:24:27] Trustee Borthwick (probable): not to get david crane's input but i do understand why he

[1:24:31] Trustee Borthwick (probable): doesn't want to um uh yeah i mean i'm keen to get the housing project you know keep the housing

[1:24:40] project moving as best you can um this this seems like a good step forward i know marla's

[1:24:44] from this so um yeah i don't have any concerns okay i have a technical question

[1:24:50] Voice 12: i think i can

[1:24:51] Voice 12: ask if a property that is split zone uh so how how so would uh a property that's split zone

[1:25:01] Voice 12: owned would they be able to ask for secondary dwelling on each of those separately zoned parcels

[1:25:09] Voice 12: despite the fact that it's one parcel i

[1:25:14] Voice 8: believe so yes yeah i would need to look into that a little

[1:25:18] Voice 8: bit more but because

[1:25:20] Voice 12: you're you're basically saying one secondary dwelling for the lot

[1:25:24] Voice 12: but if a lot of split zoned you're now really complicating the decision of that landowner

[1:25:31] Voice 12: it

[1:25:32] Voice 8: wasn't part of this and i don't know you know like this is these are really specific scenarios

[1:25:38] Voice 8: that it's hard to base large kind of polypane regulatory decisions on these really specific

[1:25:44] Voice 8: fold into

[1:25:45] Voice 12: the site-specific zoning opportunity that may present itself at the end of the housing

[1:25:50] Voice 12: review yeah and if any idea how that would be accomplished would there be like a general call

[1:25:57] Voice 12: all out well

[1:25:59] Voice 8: i think it would be through the suitable land analysis so it would be that would

[1:26:04] Voice 8: identify certain parcels that would be ideal candidates for development and then within that

[1:26:11] Voice 8: we would look and see would letters go out to those properties how would those landowners know

[1:26:16] Voice 8: that they asked for a site zone well i don't know that it would we would be asking landowners we

[1:26:22] Voice 8: would be looking at and now like analyzing it as planners and then looking at that as a suitable

[1:26:29] Voice 8: place for more development um and does that have more than one dwelling on it um what would that

[1:26:37] look like for a build out and i

[1:26:40] Voice 8: think we would be doing that analysis it wouldn't necessarily be

[1:26:43] Voice 8: asking landowners to come forward because we would have that information looking at a number of

[1:26:49] Voice 8: of places, network properties that are split

[1:26:51] Voice 8: zone, what that looks like.

[1:26:54] Voice 8: So I

[1:26:54] Voice 12: see Planner Chadler

[1:26:56] Voice 12: has come on the screen momentarily.

[1:26:58] Voice 12: Do you have something to contribute?

[1:27:01] Planner Chadwick (probable): I have a question.

[1:27:02] Planner Chadwick (probable): Can you actually see me? I don't know

[1:27:04] Planner Chadwick (probable): if my camera's on.

[1:27:05] Voice 12: We can see

[1:27:05] Voice 12: you, which is fine.

[1:27:06] Voice 12: We can imagine how beautiful you look today.

[1:27:11] Planner Chadwick (probable): Yeah, I was just

[1:27:12] Planner Chadwick (probable): going to say, so Marla says

[1:27:14] Planner Chadwick (probable): on the right track there,

[1:27:16] Planner Chadwick (probable): the suitable, and I'm going to talk a little bit more

[1:27:18] Planner Chadwick (probable): about suitable land in a minute, but

[1:27:20] Planner Chadwick (probable): But it'll identify properties that are sort of more suitable or less suitable for some additional density.

[1:27:26] Planner Chadwick (probable): And as we did on Main Island, we did a bit of a two-part thing.

[1:27:34] Planner Chadwick (probable): So the Main Island, when we identified the pilot areas originally, there was some further analysis that then indicated that there were other areas to consider.

[1:27:47] Planner Chadwick (probable): So that can be part of our process for sure in terms of identifying if there are properties outside of what is determined to be suitable because there are local conditions that contribute to land being suitable that we need to kind of get to the bottom of.

[1:28:07] Planner Chadwick (probable): And once we've, we have identified, you know, well, once the trustees are happy with the areas that we sort of expand this permission for ADUs to, then we do send, as we, you know, we have the opportunity, as we did with Maine, to send out some information to those property owners.

[1:28:33] Voice 12: Thank you.

[1:28:35] Number one.

[1:28:39] Voice 12: Yeah.

