Islands Trust Executive Committee public hearing, February 27, 2025

[0:00:03] Voice 6: Good afternoon everyone. It is Thursday, February 27th. It is 4 p.m. This special meeting of the

[0:00:13] Voice 6: Laskiti, this special meeting of the Laskiti Island Local Trust Committee is, oh sorry, sorry,

[0:00:24] Voice 6: something's going on. There we go. Okay, so I'd like to call this special meeting of the Laskiti

[0:00:35] Voice 6: the Liskiti Island Local Trust Committee to order.

[0:00:38] Voice 6: We are meeting in Coast Salish Territory,

[0:00:42] Voice 6: and particularly the Local Trust Committee,

[0:00:46] Voice 6: Liskiti Local Trust Committee works in,

[0:00:49] Voice 6: operates in the territories of the Tla'amen Treaty Nation

[0:00:54] Voice 6: and Sanos First Nation.

[0:00:57] Voice 6: We are grateful and always want to remind ourselves

[0:01:00] Voice 6: that the stewardship and care of these lands and waters

[0:01:04] Voice 6: I've been in the hands of many, many Coast Salish people since time immemorial.

[0:01:09] Voice 6: I'm here on Gabriela Island in Sunimuk First Nation Territory.

[0:01:14] Voice 6: My name is Trustee Elliott, and I'm chair of the Local Trust Committee,

[0:01:18] Voice 6: Liskiti Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:01:20] Voice 6: I'll let my colleagues introduce themselves.

[0:01:22] Voice 6: Go right ahead.

[0:01:27] Voice 3: Tim Peterson, elected on Liskiti Island.

[0:01:30] Voice 3: Coming to you today from Huayte, Liskiti.

[0:01:40] Voice 6: Thank you. And we are joined by a planner, Arliss McCargar. Hello. She's standing in for Honour Baugh, who is off, well, has had a baby and needs to focus attention there. And we have Carly Bilney as our recorder. Hello and thank you. And Emily in the background, assisting with meeting facilitation.

[0:02:03] Voice 6: So I would like to approve the agenda. Any amendments or additions? This is a special meeting. I was reminded that we really just have one purpose here.

[0:02:17] Voice 6: year. So we'll take it by general consent that the agenda be approved and we'll move into the

[0:02:24] Voice 6: one business item 4.1 the PLRZ 2024-0104 connected coast rezoning. We have a post-public hearing

[0:02:39] Voice 6: staff report and just let me know if everybody's got your agendas and you're comfortable with where

[0:02:48] Voice 6: All right. Good. Okay.

[0:02:52] Voice 6: Lana McCargar, do you want to introduce the application that is now in a post-public hearing phase of consideration?

[0:03:00] Planner McCargar (probable): Sure. I will just spend a couple minutes and I'll go over the staff report that's in the agenda.

[0:03:04] Planner McCargar (probable): So this is a post-public hearing staff report and it outlines the next steps for proposed bylaw number 104,

[0:03:10] Planner McCargar (probable): which is an amendment to the Liskety Island land use bylaw to allow the installation of a fiber optic cable to Liskety Island.

[0:03:18] Planner McCargar (probable): The staff are recommending that the LTC amend bylaw and propose bylaw 104 to exempt the fiber optic cable from setback requirements and proceed with second and third readings and forward the bylaw to executive committee.

[0:03:33] Planner McCargar (probable): So a little bit of background, the bylaw was introduced to permit a fiber optic telecommunications public service utility on Liskiti.

[0:03:42] Planner McCargar (probable): The bylaw was first read December 16th, 2024, and referred to First Nations agencies and organizations.

[0:03:49] Planner McCargar (probable): A public hearing was held February 10th and then continued on February 27th, 2025, following the statutory procedures outlined in the Local Government Act.

[0:04:01] Planner McCargar (probable): Staff are proposing exempting the fiber optic cable from setback requirements, particularly from the natural boundary of the sea.

[0:04:08] Planner McCargar (probable): Without this exemption, the cable installation would not be feasible due to the 15-meter setback rule, so the proposed amendment is necessary for the fiber-optic connection to proceed without further challenges.

[0:04:24] Planner McCargar (probable): The rationale for the recommendations are that all statutory requirements have been met, the LTC is considered feedback from the public, agencies, and First Nations, and this bylaw just needs approval from Executive Committee before adoption.

[0:04:38] Planner McCargar (probable): So, there are some alternatives. The LTC could choose to make further amendments to the bylaw, ensuring that it doesn't alter use or density. The LTC could deny the application. The LTC may choose to not proceed with bylaw number 104, or the LTC could choose to defer or delay second, third reading to a future meeting.

[0:05:01] Planner McCargar (probable): So staff are recommending to proceed with second and third reading and forward to executive committee and then adopt it via resolution without meeting after there's an executive committee approval.

[0:05:16] Planner McCargar (probable): Thank

[0:05:20] Voice 6: you for that summary. And just to be clear, Executive Committee would next meet on Tuesday the 11th. So if this bylaw amendment is approved, is that the earliest that Executive Committee would consider it? Do you think?

[0:05:39] Planner McCargar (probable): Correct. Yeah, I think I would have to double check that it could still make that agenda, but I believe so. If not that one, then the next one.

[0:05:47] Planner McCargar (probable): uh

[0:05:49] Voice 6: i think we lost trustee peterson not sure what happened there there you go did you drop

[0:06:14] Voice 6: out internet connectivity trustee peterson i

[0:06:17] Voice 3: am not quite sure what happened there my internet

[0:06:20] Voice 3: has showing good so um it might have just been something to do with the glitch of the

[0:06:26] Voice 3: the previous thing there was a notification that i clicked and then it kicked me out

[0:06:32] Voice 3: anyway sorry about

[0:06:33] Voice 6: that okay yep so we were just getting um confirmation we're not 100 sure but

[0:06:39] Voice 6: executive committee meets um uh february uh march 11th and if that would be enough time to

[0:06:48] Voice 6: adopt or approve the proposed bylaw okay well let's get into uh the discussion um i want to

[0:06:59] Voice 6: to leave it you know as much time as we need to consider um all the important factors here so

[0:07:07] Voice 6: would anyone like to go ahead and just uh speak yeah go ahead trustee peterson thank you chair

[0:07:17] Voice 9: so

[0:07:17] Voice 3: just to start off with i believe i just heard the planners say uh something about amendments

[0:07:25] Voice 3: that would ensure no change to user density can you just expand on that a little bit so

[0:07:30] Voice 3: So we're clear on what you meant there?

[0:07:33] Planner McCargar (probable): Yeah, I was just, I think, was that just when I was giving the alternatives to the LTC?

[0:07:38] Planner McCargar (probable): So the LTC could choose to make further amendments to the bylaw, but that it cannot alter use

[0:07:45] Planner McCargar (probable): or density, so it has to be a minor amendments, or the LTC could deny the application, or

[0:07:50] Planner McCargar (probable): the LTC could defer readings.

[0:07:53] Voice 3: Okay, great.

[0:07:54] Voice 3: Thanks for that clarity.

[0:07:55] Voice 3: and then I just wanted to

[0:07:58] Voice 3: there was a couple of questions that I heard

[0:08:02] Voice 3: between the couple of different sessions

[0:08:04] Voice 3: that we had at the public hearing

[0:08:07] Voice 3: one is about the width of the corridor

[0:08:15] Voice 3: and so questions being that

[0:08:19] Voice 3: the rezoning is proposed at 10 meters

[0:08:25] Voice 3: instead of the 1.5 meters that the applicant asked for.

[0:08:32] Voice 3: I believe that Planner Bar addressed this at the previous meeting,

[0:08:37] Voice 3: but I just wanted to get that information again

[0:08:41] Voice 3: so that I'm sure that I understand it.

[0:08:47] Planner McCargar (probable): All right.

[0:08:47] Planner McCargar (probable): I'm not sure if I'm going to have the answer to that.

[0:08:50] Planner McCargar (probable): Do you know if it was addressed in a previous staff report?

[0:08:53] Planner McCargar (probable): I

[0:08:55] Voice 3: don't recall it being addressed in the staff report.

[0:08:58] Voice 3: The issue being that the applicant has stated that they need a 1.5-meter corridor and that the rezoning looks at a 10.