[1:28:46] and yeah i guess just in reading this out the director would read out the seven clauses as well

[1:28:50] i guess so that's a guess or they're not that's what that's going with that i can

[1:28:55] Trustee Borthwick (probable): do it i know

[1:28:56] Trustee Borthwick (probable): i moved that the demini local trust committee bylaw number 249 say that was the demini land

[1:29:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Land Use By-law 2008 Amendment No. 1, 2024, be amended as follows.

[1:29:11] Trustee Borthwick (probable): One, Part 3, Zone Regulations, Section 3.3, Residential Zoning Tables, Table 3,

[1:29:17] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Dead State Uses, Buildings, and Structures, is amended by adding the following line,

[1:29:22] Trustee Borthwick (probable): 3, maximum number of secondary dwellings per lot, replacing the number 1 in the R2 columns,

[1:29:29] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and placing not applicable in all other columns, and renumbering accordingly.

[1:29:33] Trustee Borthwick (probable): And Part 2, Part 3, Zone Regulations, Section 3.4, Resource Zoning Tables, Table 3, Density

[1:29:40] of Uses, Buildings, and Structures, is amended by adding the following after the line 3,

[1:29:45] Trustee Borthwick (probable): maximum number of secondary dwelling units per lot, placing the number 1 in the A, F,

[1:29:51] Trustee Borthwick (probable): and R, E columns, and renumbering for it.

[1:29:55] Seconded.

[1:29:56] Seconded.

[1:29:56] Okay, for the discussion, all the questionable failures.

[1:30:00] That is carried. I can do the other one too if you want.

[1:30:03] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I move that the Denman Island Local Trust

[1:30:05] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Committee By-law number 249 cited as the Denman Island Land Use By-law 2008.1.1.2024 be read a

[1:30:13] Trustee Borthwick (probable): first time and as amended.

[1:30:14] Voice 12: Second. For the discussion of a question, welcome Baker.

[1:30:18] Voice 12: All right, wonderful, thank you very much. All right, so we move on to our next part of this.

[1:30:30] So this

[1:30:31] Voice 8: report outlines the projects on the LTC's future projects list that could be potential

[1:30:43] Voice 8: minor projects and also introduce the staff recommended project that's not currently on

[1:30:48] Voice 8: the list but aligns with the ongoing major housing review project.

[1:30:51] Voice 8: So the LTC is being asked to review these options and select the next minor project

[1:30:58] Voice 8: priority.

[1:30:59] Voice 8: So the minor project selection, the LTC, as you know, can choose a project from the future

[1:31:04] Voice 8: project lift or another project subject to funding and through resolution.

[1:31:09] Voice 8: The current minor project, the Howcome TUP review, is nearing completion.

[1:31:13] Voice 8: So a new priority can be selected.

[1:31:17] Voice 8: There is still, with the TUP project, we still need to go to public hearing and kind of move

[1:31:24] Voice 8: it along.

[1:31:24] Voice 8: But typically after public hearing, once the bylaws have been sent to the executive committee

[1:31:30] Voice 8: and the ministry, a project is considered to be enough to start thinking about the next

[1:31:37] Voice 8: minor project.

[1:31:38] Voice 8: So the staff recommended project is OCP technical and First Nations update.

[1:31:45] Voice 8: update. So this project would seek to update the OCP to better reflect community needs

[1:31:51] Voice 8: and integrate First Nation perspectives. The objectives would be to collaborate with Comox

[1:31:57] Voice 8: First Nation to incorporate their values, history and priorities into the OCP preamble.

[1:32:03] Voice 8: There's a large section in there right now that talks a lot about settler history, so

[1:32:08] Voice 8: this would be updating that with Comox First Nation. Updating the OCP with the latest demographics

[1:32:15] Voice 8: data and housing need and also coordinating outreach with the ongoing housing review project

[1:32:22] Voice 8: to align efforts to educate the community of First Nation blend use properties. So rationale

[1:32:29] Voice 8: for the staff recommended project is that by integrating this with the housing project it

[1:32:36] Voice 8: creates efficiencies by sharing insights and coordinating efforts so Planner Chadwick and I

[1:32:41] Voice 8: could work together and it aligns the community's evolving housing needs while promoting reconciliation

[1:32:46] Voice 8: with first nations so um talking with planner chadwick and reviewing the whole ocp although

[1:32:54] Voice 8: the project is specific to housing um felt that we'd really be remiss to be updating the ocp and

[1:33:03] Voice 8: not update some of these really um crucial parts so this would this is really looking at that

[1:33:09] Voice 8: preamble and the context piece of the OCP and then combining that to a bit of outreach with the