[0:09:10] Voice 3: And I know this came up in the public hearing or at the community information meeting.

[0:09:18] Voice 3: I think, and maybe if I frame it this way, it would be easier.

[0:09:24] Voice 3: I think Planner Bob may have said something about the width of the rezoning at 10 meters being something to do with polygons.

[0:09:35] Voice 3: Does that ring a bell?

[0:09:37] Voice 3: Something to do with the resolution of the mapping?

[0:09:48] Planner McCargar (probable): I'm not sure.

[0:09:49] Planner McCargar (probable): I'd have to get back to you on an answer to that.

[0:09:51] Planner McCargar (probable): Sorry.

[0:09:53] Voice 3: because i mean that was one of the concerns that that as i say i i think we heard an answer before

[0:10:00] Voice 3: but i don't recall precisely what it is but i see trustee laronia has raised her hand and maybe she

[0:10:06] Voice 3: remembers better than i

[0:10:08] Voice 6: trustee laronia ideas okay

[0:10:10] Voice 5: this is just blowing on my memory

[0:10:13] Voice 5: but i recall him saying something to the effect of or perhaps it was christina actually saying

[0:10:19] Voice 5: tell me the fact that they're although they're not they're not planning on it's more just for

[0:10:25] Voice 5: i guess not margin of error but the fact that they may need more or less so we need to kind

[0:10:32] Voice 5: of reflect that you know that it's more of a rough estimation than an actual um that's why

[0:10:38] Voice 5: that's why it's not just for the tiny a bit but i'm not entirely sure better stop before i start

[0:10:43] Voice 5: going okay

[0:10:48] Voice 3: so we don't have a ready um a ready answer to that one and then the other one that's

[0:10:57] Voice 3: been raised that i um by members of the public and i just want to reiterate the answer to that

[0:11:04] Voice 3: in this public meeting uh there an assertion that if the application is permitted

[0:11:11] Voice 3: that any utility company would then be able to apply

[0:11:14] Voice 3: to use the 10-meter-wide public utility corridor.

[0:11:29] Planner McCargar (probable): So the rezoning is specific to,

[0:11:32] Planner McCargar (probable): I could bring up the exact wording in the bylaw,

[0:11:34] Planner McCargar (probable): but it is specific to fiber optic cable.

[0:11:39] Voice 3: And this project, is that, to this application?

[0:11:48] Voice 3: I

[0:11:48] Voice 6: think it's just the type of utility.

[0:11:50] Voice 6: It's not all public utilities.

[0:11:53] Voice 6: It's to amend the bylaw to allow fiber optic cable specifically.

[0:11:57] Voice 6: I think that was the narrowness of the scope.

[0:12:02] Planner McCargar (probable): Yeah, it specifically says fiber optic cable telecommunication public service utility as the permitted use.

[0:12:10] Planner McCargar (probable): So anything outside of that would not be permitted, but it's not specific to a company.

[0:12:18] Voice 3: Okay, thank you.

[0:12:19] Voice 3: And then I know that most of the rest, all of the other ones that are about permitted structures specify fiber optic cable as being added as a as as a permitted structure.

[0:12:32] Voice 3: Correct. OK. OK. So I think that's it for the questions I had.

[0:12:37] Voice 3: I have a few comments, but I can come back around to them.

[0:12:42] Voice 6: Thank you for that. Yeah, let's deal with questions first.

[0:12:46] Voice 6: First, I do have really about the funding of the project.

[0:13:00] Voice 6: I guess the assertion was made a couple of times that the funding deadline was not for March 31st,

[0:13:10] Voice 6: but all the funding had already been allocated for this project.

[0:13:16] Voice 6: And so why the deadline?

[0:13:18] Voice 6: And so I just wanted to bring up the MOTI permit. The conditions of the MOTI permit are that the construction of the said works will be commenced on or before October 29th when the permit was issued and shall be completed on or before March 31st, 2025.

[0:13:38] Voice 6: So I think there are other reasons than the fiscal year, but my understanding from the applicant and other meetings as well is that this project would be terminated March 31st.

[0:13:54] Voice 6: It's that they cannot install this after that date, and I believe that's why the conditions of the MOTI permit stated March 31st, but that's, I'm looking for confirmation, if the two of you have any other insight on that.

[0:14:14] Voice 6: Go

[0:14:26] Voice 8: ahead, I've been flipping,

[0:14:27] Voice 6: so I don't know to see your hands. Go ahead, Trustee Peterson.

[0:14:29] Voice 6: Oh,

[0:14:31] Voice 3: just that certainly if the MOT, well, now it's MOTT, the ministry permission has a deadline then that we know is a deadline on that permitting.

[0:14:47] Voice 3: yes

[0:14:53] Voice 6: i i don't have any questions actually i've i've i've really been thoroughly educated through

[0:15:00] Voice 6: this process about this this type of application and what kind of uh materials are used and and

[0:15:07] Voice 6: why uh questions trustee laroni anything that uh we need to clear no

[0:15:15] Voice 5: i'm with you on just

[0:15:16] Voice 5: i feel like i know so much about fiber optic cable and than i ever thought i would ever know

[0:15:23] Voice 5: So, yeah, I don't think I have any questions.

[0:15:35] Voice 6: Yeah, go ahead, Trustee Peterson.

[0:15:39] Voice 3: Okay, thank you.

[0:15:40] Voice 3: Well, I do have some comments I'd like to make

[0:15:46] Voice 3: regarding the public being notified about the project.

[0:15:52] Voice 3: I did look through my emails

[0:15:54] Voice 3: and starting with the July edition of the Huaytay News,

[0:16:02] Voice 3: which is delivered to all mailboxes,

[0:16:06] Voice 3: um on the island um that was the first uh information we had that a an application

[0:16:15] Voice 3: was probably going to be coming at our july meeting and uh it appears going through my

[0:16:22] Voice 3: submissions to the huete news that i have mentioned it in every subsequent issue

[0:16:32] Voice 3: and I always end my submissions with a note requesting the public to feel free to contact

[0:16:46] Voice 3: their trustees if they have any questions comments or concerns and I just want to note

[0:16:51] Voice 3: for the record that between July and certainly at least January I received zero phone calls or

[0:17:03] Voice 3: emails asking any questions about this proposal it's just been i think pretty much since the

[0:17:12] Voice 3: public hearing notice um that i started getting any communication from the public so i just want

[0:17:20] Voice 3: to note it's not that there hasn't been information put out by trustees to the community

[0:17:27] Voice 3: um in all this time and and i just think it's important to note that that is the case

[0:17:33] Voice 3: um another comment i at the uh community information meeting i made a comment about

[0:17:45] Voice 3: the cell tower process um it's been repeated a few times and i think it's been um a bit

[0:17:55] Voice 3: misconstrued in some cases and i just wanted to note that when it comes to cell towers which

[0:18:02] Voice 3: which seems to be something that's of large concern

[0:18:07] Voice 3: to a number of the people that we heard from.

[0:18:12] Voice 3: Cell towers can be proposed

[0:18:14] Voice 3: whether we have a fiber optic cable here or not.

[0:18:17] Voice 3: And the process doesn't change

[0:18:20] Voice 3: in terms of the protocols through ICED

[0:18:24] Voice 3: and the federal government regardless.

[0:18:30] Voice 3: So I just wanted to clarify that also for the record.

[0:18:35] Voice 3: And finally, I heard an assertion that, well, an accusation, I believe it was of ballot box stuffing, which is obviously a metaphor, but it was in regard to submissions to the public hearing binder.

[0:18:54] Voice 3: And I dispute the assertion that some submissions are less valid than others based on whether they list in detail a rationale for support or opposition.

[0:19:10] Voice 3: Some submissions certainly do include rationale for support or oppositions, and some don't.

[0:19:17] Voice 3: But I just wanted to state that the lack of developed rationale in the communication to the submission to the public hearing does not invalidate in any way any of those submissions.

[0:19:38] Voice 3: submissions and um so i just wanted to uh again publicly state that all of those submissions

[0:19:45] Voice 3: um i mean it would it the same logic would invalidate um uh any any uh value of of the

[0:19:58] Voice 3: petition that was submitted because the names on the petition don't include rationale so

[0:20:03] Voice 3: it's just a slippery slope there and i think we need to uh just publicly state that all of

[0:20:10] Voice 3: of the submissions um stating for or against the proposal um are are what they are and uh the the

[0:20:20] Voice 3: writers the submitters are not obligated to state more than their support or their opposition

[0:20:26] Voice 3: and so uh that's it for now thank you chair thank

[0:20:33] Voice 6: you and on that point um about submissions

[0:20:37] Voice 6: submissions, and whether the written submissions received after, well, when the public hearing

[0:20:49] Voice 6: binder was published and the list of submissions was updated, whether those submissions would be

[0:20:56] Voice 6: included. I think there was a question right at the end there, and I do know that yes, the answer

[0:21:02] Voice 6: The answer is yes. All submissions to the LTC regarding this proposed bylaw will be included in a new updated public hearing folder and available for the public to view.

[0:21:16] Voice 6: That's why there's such a specific call for the close of the public hearing, because after that point, we can't receive any more submissions.

[0:21:25] Voice 6: To your point about how many and for and against, I do want to note that hearing from the public, it is a very important part of the process, but is not the only information that we consider, of course.

[0:21:41] Voice 6: We are required to consider the OCP, the context, other factors such as the landing on other islands, the progress of this project, potential impacts, archaeological impacts, and the suitability for the community at large.

[0:22:03] Voice 6: And so public views are important, but this is not a vote casting procedure. There is no tallying up of how many submissions for and against, and that determines the outcome.

[0:22:17] Voice 6: This is part of the information that trustees or the local trust committee must consider. And we have received a huge volume of submissions, some multiple from the same person with different points of view.

[0:22:32] Voice 6: So that is the most important thing. It's hearing those points of view about all these different considerations that people need to bring to light. So it is not a by vote or majority vote that this is determined. I did have a question. Oh, yeah, Trustee Laroni, to you.

[0:22:53] Voice 5: I just wanted to say that I just took a quick look at the minutes and I have the answer to

[0:22:56] Voice 5: trustee Peterson's question um we can wait or I can give it now whatever you like okay um okay

[0:23:03] Voice 5: it says the area um the area to propose to be rezoned is the width of the road right away

[0:23:09] Voice 5: the zonalized use and with while the permit cable may be narrower than 10 meters it would be

[0:23:13] Voice 5: permitted where the zoning applies so that's the answer to uh the questions of why it's 10 meters

[0:23:21] Voice 5: instead of 2.5 thanks

[0:23:24] Voice 2: so much for recapping that a little embarrassing that i could have found the

[0:23:28] Voice 2: answer in the minutes but i appreciate that there's

[0:23:31] Voice 6: a lot of information uh i did have a question

[0:23:34] Voice 6: about the response from the applicant um so this is the new or sorry the 12.6 item community

[0:23:41] Voice 6: information question responses from city west uh specifically west isis so the third point uh there

[0:23:50] Voice 6: There are concerns that the cable will be damaged as this area is often used by marine traffic, which needs to anchor there.

[0:23:56] Voice 6: So the second point they made was, or sorry, the first one, rather, is that as discussed, we can explore extending the length of the protection to extend past your 200-foot barge.

[0:24:08] Voice 6: This would provide adequate protection to any barge activities.

[0:24:11] Voice 6: activities uh so planner mccargar if we were to you know require that as a condition

[0:24:20] Voice 6: um it wouldn't i mean this bylaw is to amend the zoning it's not to consider consider all

[0:24:28] Voice 6: the conditions but no

[0:24:31] Planner McCargar (probable): it's different than like you know maybe a a perm like a variance permit

[0:24:36] Planner McCargar (probable): or something where you can kind of impose certain conditions like this is just looking at the

[0:24:41] Planner McCargar (probable): zoning so um so extending the length of the protection because

[0:24:49] Voice 6: i think the

[0:24:50] Planner McCargar (probable): iron cladding

[0:24:51] Voice 6: the iron cladding protection and so there were concerns expressed um that often boats or cargo

[0:24:59] Voice 6: barges use anchors to anchor themselves or to pull themselves back off the ramp and that that

[0:25:07] Voice 6: that those anchors could, you know, rip up the cable potentially.

[0:25:12] Voice 6: So I think this is what the mitigation measure.

[0:25:18] Voice 6: Yeah,

[0:25:18] Planner McCargar (probable): I think that would just be a discussion with the installer.

[0:25:22] Planner McCargar (probable): It wouldn't be written into the zoning. That'd be very specific.

[0:25:25] Voice 6: Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Trustee Peterson.

[0:25:30] Voice 3: Yeah. To follow that up.

[0:25:31] Voice 3: I understand that we can't add it into the zoning,

[0:25:36] Voice 3: zoning but could we send uh you know send it as as an additional recommendation to consider or

[0:25:43] Voice 3: something of that nature um just in some way that if i mean we haven't decided to do that

[0:25:50] Voice 3: but should the local trust committee consider um that would that be inappropriate with just

[0:25:56] Voice 3: some way that it kind of obviously follows that the local trust committee would be requesting that

[0:26:04] Voice 6: that so further further conversation with the applicant to state that this is the preference

[0:26:09] Voice 6: of the local trust committee that um or

[0:26:12] Voice 3: or if there was a motion um just to add it to the

[0:26:18] Voice 3: communication as a recommendation of the local trust committee just i'm trying to sort of dream

[0:26:24] Voice 3: up a way that's appropriate um and within the within the jurisdictional bounds of of what we're

[0:26:31] Voice 3: considering hair so well

[0:26:32] Voice 6: it sounds like it's they're open to the conversation about that so

[0:26:37] Voice 6: perhaps yeah that's for after decision okay are there any other points or i mean and really just

[0:26:48] Voice 6: let's get everything out there um we've heard a lot from the community and we really do want to

[0:26:54] Voice 6: to consider all the different angles and approach this with an open mind so just a reminder nobody's

[0:27:04] Voice 6: made up their minds yet and we have time to consider yeah

[0:27:11] Voice 5: there's a lot yeah percolating

[0:27:13] Voice 5: in my brain right now about everything we've heard i mean i do understand concerns about how

[0:27:19] Voice 5: this is going to be implemented and i think that needs to be a huge long discussion probably that

[0:27:24] Voice 5: that will run into the next term.

[0:27:27] Voice 5: But we're not talking about that today.

[0:27:29] Voice 5: And I have to keep remembering myself

[0:27:30] Voice 5: that we are just talking about

[0:27:32] Voice 5: putting the cable on the shore.

[0:27:34] Voice 5: We're not talking about

[0:27:35] Voice 5: how it's going to be implemented.

[0:27:35] Voice 5: We're just talking about doing that.

[0:27:37] Voice 5: And then there can be some serious discussion

[0:27:38] Voice 5: because from what I'm hearing

[0:27:39] Voice 5: from community members,

[0:27:40] Voice 5: they have some big concerns

[0:27:42] Voice 5: about how it's going to be spread

[0:27:44] Voice 5: throughout the island.

[0:27:46] Voice 5: So I hear those

[0:27:48] Voice 5: and understand the concerns.

[0:27:51] Voice 5: The Skete is very different

[0:27:53] Voice 5: than other islands

[0:27:54] Voice 5: and where they even though they've you know been great to provide us with a lot of other places

[0:27:58] Voice 5: they've done this that are similar it's still very different because we are very remote but we have

[0:28:04] Voice 5: things that aren't remote like roads that you might not have that are big and easy to drive on

[0:28:11] Voice 5: unlike some other really small communities so

[0:28:15] Voice 6: if i could raise something for um for discussion is

[0:28:19] Voice 6: is the matter of Lias, the current internet provider.

[0:28:23] Voice 6: There was some question during the public hearing

[0:28:29] Voice 6: that Lias had not had an opportunity to comment

[0:28:34] Voice 6: until a few days ago.

[0:28:36] Voice 6: They just sent in a referral response.

[0:28:40] Voice 6: So we are not wanting to put Lias

[0:28:49] Voice 6: into too much of a hot spot, but I do understand,

[0:28:54] Voice 6: are they the only independent internet provider for Laskiti?

[0:29:00] Voice 6: And so, yeah, I just want to point out in their submission,

[0:29:04] Voice 6: they did not state, they couldn't unequivocally state

[0:29:12] Voice 6: they were for or against this.