[1:33:18] Voice 8: housing project around First Nations and kind of looking at some of the issues that have you know

[1:33:25] Voice 8: just ways to educate the community on First Nations history on this land and also what to do

[1:33:33] Voice 8: and they find it with facts thank you just needs any questions comments concerns opinions

[1:33:44] i i'm pretty happy with the recommendation for their trustee graham has anything to weigh in

[1:33:50] Voice 12: no i i think it's it's a timely project it's it does align you know somewhat with our housing

[1:33:59] Voice 12: review there's nothing there's no thing in the uh it's the official community plan that we're

[1:34:04] Voice 12: that we're working on on the land use plan just that makes sense to me yeah sure uh none of the

[1:34:10] Voice 12: other uh potential projects on our list really grabbed me so yeah good for you guys for figuring

[1:34:18] Voice 12: out an opportunity to you know move our housing review i

[1:34:24] Trustee Borthwick (probable): didn't want to hang out with narissa

[1:34:25] Trustee Borthwick (probable): so you know let's see what's going on

[1:34:28] Voice 8: follow the same timeline as well so the amendments would be

[1:34:32] Voice 8: coming forward as one big package of OCP amendments so we're we're able to do it all well if we're

[1:34:37] Voice 8: able to if we're able to have

[1:34:38] Trustee Borthwick (probable): a relatively clean slate for the next term whoever those people might

[1:34:42] Trustee Borthwick (probable): be then that that's good to be nice to finish

[1:34:46] Voice 12: things in the terminal excellent and it does

[1:34:48] Voice 12: include engagement with the community so you're assuming that this is part of the overall housing

[1:34:52] Voice 12: review engagement yeah it wouldn't be a separate engagement yeah okay that's good let's do it

[1:34:59] Voice 12: I'll move that the Demand on the Local Trust Committee request that we prepare a project

[1:35:03] Voice 12: charter for the OCP technical and First Nations updates, minor projects, and scope and objectives

[1:35:08] Voice 12: as defined by the Local Trust Committee.

[1:35:11] Second.

[1:35:12] Any further discussion?

[1:35:14] Call the question on there.

[1:35:16] Voice 12: That carries.

[1:35:17] Voice 12: You have so many key letters.

[1:35:20] Voice 12: That is absolutely wonderful.

[1:35:23] Voice 12: So now we go from the Minus to the Major.

[1:35:25] Voice 12: Major project, Demand on Housing Official Committee Plan and Land Use File on Reviews

[1:35:30] Voice 12: project verbal update and that's that's me

[1:35:35] Planner Chadwick (probable): and so um yes you can't see me i don't know what's

[1:35:40] Planner Chadwick (probable): happening um we've been trying to figure this out behind the scenes here but you don't you just

[1:35:46] Planner Chadwick (probable): don't get to see me today maybe i'm not looking that great the computer's like picked that up but

[1:35:51] Planner Chadwick (probable): i feel good because it's sunny here too um anyways enough about me the project um yeah

[1:35:58] Planner Chadwick (probable): Yeah, thank you so much for supporting that minor project, because what it really does

[1:36:03] Planner Chadwick (probable): mean is that Marlis and I will be working together.

[1:36:07] Planner Chadwick (probable): It allocates her time to that project, but because I've been doing a lot of the work

[1:36:14] Planner Chadwick (probable): with the Comox, we will be working effectively together on both of these projects now.

[1:36:22] Planner Chadwick (probable): So you've maximized your staff capacity, which is great, and we're excited about that.

[1:36:28] Planner Chadwick (probable): um so i just wanted to give you just a quick update on where things are at and a reminder

[1:36:34] Planner Chadwick (probable): of where where things are at so we've effectively moved through the um uh the the the the part one

[1:36:44] Planner Chadwick (probable): part one part two of the fave two it's all very confusing and um but we've got three parts to this

[1:36:50] Planner Chadwick (probable): so the the two of them we've moved through effectively in the last ltc meetings you've

[1:36:54] Planner Chadwick (probable): given me your input and i'm i'm in in in bylaw drafting mode on those i am very happy to announce

[1:37:01] Planner Chadwick (probable): that william has told us that the suitable land analysis will be ready um for the the islands that

[1:37:09] Planner Chadwick (probable): it's focused on right now um maine denman hornby and gabriella and it's going to be ready by the

[1:37:15] Planner Chadwick (probable): end of this month the 31st of january we have a consultant in place and he's and he is working

[1:37:21] Planner Chadwick (probable): working uh vigorously to to get that work done so um that means that we will have it available to

[1:37:29] Planner Chadwick (probable): um to share um in february so um i have a resolution for you related to um setting up a

[1:37:38] Planner Chadwick (probable): meeting for that um that and uh i've given it to lisa um she's got it so it's that the denman

[1:37:54] Planner Chadwick (probable): So that's exciting. It's exciting for us, all of us, because it means that we can continue to be on track with the bylaw writing.