[0:29:16] Voice 6: They considered Laskiti is a unique place.

[0:29:20] Voice 6: Leah's would not wish to endorse any development without a careful consideration of the potential consequences.

[0:29:26] Voice 6: And they did say there's a lack of clear information about the details of the landing and the potential consequences.

[0:29:33] Voice 6: They said ideally it would have been great to if the obviously if the applicant had publicly engaged with the community years ago.

[0:29:42] Voice 6: So Liest has not offered an opinion either for or against, but I will say that I've heard a lot of people speaking to the challenges of providing internet and that they are challenged.

[0:30:00] Voice 6: And there might be a sunset to my current provider service.

[0:30:05] Voice 6: So some

[0:30:09] Voice 5: years ago, they put out a,

[0:30:10] Voice 5: Lias put out a, I think it was maybe two years ago,

[0:30:14] Voice 5: put out a publication.

[0:30:18] Voice 5: But the problem Lias has been having

[0:30:21] Voice 5: is that its board of directors

[0:30:22] Voice 5: have been changing quite regularly.

[0:30:25] Voice 5: They have been really high turnover.

[0:30:26] Voice 5: So any kind of cohesion and follow-through,

[0:30:29] Voice 5: I think it's been very challenging.

[0:30:32] Voice 5: So, you know what I mean?

[0:30:34] Voice 5: And they're obviously overworked from what we've been hearing in the community, especially Larry, who was last meeting, I believe, was running up the hill trying to keep our internet on for our last meeting.

[0:30:48] Voice 5: And yeah, as we said, it was the quality foods is tenuous situation.

[0:30:53] Voice 5: But I do really like the idea of keeping this in the community and the community to be benefiting from it.

[0:30:57] Voice 5: I mean, we're all short on jobs on Laskiti, so it would be great if this does get approved or if it does go through and we do end up using it as our local internet provider, that it

[0:31:08] Voice 4: is someone local to do that.

[0:31:09] Voice 4: That's super important.

[0:31:15] Voice 7: Trustee Peterson?

[0:31:17] Voice 3: Yeah, thank you.

[0:31:18] Voice 3: And obviously this application that we're considering is not those next steps.

[0:31:26] Voice 3: But I think we've heard loud and clear from the community that those next steps are, there's a lot of question marks.

[0:31:35] Voice 3: And in the absence of that clarity, I think there's a lot of, there's a lack of surety about sort of the value of this project.

[0:31:48] Voice 3: And the potential implications down the road. So I think it's fair to identify that that is the case, not knowing what the next steps look like help to add to the uncertainty in some people's opinions about this particular project that we are considering today.

[0:32:22] Voice 6: There are many comments made about the tax burden, potentially autonomy, sovereignty,

[0:32:30] Voice 6: and wanting to make sure that liscations have ownership over whatever utility is used as a public utility.

[0:32:44] Voice 6: So I would say I agree, Trustee Peterson, that we're not at that conversation point, that there is a lot of work that would need to be done and engagement with the community and probably a leadership role for the Skeete community to do a last mile type connection, if that is desired.

[0:33:11] Voice 6: so as far as i understand this is a a passive drop and there'd be no further action or incursion on

[0:33:23] Voice 6: the skeetians requiring that they be connected or anybody use this utility it's it's just to

[0:33:32] Voice 6: bring the service to the island so it will not result in immediate connection for everybody for

[0:33:40] Voice 6: Yeah,

[0:33:42] Voice 3: and if I may, Chair, my understanding, and I believe this was iterated at the community information meeting, is that for any future project, there would be rezoning required at a minimum because the application that we're looking at is proposing to land to the site.

[0:34:11] Voice 3: But to continue from there anywhere else, based on our land use bylaw, would require further rezonings, which, if that were the case, would come, obviously, before the Muskegee Local Trust Committee, certainly for any permission for rezonings.

[0:34:34] Voice 3: So

[0:34:45] Voice 8: let's get back

[0:34:45] Voice 6: to the proposed bylaw itself, because there are lots of other extra issues that were brought up. And while important to consider, this isn't opening the floodgates to connectivity. This is a very narrow scope.

[0:35:04] Voice 6: scope. I guess I would ask trustees, do you feel there has been enough public engagement

[0:35:10] Voice 6: and there has been enough information supplied to us and to the community and opportunity

[0:35:18] Voice 6: for the community to have their voices heard?

[0:35:28] Voice 7: Trustee Peterson?

[0:35:35] Voice 3: Despite the timeline, I think that today's opportunity and the opportunities that we

[0:35:46] Voice 3: we had on February 10th did provide robust opportunities for people to share their views.

[0:35:58] Voice 3: I do understand that due to the applicant's representative at the community information

[0:36:09] Voice 3: meeting there were questions that weren't answered.

[0:36:12] Voice 3: A number of those have been answered by the submission that we now have in the public hearing binder.

[0:36:20] Voice 3: I think that sort of lessons learned would be around, from my point of view, more around the location that we had the in-person meeting at.

[0:36:46] Voice 3: Um, it was, uh, as you all know, it was very full.

[0:36:52] Voice 3: And, um, so I would, uh, I don't think that that, um, presents a problem, but I think

[0:37:00] Voice 3: it's, as I, as I say, I'm more looking at the lessons learned kind of end of things

[0:37:04] Voice 3: and think, um, sort of thinking about, uh, future cases where we might have, um, this

[0:37:13] Voice 3: this type of public engagement and, and whether the, uh, whether, you know, I guess more

[0:37:20] Voice 3: consideration around, um, looking at other spaces to conduct those meetings in. Um, I mean,

[0:37:31] Voice 3: certainly it's something I brought up prior, uh, um, to the community information and, and

[0:37:38] Voice 3: public hearing, but, uh, really the prime alternative would be the school, which of

[0:37:45] Voice 3: course means uh which means a non-school day would be required um you know to be able to use that

[0:37:52] Voice 3: space so that's to me that's more just uh uh lessons learned to carry forward i think that um

[0:38:04] Voice 3: especially because the public hearing was paused and um recommenced a couple of weeks later i think

[0:38:15] Voice 3: we certainly got um a lot of submissions in that period of time uh whether that reflects on

[0:38:27] Voice 3: um the type of public notification or um other factors in the community is hard to parse

[0:38:40] Voice 3: um but i actually think in a lot of ways it's a positive thing that um that we did run out

[0:38:47] Voice 3: of time on the 10th and and had to reconvene because we've certainly heard a lot a lot we've

[0:38:53] Voice 3: received a lot of submissions from quite a large number of people um when we consider the

[0:39:00] Voice 3: uh population of the island um and it's just sort of in general the the number of people that

[0:39:10] Voice 3: usually come out to local trust committee meetings and or even written

[0:39:17] Voice 3: submissions to previous applications in the past I think that there's been a

[0:39:22] Voice 3: very robust volume of submissions this time around and so in that sense I think

[0:39:32] Voice 3: they the continuation of the public hearing I think was actually a really

[0:39:36] Voice 3: positive thing to give that additional opportunity for a lot more people to weigh in.

[0:39:46] Voice 6: Thank you for that. And Trustee Laroni, thoughts on the process and public engagement and whether

[0:39:51] Voice 6: it's sufficient?

[0:39:53] Voice 5: Well, I was just thinking about, I spent and looked, actually looked up the

[0:39:57] Voice 5: numbers. We've gotten about 270 responses from people, for and against us altogether. And we

[0:40:06] Voice 5: We only had a turnout of 230 people for our last federal election.

[0:40:13] Voice 5: So I think people feel very strongly about this.

[0:40:16] Voice 5: And I'm really excited to see that.

[0:40:18] Voice 5: I mean, just when comparing it like that, like, wow, that's it's great to see how much the community has been engaged.

[0:40:25] Voice 5: I think that's that's fantastic.

[0:40:29] Voice 5: And yeah, I mean, I've seen people's name.

[0:40:32] Voice 5: I mean, I know everybody. Right.

[0:40:33] Voice 5: So I've seen people's names that I don't normally see involved in this stuff.

[0:40:35] Voice 5: So I think it's just been a great way to get people out and talking about this and giving their opinions. People who don't come to meetings and don't speak out about what they are, you know, wanting have really involved themselves. So I do feel like there's been a pretty good engagement.

[0:40:52] Voice 5: I think everybody who's been pro or against has, you know, had time and has also written in there's been so many different ways, you know, in person by mail, by email. I mean, I got a text. There's so much of a way to share your opinion these days that it's, I think it's been a really great level of engagement.

[0:41:09] Voice 4: engagement that

[0:41:15] Voice 6: that was my thought too i um i don't think i've ever attended a public hearing

[0:41:20] Voice 6: in which there's been so much uh comment and you know we know some of them are repeat uh but that's

[0:41:28] Voice 6: okay i i i just want to make sure that the process allowed people to have their say and um and i do

[0:41:37] Voice 6: think we've heard quite a lot from people and and the recessing was actually a potentially good

[0:41:43] Voice 6: good thing so i'm satisfied as to the quality of public engagement multiple facets as you said

[0:41:51] Voice 6: in person and then online written mailed texted so we've definitely heard a lot from the public so

[0:42:01] Voice 6: let's um let's go to the bylaw is there anything i did have a question about so concerns over the

[0:42:10] Voice 6: The Marine Conservation Zone, which I understand surrounds Mesquite, the M1 zone.

[0:42:19] Voice 6: Am I correct in that?

[0:42:23] Voice 6: Does anyone know?

[0:42:24] Voice 6: Could you look at the zoning and just confirm that it just surrounds it?

[0:42:27] Voice 6: So if any fiber optic cable was to come to the island, it would have to pass through an M1 zone.

[0:42:34] Planner McCargar (probable): I can have a quick look at the zoning if you'll just give me a minute.

[0:42:37] Voice 8: Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.

[0:42:49] Voice 8: yeah

[0:42:50] Voice 3: not well i don't have the map in front of me i do recall that there are a couple areas

[0:42:56] Voice 3: um around the island that are not in that zone if i recall correctly we had a submission

[0:43:04] Voice 3: um during the ocp process that was a request that we look at adding some areas of marine

[0:43:13] Voice 3: conservation um that weren't currently there so i don't think it's accurate to say that it's

[0:43:19] Voice 3: completely surrounding the island i think there are um some significant areas that are not covered

[0:43:25] Voice 3: in that zoning that are just in the general um zone i

[0:43:34] Voice 7: guess the the

[0:43:35] Voice 6: reason that i'm asking is

[0:43:36] Voice 6: is um is that we are often asked to make a trade if if there's going to be you know a benefit to

[0:43:47] Voice 6: of the community um you know trees might be taken down so if a public utility is crossing the marine

[0:43:55] Voice 6: conservation zone um but landing on a boat ramp where there's less impact uh to the shoreline or

[0:44:06] Voice 6: it's chosen because there's less impact to the shoreline um that i see as sort of a it's it's a

[0:44:14] Voice 6: trade-off. It's not a perfect process. The marine conservation zone ideally would not be impacted

[0:44:21] Voice 6: by anything, but I'm assuming that boats do go through these waters and there's

[0:44:29] Voice 6: maybe sewage that goes into it so that some of the impacts are inevitable while not desirable.

[0:44:41] Voice 6: terrible i've

[0:44:43] Planner McCargar (probable): just shared my screen there if you can see the zoning map um it looks to me like

[0:44:48] Planner McCargar (probable): the m1 zone goes around but then there's areas obviously around the shore that are have different

[0:44:54] Planner McCargar (probable): zoning yeah i

[0:44:58] Voice 6: just mean

[0:44:59] Voice 6: i think it would have had to cross like if there was any yeah like if all

[0:45:06] Voice 6: yeah i think in order to get fiber optic cable the island it would have to cross the m1 zone so

[0:45:12] Voice 6: So it's not unique to this application, I guess, is the point that I'm trying to make.

[0:45:18] Voice 3: Yeah, and I think the areas that I just mentioned, down in the bottom right-hand corner, there's a lot that's hatched there.

[0:45:30] Voice 3: And the zone doesn't go there.

[0:45:34] Voice 3: I think that those were the areas that I mentioned that we had heard about a request to add that zone in areas like that, that are not covered.

[0:45:49] Voice 3: Yeah, see there's M2, there's C3.

[0:45:52] Planner McCargar (probable): But the M1 would apply to all these areas.

[0:45:55] Planner McCargar (probable): So it would apply here.

[0:45:57] Planner McCargar (probable): It would apply here.

[0:46:04] Planner McCargar (probable): yeah

[0:46:05] Voice 6: so just because it's it's the m2 zone that it's not covering the shoreline there yeah

[0:46:11] Voice 6: ah

[0:46:13] Voice 3: yes i see yes yeah

[0:46:15] Voice 6: so the m1 is the conservation marine conservation zone

[0:46:18] Voice 6: okay that was a question that i had yeah

[0:46:23] Voice 9: okay

[0:46:25] Voice 6: so as for suitability of the site i am satisfied that

[0:46:35] Voice 6: there would be the least impact by bringing the cable onshore at this site. I do hope that we can

[0:46:44] Voice 6: have a conversation with the applicant and increase the protected length of the cable

[0:46:52] Voice 6: so that specifically barges and anchoring don't impact it. I think that's a very good point.

[0:46:59] Voice 6: but um yeah trustees do you have a statement that you want to make uh although we should probably

[0:47:05] Voice 6: get the the motion on the floor and then properly debate it so that we can so if anybody wants to

[0:47:17] Voice 6: put a motion

[0:47:18] Voice 7: on the floor so eager is tim still here

[0:47:31] Voice 5: i don't see him on his camera

[0:47:33] Voice 5: yeah he's oh there he is there's a flush oh creature yeah

[0:47:39] Voice 3: it's just these crazy uh

[0:47:41] Voice 3: blur backgrounds. If you move your head, you

[0:47:45] Voice 3: dissipate the camera. It stops seeing you for some reason.

[0:47:49] Voice 3: I am here.

[0:47:50] Voice 6: Okay. So we've had some general discussion about

[0:47:56] Voice 6: process, about the siting, zoning, what we've heard from

[0:48:00] Voice 6: community members, the quality of information from the applicant.

[0:48:04] Voice 6: Is there anything else we want to air or daylight before

[0:48:10] Voice 6: we consider the recommendations or consider

[0:48:14] Voice 6: Consider amendments. Rejection.

[0:48:18] Voice 6: Trustee Peterson?

[0:48:27] Voice 3: Earlier questions.

[0:48:29] Voice 3: Sorry, which was around the

[0:48:33] Voice 3: width of the

[0:48:43] Voice 3: area zoned on the

[0:48:46] Voice 3: barge ramp. And I appreciate

[0:48:50] Voice 3: Trustee Laroni getting that

[0:48:55] Voice 3: that that information from the um from the minutes of the previous meeting

[0:49:04] Voice 3: what i don't see in the answer from the planner there is if there are if there is anything

[0:49:12] Voice 3: i didn't see any um anything that would be advice against narrowing that zone uh seems to be that

[0:49:24] Voice 3: that the 10 meters is the width of the roadway,

[0:49:38] Voice 3: the road right-of-way.

[0:49:41] Voice 3: And I know, Planner McCargar,

[0:49:45] Voice 3: you're coming on to this sitting in for Planner Baugh,

[0:49:49] Voice 3: so I'm about to put you on the spot.

[0:49:53] Voice 3: I'm just wondering if you think that there would be implications

[0:49:58] Voice 3: implications uh around like i was thinking about can we amend the bylaw to um narrow that width

[0:50:06] Voice 3: down clearly the full 10 meters is not going to be used for the cable um because that 10 meters

[0:50:16] Voice 3: encompasses the barge ramp itself um so i just uh for a planet mccarger it's is do you think that

[0:50:26] Voice 3: that that is something that will unduly complicate your work here on this.

[0:50:37] Voice 3: So

[0:50:38] Planner McCargar (probable): through the chair, without knowing the rationale,

[0:50:41] Planner McCargar (probable): and I assume that there is a rationale for having it this 10-meter width,

[0:50:46] Planner McCargar (probable): I wouldn't be comfortable recommending to go narrower.

[0:50:49] Planner McCargar (probable): I think that would just – I would want to have a sort of a more in-depth look

[0:50:54] Planner McCargar (probable): at this – at the particular zone as it's drafted.