[1:38:09] Planner Chadwick (probable): So if we're looking at March for bringing forward draft bylaws on the part two and part one and part two, but we potentially have the opportunity to, you know, looking at the suitable analysis, a land analysis to also begin to look at, you know, those areas where we want to expand the accessory dwelling units, for example.

[1:38:33] Planner Chadwick (probable): So, um, it's good timing. Um, it's kind of like, yeah, we've kind of, we're kind of, um, it's enabling us to, to stay on track. So, um, so yeah, any questions?

[1:38:48] Voice 12: no questions well done i'm excited so that's great i'd love to see draft by last march thank you

[1:38:59] Trustee Borthwick (probable): yep yep no that's that's good news glad to glad to hear that william's almost almost done and

[1:39:06] Trustee Borthwick (probable): hopefully uh yeah we'll we'll see that we'll see his hard work next month

[1:39:10] Trustee Borthwick (probable): excellent uh but yeah so we need a motion to schedule that meeting so you see it

[1:39:18] Voice 12: we don't so wait do you

[1:39:21] Planner Thomaidis (probable): want me to share it to you

[1:39:22] Voice 12: well maybe if you just if you can read it

[1:39:24] Voice 12: and they can move i'll make it yeah you read it i'll make it

[1:39:31] Voice 3: the devon island local trust

[1:39:32] Voice 3: committee schedule an electronic special meeting in february to review the suitable lab analysis

[1:39:37] Voice 3: So

[1:39:38] Voice 12: moved. So moved. So seconded.

[1:39:40] Voice 12: So seconded.

[1:39:41] Any discussion?

[1:39:42] No.

[1:39:43] All in favor?

[1:39:44] No.

[1:39:45] Voice 12: All in favor?

[1:39:45] Voice 12: So, Senator Chattahoochee, would you catch your wave of this?

[1:39:49] Planner Chadwick (probable): Great. All right. Well, thank you. I'm going to depart now.

[1:39:52] Voice 12: Thank you very much. I'll be calling you this afternoon if you're available.

[1:39:59] Voice 12: Oh, great. So, where are we landing? I'm just going by timing here. We're talking about

[1:40:13] Voice 12: book the end of the break. You know, do you just want to

[1:40:15] Voice 12: harvest through the 1230? So we will move down. So we have the

[1:40:20] Voice 12: first month we have done the business. We have staff

[1:40:22] Voice 12: report, application report, page 67, 68. Any questions? Any

[1:40:28] Voice 12: commentary? Any anything?

[1:40:32] Voice 12: Yeah. No. A lot of them are in advance of their applications.

[1:40:38] Voice 12: It's like sitting there. I really, really like this layout.

[1:40:41] Voice 12: Yeah, it's a lot clearer than the ones that I used to.

[1:40:46] Voice 12: Even though it comes with numbers that you don't like?

[1:40:48] Voice 12: Well, yeah.

[1:40:50] Voice 12: We're all on call.

[1:40:53] Voice 12: Everything's cool.

[1:40:54] Voice 12: But no, it's just, I know, is this going, is this from Mike?

[1:40:58] Voice 12: It's just like a.

[1:40:59] Voice 12: I think so.

[1:41:00] Voice 12: It's the first I've seen in a really long time.

[1:41:04] Voice 12: Just looking at those numbers, I'm looking at sending a news permit for, let's say, Miles Walters.

[1:41:09] Voice 12: there's a PL that's planning and then yes any case permanent so there's no db

[1:41:20] Voice 12: why not i mean it's like we always have our applications identified by island yeah

[1:41:28] Voice 12: it's very unfortunate we can't add it okay not without it's going to crack

[1:41:33] Voice 12: we were told it's not possible it's not possible the city he saw

[1:41:37] Voice 12: I was hoping to get some captions in or something just to break it up for when you're reading the motions.

[1:41:42] Voice 12: No, that's really unfortunate.

[1:41:46] Voice 12: Why is it every time we have a technological change to something, it doesn't work from the human perspective?

[1:41:55] Voice 12: It simply makes the machine happier.

[1:41:58] Voice 12: I mean, every time I've seen a website changed, we've all gone, oh, that's not good.

[1:42:03] Voice 12: But the technical people, they all thought it was way better.

[1:42:06] Voice 12: It's always the same story.

[1:42:09] Voice 12: Now we've got a classic example, a PL, SUP, you know, whatever.

[1:42:14] Voice 12: And then the dates.

[1:42:15] Voice 12: I get that.

[1:42:17] Voice 12: But I mean, trust me, in my considerable experience,

[1:42:20] Voice 12: when the computers for

[1:42:21] Trustee Borthwick (probable): the geeks are happy, everybody's happy.

[1:42:23] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I disagree.

[1:42:24] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I think we are looking at a world that speaks strongly to the contrary.

[1:42:29] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Maybe just my age.

[1:42:32] Voice 12: Change is difficult.

[1:42:34] Voice 12: Okay. Oh, indeed.

[1:42:35] Voice 12: Um, no, I have no questions. No questions, Senator.

[1:42:38] Voice 12: Just support the committee. You still have money in the bag.

[1:42:41] That's a good thing. Um, Trustee LaVo...

[1:42:44] ...Expense Report, um, for your information,

[1:42:47] the Policy Center, the Resolutions for your Information,

[1:42:52] um, blah, blah, blah, Work Program,

[1:42:55] and the Projects Report dated January the 14th.

[1:42:59] Any

[1:42:59] Voice 12: questions, any comments, any commentary?

[1:43:01] Voice 12: Okay. Nope. I don't think I have any. So move to future projects? Marching forward.

[1:43:10] Voice 12: We'll amend this one day. One day. That's when it's important.

[1:43:17] Voice 12: Sorry, I don't mean to say it's not important. It's just not priority at this point. I really

[1:43:26] Voice 12: appreciate it. My co-churchee and my chair and myself are focused on the work that we're doing

[1:43:31] Voice 12: and haven't been sidetracked by some of these other things that are important,

[1:43:35] Voice 12: but they just would take the valuable planning time that's allotted to us and would get nothing done.

[1:43:42] I remember hearing past trustees, I won't say those names, they were very frustrated at how little is done,

[1:43:48] but it's possible they have tried to do too much. Anyway.

[1:43:52] It's really important to focus.

[1:43:55] Exactly.

[1:43:56] It's something I learned the last time I was sitting in this chair.

[1:44:04] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Do we, is there any value in us going in-camera at this juncture, or is it related?

[1:44:12] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I don't think so, because it's outside advice.

[1:44:15] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Well, I don't know if we needed to go in-camera to request that advice, that was all, but if

[1:44:19] Trustee Borthwick (probable): we don't, then don't worry about it.

[1:44:21] Trustee Borthwick (probable): I think it's with higher and higher powers.

[1:44:24] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Did that letter go to all of us, or just to you?

[1:44:26] Voice 12: Okay, Mike, they went to the local trust committee, but we forwarded it all the way to the ladders.

[1:44:32] Voice 12: I also went to the executive.

[1:44:34] Voice 12: Oh, okay.

[1:44:34] Voice 12: So, I'm smiling.

[1:44:36] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Alex has

[1:44:37] Voice 12: responded to that.

[1:44:38] Trustee Borthwick (probable): Yeah, we're good.

[1:44:39] Oh, my goodness.

[1:44:41] You know, I think this is a record.

[1:44:43] A record.

[1:44:44] At 11.45, we'll be discussing the next meeting.

[1:44:48] Voice 12: So, the next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday, March 18th, and the end of October 27th.

[1:44:54] Voice 12: Looking forward to it very much.

[1:45:13] Voice 12: I know that from the beach access committee and that we're no longer in the meeting I can share

[1:45:20] Voice 12: it I

[1:45:20] Voice 2: know that there's a group of islanders

ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 1 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
       Denman Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Regular Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
January 21, 2025 
Denman Activity Centre 
1111 Northwest Rd, Denman Island, BC 
 
Members Present: David Maude, Chair  
 David Graham, Trustee  
 Sam Borthwick, Trustee  
   
Staff Present: Renée Jamurat, Regional Planning Manager  
 Narissa Chadwick, Island Planner (electronic)  
 Marlis McCargar, Island Planner  
 Sonja Zupanec, Island Planner (electronic)  
 Margot Thomaidis, Planner 2 (electronic)  
 Lisa Millard, Meeting Administrator/Recorder (electronic)  
   
Others Present: There were approximately 7 members of the public and 3 
representatives of K’ómoks First Nation present. 
 