[0:50:59] Planner McCargar (probable): and really understand why this width is being proposed

[0:51:02] Planner McCargar (probable): because I'm sure it was done with a purpose and intention,

[0:51:07] Planner McCargar (probable): but I just don't have the answer as to why.

[0:51:12] Planner McCargar (probable): Okay, fair enough.

[0:51:13] Voice 6: My thought is that if a zone describes a particular area

[0:51:19] Voice 6: and you're varying the use or what is permitted in that zone,

[0:51:24] Voice 6: you couldn't selectively narrow the area

[0:51:30] Voice 6: because you'd be creating a new zone.

[0:51:33] Voice 6: wouldn't you we're just changing or adding a use to the zone which is 10 meters wide

[0:51:40] Voice 6: that was my understanding is

[0:51:44] Planner McCargar (probable): this zone applying to the entire parcel the

[0:51:48] Voice 6: barge ramp it's the

[0:51:50] Voice 6: the width of the barge ramp which is a specific zone and

[0:51:56] Planner McCargar (probable): is a specific parcel of property

[0:51:58] Planner McCargar (probable): property?

[0:51:59] Voice 6: It's between two parcels. It's just

[0:52:03] Planner McCargar (probable): a right-of-way. Yeah, so that's

[0:52:05] Voice 6: the right-of-way

[0:52:06] Voice 6: is the width of 10 meters.

[0:52:09] Planner McCargar (probable): So I think it would be hard to split zone a right-of-way and maybe not

[0:52:15] Planner McCargar (probable): even possible because that's essentially what it would be doing if the zone were to just apply to

[0:52:22] Planner McCargar (probable): the two and a half meters. It would have to split zone like a two and a half meter and then the

[0:52:30] Planner McCargar (probable): the remainder would be a different zone. And I, yeah, I'm not sure that that's possible.

[0:52:34] Voice 6: Yeah. The multi-use ramp M9 is, I think, the zone that is the 10 meter wide one. And I,

[0:52:45] Voice 6: that was my understanding. When I read what was written in the minutes, the zone allows the use.

[0:52:57] Voice 6: While the cable may be narrower than 10 meters, the use would be permitted where the zoning

[0:53:00] Voice 6: applies. So it makes sense to me because if this is the zone for the barge ramp and it's 10 meters

[0:53:07] Voice 6: wide and you're adding a use to that zone, that's the width of the zone. It doesn't mean the cable's

[0:53:15] Voice 6: going to go 10 meters. Yeah. Trustee Laroni?

[0:53:20] Voice 5: Yeah, that's exactly what I believe that they

[0:53:22] Voice 5: said. They said they, it's, they meter it, that's right. The cable is very narrow and they will not

[0:53:29] Voice 5: be using all that space it's just kind of a little bit of wiggle room so they can make sure

[0:53:34] Voice 5: that it's can move as necessary with the train I believe and that would be my understanding of it

[0:53:40] Voice 5: but I definitely recall her saying that it was not they're not going to be using the whole space

[0:53:45] Voice 5: just the width of the cable which of course I can't recall exactly what that width is at this

[0:53:50] Voice 5: moment I

[0:53:51] Voice 6: don't think it's about wiggle room it's not that the cable needs to maybe be placed here

[0:53:57] Voice 6: or be placed here from my understanding the drawings were that's why there's the allowance

[0:54:02] Voice 6: for the setback because otherwise it would be within the 15 meter setback to the sea

[0:54:07] Voice 6: i'm sorry that's the natural boundary of the sea not the property setback um but the the very

[0:54:17] Voice 6: the bylaw proposes to vary the use or what's permitted as a structure in that zone and the

[0:54:26] Voice 6: zone is simply 10 meters wide that is the right of way so we're varying the bylaw varies the

[0:54:34] Voice 6: what's permitted in that zone it's not that the cable needs extra space yeah

[0:54:41] Voice 5: yeah and only the

[0:54:42] Voice 5: cable is permitted in that zone and this bylaw doesn't make a change to allow anything else

[0:54:55] Voice 6: there's a lot to understand here so um thanks for hanging in there trustees

[0:55:03] Voice 6: So are we prepared to move the first recommendation, which would amend the proposed sighting and setback provision for minimum setback from the natural boundary of the sea?

[0:55:24] Voice 6: I was working on trying to phrase that.

[0:55:28] Voice 6: It's just on page two of the agenda right at the top there.

[0:55:33] Voice 6: agenda my gosh i've been jumping through there's

[0:55:35] Voice 5: so many different things to read

[0:55:37] Voice 5: okay let me just jump through here

[0:55:40] Voice 9: i've

[0:55:45] Planner McCargar (probable): just shared the recommendations on the screen here

[0:55:47] Planner McCargar (probable): oh you are the best okay all

[0:55:59] Voice 5: right can i make the motion may i make a motion i'd like to make a

[0:56:02] Voice 5: motion okay i move that the liskety island local trust committee bylaw number 104 cited as liskety

[0:56:09] Voice 5: island land use bylaw number 78 2005 amendment number 2 2024 be amended as follows go ahead i

[0:56:22] Voice 5: have to read all of this okay a schedule 1 insert new section 1.5 after section 1.4 as follows

[0:56:28] Voice 5: 1.5 part 3 general provisions section 3.5 citing and setback provisions subsection 4 minimum

[0:56:35] Voice 5: setbacks for buildings and structures from the natural boundary of the sea article a is amended

[0:56:39] Voice 5: by adding the words fiber optic cable after or after boathouse number thank

[0:56:45] Voice 6: you no that's great

[0:56:47] Voice 5: and

[0:56:47] Voice 6: do i have a seconder trustee peterson seconds so discussion on the motion this is to vary the

[0:56:55] Voice 6: proposed um draft bylaw um to allow it within the natural boundary of the sea you could just state

[0:57:08] Voice 6: if you agree or don't agree.

[0:57:14] Voice 6: Yep, Trustee Peterson.

[0:57:16] Voice 6: So,

[0:57:16] Voice 3: Chair, in terms of discussion,

[0:57:20] Voice 3: just based on what you said there,

[0:57:21] Voice 3: there was a couple of other considerations

[0:57:25] Voice 3: that you suggested we should wait until the motion for.

[0:57:28] Voice 3: Are you suggesting that we should wait

[0:57:30] Voice 3: until the motion to give second reading?

[0:57:34] Voice 6: Yeah, let's give our statements of, yeah,

[0:57:40] Voice 6: Yeah, considerations when we read the motion.

[0:57:43] Voice 6: This is just to amend the draft motion.

[0:57:46] Voice 6: Yeah, I don't have any comments on it.

[0:57:48] Voice 6: It makes sense.

[0:57:49] Voice 9: Okay.

[0:57:53] Voice 6: Okay.

[0:57:53] Voice 6: So I'll call for the vote.

[0:57:55] Voice 6: All those in favor, please raise your hand.

[0:57:59] Voice 6: Two, three.

[0:58:00] Voice 6: That is carried.

[0:58:01] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:58:04] Voice 6: So now we have amended the draft bylaw, and we are considering second, third reading,

[0:58:11] Voice 6: or there are other options to make

[0:58:15] Voice 6: amendments to deny the application to defer second and third readings to a future

[0:58:20] Voice 6: LTC meeting. Trustee Peterson?

[0:58:25] Voice 3: Sure. The alternatives, I don't think that there's

[0:58:32] Voice 3: any amendments to

[0:58:40] Voice 3: the

[0:58:40] Voice 3: allowable uses that I would propose.

[0:58:47] Voice 3: And so I move that the Laskete Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 104, cited as Laskete Island Land Use Bylaw No. 78, 2005, Amendment 2, 2024, be read a second time as amended.

[0:59:08] Voice 6: Thank you.

[0:59:09] Voice 6: I'll call for a seconder.

[0:59:13] Voice 6: Seconded by Trustee Laroni.

[0:59:15] Voice 6: Discussion on the motion or the second reading of the bylaw.

[0:59:19] Voice 6: Go ahead, Trustee Peterson.

[0:59:26] Voice 3: Thank you.

[0:59:27] Voice 3: Yeah, so just a few comments that I wanted to make.

[0:59:34] Voice 3: And obviously we heard a lot about the site selection.