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Maude called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.   
2. TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
Chair Maude acknowledged that the meeting was held on the territory of the Coast Salish 
First Nations. 
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
By general consent, the agenda was approved as presented. 
4. REPORTS 
4.1 Trustee Reports 
Trustee Graham reported the following: 
• Attended Committee of the Whole meeting to work on draft Policy Statement; 
• Attended Regional Planning meeting to review Bylaw Enforcement Handbook; 
and 
• Will be attending Financial Planning Committee meeting to discuss upcoming 
budget. 
Trustee Borthwick reported the following: 
• Attended Committee of the Whole and Regional Planning Committee meetings. 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 2 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
4.2 Chair's Report 
Chair Maude reported the following: 
• Attended Trust Council quarterly meeting in December; and 
• Ongoing attendance at Committee of the Whole meetings to work on draft Policy 
Statement in preparation for public consultation stage. 
4.3 Electoral Area Director's Report - none 
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 
A member of the public spoke to the importance of addressing issues of affordable housing 
quickly as many residents are living in substandard conditions. 
A member of the public noted that it is their understanding the purpose of allowing a 
second residence on a property is to create affordable housing and asked if there was a 
mechanism in place to ensure that a second residence will actually be affordable. 
Trustees replied that affordability could be accomplished through a housing 
agreement; however, resources to administer a high number of agreements are not 
in place. They confirmed there will not be opportunity to subdivide a property with a 
second residence and short-term vacation rentals are not allowed. 
6. MINUTES 
6.1 Local Trust Committee Minutes dated December 10, 2024 - for adoption 
The following amendments to the minutes were presented for consideration: 
• Page 3 of the minutes, second bullet point from the bottom, change word “once” 
to “one”. 
By general consent, the minutes were adopted as amended. 
6.2 Section 26 Resolutions-Without-Meeting Report - none 
6.3 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - none 
7. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES 
7.1 Follow-up Action List dated January 14, 2025 
A letter of congratulations to K’ómoks First Nation regarding their recent elections 
has been drafted by Islands Trust Senior Indigenous Advisor and will be forwarded to 
Chair Maude for signature. The Chair requested staff provide a copy of the letter to 
Trustees for their information. 
8. DELEGATIONS - none 
9. APPLICATIONS AND REFERRALS 
9.1 DE-DVP-2024.1 (Nielsen) - Staff Report 
The Planner summarized the staff report and highlighted the following: 
• Application seeks retroactive approval for multiple setback variances for 
existing structures; 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 3 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
• Public notification was sent out in December, 2024 and there have been no 
responses to date; and 
• Encroachments are relatively minor. 
 
A member of the public provided a written submission and stated the following: 
• They participate in a group that is planning to open up, and mark, as many road 
allowance beach access points as possible; 
• They asked the Local Trust Committee not to approve a variance that reduces 
the road setback as the reduction makes the road harder to maintain and less 
safe to drive on; and 
• Granting the permit will send a message that it is okay to build on a public right 
of way and ask for permission to do so only after a complaint is made. 
 
The applicant was in attendance and made the following comments: 
• An encroachment permit from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 
had been received; 
• Encroachment onto the right of way was approximately .18 metres and resulted 
from an improperly marked survey line; and  
• They were asked to rectify the situation by applying for a development variance 
permit. 
 
Trustees confirmed that the applicant had received an encroachment permit. 
DE-2025-001 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee approve issuance of 
Development Variance Permit DE-DVP-2024.1 (Nielsen). 
CARRIED 
9.2 DE- RZ-2023.1 (Komas Ranch Ltd.) - Staff Report 
The Planner summarized the staff report and highlighted the following: 
• The report provides an update on previous requests related to the 
environmental, archaeological, and cultural heritage protection of the Komas 
Ranch properties; 
• The Local Trust Committee had requested a preliminary field reconnaissance 
report and the applicant required further details prior to hiring an archaeological 
consultant to perform the work; 
• Draft terms of reference and detailed preliminary field reconnaissance 
requirements have been informed by ongoing engagement with K’ómoks First 
Nation archaeology staff; 
• The preliminary field reconnaissance seeks to address gaps in cultural and 
archaeological heritage information and help to inform the creation of a heritage 
conservation area for the properties; 
• Recorded, and unrecorded, archaeological sites are protected through the BC 
Heritage Conservation Act; however, unrecorded sites are likely to be overlooked 
and damaged, resulting in a need to account for all existing cultural heritage 
sites prior to any future development; and 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 4 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
• The applicant is in support of protecting the cultural heritage values on the 
properties but they question the necessity of conducting preliminary field 
reconnaissance. 
 
A Komas Ranch property owner, representing the ownership group, was in 
attendance and the following comments were noted: 
• The BC Archeology Branch has information about culturally sensitive materials 
on Long Beak Point and the other properties; 
• There have been three extensive archeological digs on the property; 
• Land owners are not permitted access to information on file at the Archaeology 
Branch; 
• The preliminary field reconnaissance would not be as extensive as the three digs 
previously conducted and would not add new information; 
• The rezoning is the result of a transfer of authority and property owners should 
not be responsible for costs associated with providing further archaeological 
information on the property. 
 
A K’ómoks First Nation Archeologist made the following comments: 
• As an archeologist, they have access to the information held at the BC 
Archeology Branch; 
• There have been no significant or extensive excavations done on the property 
and the Owner’s have misunderstood the BC Archaeology Branch’s information; 
• Information held at the Branch indicates archaeologists were present on site in 
1952, hydro pole replacement work was done along the road, and K’ómoks First 
Nation attended the site to rebury ancestral remains. 
• One of the reasons K’ómoks First Nation has recommended a preliminary field 
reconnaissance is because they identified extensive archaeological material 
outside of the currently registered site boundary; and 
• Some of the development that has occurred on the site has been completed 
without permits, which have been required since 1994, resulting in infractions to 
the standards of the Heritage Conservation Act. 
The Planner provided information about a Section 219 Covenant and noted it is a 
different tool than the Heritage Conservation Area and would mimic the protection 
that was provided through the historic land use contract. The covenant would be 
implemented in addition to zoning and for the purpose of environmental protection 
A K’ómoks First Nation Staff Archaeologist provided the following input: 
• They are working with the BC Archaeology Branch to increase the registered site 
boundaries on the properties; 
• The property is private and archaeologists have not been able to document the 
site in the past; and 
• A preliminary field reconnaissance will provide an opportunity to thoroughly 
document the information that is available on the surface and the unpermitted 
work that has taken place since the Heritage Conservation Act came into effect. 
 
Discussion ensued and the following comments were noted: 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 5 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
• A preliminary field reconnaissance is not designed to be intrusive, but applied at 
the surface level to identify where there may be areas of higher, or lower, 
sensitivity; 
• Many of the early archeological surveys were done by boat and therefore not 
complete or accurate; and 
• K’ómoks First Nations is requesting an opportunity to get a more thorough and 
broad sense of the cultural heritage values on the site; and 
• There are identified gaps in the archeological information on the site and a 
preliminary field reconnaissance would address those gaps and potentially 
inform the wording and mapping of heritage conservation protections. 
 
The meeting was recessed for a break at 10:54 a.m. and reconvened at 11:00 a.m. 
 
DE-2025-002 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee request staff to prepare draft 
bylaw language to amend the Denman Island Official Community Plan, 2008 
(OCP), to introduce a new site-specific Heritage Conservation Area for the 
subject properties at PIDs 000-211-338, 000-211-320, and 023-096-438, 
application DE-RZ-2023.1 (Komas Ranch Ltd.) including draft objectives, 
exemptions, and guidelines. 
CARRIED 
 
DE-2025-003 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee endorse the draft Terms of 
Reference letter and direct staff to forward it to the applicant for DE-RZ-
2023.1 (Komas Ranch Ltd.), with a final deadline of December 31, 2025 to 
provide additional information requested in support of the application. 
 
CARRIED 
 
DE-2025-004 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee request staff to develop a draft 
restrictive covenant in consultation with the applicant for application DE-RZ-
2023.1 (Komas Ranch Ltd.) for Local Trust Committee consideration. 
 
CARRIED 
 
DE-2025-005 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee enter into a cost recovery 
agreement, if necessary, with the applicant allowing Islands Trust legal 
counsel to review a draft restrictive covenant for application DE-RZ-2023.1 
(Komas Ranch Ltd.). 
CARRIED 
9.3 Hornby LTC Bylaw No. 176 and 177 Referral Form  

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 6 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
DE-2025-006 
It was MOVED and SECONDED, 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee interests are unaffected by the 
Hornby Island Local Trust Committee Draft Bylaw No. 176 and 177. 
 