[0:59:45] Voice 3: There clearly was a desire from a number of members of the public for consideration of a different site.

[1:00:02] Voice 3: We've certainly heard a lot of members of the public in our meetings, we've had some

[1:00:08] Voice 3: of the correspondence that we've received, the public hearing submissions mentioned that.

[1:00:16] Voice 3: Is it the perfect site?

[1:00:18] Voice 3: Well I think that's hard to really parse what the perfect site is.

[1:00:23] Voice 3: Certainly the initial site was proposed to be right by the dock, right at the ferry landing there.

[1:00:36] Voice 3: There are known archaeological deposits in that area.

[1:00:41] Voice 3: I've heard comments that they've been disturbed, so it shouldn't be a problem, but I think that's not a fair assumption to make.

[1:00:50] Voice 3: Um, and I think in addition, uh, there were some considerations about, uh, whether, uh, what type of, uh, disruption that would mean on the paved portion of the hill there.

[1:01:04] Voice 3: I also heard some concerns about whether that location would inequitably favor inexpensive access to the businesses that are immediately adjacent.

[1:01:22] Voice 3: So I think we can say that the initial site also had its detractors and issues.

[1:01:31] Voice 3: issues um one of the sites that was mentioned by members of the public was the old barge ramp

[1:01:38] Voice 3: we did hear that there were concerns from the proponent about the draft of the um the cable

[1:01:46] Voice 3: laying ship being able to get in there and uh and certainly uh there's that's right adjacent

[1:01:54] Voice 3: to a public shellfish reserve so it's just one of those things it's it's all

[1:02:02] Voice 3: well and good to look at a map and go well this spot makes more sense to me

[1:02:08] Voice 3: but that doesn't mean that any given spot doesn't have its own set of

[1:02:12] Voice 3: complications my reading of the information from the proponent is that

[1:02:20] Voice 3: that clearly this wasn't their first choice of sites.

[1:02:25] Voice 3: And I heard from the neighbors directly adjacent

[1:02:31] Voice 3: that they're not in favor of the siting

[1:02:34] Voice 3: as being potentially impacting their enjoyment of their property.

[1:02:43] Voice 3: However, I think it would be difficult to find a site

[1:02:47] Voice 3: that made everyone happy.

[1:02:50] Voice 3: I think we know as elected persons that making everyone happy

[1:02:58] Voice 3: is one of those aspirational goals that may never, in fact, be reached.

[1:03:05] Voice 3: And then finally, just briefly, in terms of the concerns about anchors dragging,

[1:03:13] Voice 3: I would say that being that Laskete is a long way down the list

[1:03:24] Voice 3: of of this project a lot of these installations have happened elsewhere in marine similar marine

[1:03:31] Voice 3: environments there is always some potential that an anchor could drag and damage the

[1:03:39] Voice 3: cable installation however the proponent made it quite clear that they are responsible for

[1:03:50] Voice 3: for any necessary repair should something like that occur.

[1:03:56] Voice 3: So I don't think that the community's looking at any kind of getting itself

[1:04:06] Voice 3: into a situation of liability for repair of a cable that's placed in that location

[1:04:12] Voice 3: by the proponent if, in fact, it does get caught by an anchor.

[1:04:17] Voice 3: um i think those are i think that encapsulates what i wanted to say thank you thank you trustee

[1:04:28] Voice 6: peterson uh trustee laroni comments or anything i

[1:04:34] Voice 5: just wanted to comment on some of the stuff

[1:04:35] Voice 5: tim said and i mean i understand that there is a big concern about it being at the barge ramp

[1:04:40] Voice 5: but i also know that connected coast has been doing this or for we're working on this a long

[1:04:44] Voice 5: time and although the sites that they sent us pictures of don't have photos of something that

[1:04:51] Voice 5: it's identical i suspect that after all these times of doing it they they probably know what

[1:04:57] Voice 5: they're talking about and what's going to work and what's not going to work um and they have

[1:05:02] Voice 5: been informed about the dimensions of bella's barge that comes the big barge that comes to the

[1:05:06] Voice 5: the ramp so yeah i do and i i do agree with tim that it's it is nobody wants anything in their

[1:05:18] Voice 5: backyard really none of us do but has to go somewhere um a lot of comments i've heard today

[1:05:28] Voice 5: and over the last few weeks has have been about worried about cell phone towers and transmitting

[1:05:37] Voice 5: the 5g and as far as this amendment goes that's not part of this amendment this amendment is just

[1:05:46] Voice 5: to put it on the shore and if when we have if we have another if it goes to the point we are going

[1:05:52] Voice 5: to do the last mile and connect it to people's houses this is going to be such a huge discussion

[1:05:56] Voice 5: as i can already see i mean look at the engagement just for putting it on the dock so on the on the

[1:06:00] Voice 5: shore not even putting it through the island has been huge and it's going to take so much

[1:06:06] Voice 5: discussion to even get it past the point of the ramp so thinking of that so i think that's those

[1:06:15] Voice 5: have been the concerns that have really stuck with me about the the viability of the spot because i

[1:06:19] Voice 5: I mean, the barge ramp is such an important part of the community.

[1:06:22] Voice 5: And there were protests when we put the barge ramp in however many years ago.

[1:06:24] Voice 5: Nobody wanted a barge ramp.

[1:06:26] Voice 5: And it's been a huge, great part of our community.

[1:06:28] Voice 5: And I don't think we could survive without it now.

[1:06:31] Voice 5: So I think it's, yeah, I feel like from what I've seen from Fibers West, from Connected Coast, from City West, that they have done their very best to make sure that it is going to work with the barge and with the location and with the weather.

[1:06:46] Voice 5: so yeah i think that's i think that's been the the um biggest things i've been hearing echoed

[1:06:57] Voice 5: from people for and

[1:06:58] Voice 4: against trustee

[1:07:06] Voice 7: peterson i

[1:07:09] Voice 3: will state that i'm speaking in favor of the

[1:07:11] Voice 3: motion um do you know yes back to the very i think robust number of submissions um that we have

[1:07:23] Voice 3: received certainly more than more than any any other time in my previous ten

[1:07:32] Voice 3: years of being a Liskety Island local trustee and although it's not a

[1:07:38] Voice 3: referendum I will just point out that you know the tally a tally of for and

[1:07:49] Voice 3: against it's based on the submissions we received um it's it's about three to one in favor um that's

[1:08:00] Voice 3: not the deciding factor and i just want to reiterate that that isn't the deciding factor

[1:08:05] Voice 3: it's not a referendum however um based on our our diligence in reading submissions and considering

[1:08:14] Voice 3: considering what we hear. I just wanted to highlight that we've received a lot more in

[1:08:23] Voice 3: support than opposed for this proposal. Is it perfect? It is not perfect. Are there unanswered

[1:08:32] Voice 3: questions? There are. However, based on my understanding that any extension of the cable

[1:08:42] Voice 3: from the location where this is proposed to land

[1:08:47] Voice 3: is going to require a rezoning process.

[1:08:54] Voice 3: I am satisfied that we can proceed with this

[1:08:58] Voice 3: without causing the harms that we have heard concerns about.

[1:09:06] Voice 3: And I just want to add that I take all the concerns very seriously.

[1:09:13] Voice 3: I know that no one who is in

[1:09:19] Voice 3: opposition to this project takes their

[1:09:23] Voice 3: position slightly and they're expressing their

[1:09:27] Voice 3: strongly held concerns and I do respect that

[1:09:31] Voice 3: so I just wanted to add that note. Thank you

[1:09:36] Voice 3: Chair.

[1:09:38] Voice 6: Thank you Trustees. It is very helpful to state

[1:09:41] Voice 6: what you are considering and whether you're for and

[1:09:46] Voice 6: against. I, too, am in support of advancing this by-law amendment to second and third readings,

[1:09:56] Voice 6: so I'll just, for my reasons, I do find the application is actually robust in spite of a

[1:10:03] Voice 6: very compressed timeline. The applicant did respond to further questions when we really

[1:10:09] Voice 6: wanted to drill into some concerns that were expressed at the community information meeting

[1:10:15] Voice 6: that we didn't have answers to, and they addressed those in my view.

[1:10:20] Voice 6: So I do have another motion that I'd like to put forward asking for that extra protection

[1:10:25] Voice 6: to protect the cable from barge activities.