CARRIED 
10. LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE PROJECTS 
10.1 Denman Island Temporary Use Permit Review Project - Staff Report 
The Planner summarized the staff report and highlighted the following: 
• Proposed Bylaw No. 249 considers the removal of Temporary Use Permit 
requirements for secondary dwellings; 
• Amendments focus on clarifying whether secondary dwelling units should be 
permitted on a per lot basis or per primary dwelling; 
• The per lot approach limits unintended density increases particularly with lots 
with multiple dwellings; and 
• The Temporary Use Permit Review project addresses immediate housing needs 
and staff recommend it continue independently from the broader Housing 
Review project as combining them could delay progress on the development of 
secondary dwellings. 
 
Discussion ensued and the following comments were noted: 
• Trustee Graham stated he would not comment as he lives on a property that 
contains multiple dwellings; 
• The Planner clarified further analysis could be done on properties that might 
require site-specific zoning, and information would be sent to property owners 
once any additional areas allowing secondary suites were identified. 
 
DE-2024-007 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 249, cited as the 
“Denman Island Land Use Bylaw, 2008, Amendment No. 1, 2024”, be 
amended as follows:  
i.  Part 3 – ZONE REGULATIONS, Section 3.3 Residential Zoning Tables 
– Table 3 – Density of Uses, Buildings and Structures is amended by 
adding the following after line 3 “maximum number of secondary 
dwelling units per lot”, placing the number “1” in the R2 column, 
placing “n/a” in all other columns, and renumbering accordingly. 
 ii.  Part 3 – ZONE REGULATIONS, Section 3.4 Resource Zoning Tables – 
Table 3 – Density of Uses, Buildings and Structures is amended by 
adding the following after line 3 “maximum number of secondary 
dwelling units per lot”, placing the number “1” in the A, F and RE 
columns, and renumbering accordingly.  
CARRIED 
DE-2024-008 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 7 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 249, cited as the 
“Denman Island Land Use Bylaw, 2008, Amendment No. 1, 2024”, be read a 
first time as amended. 
CARRIED 
10.2 Minor Project Prioritization - Staff Report 
The Planner indicated the staff report summarizes four potential minor projects 
currently listed on the Local Trust Committee’s Future Projects list as well as a 
proposed new minor project that aligns with the major housing review project 
already underway.  
 
The potential new project would seek to accomplish the following: 
• Update the Official Community Plan to better reflect community needs and 
integrate First Nation perspectives; 
• Collaborate with K’ómoks First Nation to incorporate their values, history, and 
priorities into the Official Community Plan preamble; 
• Update the Official Community Plan with the most recent demographic and 
housing needs data; and 
• Coordinate outreach with the ongoing Housing Review project to align efforts to 
educate the community of First Nation land use priorities. 
 
Trustees noted it is a timely project that aligns with the Housing Review project. 
 
DE-2025-009 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee request staff prepare a project 
charter for the OCP Technical and First Nations Updates minor project, with 
scope and objectives as defined by the Local Trust Committee. 
CARRIED 
10.3 Major Project: Denman Housing Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw 
Review Project - verbal update 
The Planner stated bylaws were being drafted and would be ready for review in 
March, 2025 and the Suitable Land Analysis, which will inform areas where 
expansion of accessory dwellings could be permitted, will be completed at the end 
of January. 
DE-2025-010 
It was MOVED and SECONDED 
that Denman Island Local Trust Committee schedule an electronic special 
meeting in February to review the suitable land analysis. 
CARRIED 
11. CORRESPONDENCE  
(Correspondence received concerning current applications or projects is posted to the LTC 
webpage) 

 ADOPTED 
Denman Island ADOPTED 8 of 8 
Local Trust Committee Minutes 
January 21, 2025 
12. NEW BUSINESS - none 
13. STAFF REPORTS 
13.1 Trust Conservancy Report - none 
13.2 Applications Report dated January 14, 2025 
  Received for information. 
13.3 Trustee and Local Expense Report dated November, 2024 
  Received for information. 
13.4 Adopted Policies and Standing Resolutions 
  Received for information. 
13.5 First Nations Relationship Building Update - none 
13.6 Local Trust Committee Webpage 
  No updates requested. 
14. WORK PROGRAM 
14.1 Active Projects Report dated January 14, 2025 
  Received for information. 
14.2 Future Projects Report dated January 14, 2025 
  Received for information. 
15. UPCOMING MEETINGS 
15.1 Next Regular Meeting Scheduled for Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 10:00 am at 
Denman Activity Centre, 1111 Northwest Road, Denman Island, BC 
16. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
David Maude, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
_________________________ 
Lisa Millard, Meeting Administrator/Recorder