[1:10:31] Voice 6: The conditions of the MOT permit limit the work or require that the work be completed

[1:10:37] Voice 6: before March 31st, 2025, so that I understand is the reason for the deadline.

[1:10:42] Voice 6: line. I am strongly in favor of protecting shorelines that are relatively undisturbed,

[1:10:51] Voice 6: especially for the archaeological values they hold and for the natural values as well. So this is,

[1:10:59] Voice 6: I find, an appropriate landing spot and why the barge ramp was chosen. There's a number of reasons.

[1:11:08] Voice 6: the I was concerned as well over the potential impacts to the ramp there was a lot of of people

[1:11:16] Voice 6: saying well this is our only connection it can't be impacted or destroyed but reading through the

[1:11:23] Voice 6: conditions of the MOT permit I have been satisfied that they there is a high duty of care and they

[1:11:30] Voice 6: they will do their due diligence to restore the barge ramp to the condition that it was in.

[1:11:38] Voice 6: I do note there is very mixed community support for and against. Some people did say they were

[1:11:46] Voice 6: in favor of this, but they wanted to limit that there be no other public utilities allowed,

[1:11:52] Voice 6: for instance, or they were in favor of it and they wanted connectivity immediately. Others

[1:11:57] Voice 6: Others stated they were against it for many, many reasons that we've heard listed, that it would open the community up to the outside world.

[1:12:08] Voice 6: That's not why they moved here.

[1:12:11] Voice 6: Concern for the next generation, concern for impacts on the environment, concern about potential for 5G.

[1:12:19] Voice 6: I will state that the fiber optic cable, with my own research and what I've been able to discover, is by far the safer option.

[1:12:30] Voice 6: But I do recognize that if a tower were to be erected and 5G connectivity allowed, people who have those concerns, absolutely.

[1:12:42] Voice 6: Absolutely. That would be the time to raise it and say, we don't want connectivity for 5G or 4G here. But this is not that time. This is a path of infrastructure.

[1:12:55] Voice 6: So this is an application to vary the zoning to land the cable. The last mile connection would require a whole different project to make use of it. But this rezoning allows for that possibility.

[1:13:09] Voice 6: And what I take, I really do think of the next generation when I'm considering decisions and impacts.

[1:13:21] Voice 6: And there were many, many people who spoke to the insecurity of the current internet provider connection and how they felt that emergency connection is important for self-sufficiency.

[1:13:36] Voice 6: So a community to maintain its reliance on itself, actually having secure internet, not just for jobs and everything else, but for emergency, for accessing education, to participate in other forums and learn is really important.

[1:13:54] Voice 6: And so that was really standing out to me, many people speaking on behalf of their families or children saying, we do need other options. And so with this amendment to the bylaw, it would allow for that option.

[1:14:09] Voice 6: option. It's not going to require connectivity, but I feel this possibility must be afforded to

[1:14:17] Voice 6: the community for all the reasons I've stated. So I am in favor. And with that, I'll call for the

[1:14:25] Voice 6: vote. All

[1:14:27] Voice 7: those in favor?

[1:14:37] Voice 6: Sorry, that was a bit rushed. Sorry,

[1:14:39] Voice 6: I couldn't find it. That's all

[1:14:40] Voice 6: right. Okay. That's three in favor. That is carried. Thank you. And if somebody wants to move

[1:14:47] Voice 6: the third recommendation

[1:14:48] Voice 6: for a third reading.

[1:14:53] Voice 6: It would be appreciated.

[1:14:57] Voice 3: I move that the

[1:14:58] Voice 3: Laskinian and Local Trust Committee

[1:14:59] Voice 3: Bylaw No. 104 cited as

[1:15:01] Voice 3: Laskinian and Lanny's Bylaw No. 78

[1:15:04] Voice 3: 2005

[1:15:06] Voice 3: Amendment No. 2

[1:15:10] Voice 3: 2024

[1:15:10] Voice 3: be read a third time.

[1:15:14] Voice 6: Thank you. Do I have a seconder?

[1:15:17] Voice 7: Second.

[1:15:18] Voice 6: Seconded by Trustee Laroni.

[1:15:20] Voice 6: Discussion on the motion?

[1:15:28] Voice 6: I'll call for the vote. All those in favor?

[1:15:34] Voice 7: There

[1:15:34] Voice 6: is a hand.

[1:15:36] Voice 6: Okay, that's three in favor. Thank you.

[1:15:39] Voice 6: That is carried.

[1:15:41] Voice 6: And there is one more, I believe.

[1:15:46] Voice 6: Oh, yes, two forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for approval.

[1:15:52] Voice 6: I

[1:15:55] Voice 3: move that the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee propose bylaw number 104, cited as Liskety Island land use bylaw number 78, 2005, amendment number 2.

[1:16:06] Voice 3: 2024 be forwarded to the secretary of the islands trust for executive committee approval

[1:16:12] Voice 6: thank you do i have a seconder trustee laroni i see you second any discussion on the motion

[1:16:21] Voice 6: i do hope this can make it for executive committee meeting on march the 11th that

[1:16:26] Voice 6: would be the first opportunity so thank you for your effort staff i

[1:16:31] Planner McCargar (probable): will say just through the

[1:16:32] Planner McCargar (probable): chair there is a chance that it won't just because that meeting is right before trust council and i'm

[1:16:37] Planner McCargar (probable): I'm not sure if executive committee considers, um,

[1:16:42] Voice 9: yeah,

[1:16:43] Planner McCargar (probable): business. So I'll have to look into that. If not,

[1:16:45] Planner McCargar (probable): it would be March 26th. Um,

[1:16:47] Planner McCargar (probable): and we would get the response back right away and it would be forwarded by

[1:16:52] Planner McCargar (probable): RWM immediately for adoption to the LTC. So I think it could still make that.

[1:16:57] Voice 6: We do consider regular business. Um, in your view, Tim,

[1:17:03] Voice 6: I'm trying to think of what's.

[1:17:04] Voice 6: it's

[1:17:06] Voice 3: generally a lighter agenda but um i don't there's i don't think there's any policy reason

[1:17:13] Voice 3: um that it couldn't be

[1:17:16] Voice 3: considered at that at that meeting

[1:17:19] Voice 6: okay um i'll call for the vote

[1:17:24] Voice 6: on forwarding to the executive committee all those in favor and thank you that is carried

[1:17:34] Voice 6: Great. Excellent. I did want to add one more motion. I put that in the chat for Carly, although I didn't, I could email it to you. I'd like to, well, if one of you two want to move it, just using the language. Go ahead there, Trustee Peterson.

[1:17:54] Voice 6: That

[1:17:58] Voice 3: the Lusketia Island Local Trust Committee directs staff to request the applicant explore extending the length of the cable protection to extend past the 200-foot barge in order to provide adequate protection for any barge activities.

[1:18:19] Voice 6: Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Seconded by Trustee Leroni. I'll just check with the recorder. Carly, do you have that okay?

[1:18:27] Voice 6: Got it. Thank you so much.

[1:18:28] Voice 6: okay great i'll call for the vote all those in favor in favor and favor that is carried thank

[1:18:36] Voice 6: you so much and is there anything else um before we conclude our business today nope okay oh trustee

[1:18:47] Voice 6: peterson yeah

[1:18:49] Voice 3: just in terms of process and timing um if this uh does make it to the

[1:18:57] Voice 3: March the early March uh executive committee the March 11th executive committee meeting

[1:19:02] Voice 3: and um executive committee uh approves it um then adoption would most likely happen

[1:19:12] Voice 3: via resolution without meetings that that's my understanding because we don't meet again until

[1:19:17] Voice 3: May correct

[1:19:18] Planner McCargar (probable): yeah it would be an RWM okay

[1:19:21] Voice 3: thank you well

[1:19:23] Voice 6: thank you everyone this has been a very

[1:19:26] Voice 6: full day and a very um extended process a lot of moving pieces so thanks for sticking with us

[1:19:34] Voice 6: uh if there's anything else no i'll call for adjournment all those in favor

[1:19:41] Voice 6: okay that is carried we are adjourned thank you so much

[1:19:44] Voice 6: thank you for staying overtime planner mccarver and uh curly